Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to the House floor Friday on behalf of her working-class district and struggling Americans across the country to call out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for sending members of the upper chamber home for Thanksgiving without striking a deal on coronavirus pandemic relief legislation.
The New York Democrat decided to rise and speak out, she said, because McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, "decided to break the Senate."
"And he broke the Senate," she said, "as there are thousands of people in Texas lined up for food lines. He broke the Senate while hospitals no longer have beds to house the sick."
"He broke the Senate, and dismissed the Senate, while 30 million Americans are on the brink of eviction," she continued. "He dismissed the Senate when every single day, when we go back to our communities, people are asking us, 'Where is there going to be help? Is there going to be a second stimulus check? Are we going to get the resources that we need?"
Recognizing that Americans continue to grapple with the "extraordinary health and economic hardship of the Covid-19 pandemic," the congresswoman emphasized that "in breaking the Senate, we are abandoning our people."
Watch:
Ocasio-Cortez noted that "Thanksgiving is around the corner, and there are millions of Americans that won't be able to afford a meal to eat, that don't know if they'll be kicked out of their home, that are unsure if they're going to have to quit their job to care for their child."
The GOP-controlled Senate, she said, "abandoned them," and "it is unconscionable, unconscionable leadership to abandon our people."
The congresswoman highlighted how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act from March—the last relief measure that Senate Republicans and President Donald Trump agreed to approve—lifted out of poverty Americans who were trying to navigate the intertwined public health and economic crises.
In the nearly eight months since the president signed the CARES Act, Senate Republicans and the White House have refused to advance multiple relief measures passed by the Democrat-controlled House, even as benefits have expired and the pandemic has intensified.
As communities across the country are seeing infections surge, bodies piling up—the U.S. had recorded more than 11.85 million Covid-19 cases and nearly 254,000 deaths as of Friday—and millions of people are also enduring financial difficulties.
Citing recent data from the Census Bureau, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that less than half of Americans are confident they will be able to afford necessary food over the next four weeks.
While federal lawmakers are arguing about relief packages, "people are going hungry, and we are dismissing their needs as blue state needs or as bailouts depending on what party you voted for," she said. "Hunger has no party. Illness has no party. And when we allow suffering to be alleviated or concentrated based on political affiliation, we are doing a disservice to our entire nation."
Ocasio-Cortez also noted critiques of how the $4 trillion that the U.S. government has put toward the pandemic response has been spent. As the Washington Post reported last month:
[More] than half of that sum, roughly $2.3 trillion, has gone to businesses that in many cases didn't need the help or weren't required to show they used the taxpayer funds to keep workers on the job.
By contrast, about a fifth, $884 billion, went to help workers and families. And even less aimed at the health crisis itself, with 16% of the total going toward testing and tracing, vaccine development, and helping states provide care, among other health-related needs.
In her floor speech, Ocasio-Cortez responded to Republicans' concerns about covering the costs of future relief for Americans by noting that when he "authorized a $4 trillion leveraged bailout for Wall Street in March," McConnell "wasn't concerned about, 'How are we going to pay for that?'"
"It is only when we are talking about relief for working people, for children, for families, for parents, for education, for healthcare, that all of the sudden, we can't pay for any of these things," she said. "But when it comes to tax subsidies for private jets, we've got the money for that."
ABC News reported late Thursday that Democratic aides said staffers of McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) met earlier in the day "to discuss ways coronavirus relief could be tacked on to a must-pass spending bill that needs to clear both chambers of Congress by December 11 to avert a government shutdown."
However, Republican aides told the outlet "that discussions between staffers Thursday were strictly about passing the omnibus spending bill—which would fund the government through next year—and were unrelated to any additional coronavirus relief."
This article first appeared on Common Dreams. You can read it here.

















Ladder leads out of darkness.Photo credit
Woman's reflection in shadow.Photo credit
Young woman frazzled.Photo credit 




Will your current friends still be with you after seven years?
Professor shares how many years a friendship must last before it'll become lifelong
Think of your best friend. How long have you known them? Growing up, children make friends and say they’ll be best friends forever. That’s where “BFF” came from, for crying out loud. But is the concept of the lifelong friend real? If so, how many years of friendship will have to bloom before a friendship goes the distance? Well, a Dutch study may have the answer to that last question.
Sociologist Gerald Mollenhorst and his team in the Netherlands did extensive research on friendships and made some interesting findings in his surveys and studies. Mollenhorst found that over half of your friendships will “shed” within seven years. However, the relationships that go past the seven-year mark tend to last. This led to the prevailing theory that most friendships lasting more than seven years would endure throughout a person’s lifetime.
In Mollenhorst’s findings, lifelong friendships seem to come down to one thing: reciprocal effort. The primary reason so many friendships form and fade within seven-year cycles has much to do with a person’s ages and life stages. A lot of people lose touch with elementary and high school friends because so many leave home to attend college. Work friends change when someone gets promoted or finds a better job in a different state. Some friends get married and have children, reducing one-on-one time together, and thus a friendship fades. It’s easy to lose friends, but naturally harder to keep them when you’re no longer in proximity.
Some people on Reddit even wonder if lifelong friendships are actually real or just a romanticized thought nowadays. However, older commenters showed that lifelong friendship is still possible:
“I met my friend on the first day of kindergarten. Maybe not the very first day, but within the first week. We were texting each other stupid memes just yesterday. This year we’ll both celebrate our 58th birthdays.”
“My oldest friend and I met when she was just 5 and I was 9. Next-door neighbors. We're now both over 60 and still talk weekly and visit at least twice a year.”
“I’m 55. I’ve just spent a weekend with friends I met 24 and 32 years ago respectively. I’m also still in touch with my penpal in the States. I was 15 when we started writing to each other.”
“My friends (3 of them) go back to my college days in my 20’s that I still talk to a minimum of once a week. I'm in my early 60s now.”
“We ebb and flow. Sometimes many years will pass as we go through different things and phases. Nobody gets buttsore if we aren’t in touch all the time. In our 50s we don’t try and argue or be petty like we did before. But I love them. I don’t need a weekly lunch to know that. I could make a call right now if I needed something. Same with them.”
Maintaining a friendship for life is never guaranteed, but there are ways, psychotherapists say, that can make a friendship last. It’s not easy, but for a friendship to last, both participants need to make room for patience and place greater weight on their similarities than on the differences that may develop over time. Along with that, it’s helpful to be tolerant of large distances and gaps of time between visits, too. It’s not easy, and it requires both people involved to be equally invested to keep the friendship alive and from becoming stagnant.
As tough as it sounds, it is still possible. You may be a fortunate person who can name several friends you’ve kept for over seven years or over seventy years. But if you’re not, every new friendship you make has the same chance and potential of being lifelong.