Sunday, November 03, 2024

“The View”'s Joy Behar asks if J.D. Vance is gay after 'normal gay guy' comment: 'How does he know? Is he one of them?'

Joey Nolfi
Fri, November 1, 2024 a

Patti LuPone also joined "The View" and reacted in shock when she heard that Vance said Donald Trump will win the "normal gay guy" vote.

Joy Behar's latest joke on The View attempted to push J.D. Vance's narrative into Hillbilly Ele-GBT territory.

The 82-year-old comedian asked on Friday's live show if Donald Trump's VP pick is gay, after panelist Ana Navarro shocked the program's interview guest, queer icon Patti LuPone, by informing her that Vance speculated in a recent chat with podcaster Joe Rogan that the Trump ticket could win the "normal gay guy" vote during Tuesday's election.

"Yesterday, J.D. Vance said the normal gays are going to vote for them," Navarro said, as LuPone put her head in her hand and asked, "Oh my God, who is this?"

"What does that even mean?" conservative panelist and former Trump staffer Alyssa Farah Griffin posed, before Behar quipped, "How does he know? Is he one of them?"

The audience lightly gasped at Behar's remark, after similar jokes about sexuality have landed other comedians and internet in hot water — including past digital memes that mockingly categorized Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin as a romantic one.






















Navarro then turned to the crowd to ask, "Are there any normal gays in the audience?" while Griffin finished her thought by classifying Vance's assessment as "so offensive."

Vance has largely drawn criticism from the LGBTQ community, with GLAAD even listing a roster of stances the politician has taken that they cite as going against the interests of the community.

Entertainment Weekly has reached out to representatives for the Trump campaign for comment.

Prior to becoming Trump's VP pick, Vance — who also courted controversy earlier this year after a resurfaced 2021 interview clip showed him slamming "childless cat ladies" on the political left — published an account of his life story under the title Hillbilly Elegy, which chronicled his relationship to his grandmother and mother (played by Glenn Close and Amy Adams in a subsequent Netflix movie) as well as his budding romance with his wife, Usha Vance (portrayed by Freida Pinto in the film).

The View airs weekdays at 11 a.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on ABC.



Anderson Cooper: Trump Would Be the ‘Not-Normal’ Kind of Gay Guy

Janna Brancolini
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Dimitrios Kambouris



Anderson Cooper has some questions about JD Vance’s theory that he and Donald Trump are winning the “normal gay guy vote” in the election.

“I’m curious to know where the line is between a normal gay person and a not-normal gay person,” the CNN host said.

“I can guess what it is. Anything related to drag—and wearing as much makeup as Donald Trump wears—that would be considered not-normal. It’s fine for Donald Trump, but on a gay guy that wouldn’t be considered normal,” he added.


During a three-hour interview with Joe Rogan on Thursday, the Republican vice-presidential candidate said he wouldn’t be surprised if Trump won among “normal” gays who “just want to be left the hell alone.”

Attacking the transgender community has been a central part of the Trump campaign, as he and Vance try to convince voters that transgender athletes somehow pose a bigger threat to women and girls than deadly state abortion bans.

Trump has also tried and failed to explain how he would protect IVF, which many same-sex couples rely on to start families, from getting swept-up in those same abortion bans.

The strategy has apparently failed to win over LGBTQ+ voters; polling shows Kamala Harris leads by almost 70 points among likely queer voters.

After Vance’s comments on Thursday, quote-unquote normal gay guys chimed in on X, formerly Twitter, to make it clear they would not be supporting the Trump-Vance ticket.

“Sorry I wasn’t there to see JD Vance’s latest gaffe. My husband and I were taking our kids trick-or-treating. In our minivan. With costumes from Target,” Pete Buttigieg’s husband Chasten wrote. “Anyway, have you made a plan to knock doors for Kamala Harris this weekend?


Bravo host Andy Cohen’s response was more succinct.

“Sashay away,” he wrote.

JD Vance claims teens become trans to bolster chances of getting into Ivy League schools


Gustaf Kilander
Fri, November 1, 2024 

JD Vance claimed during an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan that teenagers become “trans” to better their chances of getting into Ivy League schools.

In the three-hour episode of The Joe Rogan Experience that was released on Thursday, the Ohio senator and Republican vice presidential nominee also claimed that some women “celebrate” their abortions and that studies show that “testosterone levels in young men” are connected to “conservative politics.”

Vance spent significant amounts of time criticizing transgender and nonbinary people, and added that he believed he and former President Donald Trump are likely to win the “normal gay guy vote.”

The first-term senator claimed that children in some white families think that becoming trans would enhance their chances of getting into Ivy League schools. There is no data that being trans betters chances of getting into a particular school.

“If you are a middle-class or upper-middle-class white parent and the only thing that you care about is whether your child goes into Harvard or Yale, like, obviously, that pathway has become a lot harder for a lot of upper-middle-class kids,” Vance said.

He added: “But the one way that those people can participate in the DEI bureaucracy in this country is to be trans.”

DEI – diversity, equity, and inclusion – is a framework that aims to promote the fair treatment of all people.

Trump also recently appeared on Rogan’s show as he and Vance attempt to bring out young, male voters to the polls via a series of podcast appearances.


JD Vance appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast on Thursday with just five days left in the presidential election cycle. The Ohio senator and Republican vice presidential nominee also claimed that some women “celebrate” their abortions and that studies show that “testosterone levels in young men” are connected to “conservative politics” (Screenshot / The Joe Rogan Experience)

Vance claimed during the interview that liberal women were publically celebrating their abortions, including “baking birthday cakes and posting about it” online.

“I think there’s very few people that are celebrating,” Rogan pushed back.

“For a lot of people, one of the issues is that men are making decisions for what women can and can’t do,” the comedian told Vance. “And one of the more concerning aspects of this is ... say if you live in a state like Texas where there’s a limit to when you can get an abortion, I think it’s like six weeks, which a lot of people think at that point in time you can’t even tell whether or not you’re pregnant, and this puts a lot of women in very vulnerable positions.”




He added: “And then there is this thought that they could go to another state where it is legal and have an abortion, but they could be possibly prosecuted for that in their state. That’s concerning to me.”

Vance claimed not to have heard of anyone being detained for traveling for an abortion.

“I don’t like the idea, to be clear, of people getting arrested for freely moving around the country,” the senator said.

During one part of the discussion, Vance asked Rogan: “Have you seen all these studies that basically connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics?”

“Maybe that’s why the Democrats want us all to be [in] ... poor health and overweight ... because it means we’re going to be more liberal, right? If you make people less healthy, they apparently become more politically liberal,” he added.


Anderson Cooper Makes Cheeky Dig At Trump After JD Vance's 'Normal Gay Guy'

 Comment
Curtis M. Wong
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Anderson Cooper Makes Cheeky Dig At Trump After JD Vance's 'Normal Gay Guy' Comment
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

Anderson Cooper chimed in Thursday on Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance’s recent claim that former President Donald Trump is likely to win the “normal gay guy vote.”

During a panel discussion on his show, “Anderson Cooper 360,” the CNN anchor said he was curious to know exactly where Vance would make a distinction between “normal” and “not normal” gay men.

“At first I was like, ‘Oh, JD Vance thinks there’s normal gay people.’ So I guess that’s sort of progress,” Cooper, who is gay, said. “I’m curious to know what the difference — where the line is between a ‘normal’ gay person and a ‘not normal’ gay person.”

He then suggested Vance may possibly draw the line at “anything related to drag,” before taking a cheeky dig at Trump.

“Wearing as much makeup as Donald Trump wears, that would be considered not normal,” he quipped. “It’s fine for Donald Trump, but on a gay guy, that wouldn’t be considered normal.”

Vance made the questionable claim in a Thursday interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast in which he alluded to a gay friend who was a committed conservative. He contrasted this man with other members of the “crazy” broader LGBTQ+ community, especially transgender and nonbinary people.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if me and Trump won just the normal gay guy vote because again, they just wanted to be left the hell alone,” he said, before suggesting implausibly that more high school graduates were identifying as transgender to boost their odds of getting into Ivy League colleges.

Vance’s comment overlooked the staunchly anti-LGBTQ platform that Trump embraced during his first term ― something which many supporters of Vice President Kamala Harris quickly pointed out on social media.

Related...
JD Vance Claims 'Normal Gay Guys' Support Trump And, Oh, The Clapback




Vance’s former friend calls trans college admission comments ‘outrageous’

Brooke Migdon
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Vance’s former friend calls trans college admission comments ‘outrageous’

Sofia Nelson, a former friend of Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) from Yale Law School, on Thursday called the vice presidential nominee’s suggestion that transgender individuals are identifying as such to make themselves more marketable to elite colleges and universities “outrageous” and “offensive.”

Vance made the remark during a three-hour interview with podcast host Joe Rogan, during which the two men also criticized allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports and questioned scientific evidence supporting gender-affirming health care. At one point, Vance said he expects himself and former President Trump to win “the normal gay guy vote.”

“I think the MAGA movement thinks of minority identities as something we take on and off like a jacket,” Nelson, who is transgender, told CNN’s Laura Coates late Thursday in a television appearance after the Vance-Rogan podcast episode aired. “The only advantage that’s flown to me from being transgender is that I get to live my authentic self, which I think is, you know, what all trans people are seeking.”



“The reality for trans people in America is that we’re four times more likely to be the victims of violent crime,” Nelson said, referring to a 2021 analysis of federal crime victimization numbers. “There’s no evidence to support what he’s saying, and I think it’s part of this nefarious, calculated plot to divide us and to sow division amongst the American people, and that’s why you see that they spent $100 million running ads attacking me and my community.”

Trump and Vance have made anti-transgender messaging a central part of their campaign’s closing argument, spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising that paints the Democratic ticket of Vice President Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as extreme for their past support of trans-inclusive policies. At rallies, Trump frequently rails against what he calls “transgender insanity” and has pledged on multiple occasions to ban trans women and girls from female sports teams as president.

The former president has also made remarks disparaging the LGBTQ community more broadly, and last week referred several times to CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who is gay, as “Allison Cooper.”

“Trans people just want to be left alone to be able to live our lives,” Nelson said Thursday. “I’m not bothering anyone. I’m not making it difficult for any, quote, normal person to live their life, and I wish that we could get back to a place of respectful, curious dialog and not attacks.”


“I do miss JD and Usha. I don’t wish anything ill on them,” Nelson added. “I care about them as people, but the political messenger that he’s become, I think, is incredibly dangerous, and I encourage everyone, whether trans or not, to think about, ‘What do these types of attacks from our leaders mean for us as a country?’ and, ‘What kind of message does it send our children about bullying?’ These are not the ways we would want our kids to talk about people who are different from us. It’s certainly not the way we want our leaders to talk about it.”
Vance touched on his former friendship with Nelson while appearing on Rogan’s podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Nelson, he said, “kind of flipped out on me” when Vance came out in opposition to gender-affirming care for trans youth while campaigning for the Senate in 2022. Vance is the primary sponsor of a Senate bill that aims to make it a felony crime to provide transition-related care to minors.

Nelson shared about 90 emails and text messages between themself and Vance, primarily from 2014 through 2017, with The New York Times in July. Vance in the exchanges describes Trump as a “morally reprehensible human being” and expresses his support for Nelson’s gender identity. He and his wife, Usha, brought Nelson homemade baked goods after Nelson underwent surgery related to their transition.

“What I’ve seen is a chameleon, someone who is able to change their positions and their values depending on what will amass them political power and wealth,” Nelson told CNN’s Erin Burnett in July. “And I think that’s really unfortunate, because it reflects a lack of integrity.




The One Clarifying Moment From J.D. Vance’s Outrageous Joe Rogan Interview

Molly Olmstead
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


This is Totally Normal Quote of the Day, a feature highlighting a statement from the news that exemplifies just how extremely normal everything has become.

“Have you seen all these studies that basically connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics?” —J.D. Vance, in his three-hour interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, published Thursday

The Trump-Vance campaign has, in the final push, gone all out in the bro-podcast space in hopes of turning out the base. To that end, in an episode released Thursday, J.D. Vance made a three-hour appearance on the mother of all bro podcasts, The Joe Rogan Experience. Vance and Rogan covered a wide range of topics, but the most notable theme—given the particularly gendered nature of this campaign tactic—was Vance’s effort to define the GOP as the party of masculinity.

For example, when Rogan claimed that there were “very few things that will turn you into a conservative more than martial arts,” Vance jumped at the chance to connect support of Donald Trump to higher testosterone levels. Rogan was making a different argument—that martial arts encourage a conservative worldview because they emphasize the importance of hard work. But Vance went ahead with the implication that testosterone makes one a Trump voter.

“Maybe that’s why the Democrats want us all to be poor health and overweight,” Vance said, without clarifying in what way Democrats were plotting against public health. “It means we’re going to be more liberal.” It’s possible that Vance is referring to the body positivity movement, but it’s hard to know exactly what he meant.

Vance’s most heated points about gender dwelled not on hormones but on LGBTQ+ issues. He guessed, for example, that Trump would win the “normal gay guy vote” because these men were tired of being lumped in with gender-related debates. “Now you have all this crazy stuff on top of it that, they’re like, ‘No, no, we didn’t want to give pharmaceutical products to 9-year-olds who are transitioning their genders,’ ” Vance said. The Trump campaign embraced gay men, he way saying, as long as those men also embraced conventional ideas about gender and masculinity.

Transgender women, the second great boogeyman of the Trump campaign’s fearmongering (immigrants are always first), came up repeatedly as reminders of the threat to societal masculinity. Vance argued that transgender women were forcing children to see their genitals by wearing short skirts in public. (“If that’s what you’re doing, you’re a pervert.”) He asserted that Big Pharma was pushing hormones on children. He dismissed the idea of transgender children by talking about his 4-year-old son identifying as a dinosaur. (“I’m gonna take him to, like, the dinosaur transition clinic and put scales on him?”) He expressed concern that his daughter would get injured competing against transgender girls in sports. (“I’m terrified she’s gonna get bludgeoned to death because we’re allowing a 6-foot-1 male to compete with her.”)




On the surface, Vance may not seem like the best Trump surrogate on the topic of toxic masculinity: He, unlike Trump, has been married just once and has none of Trump’s gaudy-rich-man, reality-TV, grab-them-by-the-you-know swagger. But Vance is also a Harvard Law–educated intellectual, so he knows how to craft intellectual frameworks for Trump’s emotional outbursts.

So it’s fitting that his most bizarre argument around gender had to do with elite institutions. It came down to a wild theory: that white parents are incentivized to encourage their children to identify as transgender in order to get them into Ivy League Schools. Vance said:

If you are a, you know, middle-class or upper-middle-class white parent, and the only thing that you care about is whether your child goes into Harvard or Yale, obviously that pathway has become a lot harder for a lot of upper-middle-class kids. But the one way that those people can participate in the DEI bureaucracy in this country is to be trans, and is there a dynamic that’s going on where, if you become trans, that is the way to reject your white privilege.

It’s a patently absurd theory. There is no evidence that anyone has ever encouraged their child to pass themselves off as transgender for college admissions. And yet, if you look past the novelty of the argument, you can see how this claim fits into the worldview Vance is promoting: The social-order liberals want disadvantages for white people, to Vance’s mind. In an unfair system in which oppression is necessary to win esteem, white people are forced to seek out contorted ways to identify with oppressed groups, creating a twisted and tiring game of identity fraud.












































Here’s why the internet is convinced JD Vance wears eyeliner

Meredith Clark


Here’s why the internet is convinced JD Vance wears eyeliner
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


Ever since JD Vance was selected as Donald Trump’s running mate for the 2024 presidential election, the internet has had much to say about the Ohio senator.

Within a few short months, the 39-year-old potential vice president has gone from best-selling author of Hillbilly Elegy to one of the worst-polling, non-incumbent vice presidential picks since 1980. Like many things these days, much of Vance’s net-negative rating has to do with social media.

For those who are unaware, Vance recently sparked a social media firestorm over past comments he made about Vice President Kamala Harris, in which he described her as a “childless” cat lady. His resurfaced comments – which he made during a 2021 interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson – received backlash from Hollywood star Jennifer Aniston and childfree people everywhere.

But that wasn’t the only Vance-related topic of conversation to go viral online. While the most bizarre rumor to be spread about Vance seemingly involves a couch, some internet sleuths are more perplexed by Vance’s appearance, particularly when it comes to his distinct blue eyes.

Across platforms like X, formerly Twitter, many social media users are wondering whether Vance wears eyeliner to enhance his bright blue eyes. The speculation appeared to beginin early summer, when journalist James Surowiecki quote-tweeted a clip of Vance from a September 2021 video interview.

“Why does JD Vance always look like he’s wearing eyeliner?” Surowiecki wrote over the video, adding: “He doesn’t really seem like the goth-boy type.”

Unsurprisingly, this prompted thousands of social media users to share photos of Vance from past on-air television appearances, zooming in on what appeared to be a black smudge accentuating his waterline.

“There is only one urgent political question on my mind tonight. Why does JD Vance wear so much eyeliner?” one person asked on X, while another user joked: “I do think it’s funny that JD Vance thought all his problems could be solved with contour and a little eyeliner.”

“I’ve been saying JD Vance wears eyeliner since he got elected, I’m so damn happy someone else sees it!!!” someone else posted.

Meanwhile, photojournalist Zach D Roberts shared his own photo of Vance taken during a recent speaking engagement, in which a black line was clearly visible under his bottom eyelashes. “I really thought people were joking about this, but then I photographed him last week. Vance 100 percent does wear eyeliner,” Roberts captioned the post.

Over on TikTok, one woman even claimed she found Vance’s exact shade of eyeliner. “This is unserious political commentary but I can’t stop thinking about it,” said user Casey (@mamasissiesays) in a recent video with more than 300,000 views. “Is JD Vance wearing eyeliner?”

As she compared side-by-side images of Vance’s public appearances alongside his official Senate portrait, Casey was admittedly conflicted. “No eyeliner to see here. That is very much a man not wearing eyeliner,” she said about his Senate portrait. However, sharing a photo of Vance’s TV interview, Casey said: “Obviously something’s going on here… along with some contour. I’d love to know his shade.”

She then jokingly claimed to have found Vance’s eyeliner pencil of choice from the brand Urban Decay, in the shade “desperation”.

The speculation grew so much that it also prompted comedian Jimmy Fallon to poke fun at Vance’s rumored affinity for eyeliner in an episode of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. During the July 22 broadcast, Fallon showed an image of a graph increasing along its x-axis, along with the mocking tagline: “Google searches for, ‘Does JD Vance wear eyeliner?’”

The late-night talk show host then cut to a photo of Vance, once again showing a distinct black line under his eyes.

It may be possible that Vance uses eyeliner for live events and TV spots, just like many public figures wear makeup to enhance their appearance on camera. However, the reason why so many people online can’t stop talking about Vance’s rumored makeup is because it’s “hypocritical” due to the Republican’s staunch anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs.

“We’re fine with men who wear makeup. What we’re not fine with is hypocrites who make policies, harmful policies, against men who wear makeup,” Casey noted in her viral TikTok video.

The Ohio senator has introduced bills proposing to limit access to transgender healthcare, and limit the ability to mark additional gender identities on US passports. Vance also grilled several State Department nominees with a questionnaire about LGBTQ+ rights, Pride flags, diversity and inclusion, and other so-called “woke” issues,” which ultimately delayed the confirmation of more than 30 diplomats to senior positions until last April.

For someone who may very well be wearing eyeliner, Vance has been known to espouse traditional views on gender too. His pro-natalist stance has seen him describe declining birth rates as a “civilizational crisis” driven by a “childless left.” Vance has also argued that people with children should have “more power” at the voting booth, and claimed that Kamala Harris “doesn’t really have a direct stake” in the future of the country because she did not give birth to her two step-children.






Opinion

 J.D. Vance paints himself as an everyman, but he grew up in Top 10% of households

Megan Thiele Strong
Fri, November 1, 2024

As the vice presidential candidates battle it out for the support of the heartland each claim an allegiance to the working class.

According to his memoir, when Republican vice presidential nominee Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio was young, 9 or 10, his mother and stepfather had a combined income of over $100,000.

Back then, in 1993, I was 13 and living in Missouri. My parents were separated. They might have earned $35,000 working full-time, combined. I know how unattainable $100,000 was back then in small towns in the heartland.

Going back three decades to 1993, a household income of $100,000 in the United States put a family in the 95th percentile; a household income of $100,000 was an exclusive amount of money. And, it wasn’t middle class money; it was upper class household income.

Beyond time, geography impacts value; we know $100,000 doesn’t have the same purchasing power in Los Angeles as it does in a small town in the Midwest. Looking at Middletown, Ohio, specifically, the most current numbers reveal only 10% of the households have access to over $100,000 and 50% have $36,900 or less. Thirty years later, and a household income of $100,000 will still preclude small town Ohioan households with an income of $100,000 from an easy acceptance into either the lower or middle classes.

Poverty and hardship are as American as apple pie


Social class is complex and debated. Are there two classes, the owners and workers? Three classes? Are there six, upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, lower and the underclass? Regardless of which camp we fall, social scientists generally describe social class as a combination of one’s income, wealth, education and occupation. These factors are fundamental components of our life chances.

In his memoir, J.D. Vance acknowledges that it was difficult to understand how his household, in Ohio, in 1993, with a combined income of over $100,000, had financial strain.

He concludes that socio-economically deprived people make bad choices and overspend. However, people of all classes can make bad decisions and according to social scientist Juliet Schor, overconsuming is a problem that does not stop as households ascend the class ranks. Rather as people earn more, they “need” more.

Vance’s household income was not static. His mother divorced and he moved in and out of various socio-economic spaces. However, most of us will never have the opportunity to be in a household that has access to the top 10% of household incomes, even for a short time. Rather, it is poverty, and the hardship that comes with it, that is as American as apple pie.
U.S. voters tend to vote against their own economic interests

Leaders desire to be seen as “one of us” and we love a good American Dream story. They give hope and inspire us. If we see Vance as someone who understands the struggle, he can garner the support of class under resourced Americans.

And, because Americans have a complicated relationship with social class and politics, he can gain that trust while campaigning with a former president whose policies have been against the needs of the working class.

Americans overwhelmingly lack class consciousness, with many of us voting against our own economic interests. In 2023, nationally, 62% of households had $100,000 or less. To be in the 95th percentile, a household would have needed $295,020. Twenty-five percent of households still made $36,542 or less. We are a wealthy nation, with wealthy leaders, but many of our households are nowhere close.

It’s time we shed our class dissonance and hold politicians accountable. Let’s rally and vote as though we can create socio-economic sustainability for all of us.


Megan Thiele Strong

Megan Thiele Strong, Ph.D., is a sociology professor at San José State University and a Public Voices Fellow of the TheOpEdProject. She received her undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt University in Nashville.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Opinion: Republican VP nominee J.D. Vance did not grow up an everyman


Here are 5 signs you’ve finally made it to the American ‘upper class’— and how to keep soaring higher in 2025





Maurie Backman
Sat, November 2, 2024


If you've ever wondered whether your income is considered “upper class,” Pew Research Center has an answer. It defines upper-income households as earning more than $169,800 as of 2022, based on a three-person household in a metropolitan area.

But the reality is that claiming this status isn’t just a matter of earning a certain income. It also boils down to reaching certain financial milestones. Here are a few signs that you’re part of the American upper class
.

1. You have assets aside from just a savings account

It’s essential to always have money for emergencies in a savings account. In fact, at a minimum, you should aim for enough savings to cover three months of essential expenses. That could get you through a period of unemployment or pay for an unexpected home repair, among other things.

New York Life's 2024 Wealth Watch survey found that Americans with an emergency fund have an average of $29,741.87 tucked away. But if you have assets outside of a savings account or emergency fund, it’s a sign that you may be part of the upper class. Those assets could include a well-funded IRA, a portfolio of stocks or real estate holdings.

And the good news is that having these assets makes you more likely to stay in the upper class. If your portfolio is worth $50,000 today but grows at an annual 7% return over the next 25 years, a bit below the stock market’s average, you’d end up with over $271,000. And if you keep funding your portfolio, you can grow your wealth even more.

Similarly, if you directly invest in real estate and purchase a property, you can charge rent to cover the mortgage and homeownership costs. From there, your property might gain a lot of value through the years, adding to your net worth.

2. You've got wiggle room in your budget for extras

Many Americans must follow a strict budget to avoid debt. But if you have room in your budget for extras beyond your essential bills, it’s a sign that you’re in great shape financially.

That said, you don’t want to spend your money mindlessly just because you have it. Instead, ensure the extras you’re paying for are worthwhile.

It’s not worth spending $80 a month on a gym membership you barely use or $60 a month on a subscription box you mostly toss out. That’s money you could save or invest to grow even more wealth.

3. You're looking at upgrading your home and car

Living within your means is an excellent way to increase your net worth. And keeping big expenses like your home and car as low as possible allows you to carve out room for savings. But if you’re at a point where you’re ready to upgrade your home and car, and you can do so without limiting your ability to keep saving, then it’s a sign you’ve reached a certain level of wealth.

That said, you don’t want to go overboard on housing and vehicle expenses. Aim to keep housing costs (including mortgage payments, property taxes, home insurance and other predictable expenses) to 30% of your income or less. And aim to spend no more than 15% on transportation, including car payments and auto insurance. If you overspend in these areas, you risk falling victim to lifestyle creep, which could stunt your savings efforts.


4. You're buying back more of your time

When there’s not enough money to go around, doing your own cooking, house cleaning and home maintenance makes sense. The money you’d pay someone else to do these tasks is money you might need to save.

But if you’re in a place where you can afford to buy back more of your time by paying for meal kits or takeout, a housekeeper, a lawn service and a handyman service when you need it, then it’s a sign that you’ve reached upper class territory. And frankly, you shouldn’t feel guilty about throwing money at these tasks if you can swing that while continuing to save and invest.

According to Harvard Business Review, people who buy time tend to be happier. So, there’s nothing wrong with paying for services that allow you to spend your free time pursuing hobbies, bonding with loved ones or simply relaxing after a hard day of work.
5. You don't worry about money nearly as much as you once did

It's unfortunate that 46% of Americans say concerns about their finances impact their lives daily or weekly, according to a 2024 report by Ally Financial and mental health company Calm. And 54% of Americans say that just thinking about money makes them feel worried.

Now, even very wealthy people sometimes worry about not having enough money. But if you’re not nearly as concerned about your financial situation as you once were, it might be a sign that you’ve made it to the upper class.

And from here on out, all you need to do is maintain the good habits that got you to where you are. These include not spending your entire paycheck each month, avoiding debt, and continuing to save and invest so you can continue increasing your net worth year after year



October surprise: Trump just blew a huge lead, and the Madison Square Garden rally started the drop, says top data scientist

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York on Oct. 27. · Fortune · Angela Weiss—AFP via Getty Images


Shawn Tully
Updated Sat, November 2, 2024 

Donald Trump is suffering an historic descent in the campaign's final days, an ongoing freefall that's turning what looked like a walkaway for the former president into what's most likely a Kamala Harris victory. That's the view from Thomas Miller, a data scientist at Northwestern University, whose proprietary model's proven right-on in past elections.

Trump's darkening prospects mark a dramatic reversal from the election's dynamic less than 13 days ago. During the first three weeks of October, Donald Trump staged a remarkable comeback, rebounding from a huge deficit to a commanding lead. With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, Trump appeared en route to a smashing victory.

Harris countered the Trump surge by pivoting from an attack on Trump's policies to spotlighting his "unstable" personality and the "obsession with revenge." That message failed to resonate with voters as Trump moved relentlessly upwards in the electoral vote count, as forecast by the Miller framework. By contrast, Trump was tapping a powerful undercurrent: The deeply unpopular Biden record, especially on the economy.

"The macro numbers on growth, and employment look good, and the Democrats keep touting them," says Miller. "But people don't care about GDP or the national jobless rate. They care that they're paying so much more for groceries than four years ago, that they can't afford to buy a first home because mortgage rates are so high, or afford a car loan to replace the beat-up model in the driveway, or that they have no savings and need to work two jobs to get by."


In other words, although Harris stresses that the stats look fine, people don't feel fine due to the dollar squeeze in their own lives. Plus, Americans are fretting more and more about this nation's involvement in foreign wars. The Biden administration's policy of sending arms to Israel for bolstering its forces in the war versus Iran, and to Ukraine for fortifying its campaign to defeat the the Russian invasion is deeply troubling to a large swath of the electorate—especially since it's unclear how long those conflicts, and hence our involvement, will last. Trump, on the other hand, has been striking a quasi-isolationist stance on the stump that seems to be finding favor on the trail.

Put simply, Americans are pissed at where Biden's led the U.S., and by extension, at Harris.

Time was so short, Miller concluded, that Harris was unlikely to significantly close the yawning divide by taking new policy positions, shifting her campaign rhetoric, or even upping her ground game. "My view was that only a major shock could change the course of the race," he says, "meaning an earthquake that hugely benefited Democratic ticket."
Story Continues

View Comments (720)
Terms and
Privacy Policy
Privacy Dashboard


The US is pumping more oil than ever, and it's complicating things for other crude-exporting countries



Scroll back up to restore default view.
Filip De Mott
Sat, November 2, 2024 at 2:30 PM MDT 2 min read




466

Anton Petrus/Getty Images

US crude production hit a new all-time monthly high in August.


This complicates things for OPEC+, which was planning to start increasing output in December.


Oil is down 20% from April highs, causing some exporters to be cautious about how much they're pumping.

The US is pumping a record amount of oil. But that may not be welcome news to other crude-producing nations.


Domestic output reached 13.4 million barrels a day in August, eclipsing all previous monthly records. According to US Energy Information Administration data, firms in Texas and New Mexico led the surge.

That level of production puts the US at odds with the plans of other oil-producing nations. OPEC+, an alliance led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, has said it plans to begin in December a sequence of monthly output increases. But given the decline in the price of crude oil — down 20% from an April high — continued record production from the US, and weakening demand, oil traders believe OPEC+ will delay its program for a second time.

It's the culmination of a multi-year period that saw OPEC+ members cut production to support higher market prices, only to be undercut by expanding production from non-OPEC exporters.

Looking into 2025, analysts speculate that global demand will continue sliding, especially given China's decelerating oil consumption. That's one reason the global oil surplus could swell to 1.2 million barrels per day next year, according to JPMorgan. Otherwise, expanding outflows from the US, Brazil, Guyana and Canada will also play a part.

"OPEC+ increasingly appears to be searching for El Dorado: an oil market where demand is strong enough that it can increase output and prices stay above $80 per barrel," wrote Bill Weatherburn, senior climate and commodities economist at Capital Economics. "We suspect that this won't be found in 2025 either as China's demand growth will remain soft and more oil supply from non-OPEC+ producers will enter the market."


The stock market gives this candidate a 70% chance to be the next U.S. president

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, and Donald Trump, the former president who is the Republican Party’s nominee in a third straight election, debated, just once, in September. - AFP via Getty Images

Mark Hulbert
Sat, November 2, 2024 

Vice President Kamala Harris’s chance of winning the U.S. presidential election is lower than it was two weeks ago, according to a model that uses the stock market’s year-to-date performance to predict the incumbent political party’s likelihood of victory.

Nevertheless, that model still predicts that Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, is likely to win the presidency on Tuesday — giving her a 70% probability of victory. The reason Harris’s likelihood of winning was lower on Nov. 1 than the 72% where it stood on Oct. 17, when I last wrote about this model, is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA has declined in the interim.

This stock-market prediction model is not complicated. It exploits the historical tendency for the incumbent political party’s chance of electoral victory to reflect the Dow’s year-to-date performance. The model’s track record is statistically highly significant — at the 99% level.

-

Take a look at the chart above. It plots the trendline that best fits the historical data back to 1900. Is the model foolproof? Of course not. And bear in mind that a 70% probability is not 100%. Furthermore, even if the model had a perfect track record, there’s no guarantee that the future will be like the past.

That said, my simple model does have a better track record than the majority of models Wall Street uses, many if not most of which have no statistical validity. The model makes theoretical sense: The stock market is forward-looking, so a rising market means that most investors are upbeat about the economy’s prospects in coming months. Numerous studies have found that people tend to vote their pocketbooks.

I got a lot of angry emails in response to my mid-October column, with many of you arguing that a Harris presidency would be disastrous for the economy. I myself have no idea. But I do know that, if those dire forecasts were correct, we would expect the stock market to plunge whenever Harris’s chances of winning go up. That hasn’t been the case, as I pointed out in a column earlier this week. The stock market on average has risen in the weeks since July in which the Harris contract at PredictIt.org rose

Opinion

 I'm an Indian American, but I'm not a Democrat. Here's why so many of us are.

Surya Gowda, USA TODAY
Sat, November 2, 2024

It’s no secret that this election cycle saw a disproportionate number of Indian Americans rise to political prominence.

First and foremost, there’s Vice President Kamala Harris. The Democratic presidential nominee, as it is well known, was born to a Tamil Indian mother and a Black Jamaican father.

On the Republican side, two individuals of Indian origin, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, ran in the presidential primaries. And lawyer Usha Vance stands to become the second lady if her husband, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, and former President Donald Trump win Tuesday's election.

As a woman of Indian heritage myself, this got me thinking about the political priorities of my community as a whole.

Indian Americans clearly lean Democrat



President Joe Biden delivers remarks at a White House reception celebrating the Diwali festival of lights on Oct. 28, 2024. The holiday is celebrated by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists.



On the one hand, we know that Indian Americans are currently a solidly Democratic constituency. According to the Pew Research Center, 68% of Indian American registered voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. They also tend to support liberal positions on contemporary political issues.

For example, the vast majority of Indian Americans polled in 2020 opposed travel bans on citizens from Muslim-majority nations and police using force against peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters.

On the other hand, the Indian diaspora in America lives by many of the ideals upheld by conservatives. The ethnic group has the highest rate of family stability in the nation, and its culture greatly stresses personal responsibility. Indian Americans also constitute an affluent minority group that might be inclined to support conservative fiscal policies, such as tax cuts.

To me, this seeming inconsistency begged the question: Why might a group that appears to be conservative by nature consistently support liberal politicians and policies?

I, of course, had my guesses. Most obviously, I figured that Indian Americans are put off by many Republicans' opposition to immigration, as well as conservative intolerance of minorities.
I wondered why so many of us vote liberal. So I asked.

But I was still left wondering how Indian Americans themselves might make sense of the apparent disconnect between their lifestyles and political affiliations. Did they agree that there was a disconnect at all? Did they make a conscious choice not to preach what they practice?

To find out, I spoke to two close family friends who immigrated to the United States from India in 1979 and have lived in this country ‒ and witnessed all of the political changes it’s undergone ‒ ever since. Their responses taught me a great deal not only about the political allegiances of members of my community but also the reasons why all Americans, ethnic minorities or not, vote the way they do.


The future Vice President Kamala Harris, right, celebrates graduation with former teacher Frances Wilson, left, and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, center, in this undated file photo.

At the start of our conversation, I asked pediatric oncologist Narayana Gowda, 73, and his wife, Maitri Gowda, 72, of Florida how they identify politically and whether their party affiliation has changed over the years. We have the same last name because it's common in the region of India where our families are from. Among South Asians, it's also common to call older family friends "uncle" and "aunty."

“Since I became a citizen, I’ve always voted for Democrats,” Uncle said. “This year, however, I had doubts whether I should vote Democrat, vote Republican, or not vote at all because there were certain things I liked about both candidates. But, in the end, I voted for Kamala Harris.”

He joked, "Aunty told me I had to vote for Harris.”

Aunty said that when she considers Trump, she gets scared. She cited the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s comments targeting religious and ethnic minorities as reasons for her distaste for the Republican presidential nominee.

I asked her whether she supported Democratic candidates even before Trump’s rise, and she answered, “Yes, I’ve always been a Democrat.”

“We were foreigners when we came here. When I used to watch the television and the Republicans would talk, I used to think, ‘Oh my god, they may change everything.’ ”

Uncle said, “As minorities, we felt more comfortable with the Democratic leadership and their acceptance of people like us.”

I then asked the couple about their perception of the political behavior of Indian Americans generally.

“Among Indians ‒ this is my perception ‒ there are two groups,” he told me. “One group is made up of well-to-do members of the community who are drawn to Republicans because they support lower tax rates. The other group is made up of people who may or may not be well-to-do but who look at the whole picture, including the social issues ‒ they tend to go for Democrats.”

When I inquired about the conservatism of the Indian American community, he stated: “Social conservatism is part of the Indian psyche. We are social conservatives, in how we raise our families, our spending, not being wasteful in our daily life. We are also fiscally conservative, not just for our family but for the nation.”



Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris speaks to reporters on Nov. 1, 2024, in Madison, Wis.

So why the consistent support of Democrats?

Uncle paused. “Because we are human. Inconsistencies are natural,” he answered.

Aunty added, “It’s because we are minorities. Indians identify as minorities first and social and fiscal conservatives later.”
I learned today's political climate has an impact on voting

The couple’s answers didn’t surprise me, but their candor did.

I hadn’t expected that they would not only agree with me that Indian Americans are conservative in how they conduct their day-to-day lives but would also concur that their values were incongruent with their own political affiliations.

Our conversation taught me that social identity, rather than moral views or beliefs regarding policy, is often the driving force behind one’s political party affiliation and support of one candidate over another.

More important, their perspectives showed me that although it may seem odd for minorities ‒ or anyone else, for that matter ‒ to back political parties and candidates they may not be in perfect alignment with, they certainly aren’t being duped into voting against their best interests.

They’re simply making a judgment call that in today’s political climate, their identities are being threatened more than their personal values or pocketbooks are.

Surya Gowda is a fact-checking fellow for USA TODAY Opinion.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Opinion: Indian Americans lean left. Will they vote Harris? I asked


Abortion supporters at Women's March in Boston turn out in droves to support Harris presidency

Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, Sophia Compton
Sat, November 2, 2024 
FOX NEWS

Hundreds turned out to participate in the Woman's March in Massachusetts ahead of Election Day, in a strong show of support for Vice President Kamala Harris and abortion access.

People marched on Boston Common, holding signs that read, "We won't go back" and "Abortion is health care." Some men joined with them.

The woman's march happened in Boston, as well as in Washington, D.C., and in Kansas City, Missouri.


Speakers urged people to vote in the election — highlighting that abortion is on the ballot in nine states.

"How many of you are going to vote on Tuesday? How many of you can’t wait to wake up to a woman president?" Rev. Dr. Deborah Haffner, of First Unitarian Universalist Society in Newton, Massachusetts, asked.

Tracy Murphy told NBC 10 Boston that she organized the women's march because she wanted to give it her all no matter who wins.

"Today’s message is that we want everybody to vote," Murphy said.

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, abortion access has returned to the state level.

Abortion has remained a hot-button issue in the 2024 election – with abortion being a top issue for many female voters.

Nine states will consider constitutional amendments that would enshrine abortion rights — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota.

A record number of voters think abortion should be legal, with two-thirds favoring a nationwide law guaranteeing access, according to a Fox News national survey conducted on March 22-25, 2024.

Fox News Poll: Record Number Say Abortion Should Be Legal

Fifty-nine percent think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from the previous high of 57% in September 2022 and a record low of 44% in April 2022.

Support for legalization has been up (mostly by double-digits) across the board since April 2022, two months before Roe was overturned. That includes increased support among voters ages 65 and older (+16 points should be legal), conservatives (+12), Republicans (+11), and White evangelical Christians (+10).

Overall, just 7% think abortion should never be permitted, while five times as many say it always should be (35%). Another one-third (32%) say abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.


Former President Donald Trump and VP Kamala Harris

Former President Trump has shifted his stance on abortion during the election cycle, with the Republican nominee hoping to attract independents and some disillusioned Democrats, but running the risk of alienating his pro-life base.

Trump notably opposes a federal abortion ban, but has remained opposed to late-term abortions. In July, the Republican Party abandoned its long-standing position of advocating against abortion.

Throughout Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign, she has argued that Trump — who nominated three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who later voted to overturn Roe v. Wade — is responsible for worsening medical care for women and that he would seek further restrictions.

Harris has cast her position on the topic as creating legislation to restore the national abortion right that was eliminated following Roe v. Wade.

She has also vowed to protect access to the abortion drug mifepristone, calling the drug "essential medication.

Fox News' Victoria Balara and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Thousands in Washington Women's March voice support for Harris as election looms

Don Jacobson
Sat, November 2, 2024

Attendees of the 2024 Women's March chant as they march down Constitution Avenue toward the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. Participants marched from Freedom Plaza to The Ellipse, where Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave her final major address on Tuesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPIMore

Nov. 2 (UPI) -- Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Washington D.C., on Saturday as part of the Women's March 2024, calling for abortion rights and voicing support for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris three days before the election.

The march was designed to evoke the spirit of the original mass rally when out more than 1 million demonstrators turned out the day after Donald Trump's inauguration 2017 to denounce his presidency.

Saturday's event was much more modest with around 10,000 participants marching from Freedom Park to the White House, Women's March executive director Rachel O'Leary Carmona told The Washington Post.

But participants said they still got their message out, chanting slogans such as "We won't go back" and carrying signs reading, "A woman's place is in the White House."

The initial event on Jan. 21, 2017, was staged as a rebuke to Trump's swearing-in ceremony and resulted in one the biggest mass events in the District of Columbia's history, while simultaneous marches drew large crowds across the county and around the world, including 150,000 in Chicago and 125,000 in Los Angeles.


A woman in a pink "pussyhat" decorated with pins participates in the 2024 Women's March in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. Participants marched from Freedom Plaza to The Ellipse, where Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave her final major address on Tuesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI..More

Participants then similarly demanded that abortion rights be protected while criticizing the Republican victor for his disparagement of women, minorities and immigrants.

This time, organizers said they wanted to march before a presidential election involving Trump in hopes of swaying voters in favor of Harris.

A woman wearing a denim jacket supporting Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris prepares to march during the 2024 Women's March in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. Participants marched from Freedom Plaza to The Ellipse, where Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave her final major address on Tuesday. 
Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI..More

"On November 2nd, thousands of feminists will mobilize across the nation to show our collective power," the group said on its website ahead the scheduled 4 p.m. EDT rally and march from Freedom Plaza to the White House.

"Had enough people been ready for the fight for our families, our freedoms, and our futures in 2016, Donald Trump would have never been elected. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past."


A woman waves a "vote" flag during the 2024 Women's March in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. Participants marched from Freedom Plaza to The Ellipse, where Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave her final major address on Tuesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPIMore

Carmona said the stakes are far higher now than seven years ago.

"We're on the the cusp of a new era in American politics," she told told ABC News on Saturday ahead of the march. "We have so much on the line. No matter where you're voting, we are in a choice between freedom and fascism."

Attendees of the 2024 Women's March hold posters as they march down 15th Street toward the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., on Saturday. Participants marched from Freedom Plaza to The Ellipse, where Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris gave her final major address on Tuesday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPIMore

Among the scheduled speakers were women's rights attorney Gloria Allred, nonprofit media entrepreneur Aisha Becker-Burrowes, bestselling author and astrologer Chani; Parkland, Fla., school shooting survivor Aalayah Eastmond; and racial justice organizer Tiffany Flowers.


More than 1 million people participated in the Women's March in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2017, protesting the inauguration of then-President Donald Trump. Another Women's March was set for Saturday as Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris headed into the final three days of the 2024 campaign. File Photo by David Tulis/UPIMore

'We're not going back:' Women's March activists prepare to take the streets
Sat, November 2, 2024 

Rachel O'Leary Carmona, executive director of Women's March and Women's March Network, speaks to Saturday's nationwide movement as activists take to the streets.

Opinion | The disbelief and alarm of being a doctor watching Trump's plans to destroy public health

Dr. Kavita Patel
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Howard Lutnick arrives at a campaign event for former President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York on Oct. 27, 2024.

As a physician on the front lines of public health, I find myself in a state of constant disbelief and growing alarm, watching the level of disinformation and dangerous false rhetoric around public health emanating from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. A recent CNN interview with Howard Lutnick, co-chair of the Trump-Vance transition team, has sent shockwaves through the medical community. Lutnick’s casual endorsement of long-debunked vaccine conspiracy theories wasn’t just a momentary lapse in judgment — it was akin to tossing a lit match into a powder keg of public health concerns.

But the true bombshell came when Lutnick suggested that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a notorious anti-vaccine activist, might be granted access to federal vaccine data in a potential Trump administration. This isn’t just alarming. It’s a potential catastrophe waiting to unfold. Imagine, if you will, giving the keys to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s data vaults to someone who has spent years spreading misinformation about vaccines. It’s like asking a flat-earther to pilot our next mission to space.

The implications are staggering and, frankly, terrifying for those of us dedicated to protecting public health. We are not just talking about a difference of opinion here. This is about the potential undermining of decades of rigorous scientific research and life-saving public health initiatives. It’s about potentially reversing the hard-won victories against diseases that once ravaged populations.



During his interview, Lutnick made several troubling claims. He reiterated debunked conspiracy theories linking vaccines to autism in children. He questioned vaccine safety, asking, “Why do you believe vaccines are safe? There’s no product liability anymore.” And he expressed enthusiasm about potentially giving Kennedy access to vaccine safety data, stating, “Let’s give him the data. I think it’ll be pretty cool to give him the data. Let’s see what he comes up with. I think it’s pretty fun.”

These statements demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of vaccine science and the rigorous safety protocols in place. Lutnick’s comments are particularly concerning given his position as co-chair of a potential presidential transition team. His willingness to entertain and propagate discredited theories about vaccine safety could have far-reaching consequences if such views were to influence public health policy.

It’s crucial to reiterate that vaccines currently authorized for use in the United States have been proven to be safe and effective, with ongoing monitoring for any risks or side effects. The 1986 legislation that Lutnick referenced, which established a federal program to compensate individuals for rare adverse effects, did not alter the stringent safety and approval standards for vaccines.

Lutnick’s suggestion that Kennedy might be given access to vaccine safety data in a Trump administration is deeply troubling. Kennedy has a history of promoting anti-vaccine rhetoric, and giving him a platform to further these views could seriously undermine public trust in vaccines.



The scientific consensus on vaccine safety and their lack of connection to autism is overwhelming and based on extensive research spanning decades. Numerous large-scale, well-designed studies involving hundreds of thousands of children have consistently found no link between vaccines and autism. A 2019 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine examined over 650,000 children born in Denmark between 1999 and 2010. The researchers found no increased risk of autism in children who received the MMR vaccine compared to those who did not. A 2015 study in JAMA involving nearly 100,000 children found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, even in children with older siblings who had autism. Finally, a comprehensive review by the Institute of Medicine in 2004 examined hundreds of studies and concluded that the evidence “favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”

These studies, along with many others, form the basis of the scientific consensus. Major health organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all affirm the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

By promoting discredited theories, individuals like Lutnick are not just contradicting established science; they are potentially endangering public health. Vaccines have been instrumental in reducing infant mortality by 40% globally and by more than 50% in Africa over the past five decades. They have saved an estimated 154 million lives since 1974, including 146 million children under 5 years old.

As medical professionals and public health advocates, we must stand firm against the spread of misinformation. The health and safety of our communities depend on it. Vaccines save lives, and we cannot allow discredited theories to undermine this crucial tool in public health.

This article was originally published on MSNBC.com




Opinion
One More Damned Time: Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism 

Ronald Bailey
Fri, November 1, 2024 

Jen Golbeck / SOPA Images/Sipa USA/Newscom

Yesterday, Howard Lutnick, co-chair of the Trump-Vance transition team, revived the myth that vaccines cause autism spectrum disorders (ASD). During an interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins about what role Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might play in a future Trump administration, Lutnick took a strange detour into the bogus claims that childhood vaccinations cause autism:


I spent two and a half hours this week with Bobby Kennedy and it was the most extraordinary thing because, let's face it, we've all heard on the news all sorts of snarky comments about him. I said, "So tell me how's it going to go?" And he said, "Why don't you just listen to me?" And what he explained was that when he was born, we had three vaccines and autism was one in ten thousand. Now a baby is born with 76 vaccines because in 1986, they waived product liability for vaccines. And here's the best one, they started paying people at the [National Institutes of Health], right? They pay them a piece of the money from the vaccine companies. Wait a minute, let me finish. And so all of these vaccines came out without product liability. So what happened now is that autism is now 1 in 34. Amazing.

During a Fox News interview in 2023, Kennedy reiterated, "I do believe that autism comes from vaccines." Despite the claims by Kennedy, now being echoed by Lutnick, years of research have turned up no evidence that childhood vaccinations cause autism spectrum disorders. Of course, nearly any medical treatment will have some adverse side effects in some people. However, a 2021 comprehensive analysis of vaccine safety by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found "no new evidence of increased risk for key adverse events following administration of vaccines that are routinely recommended for adults, children, and pregnant women."

Lutnick is right that autism diagnoses have risen substantially. If not childhood vaccinations, what accounts for this increase? First, greater awareness means that many people with autism spectrum disorder who in the past would have been missed by clinicians are now being identified. However, a 2020 review article in Molecular Psychiatry reports that changes in diagnostic criteria "has been accompanied by a 20-fold increase in the reported prevalence of ASD over the last 30 years, reaching a current prevalence of more than 2% in the United States." This contributes to the likelihood of over-diagnosis and a shift toward autism diagnoses in place of other mental health conditions.

Piling on the anti-vaccine bandwagon, in his interview this week with podcaster Joe Rogan, Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance said that he had gotten "red pilled on the whole vax thing" when he felt ill for two days after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine shot. While his side effects were certainly no fun, research shows that such a strong reaction correlates with a robust immune response that produces greater quantities of longer-lasting protective antibodies.

What about Lutnick's point concerning waived liability? In his 1985 article, "Vaccines and Product Liability: A Case of Contagious Litigation" in the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine, University of Virginia law professor Edmund Kitch explained how the liability system was unable to properly balance the public benefits of vaccines against their private harms. The result of this imbalance was killing off vaccine innovation and production. So Congress a year later chose to change the liability system with respect to vaccines in 1986 with the adoption of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which provides compensation to people who are injured by certain vaccines.

And the benefits of vaccines are enormous. A 2024 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention review finds that "among children born during 1994–2023, routine childhood vaccinations will have prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and 1,129,000 deaths, resulting in direct savings of $540 billion and societal savings of $2.7 trillion."

At his Madison Square Garden campaign rally, former President Donald Trump said he is going to let Kennedy "go wild on health. I'm going to let him go wild on the food. I'm going to let him go wild on the medicines."

Alarmingly, the Trump campaign appears to be all in on Kennedy's debunked anti-vax crusade.

The post One More Damned Time: Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism appeared first on Reason.com.


An Idaho health department isn't allowed to give COVID-19 vaccines anymore. Experts say it's a first

DEVI SHASTRI
Updated Fri, November 1, 2024

FILE - A syringe lies next to vials of COVID-19 booster vaccines at an inoculation station in Jackson, Miss., Friday, Nov. 18, 2022. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


A regional public health department in Idaho is no longer providing COVID-19 vaccines to residents in six counties after a narrow decision by its board.

Southwest District Health appears to be the first in the nation to be restricted from giving COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccinations are an essential function of a public health department.

While policymakers in Texas banned health departments from promoting COVID vaccines and Florida's surgeon general bucked medical consensus to recommend against the vaccine, governmental bodies across the country haven't blocked the vaccines outright.

“I'm not aware of anything else like this,” said Adriane Casalotti, chief of government and public affairs for the National Association of County and City Health Officials. She said health departments have stopped offering the vaccine because of cost or low demand, but not based on “a judgment of the medical product itself.”

The six-county district along the Idaho-Oregon border includes three counties in the Boise metropolitan area. Demand for COVID vaccines in the health district has declined — with 1,601 given in 2021 to 64 so far in 2024. The same is true for other vaccines: Idaho has the highest childhood vaccination exemption rate in the nation, and last year, the Southwest District Health Department rushed to contain a rare measles outbreak that sickened 10.

On Oct. 22, the health department’s board voted 4-3 in favor of the ban — despite Southwest's medical director testifying to the vaccine's necessity.

“Our request of the board is that we would be able to carry and offer those (vaccines), recognizing that we always have these discussions of risks and benefits,” Dr. Perry Jansen said at the meeting. “This is not a blind, everybody-gets-a-shot approach. This is a thoughtful approach.”

Opposite Jansen's plea were more than 290 public comments, many of which called for an end to vaccine mandates or taxpayer funding of the vaccines, neither of which are happening in the district. At the meeting, many people who spoke are nationally known for making the rounds to testify against COVID vaccines, including Dr. Peter McCullough, a Texas cardiologist who sells “contagion emergency kits” that include ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine — drugs that have not been approved to treat COVID-19 and can have dangerous side effects.

Board Chairman Kelly Aberasturi was familiar with many of the voices who wanted the ban, especially from earlier local protests of pandemic measures.

Aberasturi, who told The Associated Press that he's skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines and national public health leaders, said in the meeting and in an interview with the AP that he was supportive of but “disappointed” in the board's decision.

He said the board had overstepped the relationship between patients and their doctors — and possibly opened a door to blocking other vaccines or treatments.

Board members in favor of the decision argued people can get vaccinated elsewhere, and that providing the shots was equivalent to signing off on their safety. (Some people may be reluctant to get vaccinated or boosted because of misinformation about the shots despite evidence that they’re safe and have saved millions of lives.)

The people getting vaccinated at the health department — including people without housing, people who are homebound and those in long-term care facilities or in the immigration process — had no other options, Jansen and Aberasturi said.

“I’ve been homeless in my lifetime, so I understand how difficult it can be when you’re ... trying to get by and get ahead,” Aberasturi said. “This is where we should be stepping in and helping.

"But we have some board members who have never been there, so they don’t understand what it’s like.”

State health officials have said that they “recommend that people consider the COVID-19 vaccine.” Idaho health department spokesperson AJ McWhorter declined to comment on “public health district business,” but noted that COVID-19 vaccines are still available at community health centers for people who are uninsured.

Aberasturi said he plans to ask at the next board meeting if the health department can at least be allowed to vaccinate older patients and residents of long-term care facilities, adding that the board is supposed to be caring for the “health and well-being” of the district's residents. "But I believe the way we went about this thing is we didn't do that due diligence.”

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.