Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Democrats have taken more cash from Fox News’ PAC than Republicans since 2018

Democrats have collected more donations from Fox News’ political action committee than Republicans since 2018 despite frequently criticizing the network over its right-wing coverage.

Federal Democratic candidates received $13,000 more from the 21st Century Fox PAC, which collects donations from Fox News employees and other Fox entities, during the 2018 campaign cycle, according to OpenSecrets data, while Republicans slightly outpaced Democrats in the 2020 cycle, raising $96,500 compared to $91,000 for Democrats from the renamed FOX PAC.

The PAC’s top contributor is Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch and other Fox executives also donate to the committee.

As the network downplays Russia’s attack on Ukraine, pushes fake Democratic scandals, and attacks public health recommendations, some may be reconsidering. Insider reported earlier this week that five Democratic campaigns appeared to reject a combined $12,500 in donations from FOX PAC, including Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.; Lizzie Fletcher, D-Texas; Peter Welch, D-Vt., Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and former Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., who now serves as a senior adviser to President Joe Biden.

RELATED: Murdoch-backed Fox News corporate PAC donates to Sen. Joe Manchin’s campaign

But it’s not clear that these donations were actually rejected. The PAC’s filing showed that the $1,500 December to Fletcher that was marked as “void” was “reissued” in February.

And Swalwell told The Daily Beast’s Roger Sollenberger that his campaign had a “bank fraud issue that delayed cashing of checks.”

“That check was reissued and cashed, my team tells me,” he told the outlet.

Swalwell defended accepting the PAC’s donations, arguing that they help pay for security costs necessitated by the network’s “lies” about him.

“On the larger issue, despite daily lies against me from Fox News, I’ve worked well with Fox Corp, which includes their studios and sports network,” he said. “The lies of Fox News have cost my campaign thousands in personal security. The Fox Corp contributions help offset that.”

Swalwell is one of 53 Democratic candidates to accept donations from the PAC during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to the Daily Beast.

The top House recipient of the PAC’s contributions in 2020 was Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., who collected $7,500, the same amount the PAC donated to former Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., whose loss tilted control of the Senate to the Democrats. Only Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., received more money from the group, banking the maximum allowed donation of $10,000.

The PAC also doled out $6,000 to Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and $5,000 checks to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.; Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill.


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


Max Berger, a political operative that worked with the Justice Democrats and on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s, D-Mass., presidential campaign, told The Daily Beast it was a “damn shame” that Democrats are accepting money from Fox News.

“No one who wants to take money from Fox News or Rupert Murdoch should consider themselves a Democrat,” he said. “Some establishment Democrats have gotten so used to taking money from odious sources like big Pharma and fossil fuel lobbyists that nothing seems too dirty.”

Fox News frequently focuses its negative coverage on Democrats and members of the party often criticize the network as right-wing propaganda. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., last week accused host Tucker Carlson of “clear, targeted, libelous harassment that endangers people.”

The network “drives so many violent threats” that people “have to fundraise for their own safety,” she tweeted.

Democrats’ relationship with Fox News has caused some internal party tension. Fox News is the most-watched cable network and recent Nielsen data showed that a surprisingly high number of Democrats prefer Carlson and Sean Hannity to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and other left-leaning shows. But the network also frequently pushes easily-debunked claims attacking Democrats and white nationalist talking points.

The tension has extended to whether Democrats should appear on the network at all. Democrats split on whether presidential candidates should have appeared on the network during the 2020 presidential primaries and a growing number of Democratic pundits have left the network in recent years as its roster has grown more Trumpy.

Journalist Oliver Willis, who previously worked at the media watchdog group Media Matters, has frequently criticized Democrats for appearing on the network and helping to enable “lies and deception,” especially in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

“Start asking Democrats why they appear on Fox News,” he tweeted. “Make them justify their role in helping to prop up America’s leading source of white supremacist content.”

Read more:

Donald Trump Jr., right-wing media use Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to attack the U.S.

While anti-war protestors flood the streets throughout Russia, and Ukrainian citizens are conscripted to fight off a foreign invasion, Donald Trump Jr., Ben Shapiro, and Steve Bannon are using the attack on Ukraine as a springboard to voice their right-wing views on anti-LGBTQ+ inclusion in the U.S.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been vocal in his anti-LGBTQ+ politics for years, is finding his opinions on the matter signal boosted by right-wing conservatives. Rather than touting Donald Trump’s recycled “America First” ethos to diffuse a war already at hand, his eldest son is fueling further aggression and intolerance in the world.

On Thursday morning, Trump Jr. took to Twitter to say:

Last year, Putin revitalized his warpath beating down “Western liberalism.” In a speech given at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club held at the Black Sea resort of Sochi said that Russia should stick to its own “spiritual values and historical traditions,” according to coverage of the speech that year by The Washington Post. During that same speech, Putin went on to say that the idea of children being “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is monstrous and “on the verge of a crime against humanity.”

Related: From Russia with hate: How Putin’s anti-LGBT crackdown led to the persecution of gay men in Chechnya 

Putin’s views on the LGBTQ+ community, and his belief that the modern push towards inclusion and acceptance of those who shirk the social, sexual, and emotional confines of gender binary, have an audience here in America in the form of public-facing right-wingers like Trump Jr. and his peers. The strained consensus is that our nation’s efforts to strengthen inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community make the U.S. in some way “weak” and a target for foreign aggresion. 

Ben Shapiro was in the same mindset on Thursday morning when he shared his own views on the matter:


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


Steve Bannon, ex-advisor to former President Trump, preceded these statements by Shapiro and Trump Jr. during Wednesday’s episode of his show “War Room.” During the segment joined by Erik Prince, a private military contractor, Bannon said “Putin ain’t woke. He is anti-woke.” From there Bannon and Prince went on to have a lively exchange about bathroom policies. 

Watch the “War Room” exchange below:

Read more:

Man who posed with Pelosi’s lectern on Jan.6 given 75 day sentence

Adam Johnson, a Florida resident and stay-at-home father of five, has been sentenced with 75 days in jail and a $5,000 fine for his actions during the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. 

Photographs of Johnson smiling while posing with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lectern inside the Capitol building circulated widely after Jan.6, and Johnson has since been named as one of the main instigators of the attack on the building that day, according to The Washington Post

Related: Trump takes control of the Jan. 6 story — while the media and Congress sleep on it

“A message just has to be sent,” Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton told Johnson during his sentencing. “If you’re going to associate yourself with this type of behavior, and you’re going to try to engage in conduct that undermines the fundamental fabric of this society, that your freedom is going to be taken away.”

Johnson, who flew to D.C. on January 5, 2021 and was caught on video by a Washington Post videographer at a rally that night, yelling things indicating he did not believe Biden to have won the presidential election legitimately, was arrested on January 8, 2021.

“There were things there that happened that should never have happened,” Johnson said during sentencing. “I’m ashamed to have been a part of it.”


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


According to The Washington Post, Johnson entered three highly sensitive areas of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and was photographed jiggling the handle of Pelosi’s office suite. He was unable to enter the suite, but did take her lectern.

“Removing the lectern from the place it was taken from was a very stupid idea,” Johnson said. “Foolish, and something I shouldn’t have done, and I did make a mockery of a very intense and not great day.”

The widely circulated photo of Johnson posing with the lectern was taken by news reporter Win McNamee. 

The lectern was located in the Capitol’s Rayburn Room when it was hauled off by Johnson, and was eventually returned. 

Read more:

Why “complex PTSD” is misunderstood — and what it means to have it

Stephanie Foo’s intellectual curiosity had been one of her greatest assets as a producer for shows like “This American Life” and “Snap Judgment.” So when she was diagnosed in 2018 with complex PTSD, she applied that same rigor to exploring the roots of — and treatments for — a condition that was only recently identified.

In “What My Bones Know: A Memoir of Healing from Complex Trauma,” Foo offers an unflinching account of her rough childhood, and the ways in which her parents’ chronic abuse and neglect haunted her — via depression, anxiety and panic attacks — well into adulthood. She explores the emerging research on C-PTSD, and what makes the condition unique from other mental health challenges. And, with a journalist’s clear and inquisitive view, she talks about what has helped. It’s an intimate account of a phenomenon we’re still just grasping the scope of, and a hopeful tale of life after living through the worst. Salon talked to Foo recently via Zoom about her new book, and reclaiming the good pieces from hard memories. This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.


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


A lot of people don’t even really understand what PTSD is. It’s one of those phrases like “a little OCD,” that gets tossed around in a casual way. But PTSD itself is complicated, and complex PTSD is even less understood. What is complex PTSD? How does it differ from traditional PTSD?

I believe that people usually use PTSD — post traumatic stress disorder — when they’re referring to soldiers. If you go through a traumatic event, your brain encodes that as something that’s very dangerous. When you are exposed to triggers for that event, you get overwhelming feelings of fear and hypervigilance. Everybody has triggers. It’s only when those reactions to those triggers become really debilitating that it is considered PTSD.

You can get PTSD from a single traumatic event, but you can only get complex PTSD from many, many traumatic events, usually over the course of years. People with complex PTSD often develop that as a result of child abuse, domestic abuse, living in a war zone, being a prisoner of war. It’s more of a relational thing than traditional PTSD. Because the number of triggers we have is so large, it becomes less tied to very specific trigger than for example, if you were in the desert as a soldier, being in a desert environment. It’s more like having an overall uneasy feeling a lot of the time.

RELATED: Parents were stuck inside with their kids. A rise ADHD diagnoses soon followed

You begin the book with your C-PTSD diagnosis. It’s becoming more common now, but a few years ago, nobody had any idea what this was. 

It was a total shock. I thought I had struggled with anxiety and depression. Maybe PTSD seemed like it could be plausible, though I certainly minimized that because of the “Well, I wasn’t in war, so it doesn’t count” sort of thing.

Which is a thing that a lot of women specifically deal with.

Yes. It’s very sexist. The way that we understand PTSD is tremendously sexist, because more women than men have PTSD. Less than 1% of the population actually served in war, and a small percentage of that have PTSD.

What was really problematic about my diagnosis is that, when I Googled it, all of the resources online seems to be very pathologizing. “Here are the things that are wrong with you. Here are the things that you need to fix.” The list was pretty dismal. The symptoms seemed to me to make me out to be a bad person. One of the main symptoms of complex PTSD is shame, and feeling you are unworthy of love. This just validated that, and it took me a big journey and a lot of research, and struggle, and study to recognize that that was not the case.

There are certain unique things that happen to people who have experienced trauma and abuse in childhood. Talk to me about the ACE index, and some of the things that people who may be randomly Googling about C-PTSD need to be aware of about the limitations of it?

The Adverse Childhood Experiences score is very widely talked about now. It’s a very quick survey that you can take in five minutes. And that number, according to many, many studies, determines your likelihood of getting cancer, of being suicidal. It determines when you’re going to die, the likelihood that you won’t get a job, or that you’ll go to prison, all of this stuff. Of course that was really upsetting when I first read it, but no scientist would use that as a proper metric.

It is a five-minute quiz, and it does not get into the depth of “How many resources does this person have? Did they have a good support system? How often did this trauma occur? Did it happen once a week? Did it happen three times during their childhood?” And so, that score is actually pretty off. You certainly could have a one on the scale and be quite traumatized, or you can have a six and have a lot of resources and resiliency and be okay.

There’s just a lot of nuance in terms of complex PTSD that we’re not talking about because we love to reduce it to these comfortable little boxes in terms of, “Here are the things that we need to fix, here are the things that are wrong with you, here’s what we have to worry about.” Rather than understanding it as a really nuanced thing. It really terrifies people when they’re first diagnosed, unfortunately.

In your book you look at your own understanding of nuance, and the past. You experienced physical abuse, you experienced abandonment. You also acknowledge that there are good memories and good experiences in there, and that is a big part of your way forward in life. 

I think definitely one of the things was going back to my hometown, and really recognizing the beauty of San Jose. I had reduced it to suburbia in my mind, and being reintroduced to the diversity, the food, the actual natural beauty of “The Valley of Heart’s Delight” made me understand that there were hills and citrus and bougainvillea, gorgeous things that I could reclaim if I so chose from my childhood. It was okay to be nostalgic about certain things from my dark childhood.

The other thing I think was the pandemic. My therapist always used to say, “PTSD is a social construct, in that it is only a mental illness in terms of peace. Hypervigilance isn’t hypervigilance in war time, it’s just vigilance, it’s sensible vigilance.” In the pandemic, for the first time, I saw all of my symptoms expressed in everyone, not just me. I was like, “I’m normal for the first time.” My PTSD made me hypereffective during the pandemic, in a way that I was able to function very well, because I was so used to functioning with the sense of hypervigilance. I was able to keep my family safe and hold space for people, and be pretty emotionally stable. Recognizing that complex PTSD gave me talents that I could actually appreciate makes it a little bit easier to ride out the really painful aspects of it.

I want to ask about when you began to realize that this was something different from depression and anxiety. What manifestation of C-PTSD makes it unique?

The diagnosis helped the treatment. When you think that you have depression and anxiety, you are constantly managing symptoms with whatever it needs to be — alcohol, antidepressants, meditation, whatever. When you understand the source of that trauma, it’s much easier to treat it differently, for example, by self-parenting. You recognize that this is a little version of you freaking out. You’re not freaking out for no damn reason because you’re crazy, and you’re not freaking out because of a chemical imbalance. You’re freaking out because you made a mistake, and you were told when you were a child that if you made a tiny minor mistake, you would be beaten for it, and you might have your life in danger for that.

Then you can tell yourself, “I’m not in danger.” You can try and calm down that trauma response. You can try to see what is actually happening rather than what your brain thinks is happening. You can self-parent yourself and say, “What would a good mother have done in this situation rather than threatening you with your life? She would say, ‘It’s okay. You can forgive yourself. You can move on. Everyone makes mistakes.'” It becomes more of just like a deeper healing, healing from the very causes. When you heal more deeply like that, these symptoms actually wind up coming up less, and become much quicker and easier to deal with.

C-PTSD often affects marginalized communities and individuals, who frequently have a harder time getting mental health services. How can we recognize the signs in our friends, neighbors, classmates, and help each other when the system is so badly stacked?

In schools, I think that teachers in Asian communities in particular need to do a far better job of recognizing that their students might actually be struggling from legitimate mental health problems or abuse at home, rather than simply dismissing their feelings as the entitled model minority stress that comes from wanting to get into Harvard. We also really need to expand our schools’ curriculum to actually cover the United States’ proxy wars in Southeast Asia. Just like teaching about slavery and Jim Crow laws helps the Black community understand themselves and their trauma better, teaching about conflicts like the Vietnam and Korean Wars will help Asian Americans grapple with their history more fully. These are all critical moments in American history, and it’s shameful that we are trying to erase them. 

But in a larger sense… in our society, I think we need to fight for better mental health care in all communities. I think Asian Americans are often lost in the conversation of mental health, poverty, and intergenerational trauma, because we are again erased as “fine” or “privileged” because of the model minority myth. So we need to advocate for accessible and affordable mental healthcare by fixing our tremendously broken, racist system. We need more research in terms of developing culturally aware mental healthcare to support POC/immigrants who are less responsive to traditional psychoanalysis. We need mental health education/therapist support in schools. And finally, we need to advocate for the inclusion of C-PTSD in our DSM

We always live with our past selves. There’s the pandemic; there are new stressors that we can’t even anticipate. What does C-PTSD look like for you today, and what do you think healing means?

Having an overall better way of looking at myself and parenting myself, taking care of myself, is a really important thing. Just understanding that I’m deserving of love and compassion for myself, understanding that I’m not inherently a terrible person. That is a deeper understanding that I really possess, and that I don’t often go into these spirals of, “Why do I even deserve to be here?” It reduces the size of things, because things happen all the time that hurt.

Where does the concept of forgiveness fit in all of this for you? That’s another thing a lot of people impose their own ideas upon, about where someone who has survived things needs to stand.

Forgiveness can be a great healing tool for some people. I don’t think it should be forced on anyone, particularly if another person in the equation is not ready to make amends, or has not done anything to deserve forgiveness. Forcing someone to forgive someone who continues to hurt them, and to continue a relationship with someone who continues to hurt them, is not the all powerful forgiveness solution that we tend to put on things.

A lot of things that you’ve used are familiar to many of us — EMDR, cognitive behavioral therapy, meditation. What is in your current toolkit?

Grounding exercises. Basics such as eating and drinking water. I’m working a lot right now on better metacommunication, better asking for my needs to be met, better asking what other people’s needs are, better curiosity for, “What is the true reality of the situation, and how much of it is the panic level that’s happening in my brain?” The only way that we can really ascertain that is by talking to people and asking, because otherwise our brains just make up untrue things.

Those are the things that I’m working hardest on now. Also, just maintaining relationships to feel loved and supported, using those relationships to feel loved and supported, and making them great two-way relationships where we are supporting one another in community. Because complex PTSD is a relational illness, it sort of decimates our idea of where we belong in the community. Having that community around us is really critical element of healing.

Read more of Salon’s mental health coverage: 

James O’Keffe announces at CPAC that target of his CNN “sting” now works for Project Veritas

James O’Keefe, founder of the right-wing group Project Veritas, announced at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday morning, that one of the former targets of his infamous “stings” is now his employee.

For years, Project Veritas has engaged in numerous hidden camera “stings,” using deceptive tactics and misleading video edits to cast progressive activists, Democratic politicians and mainstream media journalists in unflattering lights.

In the mid-2000s, O’Keefe teamed up with anti-abortion activist Lila Rose to secretly record and misleadingly edit videos of Rose seeking advice from Planned Parenthood clinics. The released videos inaccurately portrayed the clinics as complicit in covering up statutory rape.

In 2009, O’Keefe and right-wing activist Hannah Giles launched a “sting” against the community organizing and voter registration group ACORN, falsely depicting the group as helping a “pimp” find tax write-offs for his business prostituting minors. Although ACORN staff reported the interaction to police and subsequent investigations found no criminal wrongdoing when O’Keefe released the video, Congress froze ACORN’s funding and the organization was forced to shut its doors.

In 2018, after the Washington Post broke the story of Christian right Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore’s sexual misconduct, Project Veritas had one of its undercover employees contact the story’s reporters offering an explosive — and completely fabricated — new scoop: Moore had gotten her pregnant while she was a teenager and then facilitated her abortion. The reporters didn’t fall for the bait, and instead exposed Project Veritas’ attempted “sting” with their own hidden camera. The attempt illustrated a troubling new escalation for the organization, in attempting to weaponize disinformation by trying to lure reporters into covering a false story in order to discredit the impact of their investigative reporting.

Project Veritas has long gone after media figures, secretly recording NPR employees in 2011, and trying to humiliate a CNN reporter in 2010 by luring her to a houseboat filled with sex toys and a ceiling mirror, in which they reportedly planned to record O’Keefe attempting to “seduce” her.

In 2017, they went after CNN again, with operatives setting up casual meetings with CNN staff (sometimes by posing as young journalists seeking advice on entering the profession), surreptitiously recording them and later infiltrating the network’s staff calls. The employees were recorded complaining about the stuff many journalists complain about, like how the quest for ratings drives programming decisions, expressing skepticism about certain media narratives, or making fun of Trump. O’Keefe packaged the project as “American Pravda,” which he also later used as the title of his 2018 book.

One of the filmed CNN employees was Patrick Davis, a field operations manager who worked at the company for more than 25 years, and who O’Keefe’s employees recorded as saying the network wasn’t what “it used to be.” The media, Davis complained, had become “infotainment.” And it was Davis, who joined O’Keefe on the CPAC stage Thursday to announce that he’s now accepted a position as Project Veritas’ executive producer.

Davis, who retired from CNN in 2020, said he’d been motivated in part after “watching this crazy, bizarro, dystopian world we’re living in right now,” and partly in response to an FBI raid on O’Keefe and Project Veritas last November for allegedly stealing a diary belonging to Biden’s daughter. (After the raid, the New York Times published a story based on leaked documents from Project Veritas’s attorney, advising them on how to conduct their sting operations without violating federal laws like prohibitions on lying to government officials, seemingly in relation to a planned 2018 plot to have women record FBI agents on dates in hopes of catching them disparaging Trump. Project Veritas, ironically, responded by seeking a court order to block the New York Times from disseminating the material in the legal memos further, sparking an ongoing legal battle.)

Davis went on to condemn the mainstream media, masks and pandemic health measures. He then praised Project Veritas as true journalism, saying he’d explained his decision to a childhood friend by declaring: “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”

While Project Veritas and conservatives were quick to spin the news as an indictment of the media — with even CNN reporters realizing that the real truth-tellers work at Project Veritas — it’s doubtful that any full-scale conversion took place. Beyond the glimmers of conservative grievance in his CPAC speech, Davis seemed sympathetic years ago. In the surreptitious recordings taken of Davis talking to a Project Veritas operative over drinks in 2019, he called members of Congress considering impeaching Trump “assholes” worse than the then-president.

“My guess is the House is crazy enough to go through with [the impeachment] and they’re starting it,” Davis said at the time. “Everyone’s trying to do this from a holier-than-thou perspective, ‘Oh, he abused his power,’ and all this stuff. These assholes, these 500 assholes up there, abuse their power every day. They do this shit every fricking day. What he was doing was nothing compared to what these assholes were doing on a daily basis.”

Batman and Cyborg were originally in the “Peacemaker” finale, but got cut

HBO Max has a hit on its hands with “Peacemaker,” James Gunn’s gleefully vulgar superhero show about a man who wants peace even if he has to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth to get it. Like “The Boys” or “Invincible,” “Peacemaker” kind of has an iconoclastic edge to it; the title character (played by John Cena) is a bit of an ass and the off-color jokes come thick and fast. It certainly has the dirtiest gag reel we’ve seen in a while:

It also ended with a bang: after Peacemaker and the team had dispatched the (kind of) villainous Butterflies, the Justice League showed up . . . well, some of them. Wonder Woman, Superman, Aquaman and the Flash turned up to help Peacemaker & Co. beat back the alien threat . . . after it had already been taken care of. Still, the cameos were cool to see. “We didn’t have the budget for them to show up on time,” Gunn quipped to Variety. “Never been able to do it. They had to show up late.”

In terms of actors, only Jason Momoa (Aquaman) and Ezra Miller (the Flash) were actually on set; Wonder Woman and Superman were played by body doubles and only seen in silhouette; Gal Gadot and Henry Cavill were nowhere to be seen.

And it wasn’t a guarantee that Gunn would get any of that, seeing as he didn’t get the all-clear from Warner Bros. beforehand. “Um, you know, I didn’t have a conversation,” he said. “I just wrote it and gave them the scripts. I don’t think they really realized what they had agreed to until they saw what I had shot, which was the Justice League there. And then I think the full weight of it and, you know, what does this mean for the DCU and all of that became huge pieces of conversation up to the very highest levels of Warners. And to their credit, they let me get away with it.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CaLmuC_Jjk6/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

James Gunn filmed a version of the final scene with Batman and Cyborg

You may have noticed that the entire Justice League didn’t show up, in silhouette form or otherwise: Batman and Cyborg, who were part of the team in 2017’s “Justice League,” were absent. “[T]here are reasons for it, but I’m actually uncertain whether I can say what those reasons are,” Gunn hinted. “It might have to do with future stuff.”

That said, Gunn did film a version of the scene with Batman and Cyborg in it. That’s according to actor Matt Turner, who served as the body double for Batman:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CaKpbLvJskM/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

After that epic #peacemaker finale I can finally post this. Sadly I (& Cyborg) were cut from the final edit. Why? Only @jamesgunn & @warnerbrosentertainment know that. While it’s disappointing to be scrubbed out, this was still a blast, and a dream come true to wear the suit!!! Big thanks to everyone involved!!

How intriguing . . . perhaps we’ll learn more about the future of the DCEU before too long.

James Gunn talks “Peacemaker” season 2

As I mentioned, “Peacemaker” is officially coming back for a second season, although we don’t have a release date. Gunn said he was slow to embrace a second season because he wanted to make sure it was something he really wanted to do, but now that it’s happening, the wheels are in motion:

I’m still playing with a lot of different things. The most important thing for me in the first season was who Peacemaker was and where was he going — what was his personal journey? The Butterflies and the plot and all of that is secondary to who he was as a character and what his changes were, as well as the other characters and where they began and where they end, because they all have little changes for themselves — with the exception of Vigilante, who’s sort of a straight line the whole time. So I know where Peacemaker starts and where he ends, but I’m playing with other ideas around that and how that’s gonna play out.

And that’s not all Gunn has in the hopper. Peacemaker originally appeared onscreen in “The Suicide Squad.” Since his TV spinoff was such a hit, there’s another offshoot in the works. “Yeah, that’s advanced a lot,” Gunn hinted. “Hopefully, in not too long, people will know more about that. It’s not 100%. But we’ve been working heavily on it. So that would be something that would happen in addition to ‘Peacemaker’ Season 2.”

And on top of that, Gunn has “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” coming out on May 23, 2023. Busy guy.

Lindsey Graham rages after Biden passes up rumored SCOTUS pick from South Carolina

Lindsey Graham lashed out early Friday at the news that President Joe Biden selected Ketanji Brown Jackson as his pick to be the next Supreme Court justice. 

“The radical Left has won President Biden over yet again,” Graham said in a tweet. 

Graham’s statement was made shortly before Biden’s official announcement of his nomination of Jackson. 

RELATED: President Biden announces historic Supreme Court pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson

“Judge Jackson is one of our nation’s brightest legal minds and has an unusual breadth of experience in our legal system, giving her the perspective to be an exceptional Justice,” a White House statement read.

Graham has expressed support for the nomination of J. Michelle Childs, who was on the short list of potential nominees Biden was considering. Childs currently serves as a federal district judge in South Carolina.

Childs had bipartisan support, with GOP senators Graham and Tim Scott, as well as Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, being some of her advocates.

“She has wide support in our state. She’s considered to be a fair-minded, highly-gifted jurist,” Graham said during a CBS “Face the Nation” interview. “She’s one of the most decent people I’ve ever met. I cannot say anything bad about Michelle Childs; She is an awesome person.”

RELATED: With his Supreme Court pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden takes the culture war fight to Republicans

Advocates for Childs emphasized the importance of her public state school education, which would diversify the historically Ivy league alumni-filled bench. Jackson graduated from Harvard, attending the prestigious university for both undergraduate school and law school.  

However, Graham did not explicitly express opposition to Jackson, and was in fact one of three Republican senators who voted to confirm her in her current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

If selected, Jackson will be the first Black woman nominated for the Supreme Court. During Biden’s campaign for the presidency, he pledged to put the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. 

Earlier in her career, Jackson served as a public defender for two years. If confirmed, she would be the first federal public defender to ever serve on the Supreme Court, and the first Supreme Court justice who has worked in criminal defense since Thurgood Marshall.

Jackson will step into the vacancy that will be left when Justice Stephen Breyer — who she once clerked for — retires after more than 27 years on the court. She will be expected to start Oct. 3, when the court’s new term begins. 

Trump’s former military advisers scold him for praising Putin’s invasion as “genius”

This week, Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladmir Putin for waging a full-scale invasion into Ukraine on Thursday, calling the Russian leader’s incursion, which has already resulted in hundreds of casualties, “genius.” But few of Trump’s former advisers appear to share that same perspective, with many of them claiming that Putin should not be looked upon favorably at all. 

On Thursday, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told CNN he was in “disbelief” over the Republican support for Putin. 

“[Putin] is a tyrant. He’s a murderer,”  Kelly said in an interview. “He has attacked an innocent country whose only crime is that they want to be free and democratic and they’re working in that direction and have been working in that direction.”

“Is Putin smart?” the former adviser added. “Yes. I mean, tyrants are smart. They know what they’re doing. But … I can’t imagine why someone would look at what’s happening there and see it [as] anything other than a criminal act.”

RELATED: Trump praises “very smart” Putin for invading Ukraine

H.R. McMaster, Trump’s former national security adviser, echoed a very similar stance, telling CNN that Putin is “certainly not someone to be praised.”

Putin, he added, is a “man who has enabled serial episodes of mass homicide” and has “subverted Europe by weaponizing migrants.”


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


“This is one campaign in his larger effort to drag everybody else down,” McMaster concluded. 

Former White House Chief of Staff Marc Short also joined the chorus of condemnation on Thursday, arguing that “no one in the GOP should be praising Vladimir Putin.”

“He’s a former KGB officer and a dictator and a thug,” Short told The Washington Post. “We should be clear about that.”

Over the past week, Trump has heaped praise on Putin, attempting to frame the invasion as a reflection on President Biden’s leadership. In a Wednesday statement, the former president claimed that Putin is “playing Biden like a drum. It is not a pretty thing to watch!”

RELATED: Trump, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo praise Putin while bashing Biden

Some Trump associates have attempted to draw a contrast between Biden and Putin leadership styles, claiming the latter is stronger because is not beholden to “wokeness.”

“Putin ain’t woke,” ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon declared this week on his podcast with private military contractor Erik Prince. “He’s anti-woke.”

“The Russian people still know which bathroom to use,” Prince responded. 

Tensions are reportedly escalating on the ground in Ukraine as Russian forces edge their way into the heart of Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital. On Wednesday, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky began drafting reservists aged 18-60 to fight in the conflict. The next day, Zelensky ordered a general military mobilization in an effort to stave off Russian forces, which are currently leading a three-front assault on the country’s military bases, airfields and airports. Thus far, 137 Ukrainians have been killed, according to the nation’s president.

With his Supreme Court pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden takes the culture war fight to Republicans

After a truly miserable news week, President Joe Biden graced us all with one bit of good news going into the weekend: His nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who he appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court last year. 

Biden had promised to nominate a Black woman to the court. And despite right-wing media’s disdain for the idea, there were a number of eminently qualified judges and lawyers whose names were being circulated on shortlists. Republicans nuked the filibuster for Supreme Court judges to seat Donald Trump nominees, so it’s generally believed that whoever Biden nominated will secure the necessary 50 Democratic votes to be seated. The only real question was whether or not the fear of right wing backlash would push Biden towards a more conservative choice, or whether he would expand his progressive court agenda to the highest court in the land. 

By picking Jackson, the answer is unequivocally the latter.

Out of the likeliest names on the shortlist, Jackson was generally the favorite of progressives. Progressive groups lobbied hard for Biden to choose Jackson because of her background as a public defender and her advocacy for fairer sentences for drug offenders. It’s a highly unusual background for Supreme Court justices, even Democratic-appointed ones. 

RELATED: Why the right sees Biden’s promise of a Black woman on the Supreme Court as an attack 

But this pick isn’t just exciting on the merits. Choosing Jackson is also a politically welcome move. It shows that Biden is learning from the past mistakes of Democrats, who all too often think that the way to win culture war fights is to run away from them. By picking an unapologetically progressive judge, Biden shows that he understands that Republicans are going to wage culture war no matter what Democrats do. The only way for Democrats to win is to stop fleeing, but stand their ground and fight back. 

Republicans knew from the get-go that they weren’t going to defeat Biden’s nomination in the Senate. Still, right-wing media has made it quite clear that the plan is to react to the nomination by pandering overtly to the ugliest racist and sexist impulses of their base. Even before Jackson’s nomination, Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and multiple Republican politicians staked out the position that anyone Biden nominates is inherently unqualified, simply due to his promise that the nominee would be a Black woman. The bigoted hysterics over “affirmative action” and “reverse racism” started within seconds of Breyer announcing his retirement plans. 


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


In the past, the Democratic response to this would have been to adopt a defensive crouch and try to find a more moderate nominee to placate Republicans, in a fruitless hope this would shut them up. That was the logic, for instance, behind Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. But what Obama — and clearly Biden — learned was that it doesn’t work that way anymore. The Republican Senate majority refused to seat Garland. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has since made it clear there is no such thing as a Democratic Supreme Court nominee that his party will ever accept. 

The whining, racism, and bad faith was going to happen no matter who Biden nominated. Indeed, it’s already begun, with Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., pretending to find Jackson to be the “radical Left,” even though he voted to confirm her to the circuit court less than a year ago. By going with a more progressive nominee, Biden signals that he is not going to let this nonsense cow him. Just a show of spine in itself will be a huge benefit, both to Biden and Democrats generally. Even more importantly, by digging in and fighting back on the culture war nonsense, Biden and Democrats can highlight how radical, divisive, and racist the GOP really is — and how Democrats are the ones standing up not just for progressive values, but basic decency. 

RELATED: Democrats can win the culture wars — but they have to take on the fight early and often

There’s a lot about Jackson’s background that the slimy race-baiters of Fox News and the larger GOP will seize on in the coming weeks. It’s foolish to pretend otherwise. Republicans have already had tantrums over another district court nominee because she helped innocent people get out of jail. They’re going to go hog wild over Jackson’s history of fighting to reduce sentences of drug offenders. 

In her prior role as a district judge, Jackson also drew a great deal of attention with her strongly-worded decisions against the Donald Trump administration’s relentless abuse of power. The most famous of these is her 2019 ruling that White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena, in which she wrote, “presidents are not kings.” Expect lots of disingenuous whining from right-wing media about how she’s supposedly “biased” against Trump and Republicans. 


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


Republicans are still revenge-minded about Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing — they still insist it was somehow unfair to bring up credible allegations of attempted rape against him. Expect them to dig into Jackson’s youth and try to create scandals under the guise of “fair play.” My prediction is that they’re going to try to drum up controversy over the fact that, when Jackson was a student at Harvard, she led protests over the school allowing another student to hang a Confederate battle flag outside of a dorm window.  We can expect lots of racist hysterics from Republicans over this, disguised as complaints about “cancel culture” and false claims that the left is trying to “erase history.” (The only people trying to erase history, by the way, are Republicans.) 

None of these fights, however, are ones that Democrats should be afraid of. Polling shows that there’s strong majority support for sentence reform for drug offenders. Most of the public hates Trump and especially hates that he thinks he’s above the law. Most Americans — including most Southerners — also correctly identify the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism. Rather than fear these debates, Democrats should welcome the opportunity to put Republicans on the defensive.

Democrats need to demand Republicans explain why they support unpopular policies and flagrant displays of racism. As long as Democrats are willing to get aggressive in these fights, they can win. Biden’s nominating of Jackson shows that he gets that this is the way to defeat the right’s culture war nonsense: Don’t run and hide, go on the offense.

Most Americans already agree with progressives on these issues. They just need to be reminded of the vast gulf between the parties, and how radical and racist Republicans really are. This nomination is a good sign that Biden, at least, knows what kind of fight Democrats are facing in 2022 and what it will take to win it. 

President Biden announces historic Supreme Court pick, Ketanji Brown Jackson

In a historic decision the White House announced today, President Biden selected Ketanji Brown Jackson as his Supreme Court nominee. Jackson is the first Black woman nominated to the nation’s highest court.

During her lengthy legal career, Jackson has enjoyed rare support from both sides of the political spectrum.

“Although our politics may differ, my praise for Ketanji’s intellect, for her character, for her integrity, it is unequivocal,” former House speaker Paul Ryan said of Jackson when she was announced on Friday.

Jackson attended famed Miami Palmetto High School in Miami, Florida which boasts alumni such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and current U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy. During school, Jackson excelled as both debate team champion and student body president. “I want to go into law and eventually have a judicial appointment,” Jackson penned in her high school yearbook. Jackson’s father served as chief attorney for the Miami-Dade school board while her mother worked for 14 years as principal of a public magnet school.

Jackson graduated from Harvard Law school in 1996, where she served as editor of the Harvard Law Review and worked as a reporter and researcher for Time Magazine in New York. During her time at Harvard, Jackson met husband Patrick Jackson, who currently works as a surgeon at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. The couple have two daughters, one of which attends the prestigious Georgetown Day School in Washington D.C. 

Jackson’s legal career took off shortly after graduation. The short list: three federal clerkships, employment at four elite law firms, two stints with the U.S. Sentencing Commission and two years as a public defender (a rare resume item for Supreme Court nominees).

Jackson’s stand-out cases range from environmental issues, immigration and civil rights to the first amendment. In a famous 2019 decision she penned in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, Jackson ruled that former White House counsel to Trump Don McGahn was required to testify on Russian interference in the 2016 election – despite Trump’s attempts to block McGahn’s testimony.

“Presidents are not kings,” she wrote. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”

In 2001, she wrote an amicus brief for McGuire v. Reilly supporting the prohibition of anti-abortion protestors from harassing women visiting abortion clinics. And her short tenure as a public defender highlighted her commitment to legal education for low income defendants.

“I think that’s really important for our entire justice system because it’s only if people understand what they’ve done, why it’s wrong, and what will happen to them if they do it again that they can really start to rehabilitate,” Jackson said during her 2021 confirmation hearing to the D.C. Circuit.

Although Jackson rejects the notion that her race will play a significant role in her Supreme Court career, she does acknowledge the unique perspective she brings to the role. “I’ve experienced life in perhaps a different way than some of my colleagues because of who I am, and that might be valuable — I hope it would be valuable — if I was confirmed to the court,” she stated.

Democrats aim to confirm Jackson’s nomination in April. If all 50 Senate democrats vote in favor, Biden will not require Republican support. But the approval she received from Republicans Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski during her 2021 D.C. Circuit confirmation only stands to aid Jackson’s confirmation.

This is a moment of great pride and patriotism for our nation, as Judge Jackson makes history as the first Black woman selected to serve on the highest court in the land,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated. “Congress and the Country look forward to Judge Jackson receiving a fair and timely hearing, as well as a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate.”

CPAC’s bloodthirsty: U.S. conservatives are still warmongering — this time for domestic battle

There was a time when the annual gathering of young activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was so hawkish you would have thought they were all going to rush out the door and enlist in the Marines demanding to be sent into the most dangerous foreign war zone they could find to fight for God, Mother and Ronald Reagan. Even though they rarely actually enlisted, they believed that it was their duty to pound their chests and insist that we needed to “fight ’em over there, so we don’t have to fight ’em over here” whether it was Communists or terrorists. Those days are over, I’m afraid.

It’s not that the attendees have transformed into peace-loving flower children. They are as hostile and aggressive as ever. But today’s CPAC activists have turned their focus inward and are convinced they are literally fighting for their lives here at home against what they see as a Communist 5th column (also known as the Democratic Party) and the “invasion” allegedly being waged daily along the southern border.

This year’s gathering in Florida, home of Dear Leader Trump, just happened to fall on the opening days of Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of its neighboring country, Ukraine. One might have expected that the speakers, at least, would feel it necessary to at least address this issue, seeing as it’s the first major land war on European soil since World War II, affecting 44 million Ukrainians and millions more in surrounding countries. On the first day, however, there was hardly a peep in defense.

Two of the big marquee speakers, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Senator Ted Cruz didn’t mention the war at all. (In fact, DeSantis didn’t even mention Trump at all, which I’m sure did not go unnoticed down the road at Mar-a-Lago.) DeSantis threw out a ton of red meat to the crowd however, such as, “if Biden is dumping illegal aliens into FL from the southern border, I’m re-routing them to Delaware — we’ll do some to DC and Hollywood as well.” But his only foray into foreign affairs was to say that if it hadn’t been for Florida in the pandemic the US would be like Australia and Canada today which may not be the winning applause line he thinks it is considering the much lower death tolls in those two countries.

Ted Cruz served up his tired, unctuous podcast act calling White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki ‘Peppermint Patty,’ saying he can’t wait until next January when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will fly away “on her broom” and then led the crowd in a lusty chant of “Let’s Go Brandon.” The crowd loved it which says more about their taste in comedy than it says about him.

The final speaker of the night, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, did bring up the Ukraine war, saying that President Biden is weak and should “open up American trade energy.” He later told CBS News Correspondent Bob Costa that he also believes the US should withdraw troops from Europe altogether because we have to fight China which doesn’t sound like a very sophisticated understanding of global affairs.

RELATED: CPAC opens and immediately devolves into GOP dissent over Ukraine

Reports from the floor show a consensus among the crowd that while it’s unfortunate that Putin has invaded Ukraine it’s not something we should be concerned about when our own border is supposedly under siege. This parallel between the two situations was repeated by many people. For instance, Buzzfeed reported:

“[Ukraine’s] something that’s important,” Rodney Perez said. “I think more so our southern border, I think that’s the probably most important for our country right now, what’s going on. We’re being invaded.”

The New York Times:

Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, said, “The U.S. southern border matters a lot more than the Ukrainian border.” He added: “I’m more worried about how the cartels are deliberately trying to infiltrate our country than a dispute 5,000 miles away, cities we can’t pronounce, places that most Americans can’t find on a map.”

Of course, this was something that Donald Trump had said earlier in the week when he was lavishing praise on Vladimir Putin and indicating that he wished he could stage such a smart and savvy military operation down at the Southern border.

There isn’t a lot of consistency among this group, with some saying we’re being invaded while others say we should invade, but there’s one thing they all agree on: America has gone completely to hell in a deplorable hand basket.

RELATED: Putin leaves Republicans splintered and confused

CPAC’s 2022 conference is dubbed “Awake, Not Woke,” which gives you a clear idea of what the right-wing really cares about. There were no dry panels on taxation or health care. They aren’t bothering anymore with ideological discussions about Russell Kirk. It’s all culture war all the time. Here is a sample of the panels this year:

“The Moron in Chief”
“Put Him to Bed, Lock Her Up and Send Her to the Border.”
“Lock Her Up, FOR REAL”
“School Boards for Dummies”
“Domestic Terrorists Unite: Lessons From Virginia Parents”
“Fire Fauci”
“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”
“The Invasion”
“Obamacare still kills” (just for old times sake)


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


That’s the Republican agenda, right there.

And here’s just one example of the tone of the conference from the speakers:

Rolling Stone correspondent Steven Monacelli live tweeted from the conference and I think his post featuring the trailer for a new film starring CPAC organizers Matt and Mercedes Schlapp called “The Culture Killers, the Woke Wars” sums it up.

So it’s wrong to say that these activists aren’t hawkish just because they don’t care that Vladimir Putin has launched an unprovoked war against Ukraine. They are as bloodthirsty as ever. It’s just that the war they want to fight is within their own country. 

An “emerging crisis”: The climate is changing too fast for plants and animals to adapt

White storks migrating to Northern Europe nest up to a week earlier in warm weather, exposing them to extreme storms and threatening the survival of their chicks. Staple crops like barley, maize, rice, rye, sorghum, soybean, and wheat, along with fruits like apples, cherries, pears, and mangoes, are all experiencing disruptions in their growth and development. Ten years ago, a marine heat wave in the Gulf of Maine sped up the life cycle of lobsters, overwhelming local fisheries that had to harvest them earlier than expected. 

Scientists have warned for years that climate change is upending the natural life cycles of plants and animals — to potentially devastating effect. Now, a new report released Thursday by the United Nations identifies these changes as one of the world’s most pressing emerging environmental crises, in need of immediate action. 

The report, Frontiers 2022, comes ahead of the UN Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, at the end of February. It also highlights as emerging crises the growing destruction from wildfires and the hidden cost of noise pollution, which leads to 12,000 premature deaths each year in the European Union alone. But perhaps most strikingly, it warns that life-cycle changes driven by warming temperatures and extreme weather patterns are affecting the natural rhythms of species around the world, often too quickly for them to adapt. And while these changes may seem subtle season to season, the report argues, they have the potential to devastate commercial agriculture and fisheries, while also threatening vulnerable species, from butterflies to whales.

“Our Frontiers Report series aims to put the spotlight on key and emerging environmental issues — those that potentially have huge effects on our society, economy, and ecosystems,” said Andrea Hinwood, chief scientist for the UN Environment Programme, during a press event. “We need to be aware of the issues, their causes, so we can look at how we manage them, prevent harm, and implement appropriate preventative actions and solutions.”

The science of how living things time their birth, growth, reproduction and other life-cycle stages is known as phenology, and changes in these patterns — driven by environmental forces like temperature, the arrival of rains and other cues — are called “phenological shifts.” Particularly in temperate regions of the world, where changing seasons let animals know to hibernate, flowers to bloom, birds to lay their eggs, and fish to spawn, warming temperatures and extreme weather driven by climate change can alter these natural cycles. 

The world has already warmed 2.14 degrees Fahrenheit (or 1.19 degrees Celsius) from the pre-industrial era. Studies in the early 2000s found that “the life stages of 203 plant and animal species had advanced by an average of about 2.8 days earlier per decade,” according to the report. Since then, more recent research has continued to study how ecosystems, biomes, and taxonomic groups are being affected as the rise in temperatures speeds up. 

Monarch butterflies have delayed their annual migration by 6 days per decade due to warmer-than-normal temperatures, potentially impacting their access to food sources along the way. In the Arctic, spring vegetation is sprouting up to 2 weeks earlier than normal, meaning caribou calves are born too late to eat it, decimating populations of the endangered species. Certain fish species have shifted their egg laying forward by as many as 10 days per decade, and some plankton species are reaching peak abundance as many as 50 days earlier per decade.

Animals often can adapt, the report explains, with chicks hatching earlier to catch up with their main food source: caterpillars, themselves emerging earlier to keep up with the plants they feed on — a phenomenon known as “phenological plasticity.” But with climate change occurring so rapidly, “individual or population plasticity may not be able to keep up with the rapid environmental changes we are experiencing,” the report says. 

These changes aren’t just about the natural world. As the report warns, phenological mismatches could wreak havoc on human societies if left unchecked. Along with a loss in overall biodiversity — which has consequences for human health and the spread of infectious diseases — warming trends have already affected crop yields, threatening food security around the world. When plants flower early because warming temperatures signal to them that spring has arrived, pollinators might not be active in time to reach them, or late-season frosts could destroy the early crop. Warmer temperatures could also encourage the development of pests, threatening yields. 

“Rehabilitating habitats, building wildlife corridors to enhance habitat connectivity, shifting boundaries of protected areas, and conserving biodiversity in productive landscapes can help as immediate interventions,” the report concludes. “However, without strong efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these conservation measures will only delay the collapse of essential ecosystem services.” 

Former GOP strategist Rick Wilson on Putin’s deep appeal to “dictator-friendly” Republicans

“Vladimir Putin has this deep appeal to the modern Republican Party because he believes in power, he believes in wealth, he believes in control,” former GOP strategist Rick Wilson warned recently in a conversation with me on “Salon Talks.” Wilson added bluntly, the GOP “have become very friendly to dictatorship, to authoritarianism…people like Putin.” 

Wilson is no longer a Republican himself, but knows them from the inside and out — from their strengths to their dark, undemocratic desires. After all, he was one of the top political consultants building the party from behind the scenes for decades. Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, candidly described today’s GOP as “an authoritarian, dictator-friendly party that has abandoned all of its ideological predicates except pure power, and these small-D democratic values.” And he was just getting warmed up. Wilson added, “What the Republicans are doing, they’re racing to make 2024 the very last election we ever have in this country…I don’t want to seem like I’m exaggerating that, they don’t want elections, they want power.”

From there I spoke to Wilson, the New York Times best-selling author of “Running Against the Devil” and “Everything Trump Touches Dies,” about this one question: What do Democrats need to do to win in 2022? He shared a litany of practical, real-world advice for Democrats, starting with raising alarm bells about the dangers posed by the GOP to our democratic republic. He also faulted Democrats for not demanding Trump be held accountable for his role in the January 6 attack and for not holding January 6 committee hearings weekly. Wilson is right when he says if a Democratic president had done what Donald Trump did after losing the 2020 election that the GOP “would have gone at this thing with 24/7 fists of fury.”

Wilson also warned Democrats to punch back hard on the conservatives’ culture war issues, such as their efforts to ban what they call “critical race theory.” Wilson explained that “Democrats need to learn how to jujitsu the culture wars,” by framing the issue in ways that work against Republicans. And Wilson shared a few colorful examples of how to just that. 2022 is a challenging year for Democrats but it’s very winnable. Watch or read my “Salon Talks” with Wilson to learn more.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How do the political winds look today as you look at November 2022? What do Democrats got to do to win?

It’s always difficult for the off-year of an incumbent party. It’s always a problem. There are only three times in the last 150 years where the party in power gained seats, one of which was 2002, and that was only because the predicate of the election was national security after the attack by al-Qaida in New York on 9/11. Biden faces headwinds just generically in the very start. 

Now, I think there are a lot of difficulties. Democrats are retiring — there are 30 retirements so far. They are a divided party in Washington between the Biden/Obama/Clinton wing and the progressive wing. The progressives have not felt like they have had a sweeping set of victories that they wanted for Green New Deal and then the social spending stuff. They’re a little grumpy right now sitting on the sidelines. 

Republicans are very, very good at raising money, recruiting candidates, staying on message and relentlessly nationalizing campaigns. If there’s a single failing I think the Democrats are experiencing right now, it’s that they’re trying to nationalize the campaign on things that don’t matter to voters right now. They’re trying to nationalize the campaign on Build Back Better — fine and good, but it’s not working. It’s not big enough to change the daily lives of voters and to make them think, “Oh, gosh. If I don’t support Democrats, I’m going to lose this great benefit that I have received from Build Back Better.” They don’t feel that Build Back Better has meaningfully improved their lives at this point. 

The other thing the Democrats are falling victim to, as they do — and I’ve written a lot about this, you and I have talked about this — culture wars are where the Democratic Party goes to die. When they don’t understand the culture war that’s being waged, and where they don’t understand how it’s being run against them, they get caught up in a very bad cycle where Republicans have found the notion that may be fake and made up and horrifying divisive, but they’re really smart at deploying that issue. I’ll give you a perfect example, that’s critical race theory. Critical race theory, as we know, is not taught in schools, it’s a fringe element of part of legal theory, blah, blah, blah. However, when Republicans say critical race theory, what Democrats tend to do is say, “Well, no, it’s not taught in schools, it’s an edge theory of this …” and they start defending it and they start getting in this cycle of defending it. That is playing the Republicans’ game, running their predicate, running their playbook. They will just walk them into this meat grinder every time. 

Democrats need to learn how to jujitsu the culture wars. What they should say is, “Just tell us the truth, Republican candidate X. You just want to say the N-word, you just want permission to say the N-word. That’s what this is really about. You don’t want African Americans to vote, you’re telling us that every day by all these new voting restrictions. But you really, really want to make sure we don’t talk about anything that makes you uncomfortable, right? Not being able to say the N-word makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t it?” 

They don’t fight with the knives-out, full-throttle, go-for-the-kill aspect that guys like me who grew up in the Republican system have lived and breathed our entire careers. They don’t understand that the psychological nature of the culture war thing comes from a really significant Republican understanding of the country, that it is not homogenous ideologically. I’ve seen Democrats before who say, “Oh, well, we’ve got this pretty good candidate in Tennessee or Kentucky or Arkansas, however, we can’t get behind him or her because they’re not aggressively pro-choice enough, they’re not exactly right on every single issue, they’re not a perfect clone of somebody from Oregon or Massachusetts or California or Washington State or New York.” Republicans get it. They give their candidates permission, in some weird and subtle ways sometimes, to be off the ideological agenda, as long as they can win the seat.

In 2018, the Democrats, and Speaker Pelosi gets a lot of credit for this, very smartly went out and said, “Find candidates in these districts who can win, not the most progressive, not the most ideologically perfect, find people who can win.” They did a really good job — 41 seats that year. Now, that wasn’t just the effect of the first term-itis, it was also the effect of good candidate selection of candidates who matched their districts. 

The country still has a tremendous amount of ideological political diversity, because I will tell you, a Democratic voter in Oklahoma is not as progressive as a Democratic voter in San Francisco. If you pick candidates and recruit candidates based on win-ability and electability, you’re going to be in a lot better position than if they meet every single one of your ideological tests. You give me 50 Conor Lambs, I’ll go out and win you 35 new Congressional seats. You give me 50 AOCs, I’ll get one or two. Conor Lamb looks a lot more like the Democratic voters in a lot of these states than AOC does. I pick Conor Lamb just as one example because the temptation of ideological purity, and this in some cases happens with Republicans too, the temptation of getting the ideological dream date that leads you down to ineffective candidate or campaign is a danger for a party. 

Now, look, Republicans are going to get their wish for the most MAGA crazy people in some of these races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, in the Senate side particularly, and the Democrats are going to have a much better chance of winning in the Senate because you’re going to end up with a Josh Mandel or a J.D. Vance or some other lunatic on Ohio. You may end up with a Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania. Anytime you can match moderate to crazy, you’re in a great spot, you’re in a fantastic position. Anytime you can match a person who does not meet every single right-line ideological test, but appeals to voters in the state or district, you’re in great shape.

It’s good to have the proverbial Sister Souljah moment. It’s good for voters to see you being able to say, “Look, I’m going to stand up for you in this state, in this district, I’m going to fight for you. I don’t care about what they do in Washington, I don’t care about what they say on the pages of the Times editorial page, I care about the people here in Altoona, Pennsylvania or Maitland, Florida or Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.” Getting into that idea that the country is not homogenous ideologically is really smart. 

The third thing is, this is not going to be an election about policy, it will be about personality. It will be about a broad sense of whether we’re going to pick one major path in the future of this country or another. There are people in D.C. who say, “Oh, the election will be about prescription drug coverage and Build Back Better.” Horses**t. Get out of here. The election’s going to be a decision between whether or not you have an authoritarian, dictator-friendly party that has abandoned all of its ideological predicates except pure power, and these small-D democratic values that inform this country, or whether you’re going to have a country that may be messy and we may fight all the time and it may be a little bit broken around the edges, but it still embraces the passionate political arguments and diversity that the country really has and requires politically. 

It is going to be a matter of groups like mine and many others to convince enough Republican voters, and they’re still out there, in fact there’s some research now telling us the number’s a little bigger than it used to be of voters who are like, “I’m done with the Trump crazies, I’m done with the QAnon, I’m done with the conspiracies, I’m done with the anti-vaccination stuff.” That number’s a little bigger than it was in 2020, but it’s not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. 

Democrats have to find a way in state and district races to pull across what we call the Bannon Line voters. Steve Bannon hates me with affirming passion, but he came up with a line one time, he said, “If those Lincoln Project guys can pull between three and eight-percent of Republicans away from Trump, he’s going to lose.” Well, that was exactly the model we were looking at and exactly the model we executed on these states. It’s a game of small numbers, the Democrats need to execute on that small number game. They need to work that small number targeting, they need to go after the people. You’ve got to sell these voters on the fact that the Democratic Party for them is an Airbnb, okay? It’s not a house, you’re not buying the house and moving in forever, you’re not even renting the house for a year, you’re going to stay for a little while because the circumstances outside mean you need to stay for a little while. 

If you’re in say Michigan, would you rather have that moderate Republican woman voter who thinks taxes are too high and wants her kids back in school because she’s sick of staying home with them? Even though she wants lower taxes and she might even be pro-life, do you want her or not? You should want her. It’s not going to make your party suddenly a bunch of conservatives, you’re not going to all turn into George Bush neocons, you’re not going to turn into Evangelical Christians, but you’re recruiting a group of voters who are willing to stand up against a party that, as we are witnessing right now in this country, will do anything to hold power. 

You’ve answered every one of my questions in one long answer, Rick. Now let’s break it down a little bit. Should Democratic leaders—and I don’t mean grassroots because I know the grassroots people and I talk to them—Democratic leaders, should they be talking about the threat this version of the GOP poses to democracy?

100 percent.

RELATED: From “crack pipes” to “critical race theory”: GOP’s 2022 midterm strategy is overt racism

Should they be making that one of the primary issues going into 2022?

I absolutely believe that is the case, and I’ll tell you why. They sense it viscerally, they understand it. They are seeing this happen in Florida, in Texas, in Georgia, in other Republican-led states right now, and again. it is not that a suburban Republican professional woman in Tampa, Florida, is a raving progressive, but when she sees that there’s a bill that will forbid a teacher or a counselor in a school from talking to a kid about whether they’re gay or not, that scares her. When they understand that if they want to go get an abortion, whether they think it’s a great idea or not morally speaking, that there’s a new government snitch program that will reward weirdos for stalking abortion clinics, that’s the too-much level. 

What the Republicans are doing [is] they’re racing to make 2024 the very last election we ever have in this country. I don’t want to seem like I’m exaggerating that. They don’t want elections, they want power. They’re going to do everything they can to gain and then retain that power, and that is starting to be an element where folks in the electorate are realizing it, it’s making them feel uncomfortable, it’s making them feel troubled, and if you can break out of the culture war bubble, you can snatch some of those voters. 


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


Do you think that Democratic leaders so far have been raising the alarm bells the way they should on this issue in a loud voice?

No, I think they spent a lot of last year fighting over the budget bill, fighting over Build Back Better, and Joe Biden’s progressive allies that had zero favors in that. One thing about Republicans is that when they get on a message and they get on a strategy that’s dictated down from the leadership, they stay with that thing until it’s dead. 

You ended up with Biden getting shanked on the left side of his party by the progressives and shanked on the right side of his party by Manchin and Sinema. It was really shortsighted by a lot of those folks, both Manchin and Sinema and that wing of the party and by the progressives, it was shortsighted to say, “Hey, we’re going to do everything we can to hamstring Joe Biden and screw him over for right now, because it makes it more likely that we’re going to get what we want in some imaginary scenario.” The people that were benefiting from that were Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the cuckoo caucus that is going to be a much larger part of that Republican demo in the coming year. 

What about the idea of Democratic leaders calling for Donald Trump to be held accountable for the coup attempt that we know about, the January 6th attempt? If a Democratic president did what Donald Trump did, every day on Fox News there would be a countdown to his indictment.

They would build a gibbet outside of the White House lawn. He would have been impeached 47 times already. There would be nonstop hearings every day. We would never have had a break in the hearings. They would have crushed every witness who tried not to testify. They would have subpoenaed everybody in sight, including the janitor. They would have interviewed the White House cat. They would have gone at this thing with 24/7 fists of fury. I’m glad the committee is subpoenaing a lot of people, but what I’ve been hearing from the beginning is they want to get this over with, they want to go on to Build Back Better, they want to go on to Green New Deal, they want to go on to prescription drug coverage. Stop it. It’s a huge deal. They tried to overthrow a legitimate American election and engage in an outright act of sedition. If you don’t, as members of Congress, seek to hold every single one of those scumbag weasels accountable, then you are absolutely abandoning your duty and you’re abandoning a political angle that is a fundamental inflection point.

While there are still a lot of behavioral Republicans, there is a large number, it’s not a majority, it’s not a plurality, but there’s a meaningful fraction of those people who did not like seeing people take a s**t in the White House rotunda, who did not like seeing the Confederate battle flag carried into the Capitol of the American Republic, who did not like seeing cops beaten, who did not like seeing the building that is the centerpiece of our representative democracy turned into a war zone. 
    
If you don’t hold those people accountable, if you don’t crack heads on that … Look, the Justice Department has its role to play in this and nobody can control that situation, unfortunately, but if you don’t make a spectacle out of it, the Republicans will memory-hole it. They will rewrite history. They’re great at it. They’re enormously skilled at rewriting history, they will turn this into “ordinary tourists who were just upset by the stolen election.” They will say it and they will say it, and they will say it, and they will say it a hundred-million times until Republicans all believe it, including the ones you have to get. You have to wedge out those people from the GOP, you have to drive a wedge in there, you have to block that wedge from closing back up. 

What you’re getting at is that message over and over, about how this is not partisan, this is about patriotism, this is about protecting our democracy, our democratic republic to make it clear that even for a Democratic president, you can never do that. That’s the thing for me. A Democrat should be going like, “If a Democratic president would be doing this, we’d be calling for them to be held accountable, so when we’re calling for Trump to be held accountable, it’s not partisan, it’s patriotism.” It’s remarkable to see the timidity among leading Democrats, with a few exceptions — Jamie Raskin, Ruben Gallego, a few others.

Raskin, Swalwell, Gallego, Liu and a few others have been fighting in that Truman-esque tradition of going up there and scrapping with bad people. I will say this: I’m not a Republican anymore. I left the Republican Party because it does not exist as a political enterprise that I can support in any capacity. I am still a constitutional conservative where I believe the Constitution is the law and the rule of the land and it must be followed and implemented appropriately. The Constitution sets out these standards and criteria for American elections. They were followed; only one side attempted to subvert those standards and those constitutional rules. They must be held accountable; they must be punished for it. If you don’t think that putting Republicans on the back foot is good politics, you’re out of your mind. 

We’ve got three governorships up that are in key states.

Enormously important. 

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, GOP legislatures, the only thing thwarting their fever dreams of a Democratic governor. I just want to get from your point of view, as a former Republican, how important it is, because if they win those governorships, they will rig the election for 2024. 

They won’t even bother to rig it. The laws in all those states now that have been passed allow them to just, with the stroke of a pen, say, “No, the actual result is X.” So it’s important that we look at Georgia, Wisconsin — Florida is a long shot, unfortunately Ron DeSantis has a very good chance of being reelected right now, because God bless my friends in the Florida Democratic Party, but they cannot organize a two-car motorcade. 

Michigan and Wisconsin are enormously important, and if you look at the margin of victory in 2020, it’s 44,000 votes in those three states. You better do better, and holding onto those governorships is enormously important. I think Governor Whitmer is in better shape than she was six weeks ago, but that’s one where we’re watching very, very closely. Wisconsin’s one we’re watching very, very closely as well. 

I want to touch on Ukraine, we don’t know how it’s going to play out, it’s a snapshot in time as we’re talking about it right now. But what do you think, do you think this ends up playing a role in 2022?

I think it probably does actually, because we’re at a point now, this is another one of those inflection point questions. Democracy is under threat abroad by a rising and empowered class of foreign dictators and authoritarians. The difference between America in this moment in time and America in the past is that no matter what political party they were in, Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Reagan, anybody would have said, “Hey, an authoritarian dictatorship invading a sovereign nation is a bad thing, especially in the heart of Europe. This is a terrible outcome and America will be safer if we reinforce our alliances and stand up against this kind of behavior.” But now we have an entire political party that at best shrugs it off, at best goes, “Eh, it’s his business, it’s his backyard.” 

If Mexico invaded Arizona and said, “These people are more like us in Arizona than they are like the rest of America, we have a traditional historic relationship here” —  that is the same exact argument Putin is using right now. I guarantee you there would be blood in the streets from those folks if that happened. But they have become very friendly to dictatorship, to authoritarianism, and to people like Putin. Putin has this deep appeal to the modern Republican Party, because again, he believes in power, he believes in wealth, he believes in control. 

I tell my progressive and Democratic friends this all the time, I know some of you have this college dorm room desire to try true socialism somewhere, sometime. These people are not that. They are pure authoritarian kleptocrats. The Republican Party, it appeals to them because what is Trump? He’s a pure authoritarian kleptocrat. He does what he wants, helps his friends, makes a lot of money. That’s the world they’re trying to build. That’s why the Democrats need to fight the 2022 race, and thence 2024, with a pure understanding of who those people are and an understanding that they view the world in a very cold, clear-eyed, unequivocal way. 

They’re not ever fooled by their own bulls**t, they don’t ever believe their own bulls**, believe, trust me. These guys don’t believe in any of this stuff. They believe in power. When they’re talking about abortion or gun control or climate or any other thing that makes Democrats think that’s the central issue, they’re really only doing it to get you into a culture war so they can beat you, because they recognize that most Americans are somewhere in the middle. They’ll scare those people to death. “It’s also the Communists, it’s also the people that will take away your hamburgers and your airplanes and your cars. It’s us versus critical race theory. It’s us versus drag queen story time at your library.” All the crazy culture war stuff that is just nuts, they know it works on their people. I’m always telling Democrats, don’t give them the sword to cut off your head. 

If you had one piece of advice for Democrats now, about 200-plus days from the election, what would you tell Democrats? I don’t mean grassroots, grassroots are activated, they’re engaged. 

They’re getting up there, for sure. 

For leaders, what should they be doing right now? What should be the one piece of advice?

They should be making every Republican candidate, especially the ones who don’t seem crazy on paper, they should be making them own January 6th, making them own QAnon, making them own the Putin love fest, they should be making them own all the craziest edges of the Republican Party today, because the craziest edge of the Republican Party is now a plurality of the Republican Party. Make those people, make those candidates own the craziness, make them own the evil, make them own the s**tty behavior. 

You need to take, in a game of small numbers, and split off three to eight percent of the Republican vote. Those people will tend to be female, they’ll tend to be professional, they’ll tend to live in the suburbs, in a more affluent area of suburbs, or they will be independent men who are educated but behaviorally vote Republican. That’s the two demos that you’re really, really after, and in that regard, they don’t want to be seen as associated with a 300-pound fat guy with a Confederate flag in one hand and an AR-15 in the other, yelling about being a Christian nation. They don’t want to be that guy. They don’t want to be the guy who’s wearing the horns taking a s**t in the Capitol. They don’t want to be that guy. They don’t want to be the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Patriot Front weirdo far-right fascist militias. They don’t want to be those people. 

You have to associate the entire Republican Party with those kind of elements of it, which legitimately they are now a plurality or more of the party. It’s not the party of John McCain, George Bush, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Mitt Romney, or anybody else you’ve ever seen before. It is now a party of the kooks, the conspiracy theorists, the QAnon-ers, the nutcases, the bad guys, and the Big Lie people. In all those cases, it’s important I think to link them together inextricably. 

More stories about Putin and Ukraine: 

Prayers for CPAC: Meet the controversial Catholic priest beloved by MAGA

As CPAC opened its 2022 conference Thursday morning in Orlando, it did so with a Christian nationalist flourish, thanks to Fr. Frank Pavone, a Catholic priest with dubious credentials and the founder of the anti-abortion group Priests for Life.

In a morning mass, Pavone asked the Holy Spirit to direct attendees’ anger in the right direction. In an opening invocation for the conference he delivered soon after, Pavone prayed for assistance as “we stand before the forces of falsehood, the enemies of freedom, the kingdom of death,” and asked that God might “impel us forward to victory” as we “continue the work of making America great again.” With a flourish, after the prayer, he donned his red MAGA cap again before walking offstage.

Pavone, who said he will also be offering a Catholic mass each morning of the four-day conference, is one of the most bombastic figures on the Catholic or broader Christian right.

An outspoken Trump supporter, and a member of the Catholic and Pro-Life advisory boards for his campaigns, in the days before the 2016 election, Pavone, incredibly, delivered a pro-Trump speech from an altar bearing the remains of an aborted fetus. When I interviewed Pavone in 2020 about the role of Catholicism in the campaign, he explained that he’d obtained the fetal remains from a sympathetic medical worker who had brought it to him to bury.

“I was doing a series of videos prior to Election Day, bringing up the question of how to vote when it comes to abortion. And I had the idea of well, why don’t we just go right ahead and show visually what I’m trying to put into words,” Pavone said. “So I put it on the altar.”

Although Pavone was compelled to step down from Trump’s 2020 reelection advisory board, since the Catholic Church discourages overt political campaigning, he released a statement calling on “all of my fellow patriots” to set aside anything else and “make it their first priority, as it will be mine, to re-elect President Trump.”

He also led a “Day of Prayer in Reparation for Democrats”; claimed that “The Democratic Party has made a convenant with evil”; said that “not only can Catholics not vote for Biden in good conscience, but they can’t vote for Democrats, period”; and suggested that he would deny absolution to any Catholics who said in confession that they had voted Democratic. (The Texas Diocese of Amarillo, which technically oversaw Pavone at the time, released a statement saying Pavone’s word were “scandalous” and “not becoming of a Catholic priest.” In a statement, the diocese wrote, “These posting are not consistent with Catholic Church teachings. Please disregard them and pray for Father Pavone.”)

In the wake of Trump’s defeat, Pavone spoke at the December 2020 Jericho March, centered around the false claims that the election was stolen, and delivered a speech in front of a portrait of Trump, calling him “the greatest president we’ve ever had.”

“Give him victory over his enemies,” Pavone prayed to God for Trump. “Bless his campaign as it fights against voter fraud.”

GOP candidate says “back the blue” — but campaigns with felon who plotted to kill an FBI informant

Donald Trump’s pick to be the next governor of Arizona, Kari Lake, a former local television reporter with no political experience, praises cops, touts “back the blue” on her campaign website and vows to increase resources to tackle violent criminals. She’s also hit the campaign trail multiple times with a convicted felon who was accused by the Justice Department (DOJ) of trying to kill an FBI informant.

According to a finance report recently amended by Lake’s campaign, the former TV news anchor who has repeatedly echoed Trump’s election lies paid $2,000 to Kenneth Ulibarri, a repeat violent offender who pleaded guilty after the DOJ accused him of trying to hire a hitman to kill an FBI informant and an unrelated state charge of battery on a peace officer.

Ulibarri spoke at Lake’s “Stand for Freedom” rally in Scottsdale last July, the first rally of her campaign. He was introduced as a man who’s “been addicted to drugs, imprisoned, and totally hopeless” before a “miracle came” and he became a small business owner “on a mission to help others break free from addiction.” Ulibarri used his rally speech to rail against “liberal policies that are destroying our country” and a laundry list of conservative culture war issues while touting his nonprofit work helping teenagers become “soldiers for Christ.”

RELATED: Meet the scariest Republican candidates of 2022: It wasn’t easy to pick ’em

“She stands for all the things that I believe in,” Ulibarri said, adding that he would not send his kids to public school or college because they might “come back with purple hair and gay.”

Campaign finance records show that the campaign paid $2,000 to Ulibarri at an address where he is listed as the statutory agent for a natural hair services business.

Ulibarri also appeared at a roundtable event with Lake earlier this month, according to images posted to Instagram. It’s unclear how many campaign events in total Ulibarri has appeared in. Ulibarri and Lake’s campaign did not respond to questions from Salon.


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


During his July speech, Ulibarri made references to his past but did not mention the extent of his criminal record. As the Justice Department alleged, in 2015 Ulibarri “attempted to murder an FBI informant to prevent that informant from testifying” in a New Mexico trial related to a drug distribution ring. Ulibarri admitted in a plea agreement that he told another FBI informant that he and others “were hiring a hitman to kill” the FBI informant, though he denied that he was serious and claimed that he only wanted to get money from the second informant under the guise of hiring a hitman, court documents show.

Ulibarri in 2019 pleaded guilty to a 2014 charge of battery upon a peace officer, New Mexico court records show. In 2006, he was arrested on a felony drug warrant after he was found with a known associate of a man charged with killing a New Mexico sheriff, according to KRQE. He was also convicted in 2014 on a charge of driving under the influence, according to state records. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle and criminal damage to property. In 1999, he and others were accused of beating another inmate at a New Mexico jail, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

Ulibarri was also charged with two counts of assault on a peace officer in 2002, though those charges were later dropped, and hit with a litany of drug offenses and evidence tampering charges between 2002 and 2013 that were also dropped.


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


Fellow Republican primary contender Karrin Taylor Robson’s campaign called out Lake over her ties to Ulibarri. “Real conservatives who support a secure border and back the blue don’t pay a campaign operative with a criminal history that includes drug trafficking, battery of a female officer and attempted murder of an FBI informant,” Matthew Benson, a spokesman for Robson’s campaign, said in a statement to Salon. “Like everything else involving Kari Lake, her words don’t match her actions.”

Biden moves to freeze Russian assets in U.S.

Amid Moscow’s ongoing military attack on Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday announced that Washington is imposing additional sanctions to limit exports to Russia, freeze assets held by powerful banks, and restrict the economic activities of oligarchs in the country.

“The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity,” Biden said from the White House. “This is a premeditated attack.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin “is the aggressor,” said Biden. “Putin chose this war. And now he and his country will bear the consequences.”

“Today I am authorizing additional strong sanctions and new limitations on what can be exported to Russia,” the president continued. “This is going to impose severe cost on the Russian economy, both immediately and over time.”

“We have purposefully designed these sanctions to maximize the long-term impact on Russia and to minimize the impact on the United States and our allies,” added Biden.

According to the president, the U.S. is hitting four more major Russian banks with sanctions, meaning “every asset they have in America will be frozen.”

The U.S. is also expanding its list of Russian elites and their family members subject to sanctions, though Putin is not yet being targeted directly.

After barring the Russian government from raising money from U.S. or European investors earlier this week, Biden said Thursday that the same restrictions would now be applied to Russia’s largest state-owned enterprises.

Biden also said that U.S. forces “are not and will not be engaged in the conflict with Russia in Ukraine.” U.S. troops are in Europe, he said, “to defend our NATO allies and reassure those allies in the East.”

Asked if he was urging China to help the U.S. and its allies in Europe isolate Putin and Russia, Biden said he didn’t want to “comment on that right now.”

 

Why “Law & Order” has returned, even if you didn’t ask for it

“Law & Order: Original Flavor” is back, baby! Its return arrives 12 years after its 20th and presumed final season aired, but still. You missed it, right?

Probably not, since “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” has been carrying the franchise torch following NBC’s retirement of the O.G. Now 23 seasons old and counting, “SVU” realized the goal franchise creator Dick Wolf had for the eldest child in his law enforcement family, beating “Gunsmoke” for the title of longest-running live-action scripted series in America.

But Wolf and the executive-level necromancers at NBC may be correct in wagering that people will want to witness the copaganda flagship’s resurrection.

RELATED: Are crime shows slowing justice reform?

After all, Wolf’s ripped-from-the-headlines methods are audience catnip, especially ones as ludicrously on the nose as Thursday night’s homicide, featuring a celebrity who has much in common with former NBC star Bill Cosby.

Henry King (Norm Lewis) is a singer who drugged and raped 40 women, who, like Cosby, was released from prison on a technicality. (Cosby has repeatedly denied sexually assaulting any of his more than 60 accusers.) And since no murder drama can resist channeling O.J.,  King vows in a morning show interview to make sure “those responsible for this travesty of justice are held accountable.”

But this PR smokescreen is abruptly blown aside by . . . his murder. Dun-DUN!

Remember all the hand-wringing over the role cop shows play in molding the public’s perception of police as unquestionable heroes? Plenty of people wondered whether network TV would pivot after millions of people around the world took to the streets to protest police brutality and systemic racism in the summer of 2020. Prior to that, civil rights organization Color of Change released an analytic breakdown of the types of violations fictional police engage in to get their jobs done. This was a clear, honest call for transformation.

Predictably, the networks viewed all that mainly as a media exercise.

You’ve probably seen the polls showing a decrease in support for Black Lives Matter a year after convicted former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in plain view of bystanders recording the crime. Even if you haven’t, the real answer as to why “Law & Order” is back is in Nielsen’s ratings estimates.

The most recent season-to-date rankings by total viewers re-confirm the perennial popularity of one-and-done crimetime TV.  Nine entries in the Top 20 are cop shows – 11, if you count law-enforcement adjacent vigilante thrillers like “The Equalizer” and “Magnum P.I.”

Out of those, all but one is part of either Wolf’s “FBI” or “Chicago” franchises, or “NCIS” or “9-1-1.” Indeed, with “Chicago Med” and “Chicago Fire” joining “Chicago PD,” Wolf has six series in that Top 20 list, three of which rank in the Top 10: “FBI,” (No. 3), “Chicago Fire” (No. 5) and “Chicago Med” (No. 8).

None of those are NBC shows, and on this same chart, “SVU” sits at No. 34 while the Christopher Meloni vehicle “Law & Order: Organized Crime” is No. 44.

What matters more is that “SVU” is a stronger performer among adults 18-49, the demographic advertisers chase, ranking just behind “FBI” at No. 18. In this demo, Wolf has five shows in the Top 20.

The numbers don’t lie, which is why NBC wants more of Wolf’s magic working for it. Hence, the return of that signature bass voice explaining that “in the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.”

That narration never promised that the investigators or prosecutors would do their jobs ethically.

Then again, that’s why Sam Waterston’s return as District Attorney Jack McCoy is key. (This ties Waterston with S. Epatha Merkerson for the record of longest tenured cast member with what is now 17 seasons under his belt.)

Waterson’s levelheaded McCoy is an institution trusted by multiple generations of viewers. To sweeten the pot, these new episodes include two all-stars from the broader NBC Universal galaxy: “Burn Notice” hero Jeffrey Donovan, and “Hannibal” alumnus Hugh Dancy.

Hugh Dancy and Odelya Halevi in “Law & Order” (Eric Liebowitz/NBC)Joining them is fellow justice TV hall-of-famer Camryn Mannheim (“The Practice”) as the cop shop’s lieutenant and “Black-ish” star Anthony Anderson playing the reasonable Det. Kevin Bernard to Donovan’s law-bending Det. Frank Cosgrove, whose name sounds like it was boiled in Jim Beam.

Together, mainly due to Donovan, they bring a distinct “Murderville” energy to their partnership.

“I know we haven’t been working together for very long –” Cosgrove growls, before Bernard interrupts him with an expository tally of just how long it’s been: “Two months, which makes you the longest relationship I’ve had in the last six years.”

“Yeah, well, if we’re going to keep this thing going, you got to know something,” Cosgrove continues. “I speak my mind. Probably about things I shouldn’t speak my mind about. But it’s just how I’m wired.”

This comes after Cosgrove gruffly steps up to a Black man simply minding his own business, resulting in bystanders pulling out their phones to film the interaction. “These damn phones – they ruin everything!” the hot-headed Cosgrove complains, to which Bernard counters that they hold them accountable.

Let’s take a beat to acknowledge how abysmal this character establishing dialogue is – these guys have been working together for two months before this? But to know the “Law & Order” universe is to realize none of this matters. Cases trump character development here, leaving such mythology expansion to the likes of “SVU” and its methodical construction of the work marriage shared by Mariska Hargitay’s Olivia Benson and Meloni’s Elliot Stabler.

As with all of TV shows of this ilk, the return of “Law & Order” two years after Floyd’s murder (and a week after former cop Kim Potter was sentenced to two years in prison for fatally shooting Daunte Wright in April 2021 in a Minneapolis-area neighborhood) doesn’t mean it has modified its methods to portray policing more responsibly.

Meloni left “SVU” in 2011 only to return as Stabler last season, reintroducing the popular character as a broken man with a short fuse in “Law & Order: Organized Crime.” Donovan’s Cosgrove fits that mold, which is to say he’s a cop who isn’t above lying and bulldozing people’s dignity if it means he closes a case. “Law & Order” has always taken pains to humanize such men, explaining why their unethical actions are simply part of doing their job. These are their stories, each episode reminds us, but it’s also evidence of the story being out of touch with regard to current debates about policing.

If there is a shift, and I can only base this on the single episode provided for review, it may be in how we’re meant to interpret justice and morality.


Want great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.


Oddly the Cosby-inspired case of this week likely distracts from deeper consideration of that angle; its main purpose, beyond its means of reminding us that our justice system isn’t necessarily fair, is to reveal an unrealistic nobility in Dancy’s Assistant District Attorney Nolan Price, and the stoic determination of his fellow prosecutor Samantha Maroun (Odelya Halevi).

Halevi is the only actor in this version of the “Law & Order” troupe whom we don’t know, but she’s in the company of veterans with whom we’re primed to connect. This is certainly true of Anderson’s detective, but I’ve no doubt that viewers will come to view Donovan’s cop as a hero who only bends the law for the greater good. “Law & Order” diehards have excused all of their favorite detectives reaching back to Chris Noth’s power-abusing Mike Logan. That may be one of the many reasons why real-world reforms to policing continue to face an uphill battle.

No profession could ask for a better public relationship machine than the one Wolf and fellow procedural creators and producers provide to law enforcement, free of charge. They know most viewers probably aren’t prone to reflecting upon what their shows’ open-and-shut, one-and-done cases teach the public about how the justice system realistically works.

But for one episode, it gives us something different to discuss in the ongoing talk about Cosby.

“Law & Order” returns at 8 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 24 on NBC. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories like this:

CPAC opens and immediately devolves into GOP dissent over Ukraine

Ahead of Donald Trump’s address at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) members of the audience were memorably, if accidentally, given tiny red, white and blue flags to wave. The problem? Except for the word “Trump” printed across the middle of each tiny banner, they were waving an exact replica of the Russian flag. Today, that embarrassing slip-up seems relevant again as CPAC 2022 speakers navigate how to address the unfolding crisis in Ukraine, with Russian combat forces invading the same day that America’s preeminent conservative conference began.

On Thursday morning, American Conservative Union president Matt Schlapp told The Independent that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — likely to be one of the worst conflicts in recent European history — won’t alter the program CPAC has planned in Orlando for the next four days. With more than a dozen former Trump staffers on hand as speakers, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Intelligence director Richard Grinnell and former Trump national security advisor Robert O’Brien, Schlapp reasoned, the issue would be organically covered through their expertise. Still, Schlapp did indulge in a jab at U.S. President Joe Biden, saying, “What happens when you’re not projecting strength? What happens when you’re projecting confusion, a weakness? Well, you probably get a lot more conflicts like Ukraine.”

Within its first few hours of opening, a number of CPAC speakers echoed Schlapp’s sentiments. 

RELATED: Trump, former secretary of state Mike Pompeo praise Putin while bashing Biden

Talk show host Ben Ferguson implicitly blamed Russia’s attack on Ukraine on Biden, opening his talk with a joking reference to a 2020 Biden campaign tweet, in which the then-candidate said he was the only Democrat in the field who’d “gone toe to toe” with Putin. Instead, Ferguson argued, under Biden’s leadership, “America is incompetent right now,” and that’s why Putin had felt emboldened to attack.

GOP consultant Alex Bruesewitz similarly said what was happening in Russia was thanks to Biden.

“Unconstitutional elections have consequences, and we can never all this” — by which Bruesewitz didn’t mean Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but rather Trump’s defeat — “to happen again.”


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


“Trump was right about everything. One thing he was right about was that Biden’s weakness would invite Putin’s aggression,” agreed former Trump advisor and Ohio congressional candidate Max Miller. “None of this had to happen, and with President Trump, none of it would have.”

K.T. McFarland, Trump’s former deputy national security advisor under Michael Flynn, both of whom left the Trump administration disgraced, described the consequences of Russia’s invasion in stark terms: as the most significant threat that the U.S. has faced since the end of World War II.

The attack, “has changed the complex, generational struggle that we have been in with the forces of darkness against forces of light,” McFarland said. “We have national leadership that I think at a certain point is probably criminally incompetent,” she said, placing blame on Biden. “They are unable to stop what Vladimir Putin could do and now they don’t know what to do.”

McFarland then went on to urge CPAC attendees to consider Russia’s incursion a serious matter.

“It’s important to understand that in this generational struggle, it’s not just about Europe. Vladimir Putin doesn’t just stop with Ukraine. He has put himself in a position, thanks to a feckless American administration, where he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants with Ukraine. …My concern is it doesn’t just stop with Ukraine. It goes on. Will he next threaten NATO? His lifelong objective has been to dismantle NATO, to separate the United States from Europe and then to recreate the Soviet Union.”

But not all attendees agreed with such a call to action.

RELATED: Putin leaves Republicans splintered and confused

In a panel on the power of conservative memes, Rogan O’Handley, a conservative Instagram influencer better known as “DC Draino,” struck the opposite note, saying, “With all this Ukraine stuff going on, I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of establishment, military-industrial complex GOP people up on stage saying it’s in our national interest to fight that war. It is not. It is not. Burisma! Hunter Biden was taking money. They impeached President Trump over a phone call to Ukraine. Biden has instigated this …there is massive deep state corruption in that regime. We should not send our American sons and daughters to cover up the Biden crime family’s corruption.”

A similar note was sounded by Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA.

“I want to be part of an extinction event for the political woke left to put them into complete and total irrelevancy for the next 20 or 30 years,” he said. But to get there though, he continued, conservatives have to be clear about priorities. 

In recent years, both Kirk and TPUSA have been attacked from the right by the likes of the America First “groyper” movement, which pushes for far more hardline, openly white nationalist positions on a range of issues. Now, as though channeling his critics, Kirk said he didn’t want to see U.S. armed forces deployed to defend Ukraine’s border when the Biden administration was ignoring the supposed breach of the U.S. Southern border by migrants.

“For example, the U.S. Southern border matters a lot more than the Ukrainian border. In fact, I want every Republican leader who comes onto this stage the next couple days to say that what’s happening on the Southern border is an invasion because 2 million people waltzed into our country in the last year. I’m more concerned about how the cartels are trying to infiltrate our country than a dispute 5,000 miles away in cities we can’t even pronounce, places most Americans can’t find on a map. Now I’m not defending dictators halfway around the world, but when your own country is falling apart, I don’t want to hear lectures about why we have to send our troops halfway around the world when we are being invaded!”

RELATED: Republicans splinter over Russia

On Saturday night, CPAC will also host former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who recently argued that NATO, rather than Russia, is to blame for the conflict.

Meanwhile, if CPAC’s collective response to the invasion has so far been a shrug, a competing right-wing conference being held tomorrow, America First PAC or AFPAC, also in Orlando this weekend, is in open celebration mode.


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


As Political Research Associate researcher Ben Lorber noted on Twitter, America First founder, the white nationalist Nick Fuentes, cheered on social media, “I am totally rooting for Russia,” and “this is the coolest thing to happen since 1/6.” Andrew Torba, CEO of the right-wing social media company Gab, which is sponsoring AFPAC, praised Putin as “brilliant,” writing, “I hope the Globalist American Empire gets humiliated from all angles,” and “Ukraine needs to be liberated and cleansed from the degeneracy of the secular western globalist empire.” Another AFPAC speaker, Arizona state Senator Wendy Rogers cheered, “More tanks less trannies” — a close echo of right-wing narratives from the likes of Steve Bannon, that Putin, commendably, “ain’t woke,” and thus deserves U.S. conservatives’ support. (That sort of talk is also happening among conservatives closer to the center than Bannon, as with The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher, who wrote this week, “I adamantly oppose risking the lives of boys from Louisiana and Alabama to make the Donbass safe for genderqueers and migrants.”)

While AFPAC sets itself up in explicit contrast to what it considers the milquetoast conservatives at CPAC, it’s not unthinkable that, as with Kirk’s jump to the right, other CPAC speakers won’t soon follow suit.

Authorities in Russia warn against anti-war protests

Following Putin‘s “special military operation” put into action against Ukraine in the early hours of Thursday morning, anti-war protestors have been taking to the streets. In Russia, the country’s Investigative Committee has issued an official warning to protestors, urging them to take consequences into consideration, according to CNN. In their statement, those who find themselves “In connection with the spread of calls for participation in riots and rallies related to the tense foreign policy situation,” could face “negative legal consequences of these actions, which include prosecution and up to criminal liability.”

In reports such as one published by The New York Times on Thursday, the many different ways in which Russian citizens are rallying against the decisions of Putin are highlighted. According to the NYT report, Moscow police blocked off access to Pushkinskaya Square in the city center, after protestors began to gather. Police at the scene were said to be clearing the mostly young crowd, some of which were heard chanting “No to war!” while holding Ukraine flags.

Related: Putin leaves Republicans splintered and confused

The NYT report of early anti-war protests in Russia linked to a video showing police in St. Petersburg outfitted in helmets and riot gear to break up protestors who had gathered in support of Ukraine. While reports like these are growing in number, social media is flooded with live reports from various protests around the area.


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


By mid-Thursday, protestor arrests are growing in number with “over 290 people arrested in Moscow, 128 in St Petersburg, 50 in Perm and 37 in Yekaterinburg,” according to OVD-Info. 

“Russians are deeply terrified of arrests and court trials over rallying people to go out and protest,” Marina Agaltsova, a lawyer with the Russian human rights group Memorial said in a quote used by The Washington Post

Protests crying out against the war against Ukraine are continuing to pop up in areas across the world as this event develops.

Read more:

As Russia invades Chernobyl, many fear artillery could spread radioactive dust across the continent

On April 26, 1986, an accident in a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant led to the worst nuclear disaster in history. The radioactive fallout covered not only parts of Ukraine but also areas of Belarus and Russia — more than 90,000 square miles — in an area that was quickly labeled an exclusion zone because it was too dangerous to inhabit. Radioactive isotopes caused by the explosion of the fourth reactor started in the sky and settled into the ground, lodging into the organs of people and animals alike.

Although the international community only officially attributes 31 deaths to the crisis, other experts project that thousands of people were directly or indirectly harmed by the radiation. The United Nations estimates that at least 4,000 people died from radiation exposure; millions of others were put at risk. While the aftermath from the incident is still felt in 2022, the international community has at least felt relief that the worst from Chernobyl is over.

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, the irradiated region around the abandoned Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor may pose a new threat to the world.

RELATED: This is what would happen to Earth if a nuclear war broke out between the West and Russia

Russian forces overcame Ukrainian military resistance and captured the plant on Thursday, according to Ukrainian presidential office adviser Mykhailo Podolyak. In a statement to Reuters, Podolyak described the capturing of Chernobyl as “a totally pointless attack by the Russians” that makes it “impossible to say the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is safe.” He added that “this is one of the most serious threats in Europe today,” a statement echoed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he tweeted that “our defenders are giving their lives so that the tragedy of 1986 will not be repeated.” 

By contrast, a Russian security source told the wire service that Russia seized the reactor to send NATO the message that it should not intervene in the conflict. Not everyone bought this explanation; for instance, Harvard professor and former Obama official Juliette Kayyem speculated on Twitter that Chernobyl was captured simply because it is “the shortest route from Russia to Kyiv.”

The main source of concern here is radioactive dust, or the nuclear particles that are created by an event such as the Chernobyl accident. Although more than 100 radioactive elements were released into the atmosphere when the fourth reactor exploded in 1986, most of them did not remain radioactive for long by virtue of their short half-lives. The three most dangerous elements were iodine-131, strontium-90 and cesium-137, which respectively have half-lives of eight days, 29 years and 30 years. These isotopes blew up into the air before settling into the ground, and roughly half of the longer-lived isotopes in the area have still not yet decayed. Such fallout is dangerous when it decays while inside one’s body; the iodine isotopes, for instance, are linked to thyroid cancer, and cesium isotopes are linked to leukemia.


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


From a global health perspective, the prevailing concern currently is that Russian military activity could kick up this radioactive dust from the original accident, perhaps as a result of artillery shelling of nuclear waste collectors or of the abandoned plant itself. This, in turn, could be spread to other places in Europe through the wind, rainfall, construction, human transportation and other day-to-day developments. That is why large sections of the Chernobyl exclusion zone have been closed off since 1986; it remains one of the radioactive places on the planet. Because activities as seemingly innocuous as dredging rivers near the plant can spread radiation, it is reasonable to worry that Russian military aggression in that same area could have a catastrophic effect for the people of Europe.

There is no way to confirm what the Russian military is doing in the contaminated area, according to The Washington Post. Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Gerashchenko has accused the Russian military of battling Ukrainian national guardsmen who were “fighting hard” to protect the storage facilities containing “unsafe nuclear radioactive waste.” He added that if artillery hits those facilities, “radioactive nuclear dust can be spread over the territory of Ukraine, Belarus” and the countries of the European Union.

Much effort through history has been taken to protect the landscape in the exclusion area, with some success. Although animals in the area remain more radioactive and more likely to have mutations than those outside of it, species like deer, bison and lynx have managed to flourish. (People who work in the area have even reported having close relationships with the abundant wild dogs there.) The plant itself is covered by a shell known as the New Safe Confinement, which is meant to limit the amount of radioactive material from the destroyed plant that can enter the outside environment. Clean up efforts including construction and monitoring for radiation pollution continue to this day, and people are even allowed to tour Chernobyl — provided they follow rules such as no touching any of the structures.

That said, the victims of the Chernobyl disaster had a number of health issues including acute radiation syndrome (ARS), the symptoms of which include fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and skin damage. There are also reports indicating that people who were exposed to radiation had higher instances of the radiation-linked diseases like thyroid cancer. On top of that, there was a significant mental health pandemic as a result of that crisis, as people in the exposed area frequently felt depressed because they believed they had health issues and their life expectancy had been shortened.

The international community has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The world’s leading economies in G7 issued a joint statement on Thursday saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has reintroduced war to the European continent. He has put himself on the wrong side of history.” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the largest military action to occur in Europe since World War II, and continues what former American ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told Salon in 2018 is Putin’s plan for “the end of the liberal international order” involving “the breakup of states as you have in the UK, the breakup of alliances and NATO, the breakup of the European Union.”

Read more on the Ukraine conflict:

Having a dog or cat can slow cognitive decline in seniors, new study finds

It’s no secret that having friends is good for a person’s health. Indeed, loneliness and social isolation can increase a person’s risk of premature death, increase the risk of dementia, rates of anxiety, depression and more.

But it turns out that companionship doesn’t have to come in human form — and a new study released this week found an added benefit to having a furry friend: a lower risk of cognitive decline.

“Prior studies have suggested that the human-animal bond may have health benefits like decreasing blood pressure and stress,” said study author Tiffany Braley, MD, MS, of the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. “Our results suggest pet ownership may also be protective against cognitive decline.”

A preliminary study was released on February 23, 2022, and will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 74th Annual Meeting this spring. The study looked at cognitive data from 1,369 adults, whose average age was 65, and had normal functioning cognitive skills at the beginning of the study. A total of 53 percent owned pets, but 32 percent were “long-term pet owners,” meaning that they had their pets for at least five years.


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


The researchers also looked at data from a large study of Medicare beneficiaries called the Health and Retirement Study, whose participants were given multiple cognitive tests. The researchers used those cognitive tests to develop a composite score for each person, ranging from zero to 27. The researchers then used these composite scores to estimate the associations between cognitive function and how many years a person owned their pet. As the researchers calculated the associations between cognitive function and years the study participants’ owned a pet, they noticed a fascinating trend: cognitive scores decreased at a slower rate in pet owners. The difference was strongest among those who owned their pets the longest.

“As stress can negatively affect cognitive function, the potential stress-buffering effects of pet ownership could provide a plausible reason for our findings,” Braley said. “A companion animal can also increase physical activity, which could benefit cognitive health.”

Notably, the finding of the study is only an association, meaning there is a link but it’s not a definitive conclusion.

“That said, more research is needed to confirm our results and identify underlying mechanisms for this association,” Braley said.

RELATED: Robots are coming for the elderly — and that’s a good thing

However, it’s certainly an important potential treatment to think about when it comes to protecting people from Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, deaths by Alzheimer’s disease and dementia have increased by 16 percent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promotes the health benefits of owning a pet, too.

“Studies have shown that the bond between people and their pets is linked to several health benefits,” the CDC states. That includes, but is not limited to, decreased blood pressure, cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD. Pets also provide humans with more opportunities for exercise, which has also been linked to slowing age-related cognitive decline.

Read more about pets:

Ukraine conflict brings reality of cyberwarfare to U.S.

All cybersecurity is local, regardless of the world situation. That means it’s personal, too – in Americans’ homes, computers and online accounts. As violence spreads thousands of miles away from the U.S., my strong recommendation is that all Americans remain vigilant and check on their own cybersecurity.

While organizations reinforce their cybersecurity posture during this period of geopolitical tension, I also suggest people regularly ensure their computer, mobile devices and software are updated, double-check that all passwords are secure and all key accounts are protected by two-factor authentication. Beware that phishing attacks may increase, seeking to trick people into clicking links that grant attackers access to computer systems. These are a few simple steps that can help increase one’s cybersecurity preparedness both now and for the future.

Recent Russian-linked cyberattacks, including against energy pipelines, federal government services, and attacks on local governments, first responders, hospitals and private corporations, show the potential for Russian cyber warriors to put U.S. civilians at risk. All these entities should be more vigilant over the coming days.

In the days before Russia invaded Ukraine, a series of cyberattacks disrupted Ukrainian government and business websites – despite Ukraine’s cyberdefense teams’ being prepared to defend against them.

With many Americans working from home because of the pandemic, the U.S. is more vulnerable than it might have been otherwise: Home networks and computers are often less protected than those at an office – which makes them enticing targets.

Russian cyber capabilities, and threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin, mean that what might look like random technical glitches on personal computers, websites and home networks may not be accidental. They could be precursors to – or actual parts of – a larger cyberattack. Therefore, ongoing vigilance is more crucial than ever.

Richard Forno, Principal Lecturer, Cybersecurity and Assistant Director, UMBC Cybersecurity Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Investigators reveal new details about Bob Saget’s death, say it’s “definitely an unusual case”

Earlier this month, Orange County Sheriff officials revealed that Bob Saget sustained an accidental blow to the back of his head and passed in his sleep. On Wednesday, officials proposed a new theory about the “Full House” star’s final moments after uncovering new details from video footage.

According to PEOPLE, Saget was last seen exiting the ninth-floor elevator of the Ritz-Carlton Orlando hotel in Florida and walking down the hallway towards his room. Authorities who reviewed the surveillance video said that Saget “showed no sign of distress.”

Saget reportedly hung a “Do Not Disturb” sign on the doorknob and entered his room at 2:17 a.m. His door remained closed until the following afternoon on Jan. 9, when officials responded to a man-down call around 4 p.m. and found him unresponsive. Saget was pronounced dead at the scene.

RELATED: Bob Saget, a dirty daddy: Appreciating the darker elements of the talented comedian’s work

Authorities believe that Saget lost consciousness in his room’s bathroom, fell backwards and struck his head on the marble floor. No blood or hair were found on the bathroom’s marble end tables and counters.

Authorities also believe that Saget regained consciousness before getting into bed. He lost consciousness again and died in his sleep. His time of death was said to be around 4 a.m.

“It’s definitely an unusual case,” an Orange County Sheriff’s deputy told PEOPLE. “There are still a lot of unanswered questions.”

Last Tuesday, Saget’s widow, Kelly Rizzo, and their three daughters filed a lawsuit against Orange County Sheriff John Mina and the medical examiner’s office, asking that they don’t release graphic medical records concerning Saget’s death. The family explained that the public release of such records would cause them to “suffer irreparable harm in the form of extreme mental pain, anguish and emotional distress.” The Orange County Sheriff’s Department countered the request, stating that they must uphold their “commitment to transparency.”


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


According to his autopsy report, Saget tested positive for COVID-19 prior to his death. He suffered from skull fractures, brain injuries, abrasions and blood buildup within his skull and scalp. A sedative medication and an antidepressant were also found in his system.

“As we continue to mourn together, we ask everyone to remember the love and laughter that Bob brought to this world, and the lessons he taught us all: to be kind to everyone, to let the people you love know you love them, and to face difficult times with hugs and laughter,” Saget’s family said in a previous statement to PEOPLE.  

More stories you might like:

Sea levels have been rising since the American Civil War. The reason? Coal

The American Civil War was well underway by the time President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Coincidentally, new findings show that global patterns of modern sea-level rise first emerged that same year. Though climate change and rising tides may have seemingly nothing in common with the famous, if symbolic, gesture of freeing slaves, they are more connected to Civil War than one might assume. 

Nowadays, we associate climate change with clogged highways full of gas-guzzling cars and smoke stacks belching fumes from coal-fired power plants. But in the mid-19th century, climate change certainly was not the problem that it is today; but coal, which still powers 20 percent of the electrical grid today, was fueling an era of industrialization. Revolutionized by the coal-powered steam engine, transportation in the form of steamboats and railroads ultimately aided Union victory in what has been described as the first modern war. 

There is broad consensus at this point that climate change started in the mid-19th century, and little doubt that burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, is the cause. 

“Sea level rise is a really important indicator of broader climate change,” writes Dr. Jennifer Walker, a Rutgers University professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. “If we can estimate when sea-level rise really emerged from background variability, we can pinpoint this onset of a significant period of climate change.”

Rutger’s study, which appeared in the journal Nature Communications, found that human-influenced sea-level rise emerged from normal fluctuations in sea-level rise more precisely around 1863. These patterns in sea-level rise coincide with early evidence of warming oceans and glacial melt, strengthening evidence of human-induced climate change as early as the Industrial Revolution.

“The fact that we’re seeing an emergence of modern rates of rise at all of these individual study sites as well by the mid 20th century just further demonstrates the really significant influence of global sea-level rise especially in the last century,” she explained. “By delving into individual sites the better understanding we have of regional and local processes impacting sea-level rise will continue to improve our understanding for future impacts.”


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


Utilizing a global database of geological sea-level records from the past 2,000 years, the international team of researchers modeled global and site specific sea-level rise. They determined that in the United States, modern sea-level rise can be discerned earliest in the Mid-Atlantic region somewhat later in the 19th century. By doing so, they hope to facilitate a better understanding of local processes driving variations in sea-level changes.

“In the North Atlantic it seems that the spatial pattern is driven by more regional ocean and atmospheric changes,” she added. “By diving into individual sites in more detail we’re getting an understanding of these other driving processes of sea level change. When we think about broader climate change we want to know what’s happening, but it’s really important to understand on these more local levels what processes are really causing the change. That’s the kind of information we need to plan for and project future sea-level rise at individual locations.”

As climate change continues to accelerate sea-level rise this knowledge is crucial to climate adaptation. This study focused on the North Atlantic but can provide a map for governments to use the same statistical model in the study to tailor climate responses to regional variations of specific sites.

The study comes as a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association  projects an average sea-level rise in the contiguous United States of nearly a foot by 2050 regardless of emissions levels.

“Monitoring the sources of ongoing sea level rise and the processes driving changes in sea level is critical for assessing scenario divergence and tracking the trajectory of observed sea level rise, particularly during the time period when future emissions pathways lead to increased ranges in projected sea level rise,” the report reads.

Read more on pollution and climate change: