Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump’s plane made an emergency landing leaving New Orleans

Politico reported Wednesday that the plane former President Donald Trump was flying in was forced to make an emergency landing after leaving a Republican Party donor retreat in New Orleans over the weekend. The Washington Post reported that the plane was owned by a company in Utah that is listed as a trustee.

The Trump plane took off for Mar-a-Lago and was in the air somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes when one of the engines failed. The pilot then returned to the airport.

The communications between air traffic control and the Trump pilot recorded there was a problem of an “emergency nature,” the report said, citing someone briefed on the recording.

Once the plane landed it evidently became clear that it couldn’t fly, and the Republican Party “scrambled” to find another GOP donor who would lend Trump their plane to fly home.

Trump’s own personal plane previously sat unused for years, requiring considerable work. A 2021 CNN report described it as the once glorious backdrop to his campaign rallies. But after he was kicked out of office it sat on an Orange County, New York ramp north of Manhattan with some assuming it would never fly again.

“One engine is missing parts. The other is shrink-wrapped in plastic. The cost to fix and get it flyable could reach well into the high six-figures, a price-tag Trump doesn’t appear to be dealing with right now,” said CNN. “Though the current state of his finances aren’t public, the Covid-19 pandemic has taken a toll on the hospitality industry home to so many of his businesses.”

The first flight took off from New York Stewart (SWF) at 12:25 ET on Monday, Nov. 1, 2021 heading to Chennault International (CWF). It had been airborne for about “two hours when it appeared to make an unscheduled stop,” reported SimpleFlying.com.

“As the aircraft was passing Nashville to the south, it abruptly turned to the north and began a loop around to head into Nashville International (BNA),” said the report.

Recordings from air traffic control from that incident recorded, “It looks like we have an emergency inbound.”

In May 2021, Trump released a statement saying, “It will soon be brought to a Louisiana service facility for the completion of work, inspection and updating of Rolls-Royce engines, and a brand new paint job. When completed, it will be better than ever, and again used at upcoming rallies!”

It’s unclear if Trump’s plane is still undergoing repairs and why he wasn’t using it over the donor plane.

 

Moscow blames U.S. for “economic war”

Amid concerns that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s deadly invasion of Ukraine could lead to a wider war, the Kremlin on Wednesday accused the United States government of waging economic warfare.

“The U.S., undoubtedly, declared an economic war against Russia and they are waging this war. Yes, de facto this is exactly what it is,” said Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson.

Peskov’s remarks came in response to U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland’s testimony at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Tuesday, according to the Russian state news agency TASS.

“I think his interior mind is now out there and for everybody to see,” Nuland said of Putin. “So that’s what makes me worried that not only do we have to ensure that this Ukraine gambit is a strategic failure for Putin for Ukraine’s sake, but also for all of the other countries in the region, and his appetite has only grown with the eating. So you know, we can’t allow this to stand.”

Reuters reports that when asked about U.S. President Joe Biden’s ban on Russian oil and energy imports, Peskov said that “the situation demands a rather deep analysis” but “if you are asking me what Russia is going to do—Russia is going to do what is necessary to defend its interests.”

Peskov’s comments came after Putin said over the weekend that Western sanctions imposed in response to the invasion “are akin to declaring war.” The statement sparked alarm given his thinly veiled threat about nuclear weapons when he announced the invasion of Ukraine late last month.

Despite the Kremlin’s crackdown on critical reporting about the Russian military’s assault of Ukraine, anti-war protesters have taken to the streets across Russia, resulting in thousands of arrests over the past two weeks.

NPR reported last week that “everyday Russians are feeling the impact” of sanctions, including store closures, suspended container shipping, lack of support for airlines, the falling value of the ruble, rising interest rates, price hikes, and concerns about being paid by foreign employers.

Robert Reich, former U.S. labor secretary and a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, argued Wednesday that “we should use whatever means are at our disposal to make Vladimir Putin end the brutal war he started. But it is proving difficult to use sanctions on specific oligarchs to get Putin to stop.”

In his an opinion piece for The Guardian, Reich wrote:

Perhaps we should be more ambitious. My Berkeley colleague Gabriel Zucman recommends that the U.S. and the European Union freeze all offshore holdings of Russian nationals in excess of $10 million. This would affect about 10,000 to 20,000 Russians who have benefited the most from Putin’s rule.

Meanwhile, blanket sanctions against the Russian economy are having an effect. Over the past week they have caused the ruble to collapse and decimated Russian markets.

But the burden has fallen mostly on ordinary Russians, many of whom have already suffered from Putin’s brutal regime.

“As we’ve seen in North Korea and Iran, dictatorships don’t depend on popular approval. In fact, widespread hardship can lead to even more repression and violence,” Reich added. “We should remind ourselves that Putin is not synonymous with the Russian people.” 

“The Thing About Pam,” “Super Pumped” and “The Dropout” make it official: It’s A–hole Season!

They are as inevitable as taxes and more reliable than Punxsutawney Phil. I’m speaking, of course, of a**holes, which are now in season.

Granted, a**holes are always with us. But longer days and more sunshine helps the a**hole’s malodorous behavior ripen, making it more likely that we’ll encounter them in the wild. They’re the guys grinning at you as they run a stop light or braying like donkeys at your favorite restaurant, making their server’s life hell.

If you doubt a**hole season is upon us, simply turn on your TV. There, puckering jerks wash across our screens like the overnight eruption of tulips on otherwise ho-hum hills. “Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber” proves this from its first frame when Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Travis Kalanick, the car share giant’s founder, asks a prospective employee, “Are you an a**hole?”

Kalanick posed that question to every job candidate he interviewed as a means of determining a person’s suitability for his company’s culture. In his view the right answer was, “Yes.” At the time of Uber’s rise, Silicon Valley’s tech bro culture agreed with him, as did the rest of the business world.

The entire lesson of the series depicts how well that attitude served Uber until it didn’t.

RELATED: Invest in Hulu’s potent Theranos series

It has that in common with Hulu’s “The Dropout,” although Amanda Seyfried initially introduces Holmes as a visionary, not a cretin. Ambition is the seed of her hubris, and it outstrips her ability to execute her vision.

These are two of several dramas based on true stories of corporate implosions wrought by a**holery – a brand of ripped-from-the-headlines drama that plugs into America’s obsession with wealthy, amoral people.

Evening soaps fertilized the ground for stories like “Super Pumped,” along with the popularity of shows like “Billions,” which translates 1980s style “greed is good” into the modern era with swagger, ruthlessness and a portrayal of a lifestyle driven by astronomical greed and exclusivity.

“Billions” creators Brian Koppelman and David Levien executive produce, write and serve as showrunners alongside Beth Schacter, which goes some way toward explaining why Gordon-Levitt’s Travis Kalanick is treated more humanely than one would expect of a guy who intentionally bred an atmosphere rife with sexual harassment, gender discrimination and zero accountability.

Each show assumes the audience knows its main characters through the headlines their downfalls generate while guessing, correctly for the most part, that the average person wasn’t monitoring how they ran their companies or the pain they inflicted upon the people who worked for them.

That part doesn’t matter because we understand the larger message of these shows is, “Look at these a**holes.” Along with this, and perhaps without meaning to do so, they may also whisper another nagging question: “Don’t you wish you had it like these a**holes?”

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the publication of Aaron James’ bestseller “A**holes: A Theory.” Beyond its humorously provocative name, James’ book examines everything about a**holes, defining them by behavior and type – and moreover, explaining why humans are simultaneously drawn to them and repulsed by them.

“The a**hole, as I define it,” states James, “is the guy who allows himself special advantages in cooperative life out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.” A**holes tend to rise in the business world for that very reason regardless of how knowledgeable and effective they are. Once that type of person hits a certain threshold, they simply fail upward.

James also “advisedly” uses masculine pronouns throughout his book, pointing out that most a**holes tend to be men. And this is what makes the 2022 roster of TV’s a**hole season stand apart like an especially flagrant shade of red on a dominant baboon’s butt, since many of the primary antagonists of springtime’s true stories of bad behavior are women.

I’m referring to Holmes and Anna Delvey of Netflix’s “Inventing Anna,” but I’m also counting Uma Thurman‘s Arianna Huffington in this number, since no blazing a**hole can succeed without enablers. Kalanick brought Huffington in to serve on his board at a precarious time in his reign, a turn the show signals by introducing Thurman in the fourth episode of “Super Pumped,” titled “Boober.”

This is a prime showcasing of Kalanick’s devotion to looking the other way while his female employees are harassed and marginalized, which is also when Huffington introduces herself – and the show’s narrator praises her for having “started a news and culture website where the writers didn’t get f**king dick for their writing, and she went ahead and sold it for 300 million.”

Thurman, in a recent press conference held as part of the Television Critics Association’s Winter Press Tour, translates that detail into virtue, calling her subject “a firebrand in journalism. I’ve met her, and I like her. I can see that she draws a lot of controversy. She’s a wall‑breaker. She’s very bold, and she’s incredibly brilliant.”

Super PumpedSuper Pumped (Elizabeth Morris/SHOWTIME)

But in the show, she’s also very much an a**hole. When Kalanick asks if she took offense at his “boober” comment to a magazine, Thurman’s Huffington pooh-poohs the fuss. “Every successful person I know enjoys their success in their own way. Or they don’t stay successful very long,” she purrs, adding. “…No, serving yourself is serving your company. Which is serving the world!” How’s that for an entrenched sense of entitlement?

Few of us can claim to be surprised by the poisonous environment Kalanick bred at Uber and Holmes cultivated at Theranos since anyone who worked in the corporate world over the past two decades likely experienced some version of their dysfunction. Kalanick’s main offense is his a**hole behavior while Holmes was recently found guilty on several counts of fraud.

Nevertheless, “The Dropout” doesn’t announce itself as a true crime story – not like “The Thing About Pam,” NBC’s contribution to the sphincter garden, which is inspired by five-time “Dateline NBC” subject Pam Hupp.

The real Hupp is currently serving a lifetime sentence for murder, but the dramatized version of her story sets her up as a complete a**hole before she’s linked to anyone’s death. The show’s Pam, played by Renée Zellweger, crows her virtues to the captive audience inside her head.

“I’m a businesswoman. I do business all the time. Flip houses, turn a profit – I’m real successful! I’m a pillar of the community.” So it goes, until her fantasy arrives at her claim of having taken care of her mom – “R.I.P.!” she whispers a tad too casually – just like she took care of her best friend Betsy Faria (Katy Mixon), who was discovered dead in her home with a knife sticking out of her neck.

“Bets had a rough go with cancer,” she tells viewers, “but I got through it!”

“Dateline” revolves around classic cautionary tales of crime, but what makes Hupp such a great villain is her basic brand of a**hole behavior.

Hupp’s a**holery bears a resemblance to the strain that made Joe “Exotic” Schreibvogel 2020’s most successful sideshow as the star of “Tiger King,” in that they’re both run-of-the-mill narcissists whose aspirations extend no further than the working and middle-class communities in their orbit. (John Cameron Mitchell translates this less successfully in Peacock’s recently debuted “Joe vs. Carole,” but that’s less the actor’s problem than the script and timid directing.)

Pam is probably a sociopath; only a mental health professional can establish that. But any layman can diagnose her a**holishness because we probably have a Pam in our lives. If we’re smart, we keep them at arm’s length.

Zellweger, wielding all the imposing false girth afforded to her by a fat suit, barely camouflages insults within supposedly kind offers and barges in on gatherings where she isn’t invited. Once Betsy’s husband Russ (Glenn Fleshler) is charged with murder, Pam helpfully stacks the deck against him. It’s unclear what her motives are at first, but once they’re revealed…let’s just say they’re common and unoriginal enough to qualify as world class dick moves.

Once again, however, Pam pulls off her chicanery because she’s a known factor in her small Missouri town. She’s as ambitious as the local prosecutor (Judy Greer), who’s happy to prance around with her upon discovering they’re both Zumba lovers. Pam installs herself as the go-to spokesperson for Betsy when “Dateline” comes calling, and eventually she’s so addicted to the spotlight that, according to a report on her later crime, when the cops bring her in for questioning her main concern is whether their interview will be filmed, “because I always appear on the news with Chris Hayes.”

Zellweger makes it very easy to love hating Pam, but that isn’t the initial reaction the other shows coax forth.

“The Dropout” showrunner Liz Merriwether doesn’t shift culpability away from Holmes, but she and show’s writers call attention to Holmes’ eagerness to emulate the take-no-prisoners tech-bro boss approach, i.e. moving fast and breaking things, in purporting to invent a revolutionary medical device.

This alone doesn’t make Holmes an a**hole, as the script and Seyfried’s performance argue. No, she achieves that status by lying to the public about her device’s lack of efficacy while raking in billions based on that lie. By the time Theranos is well on its way to causing real world damage to sick people, Seyfried has fired some of the best minds working for her and replaced them with sycophants, like a true a**hole boss.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


This would seem to be the main reason people are drawn to each of these shows, but the casting does make one wonder whether “Super Pumped” and “The Dropout” are unintentionally celebrating a**holishness as a necessary trait of achieving success.

Gordon-Levitt has long established his brand, as it were, of “good guy.” His filmography encompasses plenty of damaged or dark figures, but by and large we associate him with men whose redeeming qualities come to the fore.

Seeing him as Kalanick is discombobulating for that reason. Kalanick is a real human being, of course, and he may have learned his lesson after all. He’s also a guy who presided over a regime that spied on customers to a violatory degree and cared little for ethics or privacy concerns, which is the version being depicted on “Super Pumped.”

Seyfried’s interpretation of Holmes capitalizes on the actor’s typecasting in roles that play up her innate lightness, making the Theranos founder’s calculated sculpting of her image particularly sinister. Still, there will likely be a few folks out there taking notes in the same way aspiring a**holes might view Ye’s  braggadocio in “Jeen-yuhs” as pure inspiration instead of treating the toxic parts as warning signs.

This brings us to the situational soil upon which these shows are landing. As these episodes roll out the world is watching intently to see what terrifying moves Russian’s top a**hole will make next and how many people will die as a result. In America a**hole politicians are rewriting history to erase the gains of the Civil Rights movement, legalizing attacks on LGBTQIA people and their families and attacking reproductive rights.

We survived four years of an administration led by the least qualified a**hole in living memory, only to realize that instead of learning from that mistake, a huge chunk of voters want to return him to power.

On the flipside, there’s also growing evidence that people are fed up with a**holes, as a new Pew Research Center survey related to the Great Resignation suggests. The top three reasons why Americans quit their jobs in 2021 were low pay, a lack of opportunities for advancement and – take note, aspiring a**hole bosses – feeling disrespected at work.

One unforgettable moment in “The Dropout” depicts an outgoing employee’s leaving Seyfried’s dishonest CEO with a parting shot/gift in the form of a bestselling book: “The No A**hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t.”

Kalanick was ousted from Uber and scored himself a platinum parachute to soften the landing, allowing him to remain among the wealthiest men in America. Holmes famously did not survive the disaster she spun with Theranos, facing a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and a fine of up to $250,000 for defrauding her investors. (She’s believed to be ensconced at her $135 million dollar California estate until she’s sentenced at the end of September.) Hupp is in prison but, like Joe Exotic, gets the satisfaction of seeing her story played by a big star.

Nobody likes an a**hole, we’re told, but at times we sure do enjoy gathering them.

“The Thing About Pam” airs 10 p.m. Tuesdays on NBC. “Super Pumped: The Battle for Uber” airs 10 p.m. Sundays on Showtime. “The Dropout” is currently streaming on Hulu. 

More stories like this:

“We lost”: Ewan McGregor returns as Obi-Wan Kenobi in ominous new “Star Wars” trailer

“The fight is done. We lost. Stay hidden.”

Ewan McGregor utters these ominous words as the trailer for the highly-anticipated “Star Wars” miniseries “Obi-Wan Kenobi” begins. The Emmy Award winner, who is reprising his role as the titular character, is first seen traveling across the dusty landscape of Tatooine and watching over a young Luke Skywalker from a distance.

“Obi-Wan Kenobi,” the latest project from “The Mandalorian” director Deborah Chow, takes place 10 years after the hubbub of George Lucas’ 2005 film “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.” And a lot has happened since then.

RELATED: A tribute to “Star Wars” badass Fennec Shand, a Force-free hero more aspirational than any princes

Anakin Skywalker has turned to the dark side, emerging as the heartless Darth Vader. His wife, Padmé Amidala, is dead after giving birth to Luke and Leia Skywalker. Moreover, the Skywalker siblings are living life separately with their new families as their father oversees the construction of the Death Star alongside Chancellor Palpatine.

The foreboding message from the start of the trailer ultimately sets us up to meet the menacing Grand Inquisitor.

“The key to hunting Jedi is patience,” the sinister-sounding villain says. “Jedi cannot help what they are. Their compassion leaves a trail. The Jedi code is like an itch. They cannot help it.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Though the dialogue in the teaser is otherwise quite sparse, it’s clear that the show promises plenty of lightsaber action and intense battle sequences across the Star Wars galaxy. While we don’t get a clear glimpse of him in the trailer, it’s worth noting that Hayden Christensen returns to play a young Darth Vader.

Along with McGregor and Christensen, the series stars Joel Edgerton as Owen Lars, Luke Skywalker’s uncle; Bonnie Piesse as Beru Whitesun Lars, Luke Skywalker’s aunt; and Rupert Friend as the Grand Inquisitor. 

Kumail Nanjiani, O’Shea Jackson, Jr., Simone Kessell and Benny Safdie have also been cast in undisclosed roles.

“Obi-Wan Kenobi” premieres Wednesday, May 25 on Disney+. Watch the trailer for it below via YouTube.

More stories you might like:

Many injured in Ukraine maternity ward tragedy

At least seventeen people were injured today during what’s being reported as a Russian strike against a hospital complex in the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol. Part of the complex housed a children’s clinic and maternity ward, which is now completely demolished.

In a report on the attack by The New York Times they point out that it’s uncertain whether or not the hospital complex was fully operational during the time of the Russian strike, but several people were injured, and evacuation attempts were being made for those trapped inside the rubble.

Related: Ukraine civilian death toll higher than imagined

Because Mariupol is a port city, the area attacks have left citizens without basic needs like power, water and heat for days, according to The New York Times coverage. And this most recent civilian attack is just after Saturday’s “limited cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukraine news outlets, and citizens near the blast zone, took video of the tragic event, which you can see here:

“Planes attacked the maternity ward. That’s Russians for you,” a man filming video at the scene said in a quote used by The New York Times.

Witnesses at a local news outlet are saying that the strike came from Russian warplanes dropping bombs over the area, and that one of the bombs left a 10-foot crater between two of the hospital’s buildings. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


 Just hours before the strike, Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman gave a press conference in which she mentioned that Ukrainian fighters had moved patients from a maternity ward in Mariupol in order to establish combat zones. She was not specific in her press conference as to which maternity ward they were doing this in, but then this event happened so shortly after. 

Read more:

War protesters turn to bake sales, supper clubs and restaurant reviews to support Ukraine

Ukrainian chef and food writer Olia Hercules, Russian cookbook author Dr. Alissa Timoskina and Polish “storyteller cook” Zuza Zak launched Cook for Ukraine, a fundraiser to support the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24.

Participants are encouraged to cook and bake items for sale — specifically, in many cases, Ukrainian and Eastern European-inspired dishes — and donate the profits. On the collective’s fundraising page, a mission statement reads, “#CookForUkraine aims to increase awareness of the humanitarian crisis the world faces right now, as well as raise the funds needed to aid children and families in Ukraine who have been displaced by the current situation.”

The statement adds that hundreds of people from across the world — including home cooks, restaurant owners and top chefs — have joined the initiative. Together, they’re turning their love of food into a global movement.

RELATED: Surging prices and wheat shortages: How the invasion of Ukraine is impacting global food supplies

In addition to hosting bakes sales and supper clubs, participants have made the suggested recipes — including Ukrainian challah, solyanka, layered cabbage pie and green borscht — simply to share on social media and spread awareness of the campaign, which has raised almost $140,000. 

This isn’t the only food-based effort that has developed in support of Ukraine in recent weeks, which seems fitting for the country known as the “world’s breadbasket.” Ukraine, after all, is one of world’s largest grain producers. 

Washington-based chef Paola Velez has also launched #BakeforUkraine, an offshoot of her popular #BakersAgainstRacism fundraisers that kicked off in 2020. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter.


Bakers Against Racism started with a small pop-up called Doña Dona, which sold Latin-American-inspired doughnuts. The proceeds benefited undocumented workers in the nation’s capitol amid the pandemic. After the murder of George Floyd, chef Willa Pelini reached out to Velez about hosting a similar pop-up with the proceeds benefitting Black Lives Matter. 

Velez realized, though, they would need to do something bigger. 

“Using the resources she learned during Doña Dona, Velez typed up a mission statement and several detailed documents about how to bake at scale and raise funds, brought on Chef Rob Rubba as the creative mind behind the graphics and as a co-founder of the movement,” the Bakers for Racism homepage says. “She created a website, a hashtag and an Instagram.”

Home cooks and professional bakers from across the country sprung into action — and into their kitchens — and Bakers Against Racism has gone on to unofficially become the world’s largest bake sale, raising more than $2.5 million for social justice causes.

Now, the Bakers Against Racism community have mobilized once again. Their hashtag has been used more than 1,000 times on Instagram, flooding social media feeds with gorgeous images of blue and yellow cakes, sunflower-shaped cookies and traditional desserts like Ukrainian apple cakes and raspberry tarts. 

Supporters of Ukraine also took to the internet in a different way, briefly leveraging food reviews as a way to spread accurate information about the conflict in the country. As Mashable reported, on Feb. 28, Twitter user @Konrad03249040 tweeted, “Get involved: find a random shop/cafe/restaurant in Russia in big city on google maps and write in the review what’s really happening in Ukraine. Please spread the idea.” 

The Twitter user tagged an account that belongs to the “hacktivist” group Anonymous, who re-tweeted the message to its nearly 300,000 followers. The idea began to gain traction, especially after being shared to the r/Ukraine subreddit. Soon, posts urging Russian readers to seek out accurate information about the armed conflict began to appear on restaurant review sites, such as Google Reviews and Yelp.

One translated review that was shared on Twitter read, “The food was great! Unfortunately, Putin spoiled our appetites by invading Ukraine. Stand up to your dictator, stop killing innocent people! Your government is lying to you. Get up! google “Kyiv” and putler [sic] and share it with all people in Russia.”

Mashable posted an update to the story on March 2 after a Google spokesperson shared the following statement: “Due to a recent increase in contributed content on Google Maps related to the war in Ukraine, we’ve put additional protections in place to monitor and prevent content that violates our policies for Maps, including temporarily blocking new reviews, photos, and videos in the region.”

Read more about Ukraine: 

Panic over spike in energy prices reveals how unprepared Americans are for a gasless future

On Tuesday, President Biden announced a new ban on Russian energy imports, attempting to put more pressure on Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine. Though the US only imports about 8% of its energy from Russia, the aftermath of the ban is being felt already by consumers. Gasoline prices hit an all time high, reaching an average of $4.173 for a single gallon Tuesday. Prices continue to climb to new heights, reaching $4.252 today. Diesel followed suit with a record-breaking $4.883 per gallon. While the price rise of fossil fuels was already happening prior to the invasion of Ukraine — a result of long-simmering supply chain issues stemming from the pandemic — geopolitical tensions and Biden’s ban seem to have accelerated the trend.

Curiously, the spike in energy prices might briefly reduce carbon emissions in the United States. Indeed, analysts agree that a market-based solution to climate change, such as carbon taxes, would not look all that different than the current situation with energy prices. Such a strategy would artificially increase prices of fossil fuels to encourage the use of high-efficiency and electric vehicles. In other words, the current energy price spike mirrors a policy scenario that may come to pass regardless as one of the necessities of stopping climate change. Despite the current furor over gasoline prices, the Pew Research Center previously found that more than two-thirds of Americans support a carbon tax, although on corporations rather than consumers.

Yet consumer shock over shouldering the sudden burden of rising gas prices indicates just how unprepared the country is to transition away from fossil fuels without intervention. Non-renewables have not been able to grant energy independence since the early days of oil production. Renewables could, and rising gas prices might just be the catalyst we need to get there.

Some conservatives are eager to place blame on the Biden administration‘s fairly market-friendly climate policies, indicating that increasing drilling on public lands and resuming construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would provide a solution to high prices on oil. Yet energy expert Michael Klare said this “drill, baby, drill” mentality misses the mark.

“There’s no place on the planet where you can stick a drill in the earth and oil comes out tomorrow,” Klare told Rolling Stone. “That’s a delusion to think that. What we’re talking about is invading environmentally sensitive areas with costly technology and no guarantee you’ll get oil five years from now. By then the climate will be significantly threatening to our survival.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Moreover, the United States is neither more dependent on foreign oil under the Biden administration than it has been in recent history nor would a transition to renewables make it so — quite the opposite. 

“To prevent this from being a challenge in future crises, the best thing we can do is reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil because that will help us have a reliable source of energy so that we’re not worried about gas prices going up because of the whims of a foreign dictator,” commented White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki in a press conference.

Unlike member states of the European Union, which relies heavily on Russia for roughly 45% of all energy imports, as a net-exporting state for the first time since the mid-20th century, the United States has the ability to cut off Russian energy imports entirely.

“We’re moving forward on this ban, understanding that many of our European Allies and partners may not be in a position to join us,” President Biden remarked. “The United States produces far more oil domestically than all the European countries combined. In fact, we’re a net exporter of energy. So we can take this step when others cannot.”

Following suit, a plan in the EU, called REPowerEU, incorporates a transition in large part to renewables in order establish independence from Russian energy by 2030.

“It’s hard, bloody hard,” said EU Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans. “But it’s possible if we’re willing to go further and faster than we’ve done before.”

RELATED: How climate-monitoring satellites are exposing Russian military movements

While the US sanctions will immediately level a blow to the Russian economy, they are not designed to make a strong pivot on renewable energy, despite the opportunity.

“The United States is targeting the main artery of Russia’s economy,” President Biden announced. “We’re banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy. That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at U.S. ports, and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine. This is a move that has strong bipartisan support in the Congress and, I believe, in the country.”

Americans felt the shock at the pump well before the ban, and still an overwhelming 79% now support it, according to a poll from the Wall Street Journal. Average prices soared to more than $4 for a gallon across the US earlier this week, while crude oil nearly topped $120 per barrel. Anticipation prompted the surge, said Psaki, but that is a result of global markets, not a lack of domestic oil production. 

“We are one of the largest producers with a strong domestic oil and gas industry,” Psaki explained. “We have actually produced more oil; it is at record numbers. And we will continue to produce more oil. There are 9,000 approved drilling permits that are not being used. So the suggestion that we are not allowing companies to drill is inaccurate. The suggestion that that is what is hindering or preventing gas prices to come down is inaccurate.”

In 2020, Russian oil made up roughly 7% of all US oil imports. That number rose to just under 8% during President Biden’s first year in office. The last two years of Trump’s presidency saw slightly higher increases in the percentage of oil imports from Russia but marginally so.

In fact, production is higher now than when former President Donald Trump left office, while data from the US Energy Information Administration show imports relative to domestic oil consumption hit a 34-year-low of 42.81% last year.

Despite the false narrative right-wing media outlets continue to push about oil independence, US oil production has not decreased under the Biden administration nor has importation significantly increased as a result.

“To be very clear, federal policies are not limiting the supplies of oil and gas,” Psaki started in response to a question regarding increasing domestic drilling from Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy.

Interrupting her, Doocy suggested that an executive order from President Biden’s first week in office halting new oil and gas leases on public lands was to blame. 

“Let me give you the facts here — and I know that can be inconvenient, but I think they’re important in this moment,” Psaki quipped. “To the contrary, we have been clear that in the short term, supply must keep up with the demand here and around the world, while we make the shift to secure a clear — clean energy future.”

High prices alone might not be enough to alter consumer behavior permanently. Markedly reduced demand during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic led to an 11% decrease in domestic US oil consumption from 2019 to 2020, but there was not a permanent behavior change. Though oil consumption has since recovered, the willingness of the United States to cut off Russian oil and suffer the consequences lends a promising outlook on climate action, particularly as the new IPCC report demonstrates how impacts of climate change are becoming more apparent.

Read more on the situation in Ukraine: 

The missing ingredient in fighting climate change: positive fictional role models

It is often implied that all we need are technological solutions and more renewable energy to solve our environmental issues. But history teaches us that as technology progresses and we become more efficient, we simply consume more. This has associated environmental problems, such as plastic waste, water pollution and mining for finite resources.

To tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis effectively, we urgently need to address cultural values relating to consumption. An important aspect of this is the role models presented on our screens and in books.

Role models are often found among famous people, from Sir David Attenborough and his love of nature to UK Apprentice host Lord Sugar and his private jet. Yet fictional role models also influence cultural values in ways that are less overt but powerful nonetheless.

Research into the growing field of educational entertainment shows that when people are immersed in a story, they become more open to the persuasive messages embedded in them. This process is called narrative transportation. It also shows that fictional role models can have cultural impacts both good and bad.

Cognitive science research supports the importance of role models as they tap into how our brain processes information and learns. Exemplar theory suggests that role models affect values and behaviours in ways that may be less conscious but more impactful than telling people what to do. Currently, green characters tend to be portrayed as irritating, quirky or odd, just as we need to be normalising green behaviours as a way of life.

At the same time, many popular TV shows such as “And Just Like That,” “Riviera” and “Emily in Paris” exemplify role models whose lifestyles of gas-guzzling cars, private jets and fast fashion are destroying our beautiful planet.

The title character in “Emily in Paris” is American, quirky and fun. She works in luxury marketing and comes up with innovative ways to get people to buy the latest fad. She wears a different outfit every day, although who knows how she stores so many clothes in her tiny Paris apartment.

People, unsurprisingly, want to dress like her and live like her. But Emily’s is a fictional world.

In the real world, the fashion industry emits twice as many carbon emissions than aviation and shipping combined, pesticides in cotton and chemical in dyes and micro-plastics in clothes pollute vast amounts of water, and the fast-fashion trend towards increased clothing production and decreased garment usage lifetime continues unabated.

Emily could get her clothes from fashion swaps and vintage shops, and use her amazing marketing skills to highlight all the new apps and opportunities to rent, borrow, share or buy second hand. Yet the writers are choosing to show us the same old trope of girls shopping, staggering home swinging plastic-coated single-use bags carrying numerous items of clothing that will be worn once or twice. She could easily be written to care more about the earth without sacrificing the lovely Paris backdrop, sexy chefs and fun clothes.

Starting the conversation

Evidence is mounting that green role models can affect behavior. Following the Netflix film “Don’t Look Up,” 250,000 people pledged positive action via the movie’s website.

These are just pledges but preliminary results from our study on readers’ responses to my eco-themed rom-com novel, “Habitat Man,” indicate that embedding green solutions within a story aimed at a mainstream audience results in actual changes in behaviour while not compromising the storyline.

For example, in the garden of the story’s love interest, the main character Tim (aka Habitat Man) shares tips on wildlife gardening while readers watch the romance play out. The discovery of a body while digging a pond provides mystery and an opportunity to highlight the benefits of natural burials.

One participant explicitly said they had changed their will to specify a green funeral after reading the book. “Habitat Man” is highly rated by both green activists and mainstream readers, showing that stories can be both engaging in their own right and inspire sustainable behaviour change.

There are also initiatives, such as the Green Stories writing competitions, that encourage writers to develop more sustainable role models. The website suggests transformative sustainability solutions such as personal carbon allowances and sharing economies that writers can embed into their stories. This work is being extended into video, in association with Bafta’s Albert initiative, through a competition to create five minute videos that highlight the impact of fictional role-models and calls out those writers and characters that implicitly promote excessive consumption as an aspiration.

I suspect that in 10 years when climate change and mounting waste is impossible to ignore, we’ll find the mindless consumption in shows like “Emily in Paris” jarring. But we don’t have 10 years. So let’s call them out now and encourage writers and producers to develop more planet-friendly characters for us to emulate and enjoy.

How to cope with war anxiety

Just as the crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic started to slow down, another one surfaced in the news of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s violent invasion of Ukraine.

Since the attack started on February 24, 2022,  the world has been gripped with the specter of war, especially after Putin nodded to his country’s nuclear capabilities. On top of millions of Ukrainians losing their homes, loved ones and lives, the invasion arrives at a time as the world winds down from a two-year roller coaster ride of the pandemic, where there is still much unprocessed grief and loss.

While the instinct to want to constantly keep abreast of everything happening is natural, “doomscrolling” —  meaning the habit of reading negative news stories and social media posts ad infinitum — can trigger and/or worsen depression, panic, stress and anxiety. Mental health experts tell Salon the instinct to keep tabs on what’s happening is instinctive, but not always great for one’s mental health.

“When news is heavy and world events are scary, one of our first instincts is to become hypervigilant and watch everything as closely as we can, reading and watching as much as we can,” said California-based therapist Nick Bognar. “It’s generally not a healthy instinct,” Bognar noted, explaining that this behavior can create an illusion of control. In other words, the brain believes that as long as we are watching this new news closely, there won’t be any surprises.

Of course that’s not true at all: just about everything that is happening is out of our control — which is what scares us and makes us feel unsafe.

“In situations like the war in Ukraine, each of us has much less agency than we do in our personal lives,” Bognar said. “Therefore, I recommend that people who want to stay up on the news ration it carefully and make sure that they don’t over-consume.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


Bognar said one way to combat this is to give yourself a time limit — say, an hour — before quitting and then finding more productive ways to spend one’s time.

“Within that time period, you should be able to get most everything you need,” Bognar said. “Beyond that, I recommend that people focus their energies and efforts to places where they can make a difference.”

Even before the Russia-Ukraine war, helping others is known to be a good salve for anxiety and depression, and comes with its own host of health benefits.

“People who are fighting and suffering in this war need help and assistance, and volunteering for or donating to a charity that aids those people is a very worthy use of one’s time, and can be done without having to watch several hours of scary television,” Bognar said.

Psychologist Dr. Carla Manly, author of “Joy from Fear,” agreed.

“When sad, angry, or unsettled feelings arise due to the Ukraine-Russia war, one of the most positive things you can do is to take action to support those in need,” Manly said. “Whether you donate funds or find a creative way to support those in need, your worries and fears will transform into hope when you offer support in meaningful ways.”

RELATED: Pediatricians say children’s mental health crisis is “a national emergency”

Manly tells Salon that what’s happening in Ukraine can be especially distressing as a reminder of the fragile state of the world. Indeed, when countries are at war with each other — even if it’s not the country we live in — the very reality of war can stimulate “a strong fear that war could come to our own country.”

“The Ukraine-Russia war also makes us realize that we are unable to control much of what happens in the world; this leads to feelings of helplessness, anxiety, and depression,” Manly said. “Although news of the Ukraine-Russia war is upsetting for all of us, those who are prone to anxiety (whether as a result of PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, or other mental health issue), tend to be far more sensitive to negative news and other challenging stimuli.”

Doomscrolling, Manly said, can trigger a flight or fight response in people who tend to be more stressed and anxious.

“When the nervous system is activated in this way, additional complications can arise including sleep difficulties, panic attacks, irritability, and lack of focus,” Manly said. “Our interpersonal relationships can also be negatively affected due to increased stress and anxiety.”

Manly also advised to restrict one’s doomscrolling.

“Although it’s important to stay abreast of the news, it’s just as important to set healthy boundaries with news and social media consumption,” Manly said. “As a part of healthy self-care, it’s especially critical to avoid the urge to become immersed in overly dramatic news or doomscrolling.”

Dr. Sanam Hafeez, a New York City-based neuropsychologist and director of Comprehend the Mind, told Salon it’s important to stay out of “what-if” mode—which can lead to catastrophic thinking, and to try to avoid “doomsday” conversations with “doomsday friends.”

“You don’t need their anxiety and fear to rub off on you,” Hafeez said. “If need be, stay busier than usual. Worry and anxiety feed on inactivity.”

Hafeez added: “Everyone is still reeling from the COVID-19 pandemic, and this is another massive event to take in; if you feel you can’t cope alone, seek the help of a licensed mental health counselor.”

Read more on the situation in Ukraine: 

Fox vs. Fox: Reporter refutes Greg Gutfeld’s claim over “emotional response” to Ukraine

Fox News reporter Benjamin Hall on Tuesday rejected his colleague Greg Gutfeld’s argument that the media’s coverage of the crisis in Ukraine is trying to elicit an “emotional response” from the public.

Gutfeld, one of the hosts of “The Five,” complained about the “prevailing narrative” about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has already led to thousands of deaths and the fastest-growing refugee crisis since World War II.

“I can feel the galvanizing force of these stories that kind of have sped up and are accumulating to create a narrative,” Gutfeld said. “However, I can’t help but feel that this is a lot like other stories that we’ve gone through in the digital age in which an image is taken and then played over and over and over again to create some kind of emotional response out of you, because that makes a profit for news companies.”

After a commercial break, Hall, reporting from Kyiv, took exception to Gutfeld’s comments.

“Speaking as someone on the ground, I want to say that this is not the media trying to drum up some emotional response,” he said. “This is absolutely what’s happening.”

Hall pointed out that major cities like Kharkiv and Mariupol “are being absolutely flattened” by Russia’s attacks.

“It is an absolute catastrophe and the people caught in the middle are the ones who are really suffering,” he said.

Images from Kharkiv, the second-largest city in the country with a population of 1.4 million people, show residential areas decimated by missile strikes. In Mariupol, a city of more than 400,000 people, residents have been left without water or electricity and attempts to evacuate civilians have been repeatedly halted after Russian attacks on evacuation routes, according to Ukrainian officials.

RELATED: Ukraine civilian death toll higher than imagined

“In the city of Mariupol, people are drinking from puddles because the Russian forces haven’t allowed them to get out. When they have tried to get out, they’re shelled,” Hall said before playing a video showing desperate residents trying to flee bombarded cities.

“There is more video than we know what to do with,” Hall added. “We will continue to cover it for you here on the ground, but it is only set to be worse.”

Gutfeld after the segment accused Hall of taking a “cheap” shot at him.

“Should I address Benjamin Hall’s cheap attack on me, or be a good co-worker and let it slide?” Gutfeld asked his co-hosts. “I will be the better man here. As I said before, when this started, we want the quickest end possible. My concern has always been, when a narrative creates a story that bolsters one side, that is out of its element, will you create more suffering? That is the simple point I’m making, is that could this have been prevented if there was a reality-based decision made and not the David and Goliath narrative that could prolong this and lead to more suffering and more humanitarian crisis.”

Hall isn’t the only Fox News reporter to push back on Gutfeld and the network’s coverage of the invasion. Longtime national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin, who largely reports from the Pentagon, has shot down several assertions made by hosts and guests since the invasion began.

Ahead of the invasion, Gutfeld claimed that the Biden administration had “manufactured” the Ukraine crisis.

“First of all, I need to level-set with the conversation I’ve just been listening to,” Griffin pushed back. “What we are witnessing right now is not something that just changed in the last 24 hours. … This is something we’ve been watching [for at least two weeks].”

After Gutfeld again asserted that the administration was overhyping the thread, Griffin shot back that this was not some “wag the dog action.”

“Right now, every American should be watching this and knowing that this is deadly serious,” she said.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Last month, host Harris Faulkner questioned why the Biden administration did not do more to prevent the invasion, noting that generals she has spoken to said “sanctions weren’t going to work because they were baked into the cake as assets were put into place.”

“Well, Harris let me, I need to follow up on that because what you are talking about, if it’s more than sanctions, you are talking about sending U.S. troops to Ukraine,” Griffin replied, adding that if NATO troops were sent to the region ahead of the invasion it would have given Russian President Vladimir Putin “a pretext to go into Ukraine.”

In a later segment, Griffin took issue with host Sean Hannity’s argument partly blaming Biden for the invasion.

“Sean, how we got to this point is a long story and it predates the Biden administration,” Griffin said. “It goes back and includes mistakes made by every U.S. president since the Soviet Union fell apart.”

Griffin has also called out the network’s guests, including retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc, a Republican New Hampshire Senate candidate who has spread conspiracy theories that the 2020 election was rigged. Bolduc told host Steve Hilton that the U.S. should increase its military presence in Ukraine.

Griffin appeared on a later segment and took issue with Bolduc’s remarks.

“I have to respond to something your previous guest, Brig. Gen. Bolduc, said, because he really was way off the mark in terms of talking about what the U.S. could do on the ground,” she said, explaining that the U.S. doesn’t have troops in Ukraine over concerns that it would trigger a nuclear war with Russia.

“Clearly, Brig. Gen. Bolduc is not a student of history. He’s a politician, he ran for Senate in New Hampshire and failed,” Griffin continued. “He’s not a military strategist, and to suggest that the U.S. would put indirect fire or special operations or CIA on the ground to give Putin any sort of excuse to broaden this conflict is extremely dangerous talk at a time like this.”

Griffin also took issue with comments made by retired Col. Douglas MacGregor, a former Trump adviser, who defended Putin and suggested that the U.S. should stop sanctioning Russia and providing aid to Ukraine.

“I feel like I need to correct some of the things that Col. Douglas MacGregor said, and I’m not sure that 10 minutes is enough time to do so because there were so many distortions in what he just said,” Griffin said in the following segment, accusing MacGregor of sounding like a Putin “apologist.”

“The kind of appeasement talk that Col. MacGregor, who should know better — when he was in government, he was the one who was advising Trump to pull all troops out of Germany,” she said. “That projection of weakness is what made Putin think he could move into a sovereign country like Ukraine.”

Griffin’s fact-checking hasn’t sat well with some of her colleagues. Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who repeatedly defended Putin before the invasion, and since then has acknowledged he was wrong but still blames the Biden administration for the war, last week appeared to dismiss Griffin as a “so-called” reporter who is “acting secretly as a flack for Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon.”

Griffin discussed the attention her pushback has gotten in an interview with fellow Fox News host Howard Kurtz last week.

“I cover the news. I’ve been part of the news division since those beginning days,” she said. “I’m here to fact-check facts, because I report on facts. And my job is to try and figure out the truth as best as I know it. I share those facts internally so that our network can be more accurate. That’s what I’ve always done.”

Read more:

Texas students push back on book bans

For high school senior Gabrielle Izu, Texas’ public school book bans feel personal.

The books Texas is targeting — mainly novels that focus on discussions of race, sexual orientation and gender identity — tell the tale of Izu’s past and future. The 17-year-old high school student is Asian American, Black and Hispanic and bisexual, and she hates to see her identities or her peers’ censored.

“I ignored [my sexuality] for a really long time. And I think that as a young girl, if a book showed me that this is a life that could be lived, I could have had a lot more peace and coming to terms with bisexuality,” said Izu, who attends James E. Taylor High School in the Katy Independent School District near Houston.

Here and there, Texas students are forming their own book clubs to read what adults want banned. Books like Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Ashley Hope Perez’s “Out of Darkness” and Carmen Maria Machado’s “In the Dream House.” Books that, until last fall, were easy to find and access.

In Katy ISD, students have distributed hundreds of novels challenged by adults in Texas. They’re getting the books free of charge from a political advocacy organization and publishers. And Leander ISD near Austin, students are coming together in a banned-book club to discuss those books. Some students are starting to attend school board meetings to fight for the freedom to choose what to read.

More than a hundred Katy ISD students of a variety of ages, races and gender identities met after school to discuss the bans and pick up contested novels. Among the books they’re reading is Kalynn Bayron’s “Cinderella is Dead,” a novel that follows a queer, Black teenager’s coming-of-age story. Izu, who saw herself reflected in the book, said her heart broke when Texas schools targeted it for a ban.

“It felt like my identity was seen as dangerous because of the banning of a story like that. What about my story? Am I seen as a bad influence?” Izu said. “Am I seen as something that should be shamed?”

Texas parents and politicians say they are protecting students with book bans. Many students, including Cameron Samuels, a senior at Seven Lakes High School in Katy ISD, aren’t buying it.

“It’s clear that these books address issues of race and LGBTQ identities, and that is the exact reason that certain people are seeking to remove these books from libraries and prohibit students from accessing them,” said Samuels, who helped with distribution efforts. “And these policies have dire consequences for us because they keep us struggling with our queer identities.”

Katy ISD students showed strong support at the events, Samuels said. But not all parents are happy, and some have even tried to enter the school to disturb student discussions on Texas’ book bans, they said.

“As far as I have seen, parents have been the center focus of the movement to ban books and remove them from libraries, where students have been at the forefront of advocating for having access to these books,” Samuels said.

Books on race are also targeted, especially after Texas lawmakers passed a social studies law to target what they referred to as critical race theory, though the law does not specifically mention it. Critical race theory is a university-level discipline that considers how racism is embedded in policies and systems. The new law states that a teacher “may not be compelled to discuss a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs” in public schools. While this law primarily applies to social studies curriculum, some are also trying to apply it to any book found in a school library.

Katy ISD removed, temporarily, Jerry Craft’s “New Kid,” which explores how more subtle or indirect discrimination impacts Black students in a mostly white school. The school district took the action after a parents claimed the book presented harmful content about critical race theory.

The district returned “New Kid” to shelves last semester, but Samuels said only students in fifth grade and up are permitted to check it out.

Samuels, who is nonbinary, said the novel comforted them, as they have often felt isolated as one of the few students at their school who use they/them pronouns.

“I have often felt alone and have experienced microaggressions,” Samuels said. “There’s no reason that addressing these issues should be something that students are prevented from doing or prohibited from learning about.”

Katy ISD does not allow students to distribute books the district banned. Samuels said it feels condescending that those in power decide what students can and cannot read.

“As students, we must take ownership of our education and not let others decide for us which resources we can access and which topics we can learn about,” they said.

At a recent Katy ISD school board meeting, students packed the room to call for the district to return books to libraries. Samuels and other students plan to continue to protest book bans at a Capitol rally on March 12.

“This is censorship. This is bad,” Izu said. “This is condemning things that shouldn’t be condemned.”

Book bans exploded across the state and country during this school year. In October, state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, called on schools to disclose whether any of about 850 book titles were in their libraries. He said books “that might make students feel discomfort” should also be identified.

Weeks later, Gov. Greg Abbott asked the Texas Education Agency to investigate the availability of “pornographic” books at school libraries.

Maghan Sadeghi, a James E. Taylor High School senior who is working with book distribution efforts, said Abbott’s statement sounds “like a bunch of ignorance.” She notes that her AP literature class requires many readings that reference sex. In “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” it is suggested on several occasions that staff rape patients. In “Hamlet,” sex before marriage is compared to a worm invading a flower before it blooms.

“They’re OK with heterosexual scenes, heterosexual ideas. But the second something turns slightly, slightly queer, slightly homosexual, it discomforts them. It’s the same thing with [people of color] viewpoints,” Sadeghi said. “​​Why do we have to remove books about Black people and Asian Americans simply for the sake of white people’s comfort?”

In Leander ISD, students gather together every two weeks to answer a similar question: Should this book be banned?

Vandegrift High School sophomores Ella Scott and Alyssa Hoy created the school’s banned-book club after looking at the list of books their district aimed to ban last year. The district would remove some of their favorite books from classroom libraries, and as a result, the students began having discussions about decisions they felt the district made without them.

“I loved ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,'” Scott said, referring to Atwood’s novel about a totalitarian society that forces fertile women to be raped so they can carry to term the offspring of elite couples. It’s now one of the restricted books in her school. “I love that book. Forever. It’s one of my favorites. Seeing it on the list was definitely disorienting.”

Leander ISD has so far removed the physical copies of 11 book titles from classroom libraries, but nine of those still reside in the school’s main and digital libraries, according to Matt Mitchell, Leander ISD’s communications coordinator.

During study hall, dozens of students from all grades meet to discuss one of the banned books’ plot and purpose, as well as who should have access to its storylines. So far, they generally agree the banned books furthered their education and should be freely accessible in the classroom.

Often, the students discuss how each book introduces to them new perspectives or even historical events.

Pérez’s now-banned novel “Out of Darkness” follows a love affair between Naomi, a Mexican American high school senior, and Wash, a Black teenager, in the days before the 1937 gas explosion at the New London school, still one of the worst national disasters in history. Many book club students were unaware of this tragic event in the East Texas town of New London.

“These are very powerful stories,” Hoy said. “Most of the time, those tough decisions and tough scenes are reasons why they are so powerful and so meaningful to so many people.”

Last semester, the club had members purchase their books. Recently, the club set up an Amazon wish list to fund book purchases. In 24 hours, donated funds paid for the group’s books. Hoy said the community has supported the club through the semester.

“Eventually, we hope our club won’t be necessary,” Scott said. “We just hope that our voices and our opinions will be considered.”

Idaho Republicans push bill that would fine and jail librarians for certain books

The Idaho House of Representative approved a bill on Monday that could fine and jail the staff of school libraries, universities, and museums if they provide “harmful” material to children, a development critics say is designed to prevent kids from having access to books about the LGBTQ+ experience. 

The measure, House Bill 666, would subject employees of schools, museums and libraries to a maximum fine of $1,000 as well as up to a year in jail. 

While the bill moved through the chamber along a 51-14 vote, its passage was met with impassioned debate on both sides of the aisle, with Republicans decrying the effects of what they deemed to be “pornography” on young children. 

RELATED: Book banning fever heats up in red states

“For many years, I as a parent have been concerned about the obscene and pornographic materials that find their way into our schools and public libraries,” state Rep. Gayann DeMordaunt, the bill’s sponsor, said in an hour-long debate. “We are simply asking that those that are responsible for the materials in our libraries or in museums or the other places that are listed in this code, are handled sensitively and responsibly.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Meanwhile, Rep. Steve Berch, a Democrat, condemned the bill, saying, “The America that I grew up in, and I was born, and … that I love does not write bills and create laws that throw librarians in jail.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel expressed concerns over whether librarians would be able to discern what material qualifies as “objectionable.”

“How in the world is any librarian facing potential criminal sanctions going to know,” Rubel asked her colleagues. “It is very unfair to our librarians and educators to ask them to operate in a world where they have no idea what is legal and what is not and what will send them to jail and what will not.”

According to Idaho News, the bill leaves considerable ambiguity around just what constitutes “harmful” materials. 

Idaho state law prohibits adults from distributing any material depicting human “nudity”, “sexual conduct”, “sexual excitement”, “sado-masochistic abuse”, and “masturbation” to minors. However, state law does not apply to “any matter which, when considered as a whole, and in context in which it is used, possesses serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors, according to prevailing standards in the adult community, with respect to what is suitable for minors.”

The bill comes amid a much broader Republican-led push to purge certain kinds of books – typically those written by minority authors – from school shelves. 

RELATED: What’s behind the right-wing book-ban frenzy? Big money, and a long-term plan

Back in October, a Texas Republicans introduced a bill that would force school districts to disclose how many copies they held of 850 books that “might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex.” 

In Oklahoma, state legislators are likewise mulling a bill that would remove “controversial” books from school shelves, particularly when it comes to “the study of sex, sexual lifestyles, or sexual activity.” The measure would allow aggrieved parents to collect legal penalties of $10,000 a day from school districts that fail to comply with their removal requests.

Trans teen hosted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for dinner. Now his parents face investigation

In 2016, when Texas tried to stop transgender students from using the bathroom of their choice, there were protests, press conferences and a whole lot of anger directed toward the state’s elected officials.

But one mom tried something different — she invited Attorney General Ken Paxton to have dinner at her house with her 8-year-old transgender son. Amber Briggle told The 19th recently that Paxton and her son washed up together in the bathroom before dinner.

“He turns around and looks and says, ‘This is nice. It’s been a while since I had kids this age,'” Briggle told The 19th.

More than five years later, Paxton has helped set in motion a targeting of families with trans kids unlike anything experts or lawyers say they’ve ever seen — and the Briggles are now caught in the crosshairs.

According to their attorney, they are one of several families who are being investigated for child abuse for providing gender-affirming medical care to their children.

“Raising a transgender child in Texas has been one long political emergency,” they said in a statement provided by their lawyer. “It always seemed like this day would come. Now it has arrived.”

In late February, Paxton issued a nonbinding legal opinion that equated certain gender-affirming medical treatment with child abuse. Gov. Greg Abbott then issued a letter directing the state’s child welfare agency to investigate “any reported instances of these abusive procedures.”

While most gender-affirming care focuses on “social transition” — allowing a child to express their gender how they’d like — some transgender children take puberty blockers, a completely reversible medical treatment that’s prescribed for a wide range of situations beyond transition. Paxton and Abbott also cited concerns over gender-affirming surgeries that are rarely, if ever, used on children.

Since Abbott’s letter, The Texas Tribune has been able to confirm that Child Protective Services has opened investigations into at least five families — and the real number may be much higher. A spokesperson for the agency said they could not confirm the number of active investigations due to pending litigation.

The Briggle family said in their statement that a CPS caseworker interviewed them and their children and inspected their house.

“We showed her all the food in our cabinets, the kids’ artwork on the walls, the toys, books, and games in the family room … The gardens and trampoline in the backyard. The beds piled with blankets and stuffed animals,” they said in the statement. “It was impossible for her not to feel the love in our home.”

The investigator told them they were “clearly doing something right,” according to the statement. But the investigation remains open.

“We are the family you would want to place a foster child with, not the family whose children should become foster kids themselves,” they said. “And yet, the government is attempting to rip our family apart because we love our children unconditionally. Is this who we are, America?”

A lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Lambda Legal has managed to block one of these investigations from proceeding with a temporary restraining order. A judge is set to consider a statewide injunction on Friday, though that hearing is stayed at the moment while Paxton appeals the restraining order.

The Briggle family, in their statement, called on people in Texas and around the country to push back against these policies.

“We need you to not normalize this state terrorism through your silence. Don’t just wring your hands. We need you to draw a line right here,” they wrote. “It is not acceptable that some Americans have to flee their homes to secure their civil rights. Stop telling us to move. Help us.”

The DOJ is aggressively prosecuting Capitol insurrectionists — and dismantling GOP lies about Jan. 6

The rioters Donald Trump sicced on the Capitol were still tearing the place apart on January 6, 2021, when the folks at Fox News began their effort to minimize the seriousness of the insurrection. Behind the scenes, hosts like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity were frantically texting the White House, begging Trump to call his people back, but on-air, they were vigorously defending the insurrectionists.

“It’s not like it’s a siege,” Fox host Bret Baier said while thousands of Trump supporters literally overran cops, broke windows, and chased terrified members of Congress through the hallways. Various Fox News personalities would go on to claim that Trump’s supporters were only there to “peacefully protest” and pinned the blame for the violence on “antifa” infiltrators.

In the months after the insurrection, the Republican deflection and minimization only escalated.

Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia claimed it was “a normal tourist visit.” Tucker Carlson of Fox News insisted, “It was not an insurrection.” Ingraham argued, “one of the big lies that this was a coordinated insurrection.” Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo called it a “peaceful protest.” Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said it “didn’t seem like an armed insurrection.” When Capitol law enforcement and Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York spoke of the violence they witnessed and fear they felt that day, Fox News pundits accused them of lying. When faced with images of rioters assaulting police and trying to attack members of Congress, the pivot was to blame the left, usually by claiming the violence was committed by “antifa” or to accuse the FBI of orchestrating it as a false flag.  

To say these lies are relentless is to understate the case. The lies were also effective, as the majority of Republicans now endorse false claims that the insurrection was either “peaceful” or “antifa” and sometimes, contradicting themselves, they claim both at once. 

RELATED: Mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s trauma is really about covering for Trump’s violent coup

But this week illustrated how the Department of Justice has been, through increasingly aggressive prosecution of the insurrectionists and their co-conspirators, building up a formidable wall of evidence to disprove all of the GOP lies about January 6.

On Tuesday, the DOJ had two major victories in the war to tell the truth about what happened after Trump sent thousands of his goons to storm the Capitol. First, Guy Reffitt, a Texas “militia” member who was turned in by his own son, was found guilty on all five felony charges he faced for his part in the insurrection. This was the first jury trial for an insurrectionist, and a good sign that future such prosecutions won’t go well for the rioters. Then the DOJ revealed that it had formally charged Enrique Tarrio, the then-leader of the neo-fascist Proud Boys, for conspiracy for his role in trying to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election. 

It’s always exciting to see people who tried to overthrow democracy face punishment, but these court proceedings are consequential outside of the feelings of satisfaction they provide.


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


Both the conviction and the new charges contribute heavily to the public record that demonstrates, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Republicans are lying when they minimize the events of January 6. It was, contrary to what Trump apologists would have you believe, a violent, armed, and organized insurrection. And yes, it was Trump supporters who did it — not “antifa” or the FBI. 

Unlike the various rioters who pled down to trespassing and other minor charges, Reffitt was convicted of some very serious crimes: two weapons charges related to the gun he brought to the Capitol, a charge of obstructing an official proceeding, and obstruction of justice, along with the trespassing charge. Similarly, Tarrio’s indictment on conspiracy charges is not a small matter. Tarrio wasn’t even at the Capitol that day, as he was busy dealing with charges due to other crimes he committed in the run-up to the insurrection. But he was the ringleader of the part the Proud Boys played in the riot, and for that, he’s being hit with conspiracy charges. This follows a similar indictment of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, who was charged in January with seditious conspiracy. Like Tarrio, Rhodes stayed out of the actual Capitol building that day, but there’s a mountain of evidence that he was coordinating his followers that did participate in the attack. 

RELATED: Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes charged with seditious conspiracy for Jan. 6 role

Taken together, all this evidence paints a very clear picture of the insurrection as an organized conspiracy, one that was orchestrated by people who were eager and ready to use violence to steal the election for Trump. The only reason it wasn’t worse is because there were enough Capitol police who were brave and competent and were able to get members of Congress to safety before the rioters could get to them. Indeed, the video footage of a Capitol officer shooting insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt is a chilling reminder of how close the rioters got to actually hurting or killing elected representatives and their staff. If he hadn’t shot her and scared the crowd into backing off, they absolutely would have run down the fleeing congressional members. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


Crucially, as the Washington Post reported last week, Trump’s close friend and longtime unofficial aide Roger Stone was in frequent touch with both Rhodes and Tarrio in the lead-up to the insurrection. Stone erased some of these communications before the FBI got a hold of his phone, as well. That suggests that those charged with conspiracy are only one layer, in the grotesque Trump pyramid of lackeys, away from Trump himself. 

How much will that matter in the end? So far, there’s been very little evidence that Attorney General Merrick Garland is interested in prosecuting Trump for inciting the insurrection, much less for any potential role Trump had in organizing it. It’s reached the point where members of the House committee to investigate January 6 routinely go on cable news and practically beg Garland to go after Trump. If Garland really is refusing to prosecute Trump for fear that it will look “political,” then he must reconsider.

It’s not just a matter of protecting democracy from the next Trump coup. It’s also a matter of professional pride. If Trump is able to successfully steal the White House in 2024, which he is openly plotting to do, all of these carefully pieced together cases against the January 6 conspiracists will go up in smoke, as Trump hands out pardons like candy. To show respect for all the hard work DOJ employees put into putting these people in prison, Garland needs to make sure that they stay there. 

RELATED: “If I do this, what do I have to lose?”: New documents show Trump feared no consequences for a coup

That said, it is helpful to have a public record built up that definitively shows that the GOP and Fox News claims to minimize January 6 are all lies. It won’t convince the diehard Trump supporters, of course. They’re so well-practiced at endorsing lies that there’s no such thing as evidence definitive enough to get them to back down. But polling and focus group data show there’s a massive mushy middle of Americans who don’t approve of January 6, but also have been impacted by right-wing propaganda so they don’t understand how coordinated, purposeful, and violent the insurrection actually was. If and when the January 6 committee gets around to holding public hearings about the insurrection, we can expect a massive blitz of the same lies that both Republicans and right-wing media have been telling for months. These court documents offer a useful counterbalance and will help shame the mainstream media into not running with “both sides say, who can tell?” style coverage of the claims being made. 

Still, if the DOJ wants these charges to stick, they would be wise to prosecute Trump. Otherwise, he has a very good chance of installing himself as president and issuing the mass pardons he has already promised. If only to save their own work product, the DOJ needs to seriously consider charging Trump for some of his many, many crimes. A public record is nice. Actual consequences for trying to overthrow democracy are better. 

Florida students are staging walkouts and getting suspended for handing out pride flags in protest

Jack Petocz was suspended from Flagler Palm Coast High School after organizing a walk-out of more than 500 students to protest the “Don’t Say Gay” bill on Thursday. The 17-year-old Florida student passed out pride flags and led chants of “Say gay!” through a black megaphone while school administrators told him and other students they needed to return to class. Less than one week later, Florida Republicans passed a bill intended to stifle the free speech of LGBTQ people on public school campuses and their allies. 

Student protests have taken place across Florida in the last week in response to the controversial House Bill 1557 or The Parental Rights in Education bill, dubbed by critics as the “Don’t Say Gay,” which would restrict “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” in Florida classrooms. The bill was passed in the Florida House last month in a 69-47 vote and was approved 22-17 by the GOP-led Florida Senate on Tuesday. The legislation will be effective July 1 as Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, is expected to sign the bill. He has openly defended the bill, saying in a press conference that it’s about giving students “no sexual instruction.” The Biden administration, on the other hand, has called the bill anti-LGBTQ.

The legislation would restrict lessons on gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade. The bill would also provide parents with legal backing to sue teachers and school that educate students in these areas. 

The “Don’t Say Gay” has garnered a fierce backlash by students and LGBTQI+ advocates for the harm it will do to youth in restricting representation in classrooms. Erasing the LGBTQI+ community from educational settings has been regarded as exclusive and repressive, setting the precedent that students should suppress their gender identity. 

“Instead of coming up with these vague bills, why are we not supporting the most inclusive, tolerant education and, and society that we can?” said Democratic state Senator Tina Polsky in a debate over the bill

Petocz suspension is specifically based on the teen’s distribution of 200 pride flags which he purchased on his own and brought to the rally. Students with flags and pride merchandise were reportedly confronted during the rally by school administrators who were attempting to confiscate the items. 

“Following the protest, I was called into the principal’s office, told I was disrespectful and openly advocating against staff,” Petocz told The News – Journal. “They suspended me from campus until further notice. I informed the principal I wasn’t going to speak with him and was going to talk to a lawyer.”

Petocz suspension is currently “pending an investigation” and the teen has been advised not to do interviews based on potential legal action. He told news outlet WESH 2 that he won’t be silenced and “is proud of what took place despite the personal cost.

Following the passing of the bill in the senate he tweeted, “The “Don’t Say Gay” bill has passed the Senate. Gen-Z is angry, disappointed and tired of politicians policing our education and erasing our identities. Make no mistake, we will fight back and our voices will be heard in November. #RemoveRon” 

Bill Barr’s pride gets in the way: Trump’s top lackey just blew up his own redemption tour

At the end of 2020 I thought I had written my last piece about former attorney general William Barr. I had followed his two-year tenure very closely and wrote about it often, always dismayed by what was obviously a very arrogant man who was suffering from a terminal case of Fox News Brain Rot. He would have been more to be pitied than censured if it weren’t for the fact that he was running interference for the most powerful man in the country. Now Barr has published the obligatory tell-all about his time in the Trump administration, called “One Damn Thing After Another,” and I am compelled to write about him one more time.

Barr’s overweening egotism, so flamboyantly displayed in his new book and accompanying promotional appearances, is second only to Donald Trump himself. He has said repeatedly on his book tour that he doesn’t care what people think of him and I believe him. After all, when you think as highly of yourself as he does, approbation from others is totally unnecessary.

His book discusses his happy life growing up in New York City in a conservative family and attending Columbia University before briefly joining the CIA while in law school at night. He eventually joined the Department of Justice and was named George H. W Bush’s Attorney General at the young age of 41. He is mostly remembered in that assignment for pushing the president to pardon the parties involved in the Iran Contra scandal — which Bush did on Christmas Eve 1992, eerily foreshadowing what was to come 30 years later.

He spent the next couple of decades cashing in handsomely, as so many do, and obviously spent a lot of time immersed in right-wing media which nurtured his cultural grievances. By the time Donald Trump became president, Barr was spouting off about Hillary Clinton and “Uranium One” and writing letters to the White House expressing his dismay that the Democrats and the Deep State were in cahoots to destroy the president with the Russiagate investigation. Of course, Barr is too sophisticated to let the cat out of the bag by publicly using those catchphrases but it’s clear nonetheless that he is a true believer of the Lou Dobbs/Sean Hannity variety.

In his book, Barr rails against everything and everyone to the left of Ted Cruz, writing that Barack Obama is a “left-wing agitator [who] throttled the economy, degraded the culture and frittered away U.S. strength and credibility in foreign affairs” and claims that Critical Race Theory is “at bottom, essentially the materialist philosophy of Marxism, substituting racial antagonism for class antagonism.” He carries on about left-wing “Maoism” and “militant secularism” declaring that there is a “mounting effort to affirmatively indoctrinate children with the secular progressive belief system — a new official secular ideology.” He knows who the enemy is, righteously proclaiming that he is “under no illusion about who is responsible for dividing the country, embittering our politics and weakening and demoralizing our nation — it is the progressive left and their increasingly totalitarian ideals.”

You might wonder why a man with such staunch views about morality and secularism would eagerly seek out a libertine TV star with five kids by three different wives but to Bill Barr, the country was careening toward a constitutional crisis by trying to restrain President Trump from doing anything he damn well pleased. Barr, you see, believes in the near infallibility of the executive branch and Trump believes in the infallibility of Trump so it made a lot of sense for them to join forces.

Barr goes to incredible lengths to excuse Trump’s crude and ignorant behavior as president portraying him as a sort of unruly teenager whose “madcap rhetoric” and “imprecise comments” would get him into scrapes. Sure, he has an “imprecise and discursive speaking style” which includes “flights of gross hyperbole” but he’s really an entertainer and everyone knew his words weren’t meant to be taken literally. (He even approvingly quotes that fatuous Salena Zito quote that “the press takes him literally but not seriously and the people take him seriously but not literally” in the same breath.) This is bizarre coming from the man who takes himself and his politics as seriously as an undertaker.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Barr adamantly denies that he served more as Trump’s personal lawyer than as the independent Attorney General but gives the game away when he repeats something he told Trump during the famous meeting in which he said all the vote fraud claims were “bullshit.” He writes that he told Trump, “‘No, Mr. President, I don’t hate you,’ I said. ‘You know I sacrificed a lot personally to come in to help you when I thought you were being wronged.'”

RELATED: Bill Barr admits Trump attempted to strong arm Ukrainians into investigating Joe Biden

Of course, it was obvious from the beginning that he saw his mission to protect Trump from the alleged depredations of the “swamp” that was out to get him. His mischaracterization of the Mueller report and eagerness to launch Trump’s “investigate the investigators” vendetta. He overruled the Justice Department prosecutors to recommend a lighter sentence and dropped the charges against Trump’s loony former National Security adviser Michael Flynn even after he had pleaded guilty. He claims that he was simply ensuring that the department was meting out equal justice but strangely, those were the only two people he found in the whole country who deserved that intervention.

Barr claims that Trump did a terrific job as president, “pursuing sound, conservative policies” up until the election at which point he seems to have abruptly turned into some kind of unrecognizable Mr. Hyde, who “cared only about one thing: himself. Country and principle took second place.” Barr goes on to write that “after the election he was beyond restraint. He would only listen to a few sycophants who told him what he wanted to hear. Reasoning with him was hopeless.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


It’s remotely possible that Barr did not remember that Trump had said back in 2016 that he would only accept the results of the election if he won? But he knows very well that Trump was telegraphing his plan to contest the election in 2020 if he did not win — he was helping him set it up. He personally cast doubts on the mail-in ballots, inanely suggesting that they were subject to foreign interference. Trump had been hedging his bets for months, suggesting it was rigged long before any votes were cast.

It’s tempting to see this book as Barr’s attempt at redemption but it really doesn’t come off that way. Barr truly believes he has had a stellar career, topped off by his exemplary service to the nation as the Attorney General who acted with integrity when the president suffered a breakdown and refused to accept his loss. He describes Trump at that moment as “out of touch with reality.” I would suggest Trump isn’t the only one.

A sweeping — and personal — history of addiction

At age 29, Carl Erik Fisher, a newly minted physician, arrives at Bellevue, the public hospital in Manhattan best known for serving the most challenging cases of mental illness. Only Fisher comes as a patient, and he’s locked in a dual diagnosis ward after a manic episode involving alcohol and Adderall. If you passed him in the hall, you might have pegged him as a “Nurse Jackie” type: the doctor with a drug problem.

Fisher’s meticulous and meticulously researched new book, “The Urge: Our History of Addiction,” is deeply informed by his experience as both a self-described alcoholic and a specialist in addiction medicine. For years after his release from rehab, he was forced to pee in a cup in front of a urine monitor. As Fisher reflects on the surreal, and galling, situation, he begins to wonder about how he — or anyone else — gets better. “I knew that the addiction treatment system was broken, having experienced it firsthand, but the why was mystifying: Why was there a totally separate system for addiction treatment? Why do we treat addiction differently from any other mental disorder?”

“The Urge” ultimately unfolds as far more than an addiction memoir. Arriving at a time when the so-called opioid epidemic has become a defining crisis of our time, it presents both the personal history of someone reckoning with mind-altering substances and an argument for a reframing of the idea of addiction. “It is,” Fisher writes, “the story of an ancient malady that has ruined the lives of untold millions, including not only those of its sufferers but also the lives touching theirs, and yet it is also the story of a messy, complicated, and deeply controversial idea, one that has eluded definition for hundreds of years.”

Among the misconceptions, Fisher writes, is the strangely persistent belief that addiction can somehow be eradicated or fixed. “The primary goal should be not victory or cure,” Fisher writes, “but alleviating harm and helping people to live with and beyond their suffering — in other words, recovery.”

The book’s main text clocks in at just over 300 pages, and it condenses anecdotes and detail into engaging, tightly woven vignettes. In the first chapter, Fisher introduces one of his patients, a woman who resolves not to drink but then gets sick drinking vanilla extract from the corner store. Then, he introduces one of the earliest known references to addiction in the “Rig Veda,” a Sanskrit hymn about a gambler who struggles to quit playing, before moving on to Augustine (the early Christian philosopher), the author’s own magical first sip of beer, and the etymology of addiction. 

Fisher places readers into evocative scenes, weaving historical snapshots with his own memories. You almost want to roll down the window and find some fresh air as he describes the experience of inhaling secondhand smoke in his parents’ car as they head to the Jersey shore. That scene follows a pithy account of punishing European tobacco users in the 1600s — an early example of an anti-drug scare that had xenophobic undertones and practically no connection to the actual medical harm. Scaring people straight didn’t stop addiction then — or now, for that matter. Indeed, Fisher notes, under the 17th-century Ottoman ruler Murad IV, the punishment of death didn’t stop soldiers from smuggling pipes in their sleeves to sneak a puff.

Fisher, now a practicing clinical psychiatrist and a professor at Columbia University, relies on a range of previous scholarship. He’s not interviewing researchers or sifting through archives to uncover some lost history. But, in retelling some of the more familiar stories involving drugs, including Thomas De Quincey (Romantic writer, and a requisite feature in practically any book on opium), Benjamin Rush (a founding father and among the first to characterize addiction as a disease), Alcoholics Anonymous, Narco (the sprawling prison hospital and treatment center in Kentucky), and Synanon (a cult-like group that laid the exploitative framework for drug rehabs), Fisher turns to sources both obvious and obscure.

The writing is brisk without being breezy, and Fisher draws fresh insights, particularly when it comes to alcohol. For instance, he describes Samson Occom, a Mohegan preacher, as “far ahead of his time,” for linking alcohol with the oppression of Native Americans in the 18th century. Pairing abstinence and mutual aid, many Native American leaders at that time emphasized community healing — principles that predate AA and today’s peer-mediated support groups. The look back also helps Fisher understand his own family’s addictions. Later, when he’s coerced into rehab and forced into a feedback session, he comes to appreciate the concept underlying these groups: a shared fellowship and support from people who understood addiction because they too experienced it firsthand.

At times, “The Urge” can seem almost too concerned with nuance. Fisher explains that he’s avoided stigmatizing language, such as “addict” and “junkie.” He dismantles commonly used terms like “non-medical,” which place “recreational” drug use outside of medically sanctioned contexts. (Fisher argues that the definition is historically misguided since “the instrumental use of intoxication long predates modern medicine.”)

Taken as a whole, these critical points reinforce his central argument, which builds off the growing consensus that addiction does not stem from a moral failing, and that it is more than simply, or primarily, a brain disease. Fisher redefines addiction as more than a substance acting on the brain. Narrowly defining addiction as a disease, or a discrete biological phenomenon, he writes, fails to encompass its multidimensional aspects (e.g. spiritual and psychosocial). The therapeutic response, he continues, fails to appreciate recovery as “a process of ongoing positive change,” not just the absence of pathology. More importantly, he argues, “Drug use is not synonymous with addiction, and criminalization is not a rational way to reduce drug harms. In fact, it is often a central driver of those harms.”

The argument is persuasive. Despite a catastrophically failed war on drugs, the U.S. has primarily operated in punitive mode. It does not need to be this way: Drug use does not have to be so deadly. While some may see treatment as a step in the right direction, Fisher argues that the therapeutic approach takes the focus away from the oppressive forces of racial injustice and mass incarceration, which shaped the system treating people with addiction. (It’s not entirely clear how such a reframing and redefinition of addiction would play out, but Fisher says he would prioritize policies and approaches that recognize drug use and addiction as facts of life, focusing on practices that reduce harm.)

A sprawling history of a concept, spanning decades of prohibitionist thinking and the latest in recovery research, could easily fall apart were it not informed by Fisher’s experience. I won’t say too much about what happens inside his fifth-floor walkup in New York after he checks himself out of the hospital the first time — against medical advice. It is shocking, but sadly not surprising. Later, Fisher recognizes that his punishment at the time was not the norm: As a clinician, he sees how people caught in the criminal legal system are denied lifesaving medication, and realizes he could have ended up incarcerated, or shot dead, had he not been “a white guy living in an upscale Manhattan neighborhood.”

Ultimately, the takeaway isn’t so much prescriptive policy advice (though there’s some of that), or practical tools to narrow the gap between people who want help and — in the lingo of harm reductionists — responses that meet them wherever they’re at.

And maybe that’s the best part about “The Urge.” Fisher doesn’t pretend to have the solution to addiction, a way of being that, in his telling, has always existed as an ordinary response to human suffering and “a desire to break free.” He’s rigorous without sounding preachy. He doesn’t drink, yet acknowledges that abstinence is not for everyone.

In one telling section, Fisher says he poured over the scientific literature on addiction — despite admonitions from authorities. “The counselors in rehab had warned me that it could be dangerous to look too closely at the science of addiction — they said my disease could twist that information into a basis for denial — but I still felt drawn to learn more,” he writes. “I wanted to see how the research could help me understand who I was and who I might become.”

If his account seems to urge readers towards anything, it’s the one thing most sorely lacking in the discourse around drugs: curiosity.


Peter Andrey Smith is a freelance reporter. His stories have been featured in Science, STAT, The New York Times, and WNYC Radiolab.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Is Morgan Wallen’s album of the year win proof that “cancel culture” doesn’t exist?

Country music singer Morgan Wallen took home the prize for album of the year at this week’s 57th Academy of Country Music (ACM) Awards.

“When I started this album, I was a kid. By the time I put it out, I was a father — and that’s become more important to me than anything else,” Wallen said in his acceptance speech. “To my son, this album and this award will signify that his daddy was a fighter and that he chased his dreams and worked hard to make them a reality.”

Wallen then thanked the team of songwriters, producers and musicians who worked on “Dangerous: The Double Album.” He concluded his remarks with a shoutout to his fans and Jesus Christ.

RELATED: Breaking down the “Bro country” walls: The year country music’s women fought back against “take females out”

Left unmentioned was the scandal that resulted in Wallen’s removal from the ACM awards ballot only a year ago. Last February, the singer was indefinitely suspended by his record label and dropped from radio stations after he was caught on tape uttering a racial slur and other profanities.

At the time, fellow country music star Mickey Guyton condemned not only Wallen but the industry as a whole.

“When I read comments saying ‘this is not who we are’ I laugh because this is exactly who country music is. I’ve witnessed it for 10 gd years,” Guyton wrote a series of tweets. “You guys should just read some of the vile comments hurled at me on a daily basis. It’s a cold hard truth to face but it is the truth.”

“I question on a daily basis as to why I continue to fight to be in an industry that seems to hate me so much,” she added. “But then I realize there is a new artist of color, all bright eyed and excited to be in this industry.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


After sharing a list of country musicians who have continued to support her, Guyton concluded her thread by addressing “cancel culture.”

“And lastly, I do not believe in cancel culture. Watching anyone fall from grace is a terrible thing to see,” she said. “People must all be given a chance to change. Morgan must feel the weight of his words but completely throwing someone away is detrimental to anyone’s mental health.”

One year later, Deadline editor Valerie Complex tweeted that cancel culture wasn’t real following Wallen’s victory. 

“Hopefully, those of you always complaining about cancel culture with STFU bc Cancel culture isn’t real and Morgan is exhibit A,” Complex wrote.

Wallen’s comeback was driven by fans, who boosted sales of his music in the aftermath of the controversy.

“The fans had the ultimate decision and they clearly decided they were Morgan Wallen fans,” Billboard’s Melinda Newman told CNN in February.

“There’s been a lot of talk that says, if you supported Morgan Wallen and continued listening to his music, you were racist and I don’t think it’s that easy,” she added. “I think it’s a much more complex issue than that.”

Wallen apologized for his remarks last year and reportedly fulfilled a pledge to donate $500,000 to Black-led organizations.

“I’m embarrassed and sorry. I used an unacceptable and inappropriate racial slur that I wish I could take back,” he said in a statement. “There are no excuses to use this type of language, ever. I want to sincerely apologize for using the word. I promise to do better.”

Read more stories about music: 

Will the Independent State Legislature doctrine literally mean the end of democracy?

While this week has brought good news on voting rights from the Supreme Court, it may very well be a temporary win.

In a pair of orders issued on Monday, the justices allowed court-ordered congressional maps to stand in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, refusing to interfere with decisions by those state supreme courts. Republicans in both states had asked the court to block those maps under a tortured legal theory that has been advancing on the right, known as the Independent State Legislature (ISL) doctrine.

Make no mistake: This is a tremendous victory for voters in both states. The North Carolina state Supreme Court had rejected a GOP-drawn congressional map that guaranteed Republicans at least 10 and potentially 11 of the state’s 14 seats as a violation of the state constitution. In Pennsylvania, where the state Supreme Court unwound last decade’s extreme GOP gerrymander in 2018, that court mandated what most observers consider a balanced 9-8 map that does not favor either party.

The orders indicate an unlikely alliance. While the Pennsylvania order was unsigned, it appears the three liberals were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett to deny the emergency application in the North Carolina case, with a concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Alito’s dissent.

Yet while fair maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania dodged a bullet, there is frightening news: As we first warned in Salon last September, the Independent State Legislature doctrine remains a live threat to free elections. Alito’s dissent called the ISL — which speaks to whether a state court has the power to reject laws adopted by a state legislature concerning federal elections, or whether the legislature has unfettered control — “an exceptionally important and recurring question of constitutional law.” 

RELATED: Beware the “Independent State Legislatures doctrine” — it could checkmate democracy

In his separate concurrence with the North Carolina order, Kavanaugh — who has been previously receptive to this doctrine — held that it was too late for the federal courts to intervene in North Carolina right now, but that “both sides have advanced serious arguments” and the Supreme Court should resolve it soon. That’s four votes right there, enough to put the case onto the court’s calendar next year. There is significant reason to be alarmed that this court could then adopt a radical and antidemocratic theory that threatens the very nature of our elections and makes it easier for gerrymanders, voter suppression and electoral subversion to succeed.

What is the Independent State Legislature doctrine?

The central legal theory underpinning these efforts pushes for an expanded understanding of state power through “Independent State Legislatures.” It is an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that argues state legislatures have sole authority to set all election rules (including assigning of Electoral College votes), immune from any judicial review by state courts. 

Many legal scholars believe this theory deserves condemnation, both as an antidemocratic effort to hand absolute power to often wildly gerrymandered state legislatures, but also as a departure from decades of constitutional precedent. But those scholars don’t have any of the nine votes that matter. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Four conservative justices have already indicated support: Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch in the North Carolina dissent issued this week, and Kavanaugh in his concurrence. It would just take either Roberts (whose stinging dissent in the 2015 Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission decision puts him down as a strong maybe), or Barrett to establish this crackpot theory as the law of the land.  

It hardly seems to matter to Alito or his fellow conservatives that their tortured, “originalist” reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause seems little more than an effort to entrench Republican lawmakers in power, and veers wildly from Alito’s recent votes on partisan and racial gerrymandering — all depending on the likely partisan outcomes. 

These emergency applications may not have been the right moment for the court to squarely address this theory of radical state power. But the right moment could be coming soon, especially if the justices do decide to take up the North Carolina case in the next term.

If the Supreme Court were to adopt this theory, it would radically expand the power of state legislatures, giving them carte blanche to engage in partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression and election subversion, free from judicial review. Such a ruling could also shrink the power of state courts, state constitutions and state ballot initiatives to protect and expand fair elections and fair districts. It could even threaten the constitutionality of independent redistricting commissions. 

The campaign to build credibility

This push to enlarge state power is coupled with efforts to build both narrative intellectual credence for the idea of wildly expanded state power, assisted by strategic litigation brought by conservative lawyers and institutions with the aim of getting before friendly conservative courts. The end game? Nothing short of the unraveling of representative democracy itself, through a sleepy and long-overlooked level of government: state legislatures. 

Many legal scholars, including Nathaniel Persily, have derided the Independent State Legislature theory, pointing out that it gives “intellectual respectability to an otherwise insane, antidemocratic argument.” An upcoming law review article by Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar goes into more detail, dismantling the theory as ahistorical and “utterly indefensible.” 

But this once-fringe theory is making its way to the mainstream of the highly effective conservative legal project. It’s not just the two emergency applications at the Supreme Court. Even the influential Harvard Law Review lent intellectual credibility to this notion when it published a note in February on novel legal theories that would expand the power of states over elections — and election results.

And the roots of this theory in conservative legal circles might stretch back farther. As books like Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money,” Nancy MacLean’s “Democracy in Chains and Anne Nelson’s “Shadow Network have reported, a central strategy in the conservative ecosystem for the past 50 years has been the establishment of academic beachheads where conservative ideas (and thinkers) can be sponsored, incubated and then disseminated with the imprimatur of intellectual legitimacy. Ideas matter, and getting them into the mainstream takes both time and validation by thought leaders. It is perhaps no coincidence that several of the most notable early defenders of this theory of extraordinary state power over elections after the Bush v. Gore decision were linked to the University of Chicago Law School, historically a conservative beachhead.

Republican legislators and their allies are also working to further normalize the rhetoric around radically expanded state power among the public. In November 2020, Donald Trump’s own Homeland Security Department declared the 2020 election the most secure in the nation’s history. Yet radicalized Republican state legislators and conservative media sources have mainstreamed the Big Lie. Those legislatures have then used the Big Lie as a pretext for additional voting restrictions, to install partisan actors in positions that could prevent honest, accurate results from being certified, and order expensive audits and reports re-litigating the election results. 

Just last week, Wisconsin’s wacky 2020 election probe came to its end. The final report (delivered to perhaps the most gerrymandered legislature in the nation) is all the more astonishing considering it’s written by a retired state judge. It baldly asserts that the legislature has the sweeping authority to “decertify'”presidential electors if the legislature concludes they were, vaguely, “not the slate of electors that best accorded with the election if run consistent with all relevant Wisconsin laws.” 

While this report bears no legal authority, it further disseminates these ideas, keeping them in the news and serving to spread and normalize a rhetoric that shocks the conscience now, but might not do so for much longer. It’s yet another reminder that Republicans are actively and openly plotting for the next Jan. 6 — and that next time, they’ll be in a stronger position to achieve the once-unthinkable.

Checkmating democracy in the state capitals

Republicans lack a popular mandate for the policies they pursue in state legislatures, whether those involve banning books or restricting reproductive rights. They fear the changing demographics of an increasingly multiracial nation. And so they have broken faith with democracy and are rigging rules to entrench themselves in office in near-perpetuity. 

Sometimes democracies unravel with violence, right in front of us. The threat we face is a different one: A crackpot legal theory that could be accepted by robed ideologues installed on the nation’s highest court, blocking, one by one, every avenue for voters, courts, elections or anything at all to stop them from turning our democracy into something unrecognizable. Let’s be clear: the Independent State Legislature theory aims to clear a pathway for unchecked power in runaway state legislatures. So while voters won a rare and important victory at the Supreme Court this week, pay close attention: The gathering storm clouds haven’t dissipated yet.

Read more on state legislatures — where democracy is in deep trouble:

Bagels, lox and schmear: Cathy Barrow reveals how to make a whole brunch of deli classics at home

If inflation is stopping you from ordering that bacon, egg and cheese from your corner deli or coffee cart, you can always save money and transform your kitchen into a delicatessen this year (plus, the dough kneading can be quite a workout). In “Bagels, Schmears, and a Nice Piece of Fish,” out March 15, cookbook author and baker Cathy Barrow shares the ins and outs of perfecting any deli brunch at home. 

Don’t worry, there’s plenty that’s more kashrut than a B.E.C.

RELATED: How master pie maker Cathy Barrow cracked the secret of a perfectly flaky crust

As the title suggests, there are bagels to knead and proof (Montreal, pumpernickel, gluten free, to name a few); cream cheese to make from scratch or whip with add-ins (cherry cheesecake schmear, anyone?); and, of course, pickles, kippers, carrot salads, capers and more to build out a substantial platter. Barrow even menu-plans bagel platters for shiva, Yom Kippur and a two-person brunch — events which maybe too many of us have attended during the pandemic.

When I made her Montreal bagels, I was astounded by the craggy, sesame- and nigella-covered exterior compared to the pillowy interior — just like my New York bagels of yore! My deli half-quart of homemade vegetable schmear glowed like stained glass in the morning sun studded with purple onion, green parsley, red pepper, orange carrot, a great sharpness from whipped-in sour cream and lemon juice — yeah, I’ll be making this one again. Even after recipe testing hundreds of bagels for this book, Barrow and her husband aren’t sick of them.

***

Salon Food recently spoke to Barrow about how to avoid making a “roll with a hole,” the myth of the New York City bagel’s secret ingredient and the black-market-like trade she took to acquire early pandemic flour

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

You write that it took you a year to get the perfect bagel after tons of testing. What was that ultimate bake like? What qualities are you looking for in a “perfect bagel?”

Initially, I was looking for that crackly exterior and the soft, chewy interior with a sweet but not overwhelmingly sweet flavor. I got the flavor early, but the texture was elusive until I started playing with high-gluten flour. Then negotiation was even more complex because most bagel recipes I’d tried would give me eight, nine, 12 bagels. But I’m only baking for two people — and that’s a lot of bagels to proof, taking up a lot of room in your refrigerator. I remember a bagel from my childhood that was palm-sized — a great size, not too big that you need to split it with your partner. So, it was texture, flavor, yield and size. I’m really pleased with what I finally ended up: baking six bagels feels ideal.

In those early months of testing, do you remember the day you baked that perfect bagel?

The first months were really muddy. I got this book deal on March 13, 2020 — two days before we shut down. My first concern was, “Where am I going to get the flour and yeast?” Luckily, I found a local baker who was willing to sell me a 50-pound bag. It was like a drug deal. We met off the side of the road masked up. I gave her cash and carried the bag out of her trunk. It was so much flour — I had to store it in a giant plastic bin for dog food. But, after that, I was making bagels twice a day and probably the recipe coalesced in May of 2020.

This book was developed for brunches, but the pandemic made meeting in groups impossible, then risky and scary. What recommendations do you have for bakers who prepare a brunch only to have it canceled at the last minute? Essentially, what lasts the longest, freezes well or can be reused, such as your recommendation for bagel chips made from stale bagels?

Bagels freeze beautifully, and they reconstitute pretty remarkably. I had a great conversation early on with Bex Hellbender, a North Carolina baker who told me that you should never cut your bagels before they go in the freezer because they’ll dry out. You can freeze whole bagels and then place them straight from the freezer into a preheated 350°F oven or toaster oven for exactly 10 minutes. It’s as though you just pulled them from the bagel oven. Lox freezes; salad and schmears mostly don’t, but they last a week — and you can always go the way of Chicago in the ’70s and develop a “Lox Box.” That’s a package for a family of four that contains bagels, schmear, lox, tomato and cucumber that you deliver to others. Chicago temples were famous for using them for fundraisers.

Getting back to high-gluten flour, I know that specialty ingredient could intimidate some bakers. How do you buy or make it?

For a couple of dollars, you can get a bag of Bob’s Red Mill Vital Wheat Gluten Flour and add two teaspoons to a cup (120 grams) of flour — and you’ve just made high-gluten flour. I can understand why everybody finds it annoying that we cookbook authors say, “You must use this, you must do that.” But, in the case of bagels, you really need a high-protein flour. You can either buy it, like I do from King Arthur, or make it yourself.

Despite the many, many myths, you write that it’s not New York City water that makes a difference for their bagels — it’s the high-gluten flour. Chemically speaking, can you explain what difference the flour makes?

Protein levels in flour help build strength — and that strength is what gives you the shiny, hard exterior crust. When you use all-purpose or cake flour that is low in protein, you get a tender crumb — think of a yellow birthday cake. When you add more protein, like bread flour, you get something like a sourdough loaf. When you get to the top of the heap, there’s the high-gluten flour, 14.2% protein. Other high-gluten flour bakes include pretzels or pizza crust. Think about the difference between pizza and focaccia, with the crunchy, chewy crust rip compared to the tender, light bread.

Speaking of New York City bagels, you also cover Montreal bagels — but you don’t mention other regional bagel types. Were there other types of bagels that you discovered in your research?

When I was on Martha Stewart Radio in 2014, I heard that Martha went to a bagel place in Detroit and said they were the best bagels in America. I went, tried one, and it was damn good. But the thing is, it was good because it tasted like a New York bagel. It wasn’t good because there was anything different about it. They were just doing it right. My brother had bagels in Memphis and said they were “rolls with a hole.” Soft, pale golden, like Wonderbread inside. Maybe you could say that that’s a regional distinction, but I don’t think it’s one that we should be chasing. 

I wonder how Montreal bagels got away with their style, how they proved they should be celebrated.

Montreal bagels are really good, but they’re still a bagel! You know, crispy on the outside, still sweet, still chewy. It’s not a roll. Of course, you have Tejal Rao writing that the best bagels are on the West Coast, interviewing Boichik and a couple of LA places. It’s starting to be a serious competition between the East and the West Coast, and I think we’ll have to see how that all rolls out. The use of sourdough is more common on the West Coast. Seattle’s Rubinstein bagels are sourdough, I think, and those starters get you a different bagel. 

Like with your past books with crusts and fillings, there are so many combinations you can make here, from schmear to filling to yeast type. Was there a really surprising combo you recommend people try no matter how it sounds?

I’m not doing Cynthia Nixon’s cinnamon raisin bagel with lox. That’s not happening. It’s just not for me, but I can say that there’s a sandwich in the back. The Thanksgiving sandwich is a cinnamon raisin bagel with turkey, cranberry sauce and all the good things on it. That was inspired by a Dorie Greenspan strata that uses cinnamon raisin bread and all the things from Thanksgiving. 

The graphic design of the book is so striking. How did you replicate the deli fonts, posters and aesthetics? How did that feel as a bagel lover?

The designer of the book is Lizzie Vaughan, and she has a great eye for detail. It started, really, with those double pages that open the chapters that look like blackboards with white letters. That made everybody’s brains start to liven up, and our prop stylist, Maeve Sheridan, arrived at the photoshoot with all the right backgrounds — the speckled formica and subway tile. But when that robin’s egg blue came in for the cover, it drove the whole thing.

Bagels, Schmears, and a Nice Piece of Fish” by Cathy Barrow hits book stores on March 15. 

5 more of our favorite quick breakfast recipes: 

GOP’s violent rhetoric keeps getting worse — and almost nobody is paying attention

To defeat fascism, you must be willing to stare into the darkness. After four years of Trump’s regime and more than a year of continually escalating democracy crisis, America’s political class and news media — and the vast majority of its citizens — are still unwilling to do so.

We in America, and many people in other parts of the world as well, are experiencing a type of political Doppler effect: The train is heading straight at us, yet many of us are covering their eyes and ears because they think — or hope, or believe — the destruction is far away, something that may arrive in the future as opposed to something that is here now.

My friend’s granduncle was a train engineer who told wonderful stories about traveling across the country, all the people he met and places he saw. I will never forget his warning that when people are killed by trains, it’s because they misjudge the distance. “The train is always closer than you think it is!” he would say.

Sometimes he shared a story about the only time he ever hit a car while driving his train. His voice would get low and quiet: “I couldn’t stop. That poor young woman — she was so beautiful. It looked like she was sleeping.” When I think about America’s democracy crisis and the rising tide of fascism, I think of that “sleeping” young woman. In too many ways, she is the American people.

RELATED: Democracy vs. fascism: What do those words mean — and do they describe this moment?

One core tenet of fascism is the normalization of political violence. While the mainstream news media and political elites look away, the Republican fascists and the larger white right have been escalating their threats of violence and mayhem. They did not stop with Trump’s coup attempt or the Capitol attack of Jan. 6, 2021.

These threats of right-wing violence and terrorism are not hyperbole; they are both promises and predictions.

Two weekends ago, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held its annual meeting in Florida. This event serves as a bellwether or test market, gauging the state of the Republican Party and “conservative” movement. As such, the conference is a rite of passage for would-be right-wing leaders who seek the approval of the Republican base. The road to American neofascism and Trumpism can be tracked straight through CPAC.

Writing at Nation of Change, Zach Roberts summarized the event’s evolution as: “Over the Trump administration, the faces of CPAC have changed from a more traditional conservative (tax cuts, pro-corporation) to an odd mixture of libertarian isolationism and cultural dog-whistling so loud that my labradoodle back at home started howling.”

RELATED: Right’s desperate Putin pivot: CPAC derailed by Ukraine invasion, struggles to blame “wokeness”

CPAC 2022’s theme was “Awake, Not Woke.” Its panel discussions offered a litany of right-wing reactionary obsessions: “The Moron in Chief,” presumably a reference to Joe Biden; “Put Him to Bed, Lock Her Up and Send Her to the Border”; “Domestic Terrorists Unite: Lessons From Virginia Parents”; “Lock Downs and Mandates: Now Do You Understand Why We Have a Second Amendment?”; “Are You Ready to Be Called a Racist: The Courage to Run for Office”; and “Obamacare Still Kills.”

Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who also leads the Senate Republicans’ campaign operation, gave the keynote address, offering his “11 Point Plan to Save America.” He also said this:

We survived the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. But today we face the greatest danger we have ever faced. The militant left-wing in our country has become the enemy within.

The militant left has now seized control of our economy, of our culture and our country.

The woke left now controls the Democrat party, the entire federal government, the news media, academia, big tech, Hollywood, most corporate boardrooms and now even some of our top military leaders. … [T]hey are destroying just about everything they touch and they’ve got their hands on everything.

This is not the time to be timid. This is the time to be bold. Our nation’s future can be bright, but we need a plan to take this country back. I warn you before you read it, though. This plan is not for the faint of heart, it will trigger a lot of people…. Based on how Democrats are attacking me this week, I’d say we’ve hit the bullseye…. In their new socialist America, everyone will obey and no one will be allowed to complain. If you do speak up, boom: You will be canceled…. It’s time to take our country back. and I’m here to tell you the American people are going to give a complete butt-kicking to the Democrats this November.

Like so many other speakers at CPAC and its related events, Scott was making a not so coded appeal for political violence against the “woke left,” which in practice means all Democrats, liberals, progressives and others opposed to the Republican-fascist movement.

Human rights experts describe such language, and the outcomes it makes possible, as “eliminationism.” That also describes the violence experienced in the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and Yugoslavia — and, yes, what also took place in Nazi Germany.

Predictably, the mainstream news media largely treated Scott’s threats of violence as a curiosity, perhaps something to be mocked rather than treated as a serious matter of public concern. In fact, his threats of violence — which are both clear and direct as well as implied through “stochastic terrorism” — are part of a much larger pattern.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


The right-wing media and larger echo chamber has used eliminationist rhetoric and other violent appeals for decades in their vilifying of political opponents as “libtards,” “commies,” “takers,” “parasites,” “vermin,” “rats” and “traitors,” along with other dehumanizing epithets.

Eliminationism involves several steps. There must be a leader, an “entrepreneur” of political violence, who targets a group in society identified as the Other. There is a repeated use of themes and language intended to dehumanize the targeted group, so that violence against them (by the dominant and more powerful group) is made to appear both necessary and legitimate. The targeted group is also presented as an existential threat to majority society, which must be purged and cleansed through violence.

For example, Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson has repeatedly spread lies about how white people will somehow become “minorities”, and then “oppressed” and “dominated” as part of some fantastical “great replacement”.  That is a textbook example of eliminationist rhetoric.

Entrepreneurs of political violence require a receptive public who will follow through on their commands. Public opinion and other research shows that millions of white Republicans, Trump supporters and other members of the far right are potentially willing to engage in acts of political violence in order to “save” what they understand as “traditional America.”

RELATED: Trumpers play fascist peekaboo: Are MTG and Tucker Carlson backpedaling on Putin?

In his book “The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right,” investigative journalist David Neiwert explains this phenomenon as “a politics and a culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination”:

The history of eliminationism in America and elsewhere shows that rhetoric plays a significant role in the travesties that follow. It creates permission for people to act out in ways they might not otherwise. It allows them to abrogate their own humanity by denying the humanity of people deemed undesirable or a cultural contaminant.

In a 2009 interview with Buzzflash, Neiwert explained how the American right-wing (and even more so, today’s Republican fascists) share core beliefs and attitudes that make eliminationism and political violence especially attractive to them:

Well, it’s simply become a cornerstone of conservative beliefs that all the world’s ills can be laid at the feet of liberalism. It’s also a built-in feature of right-wing ideology to construct an Enemy. So when the Enemy is something as broad and popularly embraced as liberalism, it’s not too long before your world becomes narrow and enclosed, and everything outside of it is the Enemy.

What that’s produced has been a nonstop harangue from the right demonizing liberals generally, and liberal politicians particularly. Remember that Bill Clinton was evil because he had “bad character.” John Kerry “lied” about his war service. Barack Obama was a scary “Mooslim” brown man. And more generally, antiwar liberals have been dismissed as mere “Bush haters” and “America haters” and, in the early years of the Iraq war particularly, as “traitors.”

This rhetoric is not simply dehumanizing — it also characterizes its subject as fit only for elimination, expurgation, exile or extermination. So we get frequent references to them as diseases and vermin, or carriers of them, as well as scum or filth of various kinds. We get spoken wishes to purge them, drive them out, do away with them — often couched as “jokes” for which it’s only possible to see any humor if you share that wish….

I think a lot of it has to do with the psychological construct of movement conservatism, which is distinct from actual conservatism…. These folks are essentially authoritarians for whom a dualist worldview is natural and essential (almost always a product of individual psychological needs), and from it proceeds the need to construct an Enemy, an Other upon whom it can project all of its own worst fears about itself.

Ultimately, right-wing political violence, potentially on a large scale, is the logical end result and likely goal of the Republican-fascist campaign to end America’s multiracial democracy. That movement is making no effort to conceal that fact; many of its leaders and followers are direct and transparent about it.

To stare into the darkness and then confront that horrible reality would require acts of parrhesia (bold public truth-telling) that most of America’s political class, the news media, and other elites are unwilling to face for reasons of personal and professional self-preservation.

In his memorial tribute to author and social activist bell hooks, philosopher George Yancy offered these observations about America in this moment of democracy crisis:

As the US stands on the precipice of undoing its fragile democratic experiment, as we bear witness to massive forms of disinformation, crude and rude political divisiveness, as we witness political cowardice, and as so many kowtow in the face of strongmen — who are actually morally weak, politically inept, and wanting in terms of a critically informed consciousness — I am even more saddened by the profound loss of bell hooks and the ethical and critical standard of courageous speech that her work and praxis exemplified. You see, I am under no illusions. Like bell, I refuse to be silent. What better way to remember her? This country, one founded upon the enslavement of Black people, the brutalization of their bodies, and the genocide committed against Indigenous people, is moving toward a massive social implosion. And from the spineless and reckless rhetoric and actions carried out at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, it is clear to me that there are many who are so enamored by false gods, idols, and barefaced lies — who have sold their souls to neofascism, and where anti-intellectualism, sycophancy, and lustful hatred are palpably in the air that we breathe — that they are prepared for a form of existential cleansing that will take no prisoners. They are more than ready to see blood run in the streets of this nation predicated on convictions saturated with lies.

What if anything can be done to force Americans to confront the truth about the future of their nation, and society if they are determined to not do so?

In the months and years to come, we will ask and answer that question, along with many others. Who are we, and what are we in the process of becoming? If we are willing to stare into the fascist darkness, who or what will stare back? And what if we see ourselves in that darkness?

Surging prices and wheat shortages: How the invasion of Ukraine is impacting global food supplies

As the world closely watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one thing is certain as we wonder what happens next. Historically high food prices are only going to go up.

Thanks to new agricultural supply chain disruptions compounded with climate change related drought and low crop yields, consumers are left bracing for what could be unprecedented levels of global food insecurity

Multiple outlets have reported on just how far this problem could stretch: Bloomberg covered the waves of panic in Turkey over an anticipated shortage in sunflower oil, a household essential in the West Asian country. The reporters also spoke with a Turkish official, who revealed that a total of 18 commercial vessels were being held in Russian ports. This trails a concerning trend of inflation in Turkey, with costs of everything from food and energy running at a 20-year high.

RELATED: Ukrainian President Zelensky begs Biden to help

In Egypt and other neighboring countries like Lebanon, where subsidized bread is essential for survival, increased wheat prices have already provided cause for concern. 

“Russia and Ukraine combine for nearly a third of the world’s wheat and barley exports. Ukraine also is a major supplier of corn and the global leader in sunflower oil, used in food processing,” the Associated Press reported. “The war could reduce food supplies just when prices are at their highest levels since 2011.”


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter.


In fact, the region surrounding the Black Sea is so pivotal to global food supply that it’s referred to as the “breadbasket of the world.” This means the already mounting list of disruptions in commerce could result in disaster for poverty-stricken regions of Europe, Asia and Africa. 

It’s only a matter of time before these constraints effect the availability of these goods. International Grains Council director Arnaud Petit told the Associated Press that a prolonged war in Ukraine could result in shortages for goods such as wheat as soon as July.

Even if production is able to commence sooner, there are no quick solutions for the lost time and crops that went unattended as farmers abandoned their work to join the military or flee to safety. Whatever the result may be, these mounting economic and social pressures are about to squeeze consumers much, much tighter.

Read more: 

Trump’s White House visitor logs proving “very fruitful,” top Jan. 6 investigator says

The chair of the House committee investigating the Capitol riot says newly released visitor logs from the White House during Donald Trump’s presidency have been “very fruitful” to the investigation.

As HuffPost points out, President Joe Biden ordered the National Archives to turn over the logs this Thursday. Speaking to CNN reporter Annie Grayer, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said he was already finding the records to be “very fruitful.” 

Trump tried to block the release of the logs by claiming executive privilege, but Biden said that “in light of the urgency” of the committee’s work and the “compelling need” for Congress to determine the origins of the Capitol riot, the logs should be made available to the committee. 

“The president has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interest of the United States, and therefore is not justified, as to these records and portions of records,” White House counsel Dana Remus wrote in a letter last month to National Archivist David Ferriero.

Twitter users pile on after Lauren Boebert makes bizarre comparison between Ukraine and firearms

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is facing sharp criticism for her recent, baseless attempt to shift Russian President Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine into a political argument on gun control, reports HuffPost. 

On Monday, March 1, the conspiracy theorist lawmaker tweeted a reference to Ukraine’s nuclear demilitarization that occurred at the close of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union. “Remember. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for promises of security.”

She added, “We see how that turned out. This is why we must NEVER give up our guns to any government.”

Almost immediately after Boebert shared the remarks, Twitter users began criticizing her for her claims. One Twitter user slammed Boebert’s argument explaining why it’s ridiculous to compare firearms to nuclear weaponry.

“Comparing rifles to nukes is an extreme comparison considering that fact individuals can’t just walk into their local Walmart or bass pro shop and purchase a nuclear weapon,” that user argued.

Another user wrote, “Oh my God, how are you not getting this? Two totally separate things. It’s like comparing apples to a dragon.”

“Does that mean we’re all getting nukes?” another Twitter user argued. “We can pile them on a bookshelf behind us in Zoom conferences. Pose with them in Christmas photos. Have shirts that say, ‘Over my radioactive body.'”