Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Vaccine refusal is child abuse

Republican media and politicians adopted an anti-vaccine message for one obvious purpose: To sabotage Joe Biden’s presidency by prolonging the pandemic. In this, they’ve been wildly successful. Despite the dramatic decline in cases in recent weeks, as the omicron wave burns itself out, there are still over 2,000 deaths a day from Covid-19, the vast majority the result of vaccine refusal. The public’s grief and weariness has definitely helped drived down Biden’s approval ratings, but at immense cost to Republican voters. Despite blue areas being denser than red, the death rate in Donald Trump-voting counties soared above Biden-voting counties, in a way that can only be described as “exponential.” 

It can be hard to care, however. If a bunch of right-wingers want to die for the “let’s go Brandon” cause at the behest of sadistic and vaccinated Fox News hosts, at a certain point the attitude of much of blue America is “have at it!” (And maybe, as Trump seems to fear, killing thousands of their own a week will backfire by reducing their voter margins in some tight races.) But there is one group of innocents that are suffering because of get-Covid-to-hurt-Biden campaign: Children.

Anti-vaccination ideology is a form of child abuse. 

Children may be relatively safe from severe illness or death, but what they are not safe from is having parents who care more about pleasing their Fox News masters than protecting their families. Unlike case rates and death rates, the amount of emotional pain that right-wingers are inflicting on children in their anti-vaccination mania may be immeasurable. Take a gander at some of the hair-curling stories that have come out recently showing how much damage anti-vaxxers are doing to the mental and emotional health of their children. 

RELATED: Fox News treats its viewers as fools with latest vaccine disinformation campaign 

In Ohio, pediatrician Dr. Thomas Nguyen went viral on Twitter with a heart-breaking story of a teenage patient whose mother died of Covid. The boy’s mother was arrested after he got into a heated fight with her that led to his sister calling the police. In jail, she’s believed to have caught the virus, and she died — all because, even though her son had been vaccinated, she had refused. Her death was obviously her own fault and not that of her minor child, and yet, Dr. Nguyen reported, “Family blames him and he of course blames himself.”


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


On Wednesday, NPR published the story of 16-year-old Nicolas Montero, whose Republican parents are so miserable to be around that he “runs track, works night and weekend shifts at Burger King” all to “stay out of the house.” Naturally, they refused to let him get vaccinated. “It’s like one thing they see on Facebook, and then they completely believe it,” he lamented. So he got on a bus to Philadelphia and did it himself, once again showing that high schoolers have more emotional maturity than your typical Trump voter. 

Of course, the Canadian trucker blockade has their own hair-curling story of cruelty to children. One of the far-right truckers that Fortune spoke to was Jake Klassen, 39, whose daughter is receiving palliative care at a center in Winnipeg. Klassen and his wife have abandoned their 9-year-old, because — according to them— the care residence has a vaccine mandate, and these two would rather be unvaccinated than visit their sick daughter. (Update: The care residence denies that they refuse all visitation for unvaccinated relatives, which makes this excuse for ditching their daughter even more suspect.) 

“This is something worth fighting for,” this pathetic child-abandoner told Fortune. 

RELATED: Meet the spouses whose marriages were destroyed by QAnon

The Washington Post printed a story Monday about Chris and Diana Crouch, a Republican couple in Kingwood, Texas, whose family was devastated by vaccine refusal.  By Chris’s own admission, he and his wife refused vaccines because of “politics.” The result was that the pregnant Diana — already the mother of two and stepmother to two more — nearly died. Thankfully, both Diana and her prematurely born son lived.

Chris Crouch appears to be one of the few anti-vaccine Republicans who is feeling real regret over his choices, saying, “When you sit there and you see your wife on life support because of Covid, you throw out politics.” He even got vaccinated.  But, as many of these stories demonstrate, far too many conservatives prioritize “sticking it to the liberals” over the health and wellbeing of their own children. 


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


Sadly, none of this should be a surprise. Republicans love to talk up how they’re “pro-life” and believe in “family values,” but a closer look at how right-wing ideology operates shows the opposite.

All too often, children aren’t regarded as vulnerable people who deserve care and protection, but more like property to be disposed of as the parents see fit. The examples are endless. Due to Republican obstruction, the U.S. is the only United Nations member state not to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Child — mainly because Republicans fear it will interfere with the “right” to beat children and force religious ideology on them. Conservatives also continue to fight to deny trans children their right to be treated with basic decency, to force children into “pray the gay away” abuse farms, and compel pregnant minors to give birth against their will

The recent hysterics that Republicans are sowing in school boards across the country is another example. Conservatives say they want to ban mask mandates and “critical race theory” in order to “protect” the children. But even a cursory examination shows the opposite is true. They are using children as pawns in their gross political games. And while it’s reasonable to debate the wisdom of mask mandates in schools now that school-age children can be vaccinated, the anti-mask agenda was raging well before kids could get the shots, rendering them vulnerable to the virus and the potentially serious side effects of encountering it with no prior immunity

RELATED: Meet James Lindsay, the far right’s “world-level expert” on CRT and “Race Marxism”

As for “critical race theory,” well, that’s just a hoax that was propped up as a cover story to deny children basic education. Once again, Republicans are trying to deprive children of a fundamental right. Worse, they’re not only trying to undermine the quality of education. Many right-wing activists want to destroy public education altogether, believing the parent’s right to control their child, to treat them like property instead of people, is absolute. 

It may be shocking to see how many people are depriving children of medical care, abandoning children, and leaving them orphans — all for the asinine purpose of trying to undermine Biden’s approval numbers. Perhaps it shouldn’t be. That’s simply a logical extension of a conservative ideology that treats children as objects to be controlled, not full people in their own right.

Trump lawyer interrupts hearing on company’s finances to demand Hillary Clinton probe

Donald Trump’s lawyers turned a Thursday Manhattan Supreme Court hearing into a spectacle, before a judge issued a ruling against the former president.

Lawyers for Trump sought to block New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is investigating the Trump Organization’s business dealings, from interviewing Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump under oath. Judge Arthur Engoron rejected the motion and ruled that James can enforce her subpoena, but not before Trump’s lawyers demanded that James investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton based on a debunked conspiracy theory instead.

“Ms. James, are you going to go after Hillary Clinton for what she’s doing to my client?” Trump attorney Alina Habba said, according to Insider. “That she spied at Trump Tower in your state? Are you going to look into her business dealings?”

Engoron shut down the argument, noting that “the Clintons are not before me.”

Habba’s allegation appeared to be a reference to a misconstrued court filing by Justice Department special counsel John Durham, who was appointed during the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. The filing accused former Democratic attorney Michael Sussman of obtaining nonpublic information from the White House through a tech executive who had legal access to the data. Trump and Fox News have falsely hyped the filing as proof that Clinton spied on the Trump White House.

In a filing on Thursday, Durham actually dismissed the false Fox News reports, clarifying that the incident happened during the Obama administration, not while Trump was in office.

“If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information,” the filing said.

RELATED: Right-wing media’s latest “bombshell” — the Durham report — is a nothingburger

At another point in the hearing, Habba argued that Trump should not have to testify in the probe because he is a member of a “protected class,” a term that typically refers to groups or communities that qualify for special protection against discrimination.

“If he was not who he is, she would not be doing this, your honor,” Habba said, according to CNBC. “That’s what my argument is.”

The judge wasn’t having it.

“The traditional protected classes are race, religion, etc.,” Engoron retorted. “Donald Trump doesn’t fit that model. He’s not being discriminated against based on race, is he? Or religion, is he? He’s not a protected class. If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.”

Habba repeatedly accused James of political bias during the “heated” hearing, prompting Engoron and his clerk to literally “call a timeout” by raising their hands in the shape of a T, according to The New York Times. Habba was repeatedly admonished by the judge and his clerk to “stop interrupting them to try to tarnish the attorney general’s motives,” according to Law & Crime.

Engoron in his ruling rejected the argument, saying it “completely misses the mark.”

“In the final analysis, a State Attorney General commences investigating a business entity, uncovers copious evidence of possible financial fraud, and wants to question, under oath, several of the entities’ principals, including its namesake. She has the clear right to do so,” he wrote.


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


The ruling marked the latest in a string of legal defeats for Trump. Since leaving office, he lost his Supreme Court bid to block his tax returns from the Manhattan district attorney, who is leading a criminal investigation into the Trump Organization. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court, including all three of Trump’s appointees, rejected his attempt to shield White House documents from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Just days before Thursday’s hearing, James released a letter showing that Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars has cut ties with the former president. The firm now says that nearly 10 years of the Trump Organization’s financial records are unreliable.

“Today, justice prevailed,” James said in a statement after the hearing. “No one is above the law.”

Trump slammed the decision, accusing the judge of bias against him. “I can’t get a fair hearing in New York because of the hatred of me by Judges and the judiciary,” he said in a statement.

Trump is expected to appeal the ruling. But even if higher courts uphold it, that doesn’t mean Trump and his kids will be forced to answer James’ questions. Her office has previously questioned Eric Trump, who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 500 times during the six-hour deposition.

Attorney Ronald Fischetti, who represents Trump in the criminal investigation, demanded that the judge grant Trump immunity in the Manhattan probe if he is forced to testify in James’ investigation.

“If she wants sworn testimony from my client, he’s entitled to immunity. He gets immunity for what he says, or he says nothing,” he said.

Attorney Alan Futerfas, who represents Trump’s children, accused James of using her civil probe to circumvent the grand jury process in the Manhattan DA’s criminal probe.

“It’s never happened before,” Futerfas said. “We’ve never seen it happen.”

Engoron said the rest of the Trump family could just do what Eric did. “Can’t they just refuse to answer?” he asked. “Isn’t that what Eric Trump did 500 times?”

In his ruling, Engoron said it would have been a “blatant dereliction of duty” if James had not subpoenaed the Trump family members, given the “thousands of documents” her office provided to show sufficient basis for the investigation.

“Indeed, the impetus for the investigation was not personal animus, not racial or ethnic or other discrimination, not campaign promises,” he wrote, “but was sworn congressional testimony by former Trump associate Michael Cohen that respondents were ‘cooking the books.’

Read more:

Kevin McCarthy breaks political tradition, endorses Liz Cheney’s pro-Trump primary challenger

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has backed the primary challenger to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. – a firm and official rebuke of Cheney’s recent break from the rest of the party.

McCarthy’s endorsement, first  reported by The Federalist, came on Thursday for Harriet Hageman, a pro-Trump candidate and former Republican candidate for the governor of Wyoming.

“I look forward to welcoming Harriet to a Republican majority next Congress, where together, we will hold the Biden administration accountable and deliver much-needed solutions for the American people,” McCarthy said in a statement. “The most successful representatives in Congress focus on the needs of their constituents.”

“Wyoming deserves to have a representative who will deliver the accountability against this Biden administration. Not a representative that they have today that works closer with Nancy Pelosi, going after Republicans instead of stopping these radical Democrats from what they’re doing to this country,” the California Republican added. 

RELATED: Kevin McCarthy lashes out at ‘illegitimate’ Jan. 6 committee — says he’ll refuse to testify

Hageman said in a response she is “grateful for Leader McCarthy’s strong support, and I pledge that when I am Wyoming’s congresswoman, I will always stand up for our beautiful state and do the job I was sent there to do.”


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


It is rare for congressional leaders to openly attempt to influence primary races for or against their congressional colleagues, as The New York Times noted, and the move likely underscores escalating internecine tensions within the Republican Party around who is showing enough fealty to former President Donald Trump. 

Over the past year, pro-Trump members of the GOP have primarily targeted Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., both of whom were censured earlier this month over their participation in the select House committee charged with investigating the Capitol riot. Cheney and Kinzinger have congress have been widely condemned by pro-Trump advocates as “RINOs,” or Republicans In Name Only. 

McCarthy, for his part, has until now stayed mostly mum when it comes to intra-party battles. For instance, when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.,  freshman firebrand known for her incendiary rhetoric, was facing calls for expulsion, McCarthy did not weigh in whether she should be. And when Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., posted an anime-style video of himself murdering Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, R-N.Y., McCarthy did not comment on Gosar’s conduct until a week later, telling CNN: “[Gosar] took the video down and he made a statement that he doesn’t support violence to anybody.”

RELATED: GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene lashes out at reporter as Democrats ramp up expulsion campaign

Should you actually add oil to your pot of pasta water? Here’s what an expert chef says

Sometimes the things we experience collectively are exactly what sows division. Case in point? How to prepare a pot of water for pasta. Everyone has their own approach, measurements and strong beliefs that their way is the only way. 

Since Strega Nona was not available for comment, we sought out the next best thing and spoke to Michael Handal, a chef and instructor at the Institute of Culinary Education in New York to answer this age-old question: Do you actually need to add oil to your pot of water before adding the pasta? 

Related: This new cheesy pasta bake with crispy breadcrumbs is the one-pot equivalent of eggplant parmesan

“Absolutely you do not,” Handal said. “The reason we don’t need oil when we’re cooking pasta, any kind of pasta — dry or freshly made — is because we’re cooking the pasta. You should always be using lots of boiling, salted water.” 

He continued: “And the boiling action, and lots of water keeps the pasta separate, and prevents it from sticking together.”

To Handal, it’s a simple matter of physics. He explains that adding oil to a pot full of water will just let oil sit on the surface, since it can’t actually mix with water. Even if you add enough oil to dilute the mixture, what you may end up doing is coating your freshly cooked pasta with that oil, rather than allowing it to stay tacky and absorbent for whatever sauce you are planning to add later in the process.

So if oil won’t help prevent your pasta from sticking together, what will? Handal doubles down on his original advice. 

“You want to use lots of boiling, salted water, for fresh pasta or for dried pasta, of any kind,” he said. “That’s the basic idea, you need enough room in your pot that the pasta isn’t going to stick to itself. That’s the secret!”


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


More stories about Italian-inspired recipes: 

Democrats aren’t toxic — the media is just downplaying Republicans’ rot

You know it’s campaign season when Democrats start wringing their hands and running around in circles worrying about how to get Real Americans to vote for them. You can expect to see Democratic candidates in camo trucker hats slinging hunting rifles over their shoulders professing their love for pork rinds and re-runs of “Mayberry RFD” within the next few months along with constant refrains about how all those darned city slickers just don’t know how to talk to the folks. It is as predictable as Donald Trump leading “lock her up” chants at a political rally.

On Friday, Axios declared: “Squad politics backfire.” Mike Allen went on to claim that “the push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the party’s overall image.” The column, of course, extensively quoted the co-founder of the centrist group Third Way. The New York Times on Friday identified progressive prosecutors as the source of Democratic discontent to claim that “a political backlash is brewing.”

Earlier in the week, Politico reported that the party is already rending its garments over the fact that the GOP’s culture war attacks on issues such as Critical Race Theory and immigration are “alarmingly potent” which is sending campaigns scurrying to find ways to express how much they agree with Republicans. (They call this “correcting the record” which adds up to the same thing.) The Associated Press made a foray into the wilds of rural Pennsylvania to find that not only are Democratic politicians persona non grata, but average voters are feeling besieged as well:

The party’s brand is so toxic in the small towns 100 miles northeast of Pittsburgh that some liberals have removed bumper stickers and yard signs and refuse to acknowledge publicly their party affiliation. These Democrats are used to being outnumbered by the local Republican majority, but as their numbers continue to dwindle, those who remain are feeling increasingly isolated and unwelcome in their own communities. “The hatred for Democrats is just unbelievable,” said Tim Holohan, an accountant based in rural McKean County who recently encouraged his daughter to get rid of a pro-Joe Biden bumper sticker. “I feel like we’re on the run.”

The advice from Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp ,the former North Dakota Senator, is for Democratic candidates to stop talking about farmers and broadband internet (issues that personally affect rural voters) and instead decry the Fox News chimera of “defund the police” which is apparently hugely important to small town America for some reason.

Meanwhile, the centrist reporter Matt Bai published a piece in the Washington Post in which he acknowledged that the Republican Party is completely off the rails and would “if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic.” Nonetheless, he may not be able to vote for the Democratic Party because of their allegedly far-left views that may lead to “the kind of social upheaval that occurred when foreign empires relinquished their colonies.” I don’t know which Democrats he’s talking about but it certainly isn’t anyone in elected office.

What he does appear to be advising is that Democratic politicians adopt the age-old tactic of denouncing and disavowing the same people the Republicans attack in the hopes of persuading the vast amorphous “middle” that they aren’t extremists. Back in the day we used to call it hippie punching. President Bill Clinton famously demonstrated it when he ostentatiously criticized a rapper named Sistah Souljah in the 1990s. This tactic is not new. It was tried over and over again. And it resulted in a Republican Party that has become progressively authoritarian, racist and culturally retrograde.

This Democratic navel-gazing happens every time the Democrats face a tough election cycle. But there’s something different happening this time that should shake up the tedious, perennial calculation that Democrats are becoming the party leftist extremists: the Republicans are batshit crazy right now.

Take, for example, that AP story above which reports that the Democrats in rural Pennsylvania are frightened of their neighbors. This is portrayed as a problem for these Democrats to solve when it’s actually a serious problem for the country if Republicans have become so unhinged that people who live near them fear for their safety. I suspect that after the events of January 6th and the ongoing crisis of gun violence, vaccine and mask refusal, mass book banning and the intensity of the right’s descent into delusional, anti-democratic authoritarianism, they aren’t the only ones who feel that way.

And I’m not just speaking of Democrats. The GOP is turning on itself as well. Politico reported this week on the massive number of primaries being waged against GOP incumbents and it isn’t pretty:

“Primaries are always fucked up to some degree, but it’s different now,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. “There’s more self-hate than there was before. Ten years ago, we’d argue about who was more pro-gun, who was more pro-life. Now, my clients are going RINO hunting, which is a level of disdain that was not there before in our party.”

Another describes it as “a cocktail of people being really just mad, beyond the pale of what I would say is traditional political discourse.” Many of these challengers are driven by fealty to Donald Trump who is seeking revenge against anyone he deems insufficiently loyal and all of them are extremists in the Trump mold. They are hostile to Democrats and moderate Republicans alike and filled with loathing for everyone who isn’t onboard their crusade.

RELATED: Only 13 of 143 Texas GOP candidates will admit Trump’s loss was “legitimate”

At the same time, money is rolling in from small donors is massive numbers, but the party doesn’t know what to do about the fact that most of it is going to Trump who is unreliable, to say the least, when it comes to spending on anyone but himself. Axios reported that Trump’s popularity with the most committed donors means that everyone else has to lean on his brand even more, making the party even more dependent on him.

As for The Big Lie? Well, it’s more potent than ever. The Houston Chronicle asked congressional challengers in Texas whether Biden’s victory was legitimate, and out of 143 only 13 said yes. They are either deluded or lying and neither of those things bodes well for the future of the country if they are elected.

Given the contrast between the two parties, with a Democratic establishment carefully trying to implement policies designed to help working families, deal with a global pandemic and prepare for the challenges of the future while juggling the various concerns of a fractious coalition and a Republican establishment that’s on the verge of being decimated by a group of far right cultists, any self-described liberal or centrist who believes, as Matt Bai apparently does, that Biden’s failure to full-throatedly disavow some campus radicals is a “deal-breaker” needs to get off Twitter and take a look at what’s really going on in this country.

Progressives, liberals, leftists, centrists and even disaffected conservatives can argue policy all day long and fight for what they believe the Democratic Party should stand for. That’s the restive coalition politics Democrats are famous for. But right now, there is nothing more important than maintaining a popular front against this toxic anti-democratic movement that’s consuming the Republican Party and threatening to turn back any progress we’ve managed to painfully eke out over these past couple of centuries.  

Trump threatens Hillary Clinton with death all over again — and nobody seems to care

Dear America: None of this is normal. Don’t listen to the people who try to convince you that it is. They don’t have your best interests at heart. In fact, you stand on the precipice of disaster — and you’re running out of time. 

Donald Trump, the former president of the United States and political crime boss of the Republican Party, continues to threaten his “enemies” with lethal violence — and at this point his enemies include anyone who opposes him, or stands in his way. 

Trump is an entrepreneur of both political and interpersonal violence, although far too cowardly to engage in it himself. His threats should be taken seriously.  

Yet the mainstream news media as a whole, along with most of the country’s political class have decided to stand mute in response to Donald Trump’s threats of mayhem. They have “moved on,” which in this case makes them like the three proverbial monkeys who hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

Instead of outrage, we largely feel exhaustion. The American people are growing increasingly indifferent to Trump’s threats, and to the rising power of his neofascist movement and the Republican Party’s threats against democracy and the rule of law.

Honestly, who can blame the public for its general reaction? It is supposed to be the responsibility of a free press to tell the public what is important and how to think about it. As an institution, the mainstream media has largely failed in that regard, and for a variety of reasons has normalized the Age of Trump and its effects. It appears that the media and political classes have convinced themselves that if they ignore Trump’s threats, they do not matter and the danger will go away. That’s not how the real world works.

RELATED: Trump’s new Clinton conspiracy theory is a success — mainstream media confounded

Last Saturday, Donald Trump issued yet another proclamation from his palace at Mar-a-Lago:

The latest pleading from Special Counsel Robert Durham provides indisputable evidence that my campaign and presidency were spied on by operatives paid by the Hillary Clinton Campaign in an effort to develop a completely fabricated connection to Russia

This is a scandal far greater in scope and magnitude than Watergate and those who were involved in and knew about this spying operation should be subject to criminal prosecution. In a stronger period of time in our country, this crime would have been punishable by death. In addition, reparations should be paid to those in our country who have been damaged by this.

Donald Trump is literally threatening Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff with death. Trump’s followers are listening closely.

Needless to say, Trump’s statement is false in virtually every detail. There is no evidence that Trump’s campaign was “spied on,” illegally or otherwise. His allegations are based on a grotesque misrepresentation of the claims made by Durham (whose name is John, not Robert), as promulgated by Fox News and other right-wing propaganda media.

RELATED: Right-wing media’s latest “bombshell” — the Durham report — is a nothingburger

How did the American mainstream news media respond to Trump’s latest death threats? With some polite fact-checking, but largely with silence. That amounts to permission or even encouragement of more such threats. 

This is by no means the first time Trump has threatened Hillary Clinton, or other leading Democrats, with death or grievous physical harm. Trump and his various allies and surrogates have made such threats since at least the beginning of his 2016 presidential campaign. At one point during that campaign, Trump suggested that “Second Amendment people” might have to deal with Clinton if she were elected.

Trump’s attraction to violence is a major reason why he defeated Clinton in that election. In many respects, Trumpism thrives on encouraging all kinds of anti-social and destructive behavior, up to and including murder and mob violence. 


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


Political observers and other public voices often write about right-wing political violence in conditional language, suggesting that such events are “coming” or “escalating” or may take place in the future. This too is a form of denial about the level of violence, death, loss and pain that Trump and his movement have already inflicted on the American people. In reality, fascist violence is here and now.

At his recent rallies Donald Trump has seemingly been trying to incite a race war, in which white people visit massive violence upon Black and brown people. Trump has also suggested that his followers will descend upon America’s major cities and cause mayhem if he faces prosecution for his apparent crimes.

RELATED: Trump’s race-war fantasies continue to escalate — while the media pretends not to notice

Donald Trump and his cabal attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021, which involved a lethal attack on the Capitol. The Trump regime also presided over a record increase in racist, antisemitic and homophobic hate crimes. Trump encouraged and valorized police brutality and thuggery against Black and brown people and other marginalized communities. His regime literally created a concentration camp system, in which thousands of nonwhite migrants and refugees were imprisoned, some of them subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Families were torn apart as part of an official policy of “deterrence” designed to terrorize nonwhite migrants and refugees and their communities and to reduce immigration to the United States from Black and brown countries.

Trump’s reign saw a number of mass shootings, including several by white supremacists. Trump himself described the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists who rampaged in Charlottesville in 2017 as “very fine people.”

Through negligence and malevolence, Trump’s regime engaged in democide in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Ultimately at least a million Americans will die from COVID. Most of those deaths were directly or indirectly caused by the Trump administration’s policy choices.

The United States has been pushed toward a second civil war by Trump’s Republican-fascist movement. Public opinion research shows that tens of millions of white Republicans are prepared to support and condone political violence against Democrats and other perceived enemies in order to defend “traditional” America.

RELATED: White terror: Millions of Americans say they’d support violence to restore Trump to power

The human mind has a complex relationship to pain. Sources of injury and pain are identified, as a defense against further harm. But while the specific sensation of pain can be remembered and described, the pain itself cannot be summoned up by most people. Many people live with chronic pain and over time their minds develop ways of processing and surviving it. This can also be true of both emotional pain, which essentially becomes a “new normal.”

For American society to acknowledge the real and serious damage caused by the Trump movement’s constant threats of death and violence would require great individual and collective pain. That helps to explain the collective desire to block that reality from memory in an effort to find or create some type of “normalcy” in a country that is mired in numerous crises and struggling for the survival of its democracy in a moment of ascendant fascism.

But this search for “normalcy” as a panacea (or perhaps as palliative care) for an ailing country is based on a false premise: the old version of “normal” wasn’t that great for most Americans. Trumpism and neofascism are acutely painful, but that pain is a  symptom of something much deeper. Trump’s movement is the product of many pre-existing forces: white supremacy and racism, sexism and misogyny, a culture of violence and cruelty, collective narcissism, a society oriented around spectacle and distraction, empty consumerism, extreme wealth and income inequality, anti-intellectualism and anti-rationality, conspiratorial thinking, radical right-wing Christianity, a gutting of the commons and social democracy, and other structural and cultural problems.

As a group, the millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 — and there were even more the second time — were searching for a type of liberation through destruction. They wanted to hurt other people as a way of lifting themselves up; literally and metaphorically, they stand on the necks of others in an effort to make themselves feel taller.

In his book about Brexit, “The Politics of Pain,” Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole describes such self-destructive impulses in the context of what he and others have called  “sadopopulism” or “sadopolitics”:

[A]ny transgression is revolutionary even if it celebrates self-harm.

Why do people cut themselves? Obviously, because they are unhappy, frustrated, angry. They feel that no one cares about them, no one listens to them. But it still seems hard to understand the attractions of inflicting pain on yourself. Three things seem to make cutting addictive. One is that it gives the pain you feel a name and a location. It becomes tangible and visible — it has an immediate focus that is somehow more tolerable than the larger, deeper distress. The second is that it provides the illusion of control. You choose to do it — you are taking an action and producing a result. It is a kind of power, even if the only way you can exercise that power is over yourself and even if the only thing you can do to yourself is damage. And the third is that it can seem in an unhappy mind like an act of love. You can hurt yourself for someone or something.

In his book “Our Malady,” historian Timothy Snyder offers these complementary insights about the body in pain and the American body politic in crisis: “I think that our death wish has to do with a growing imbalance between solitude and solidarity, with a rage that, when not balanced by empathy, undermines rather than affirms our freedom.”

I have finally come to the conclusion that most members of the American commentariat and media class are personally, professionally and temperamentally incapable of speaking truth to power, or of the critical self-reflection that is necessary to effectively respond to the country’s current crises. To do that kind of demanding intellectual and emotional work would cause them, both as individuals and a class, a type of ego death, or at the minimum, great narcissistic injury.

In the Guardian, Stephen Marche offers a powerful intervention that merits lengthy quotation:

The right has recognized what the left has not: that the system is in collapse. The right has a plan: it involves violence and solidarity. They have not abjured even the Oath Keepers. The left, meanwhile, has chosen infighting as their sport.

There will be those who say that warning of a new civil war is alarmist. All I can say is that reality has outpaced even the most alarmist predictions. Imagine going back just 10 years and explaining that a Republican president would openly support the dictatorship of North Korea. No conspiracy theorist would have dared to dream it. Anyone who foresaw, foresaw dimly. The trends were apparent; their ends were not.

It would be entirely possible for the United States to implement a modern electoral system, to restore the legitimacy of the courts, to reform its police forces, to root out domestic terrorism, to alter its tax code to address inequality, to prepare its cities and its agriculture for the effects of climate change, to regulate and to control the mechanisms of violence. All of these futures are possible. There is one hope, however, that must be rejected outright: the hope that everything will work out by itself, that America will bumble along into better times. It won’t. Americans have believed their country is an exception, a necessary nation. If history has shown us anything it’s that the world doesn’t have any necessary nations. …

Does the country have the humility to acknowledge that its old orders no longer work? Does it have the courage to begin again? As it managed so spectacularly at the birth of its nationhood, the United States requires the boldness to invent a new politics for a new era. It is entirely possible that it might do so. America is, after all, a country devoted to reinvention.

In the end, Donald Trump and his followers will continue to escalate their threats of political violence. There will be more acts of right-wing political violence and terrorism, on an ever-larger scale. And then when there is another Jan. 6 coup, or something worse, the mainstream pundits will again hide behind words such as this is all so “shocking” and “unthinkable” and “cannot happen in America.” The universal “I” and “we” will be trotted out ad nauseam as a way of shifting responsibility; everyone’s sin somehow becomes no one’s sin.  

Americans are a people in pain. We cannot cure the pain with comforting language, and we will never begin to address the pain unless we first confront and acknowledge its deeper structural causes. Too many of us are trying to self-medicate with denial. It won’t work. 

What’s going to happen in Ukraine? Total war, nothing at all or somewhere in between?

Every day brings new noise and fury in the crisis over Ukraine, mostly from Washington. But what is really likely to happen?

There are three possible scenarios:

The first is that Russia will suddenly launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The second is that the Ukrainian government in Kyiv will launch an escalation of its civil war against the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR), provoking various possible reactions from other countries.

The third is that neither of these things will happen, and the crisis will pass without a major escalation of the war in the short term.

RELATED: U.S.-Russia confrontation over Ukraine threatens to become all-out war — but why?

So who will do what, and how will other countries respond in each case?

Unprovoked Russian invasion

This seems to be the least likely outcome.

An actual Russian invasion would unleash unpredictable and cascading consequences that could escalate quickly, leading to mass civilian casualties, a new refugee crisis in Europe, war between Russia and NATO — or even nuclear war.  

If Russia wanted to annex the DPR and LPR, it could have done so amid the crisis that followed the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Russia already faced a furious Western response over its annexation of Crimea, so the international cost of annexing the DPR and LPR, which were also asking to rejoin Russia, would have been less then than it would be now. 

Russia instead adopted a carefully calculated position in which it gave the two breakaway republics only covert military and political support. If Russia were really ready to risk so much more now than in 2014, that would be a dreadful reflection of just how far U.S.-Russian relations have sunk.

If Russia does launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or annex the DPR and LPR, President Biden has already said that the U.S. and NATO would not directly fight a war with Russia over Ukraine, although that promise could be severely tested by the hawks in Congress and a media hellbent on stirring up anti-Russia hysteria.

RELATED: Yes, Putin’s a tyrant — that doesn’t mean his Ukraine demands are unreasonable

However, the U.S. and its allies would definitely impose heavy new sanctions on Russia, cementing the Cold War economic and political division of the world between the U.S. and its allies on one hand, and Russia, China and their allies on the other. Biden would achieve the full-blown Cold War that successive U.S. administrations have been cooking up for a decade, and which seems to be the unstated purpose of this manufactured crisis.

In terms of Europe, the U.S. geopolitical goal is clearly to engineer a complete breakdown in relations between Russia and the EU, to bind Europe to the United States. Forcing Germany to cancel its $11 billion Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia would certainly make Germany more energy-dependent on the U.S. and its allies. The overall result would be exactly as Lord Ismay, NATO’s first secretary-general, described when he said that the purpose of the alliance was to keep “the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” 

Brexit detached the U.K. from the EU and cemented its “special relationship” and military alliance with the United States. In the current crisis, this joined-at-the-hip alliance is reprising the unified role it played to diplomatically engineer and wage wars on Iraq in 1991 and 2003. 


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


Today, China and the EU (led by France and Germany) are the two leading trade partners of most countries in the world, a position formerly occupied by the United States. If the U.S. strategy in this crisis succeeds, it will erect a new Iron Curtain between Russia and the rest of Europe to inextricably tie the EU to the United States and prevent it from becoming a truly independent pole in a new multipolar world. If Biden pulls this off, he will have reduced America’s celebrated “victory” in the Cold War to simply dismantling the Iron Curtain and then rebuilding it 30 years later and a few hundred miles to the east.

But Biden may be trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. The EU is already an independent economic power. It is politically diverse and sometimes divided, but its political divisions seem manageable when compared with the political chaos, corruption and endemic poverty of the United States. Most Europeans think their political systems are healthier and more democratic than America’s, and they seem to be correct. 

Like China, the EU and its members are proving to be more reliable partners for international trade and peaceful development than the self-absorbed, capricious and militaristic U.S., where positive steps by one administration are regularly undone by the next, and whose military aid and arms sales destabilize countries (as in Africa right now), and strengthen dictatorships and extreme right-wing governments around the world.

But an unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly fulfill Biden’s goal of isolating Russia from Europe, at least in the short term. If Russia is ready to pay that price, it will be because it now sees the renewed Cold War division of Europe by the U.S. and NATO as unavoidable and irrevocable, and has concluded that it must consolidate and strengthen its defenses. That would also imply that Russia has China’s full support for doing so, heralding a darker and more dangerous future for the whole world. 

Ukrainian escalation of civil war   

The second scenario, an escalation of the civil war by Ukrainian forces, seems more likely. 

Whether this would be a full-scale invasion of the Donbas or something less, its main purpose, from the U.S. point of view, would be to provoke Russia into intervening more directly in Ukraine, to fulfill Biden’s prediction of a Russian invasion and unleash the maximum-pressure sanctions he has threatened. 

While Western leaders have been warning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian, DPR and LPR officials have been warning for months that Ukrainian government forces were escalating the civil war and have 150,000 troops and new weapons poised to attack the DPR and LPR. 

In that scenario, the massive U.S. and Western arms shipments arriving in Ukraine on the pretext of deterring a Russian invasion would in fact be intended for use in an already planned Ukrainian government offensive.

On one hand, if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government are planning an offensive in the east, why are they so publicly playing down fears of a Russian invasion? Surely they would be joining the chorus from Washington, London and Brussels, setting the stage to point the finger at Russia as soon as they launch their own escalation. 

RELATED: U.S. hypocrisy on Ukraine paralyzes media, Congress — and even progressive Democrats

And why are the Russians not more vocal in alerting the world to the danger of escalation by Ukrainian government forces surrounding the DPR and LPR? Surely the Russians have extensive intelligence sources inside Ukraine and would know if Ukraine were indeed planning a new offensive. But the Russians seem much more concerned by the breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations than with what the Ukrainian military may be up to.

On the other hand, the U.S., U.K. and NATO propaganda strategy has been organized in plain sight, with a new “intelligence” revelation or high-level pronouncement for every day of the month. So what might they have up their sleeves? Are they really confident that they can wrong-foot the Russians and leave them carrying the can for a deception operation that could rival the Tonkin Gulf incident or the WMD lies about Iraq?

The plan could be very simple. Ukrainian government forces attack. Russia comes to the defense of the DPR and LPR. Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson scream “Invasion” and “We told you so!” French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz mutely echo “Invasion” and say, “We stand together.” The U.S. and its allies impose “maximum pressure” sanctions on Russia, and NATO’s plans for a new Iron Curtain across Europe are a fait accompli.

An added wrinkle could be the kind of “false flag” narrative that U.S. and U.K. officials have hinted at several times. A Ukrainian government attack on the DPR or LPR could be passed off in the West as a “false flag” provocation by Russia, to muddy the distinction between a Ukrainian government escalation of the civil war and a “Russian invasion.”    

It’s unclear whether such plans would work, or whether they would simply divide NATO and Europe, with different countries taking different positions. Tragically, the answer might depend more on how craftily the trap was sprung than on the rights or wrongs of the conflict.  

But the critical question will be whether EU nations are ready to sacrifice their own independence and economic prosperity, which depend partly on natural gas supplies from Russia, for the uncertain benefits and debilitating costs of continued subservience to the U.S. empire. Europe would face a stark choice between a full return to its Cold War role on the front line of a possible nuclear war and the peaceful, cooperative future the EU has gradually but steadily built since 1990. 

Many Europeans are disillusioned with the neoliberal economic and political order that the EU has embraced, but it was subservience to the U.S. that led them down that garden path in the first place. Solidifying and deepening that subservience now would consolidate the plutocracy and extreme inequality of U.S.-led neoliberalism, not lead to a way out of it.    

Biden may get away with blaming the Russians for everything when he’s kowtowing to war hawks and preening for the cameras in Washington. But European governments have their own intelligence agencies and military advisers, who are not all under the thumb of the CIA and NATO. The German and French intelligence agencies have often warned their bosses not to follow the U.S. pied piper, notably in the case of the Iraq war in 2003. We must hope they have not all lost their objectivity, analytical skills or loyalty to their own countries since then.

If this backfires on Biden, and Europe ultimately rejects his call to arms against Russia, this could be the moment when Europe steps up to take its place as an independent power in the emerging multipolar world. 

Nothing happens

This would be the best outcome of all: an anticlimax to celebrate.

At some point, absent an invasion by Russia or an escalation by Ukraine, Biden would sooner or later have to stop crying wolf every day.  

All sides could climb back down from their military build-ups, panicked rhetoric and threatened sanctions. 

The Minsk Protocol could be revived, revised and reinvigorated to provide a satisfactory degree of autonomy to the people of the DPR and LPR within Ukraine, or facilitate a peaceful separation. 

RELATED: Hey, America: There’s already a diplomatic solution in Ukraine — the 2015 Minsk Protocol

The U.S., Russia and China could begin more serious diplomacy to reduce the threat of nuclear war and resolve their many differences, so that the world can move forward toward peace and prosperity instead of backward toward Cold War and nuclear brinkmanship.

Conclusion

However it ends, this crisis should be a wake-up call for Americans of all classes and political persuasions to re-evaluate our country’s position in the world. We have squandered trillions of dollars and millions of other people’s lives with our militarism and imperialism. The U.S. military budget keeps rising with no end in sight — and now the conflict with Russia has become another justification for prioritizing weapons spending over the needs of our people.

Our corrupt leaders have tried but failed to strangle the emerging multipolar world at its birth through militarism and coercion. As we can see after 20 years of war in Afghanistan, we cannot fight and bomb our way to peace or stability, and coercive economic sanctions can be almost as brutal and destructive. We must also re-evaluate the role of NATO and wind down this military alliance that has become such an aggressive and destructive force in the world. 

Instead, we must start thinking about how a post-imperial America can play a cooperative and constructive role in this new multipolar world, working with all our neighbors to solve the serious problems facing humanity in the 21st century.

Only 13 of 143 Texas GOP candidates will admit Trump’s loss was “legitimate”

Just 13 of the 143 Texas Republicans running for Congress acknowledge that the results of the 2020 election are “legitimate,” according to a survey.

Hearst Newspapers sent questions about the election to all 143 candidates and only a baker’s dozen accepted the results of the election despite repeated recounts, audits and court cases that have found no evidence of any fraud or election-rigging that could have impacted the results, according to the Houston Chronicle.

At least 42 of the candidates claimed that the election was stolen outright, called the results illegitimate or said they would have voted not to certify the results after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Another 11 candidates falsely claimed that there was enough fraud or irregularities to raise doubts about the election results. Another 19 have listed election fraud and irregularities as a key issue, without taking a stance on whether the 2020 results were legitimate.

“We’ve seen across the board, the Democrats have always cheated,” Jonathan Hullihan, a former Navy lawyer running for the seat of retiring Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, said at a recent candidate forum without any evidence. “Eighty-one million votes for Joe Biden? I just don’t believe it.”

RELATED: More than 80 pro-Trump election deniers are running for key state offices

Two of the candidates participated in the storming of the Capitol. Alma Arredondo-Lynch, who is challenging freshman Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, bragged that she had an “exciting and unforgettable” time at the protest outside the Capitol, blaming the pro-Trump violence on antifa and Black Lives Matter with no evidence. Sam Montoya, a former staffer at Alex Jones’ Infowars running in the state’s 35th congressional district, was arrested after filming himself and others invading the Capitol and has pleaded not guilty.

Even some Republicans who have acknowledged that President Joe Biden’s win was legitimate raised questions about the election.

“There are a lot of questions and issues regarding the 2020 election that need to be resolved and that are still being looked into, but there is not enough evidence to suggest that the election was stolen or that he is illegitimate,” Greg Thorne, who said he would have certified the election, unlike incumbent opponent Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told the Chronicle.

The 2020 election has become a key litmus test in Republican primaries as voters continue to be bombarded with false claims of fraud stemming from Donald Trump’s unending propaganda campaign to deny his loss. Trump’s Justice Department and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s “Election Fraud Unit” all found no evidence to support any of the widespread fraud claims.

Two-thirds of Texas Republican voters believe Biden’s win was illegitimate, according to a recent poll from the University of Texas at Austin, compared to just 22% who accept the election results. Nationwide, just 21% of Republicans believe Biden’s win was legitimate, according to a December poll from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.


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


“The belief in widespread voter fraud is becoming the article of faith among Republicans,” Joshua Blank, research director for the Texas Politics Project at UT Austin, told the Chronicle.

Blank said candidates’ position on this question is a signal to voters of their fealty to Trump.

“Is there any daylight between you and the former president?” he said. “It’s not necessarily about voting per se, but the extent to which these candidates can present themselves as on the president’s team.”

Though political candidates are notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts, candidates echoing repeatedly debunked lies about the election is a fairly new phenomenon. The Trump administration’s top cybersecurity officials called the 2020 race “the most secure in American history.” Republican Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs said the election in the state was “smooth and secure,” which appeared to have led Republican state lawmakers to block her confirmation.

It’s not just Texas: Hundreds of Republicans who deny or cast doubt on the election results are running for Congress nationwide. Perhaps more alarmingly, more than 80 election deniers are running to run, oversee or protect elections in their states and even more are seeking to take over local election jobs.

Many Republican state lawmakers have also gone all-in on Trump’s Big Lie with legislation aimed at restricting ballot access in the wake of record turnout in the 2020 race. Republicans last year enacted 34 new voting laws in 19 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, and have already introduced at least 250 new voting bills this year.

Texas’ sweeping new voting law, which restricts numerous forms of voting, has already become a nightmare for election administrators with primary voting underway. The state’s new voter ID requirements have caused some counties to reject nearly half of mail-in ballot applications and mail ballots.

In Harris County, which includes Houston, election officials have been forced to reject about 40% of applications and ballots, said Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo. “We have the receipts,” she tweeted.

In Travis County, which includes Austin, officials have also had to deal with a big increase in rejections.

“Voters are being mistreated,” County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said last month. “My friends, this is what voter suppression looks like.”

Read more:

Why Joe Biden is afraid to blame Big Business for inflation

The White House is reportedly split on why American consumers are facing record inflation, with numerous officials apparently reticent to blame corporate greed despite remarks made by executives indicating that Corporate America is raising prices higher than it needs to. 

According to The Washington Post, congressional testimony of a senior administration official was reportedly altered in recent weeks to omit claims linking inflation to monopoly power. The subtle move underscores the apparent tensions between officials in the White House around how to balance sound political messaging with what some see as hard economic realities. 

“It’s been the war of the ‘track changes’ inside the administration over how much the White House can lean in on the extent to which competition and greed are driving inflation,” one official told the Post. (“Track changes” refers to a feature built into Microsoft Word that allows users to see who made what edits to a shareable document.) 

RELATED: Giant food producers are profiteering off inflation — and bragging about it too

In recent weeks, Democratic politicians and progressive groups have condemned Corporate America’s role in driving inflation, which reached 7% by the end of 2021 – the largest 12-month increase since 1982. 

“Giant corporations are making record profits by increasing prices, and CEOs are saying the quiet part out loud: they’re happy to help drive inflation,” Warren tweeted on Monday. “American families pay higher prices and corporate executives get fatter bonuses.”


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


Warren highlighted remarks made by several executives at food and grocery companies like Kroger, Tyson, Procter & Gamble, who have openly crowed about inflation being good for business despite consumers feeling squeezed. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the prices of meat, poultry, fish and eggs collectively shot up by 12.5% throughout last year. Meanwhile, meatpackers’ profit margins skyrocketed by 300% during the pandemic, according to Reuters. 

RELATED: What’s really driving inflation? Corporate greed

In recent months, the White House has made commitments to cracking down on meat producers, particularly when it comes to price-fixing. Back in September, Biden announced a broad vowed to heighten enforcement of antitrust laws and improve transparency in labeling. 

Still, the administration has come short of blaming Big Business as the chief culprit for inflation on the whole.

“I think they’ve tried to be honest about the economic situation, and I, for one, appreciate that,” liberal economist Dean Baker told the Post. “They have to make a political call about whether that’s the right decision, but I think it’s best for them to be honest and I think they’ve done that.”

Officials in the Council of Economic Advisers have reportedly advised that financial opportunism only accounts for one component of the recent price increase, the Post reported. But according to a joint missive penned by American Economic Liberties Project and the Groundwork Collaborative, corporate consolidation costs the average American household $5,000 annually. 

“There is now overwhelming evidence that large corporations with significant market power are exploiting the broader supply chain crisis to raise prices,” the letter stated, “even when no bottleneck or shortage seems to exist.”

Trump issues hot-headed statement after judge rules against him

Former President Donald Trump issued a rage-filled statement on Thursday after a judge ruled that he and two of his children had to testify in New York Attorney General Leticia James’s civil lawsuit against the Trump Organization.

After starting off by attacking Hillary Clinton and baselessly accusing her of “breaking into my apartment,” the twice-impeached former president took aim at James and her investigation.

“Failed Gubernatorial candidate, Letitia James, can run for the office of AG on saying absolutely horrendous and false things about Donald Trump, a man she doesn’t know and has never met, go on to get elected, and then selectively prosecute him and his family,” Trump wrote.

The president then went on to falsely claim that he got more votes than any candidate in history, and then went on to say any investigations into him violated the United States Constitution.

“The targeting of a President of the United States, who got more votes while in office than any President in History, by far, and is a person that the Radical Left Democrats don’t want to run again, represents an unconstitutional attack on our Country—and the people will not allow this travesty of justice to happen. It is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in history—and remember, I can’t get a fair hearing in New York because of the hatred of me by Judges and the judiciary. It is not possible!”

Read the full statement below:

Vast majority of U.S. House candidates in Texas refuse to admit that Biden won election

Almost 13 months into Joe Biden’s presidency, a long list of Republicans are campaigning on the Big Lie — including, according to the Houston Chronicle, many of the 2022 congressional candidates in Texas.

There will be no U.S. Senate races in Texas in 2022 — Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t up for reelection until 2024, and Sen. John Cornyn isn’t up for reelection until 2026 — but there will be plenty of U.S. House races in the Lone Star State this year. And journalists Jasper Scherer and Benjamin Wermund, in a Chronicle article published on February 16, report that the Republican House candidates in Texas who are willing to promote the Big Lie outnumber the ones who aren’t.

“In Texas’ reddest congressional districts, it has become a rite of passage for Republican candidates to echo Trump’s baseless claims that Democrats rigged or stole the election for President Joe Biden,” Scherer and Wermund explain. “Even outside the conservative strongholds, GOP candidates across the state are calling for large-scale audits or otherwise casting doubt on the outcome of the election as they battle for votes. Candidates in nearly every competitive race across the state have raised questions about the validity of the 2020 election or said outright that it was stolen, despite widespread evidence to the contrary and the overwhelming failure of Trump and his allies to overturn the results in court.”

Hearst Newspapers, according to Scherer and Wermund, examined 143 Republicans who are running for U.S. House seats in Texas in the 2022 midterms — and only a minority of them are willing to publicly admit that Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election.

“Hearst Newspapers sent questions about the election and searched campaign websites and social media pages of all of the 143 Republicans running for Congress in Texas,” Scherer and Wermund report. “Of the 86 with discernible stances, at least 42 have said outright that the 2020 election was stolen, called the results illegitimate or said they would have voted not to certify. Another 11 candidates have said there was enough fraud or irregularities to cast doubt on the results of the election. Just 13 said the results were legitimate.”

In other words, only 13 out of 143 Texas Republicans who hope to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2023 aren’t either: (A) ignorant or badly uninformed, or (B) aware of the truth but willing to promote a debunked conspiracy theory for political gain. Either way, it’s a deeply disturbing commentary on the state of the Republican Party.

Not all conservatives, however, are willing to promote the Big Lie. Attorney George Conway, a scathing right-wing critic of former President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, regards the 2020 election as a raging success for U.S. democracy.

During a January 19 appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Conway said, “This election was actually just a remarkable feat of democracy. It should have been celebrated. We were in the middle of a global pandemic, and yet, we had the greatest turnout we’ve had in, I don’t know, decades, of people coming out to vote.”

But MAGA Republicans regard a Never Trumper like Conway as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). And as Scherer and Wermund report in the Chronicle, being willing to promote the Big Lie has become a “litmus test” in the Republican Party.

Joshua Blank, who serves as research director for the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, told the Chronicle, “The belief in widespread voter fraud is becoming the article of faith among Republicans.”

According to Republican strategist Brendan Steinhauser, it’s difficult for Republican candidates to avoid talking about the 2020 election.

Steinhauser told the Chronicle, “Every candidate is having to navigate these waters as best they can in terms of what they believe, what they feel like they can say publicly, and then the cost-benefit analysis…. It’s definitely a front-and-center issue.”

In the end, “Peacemaker” is the villain-turned-hero worth crossing the TV galaxy for

There was never any official competition between “Peacemaker” and “The Book of Boba Fett,” even though they share a few common traits.  Each is part of sprawling genre franchises bent on dominating popular culture via interrelated films and TV shows. Each revolves around a main character on a quest for redemption. And each of those men wears a bucket-shaped helmet.

But if you had asked anyone a couple of months ago which would emerge as the hero of 2022’s midseason, their money probably would have been on the fabled “Star Wars” bounty hunter. Between Boba Fett and John Cena’s Chris Smith, aka Peacemaker, the space mercenary has decades of legend, mystery and good will on his side, most of which his TV series squandered over its brief season.

Peacemaker, the lowest-regarded surviving member of the Suicide Squad, had nowhere to go but up in our estimation. Thanks to the combined comedy talents of Cena and James Gunn, who wrote every episode and directed most, that’s what happened. The eight-episode first season of “Peacemaker” is a pure pleasure because it kept the story as simple as its hero’s logic. Mostly.

RELATED: Bringing Peacemaker’s Eagly to life

Two thirds through the finale (titled “It’s Cow or Never”) Gunn flipped over everything we assumed about our hero’s mission, reminding us yet again that most comic book morality is never clean-cut. It also established that between the two helmets, while the Mandalorian armor’s may look cooler, Peacemaker’s various lids are far more fearsome.

Through the previous episodes, Cena’s Peacemaker and his team Leota Adebayo (Danielle Brooks), Emilia Harcourt (Jennifer Holland), John Economos (Steve Agee) and their accidental ally Vigilante (Freddie Stroma) engaged in a fairly straightforward quest, hunting a legion of aliens called “butterflies” that have infiltrated all levels of society by taking over human bodies.

According to their commander Clemson Murn (Chukwudi Iwuji), the butterflies’ goal is world domination. In their view, Murn tells them, humans are an inferior species unworthy of this planet. In that respect the bugs appear to share many sentiments with Peacemaker’s white supremacist father Auggie (Robert Patrick), a true supervillain who decides to murder his son for consorting with anyone who isn’t white, straight or Christian enough.

But once Peacemaker is in striking distance of the butterflies’ food source – a gigantic, larval beast they call “the cow” – their leader Goff (Annie Chang) proposes that he assist her in teleporting the “cow” to another hidden location, explaining they have the same goal. The butterflies came to this planet to save themselves after they’d destroyed their own, and Goff only wants to stop humanity from suffering the same fate. Just as he purports to want peace, so do they.

Heroes and villains have grappled with such quandaries since the dawn of comics, of course. It’s what keeps their arcs endlessly interesting.  Wouldn’t we lose interest in Magneto if there weren’t something tragically noble about him? Conversely, and perversely, was Thanos wrong about the universe being completely overpopulated and out of balance? What is he, if not an overly zealous urban planner?

Placing this choice in Peacemaker’s hands, though, is particularly fun. As the season progresses Gunn deepens his friendship with Leota, the only member of the team who has faith that this idiot (who murdered a lot of people in fulfillment of a vow to only kill for peace) can truly change for the better.

Leota also frames him, as part of following orders given to her by her mother, Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) but even this leads to a breakthrough for both. At first he doesn’t accept her apology but, being the immature oaf that he is, Chris gets back at her by using her as human torpedo to destroy their gooey, disgusting alien target.

Putting all intellectualizing aside for a moment, the main reason “Peacemaker” succeeds is because it remembers to have a good time while delivering a satisfying wallop to people that we can universally agree are terrible. The action sequences were tightly choreographed, ferocious and frequently as hilarious as the furious storm of punchline exchanges.

Gunn’s writing humanized every single character – even Vigilante, a psycho unable to comprehend simple human cues like sarcasm, but who nearly collapses into tears when he realizes he may have failed his friend and hero. Best of all, he gifted us with the handsomest savior in the DC Universe, Eagly.

And the finale’s cameo appearances by Jason Momoa and Ezra Miller, along with Davis, are an unexpected treat, closing the loop on the make crude jokes and rumors Peacemaker made about Aquaman and other A-list supers, which Momoa and Miller gamely played along with.

But if, by the end of this season, everyone on the team is more open than they’ve ever been – including Leota, who goes public about their stopping the alien invasion and the existence of Waller’s Task Force X (the Suicide Squad’s official name) that also puts them and the series on the path to new questions about morality and purpose.

It also makes “Peacemaker” a jollier and more complicated view into the DC world than those we see in the movies because Chris Smith isn’t merely human, he’s average. He lives in a trailer and doesn’t have massive wealth to fall back on or endless resources; in the finale he points out that the only man who can replace his gear is his father, who he murdered.

Chris is a man of low social standing, unlike Bruce Wayne, Diana Prince or Clark Kent, whose social nobility somehow infers a level of trustworthiness. (And when you think about it, the butterflies have plenty in common with Kryptonians. The difference is that one alien race has god-like strength in its favor while the other has the numbers.)

Every single “hero” on this black ops team murdered somebody, including at least one innocent man who begged for his life. This is the difference between a yarn like this and all movies “Justice League”-related. Comic book logic being what it is, some deaths hold more weight than others: No one will mourn the demise of Auggie, aka the White Dragon, and his murderous, racist goons. Gunn designed them to be gun fodder, which they were. The fact that Chris shot his father between the eyes was not shocking or in any way a moral turn; given how devoted Auggie was to murdering his son, it’s easy to consider it self-defense.


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


It’s also a tortuous kink in his road to absolution. With so many heroes’ origin stories linked to their parents being killed, Chris Smith is a rare one forced to murder his dad to survive and, possibly, find peace. That last part doesn’t happen, but it wouldn’t have if he spared him either. Auggie created Peacemaker, in no small part, by drilling it into him that he’s worthless.

This only made Chris Smith stronger, more rebellious, bisexual and glam rock-happy. (The hair band playlist for this season, by the way, is simply outstanding.) But even in death, Auggie won’t leave him alone. That’s sure to slow down his self-improvement efforts – a problem for another season, which the show is officially getting.

That’s happy news. Chris Smith may be a dim bulb, but he’s trying to cross Peacemaker over into the light to burn brighter. Certainly he’s far from the greatest American hero. But at this point in our existence, maybe his story the one that makes the most sense.

All episodes of “Peacemaker” are currently streaming on HBO Max.

More stories like this:

Trump not faring well in Trump Organization civil fraud case

Former President Donald Trump and his two children Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. lost a case Thursday trying to dodge questions in the New York Attorney General Office’s civil fraud case against the Trump Organization.

According to CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, the Trumps are likely to appeal. The Trumps were given three weeks to appear and answer questions, so the Supreme Court would have to move quickly to decide whether to accept the case or uphold the New York Supreme Court decision.

“Assuming appeal is unsuccessful, Trump, Ivanka and Don Jr. must testify under oath,” Honig explained. He anticipated that the Trumps would plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination as Eric Trump did for six hours.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance agreed that Trump will likely plead the Fifth. It presents a political problem for Trump, who has attacked those who’ve done so in the past.

“The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump once declared.

Vance further said Trump will likely claim his Fifth Amendment plea is “not because he’s guilty but because NY prosecutors are running a witch-hunt and they’ll use what he says against him no matter what.”

If that’s the route Trump goes, fellow former federal prosecutor Renato Mariti explained, then Trump is between a rock and a hard place. Because this is a civil case, Trump pleading the Fifth means that it can be used in the Manhattan DA case. The jury in that case would be able to hear the context in which Trump pleaded the Fifth as part of the accusations against him.

See the full comments below:

LGBTQ+ identifying adults have doubled in number over past decade

A recent Gallup poll has concluded that the number of adults who identify as LGBTQ+ has risen considerably over the past decade, and even the past two years. The last time a poll tallied up the number of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, or generally non-heterosexual American adults was in 2012, and this most recent study finds numbers to have doubled. 

Gallup collects their information via U.S. telephone surveys, and those who agree to participate are free to offer up anything they like in terms of sexual or non-sexual identification. Gallup came away from their poll with data indicating that 7.1% of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+, 86.3% identify as heterosexual, and 6.6% didn’t offer a preference one way or the other.

Related: Betty White on “The Golden Girls” taught me queer self-acceptance

The sample size of U.S. adults interviewed was 12,000, according to the Gallup report, and out of that sample a clear distinction was made between Generation-Z adults born between the years 1997 and 2003, and the older millennial, Generation-X, and Baby Boomer generations. The older generations were found to be “holding steady” in terms of numbers of adults who identify as LGBTQ+, while the youngest Gen-Z generation who identify as such has doubled since 2017. 

“These young adults [Generation Z] are coming of age, including coming to terms with their sexuality or gender identity, at a time when Americans increasingly accept gays, lesbians and transgender people, and LGBT individuals enjoy increasing legal protection against discrimination,” Gallup said.


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


In a USA Today article breaking down various Gallup findings in relation to how modern society views the LGBTQ+ community, they state that the percentage of Americans who are generally comfortable with the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community is at an all-time high of 62%.

“It just speaks to changes in societal norms that we’ve seen over the past, really, two decades,” Jeff Jones, a senior editor at Gallup said. “When we used to ask about same-sex marriage, in the 1990s and even in early 2000s, we would have majorities opposed. And now we have solid majorities that seem to grow at least a little bit every year.” 

Read more:

Texas’ Lt. Gov Dan Patrick’s attempt to hype GOP voters’ fears of election fraud backfires

Thousands of applications for mail-in ballots submitted by Texas voters have been delayed — and some voters may ultimately not receive ballots — because Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s campaign instructed eligible voters to send requests for absentee ballots to the Texas secretary of state’s office instead of their local elections offices.

A mass mailing by Patrick went out to Republican voters across the state in January, ahead of the March primary, and included a two-page letter emblazoned with the seal of his office encouraging voters to submit the requests following “three easy steps.” The problem was the third step, which instructed voters to return the applications in an enclosed reply envelope that was addressed to the state.

The lieutenant governor’s campaign said it used the secretary of state’s address because “many Republican voters are rightly suspicious of Blue County election officials.”

“The decision to direct return mail to the Secretary of State (SOS), someone who is trusted and respected, gave voters an added layer of comfort,” Allen Blakemore, a campaign consultant for Patrick, wrote in an email.

But the campaign’s approach forced the secretary of state, which had a stated policy of rejecting applications erroneously sent its way, to sort and forward the Patrick-inspired forms to the counties where they should have been sent originally.

The delayed delivery could put voters’ requests for mail-in ballots at risk as counties continue to see higher-than-normal rejection rates of applications under new ID requirements enacted by Republicans last year. Any issues with defective applications must be resolved by Friday so voters can receive a mail-in ballot.

State workers have been forwarding the waylaid applications to respective counties, which this week were still receiving packages containing hundreds of misdirected applications.

The fiasco has further muddled the first election held since Patrick, as head of the state Senate, presided over last year’s passage of new laws tightening voting processes, including a measure making it a crime for local election officials to send out applications for mail-in ballots to people who did not request them.

RELATED: Voter suppression in action: Mail-in ballot rejections many times higher under new Texas law

“Everyone age 65 and older has earned the right to vote early by mail. As Republicans, we have fought to make it easier to vote while protecting election integrity, so we need to make sure we increase our turnout by taking full advantage of this convenient and secure voting option,” Patrick wrote in a letter dated Jan. 20 that was attached with the applications.

Though the letter contains the official state seal for the lieutenant governor, as allowed by law, the materials were labeled as being sent out by Patrick’s campaign and not at taxpayer expense.

The mailing went out to voters in Harris County and central Texas, with Patrick endorsing area Republican candidates in different versions of his letter obtained by The Texas Tribune. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram recently reported the mailer also reached Tarrant County residents.

Unsolicited mailing campaigns from candidates and political parties are not uncommon. But Republicans’ penchant for encouraging voting by mail for their voters has come under scrutiny as they’ve worked to limit expansions of mail-in voting during the pandemic and criminalized the mailing of applications by county election administrators to voters who did not request them.

Republican lawmakers last year made it a state jail felony for local election officials to send out unsolicited applications for mail-in ballots, even to voters 65 and older who automatically qualify under the state’s strict eligibility requirements. They also prohibited local officials from even encouraging people to vote by mail.

The full scale of Patrick’s mailing efforts is unclear; his campaign did not answer a question about the reach of the mailings. But the secretary of state’s office previously told some county officials that it had received at least two pallets of applications, and some local election officials have indicated they were receiving hundreds of delayed applications.

“The SOS has always accepted ABBMs and quickly and efficiently routed them to the proper local offices,” Blakemore said, referring to applications for a ballot by mail. “We believe that this will ensure that Blue County election officials are more likely to properly handle our ABBMs when they know they are being watched and monitored by the SOS.”

In an email responding to questions about the misdirected applications, a spokesperson for the Texas secretary of state did not address the mailing campaign by the lieutenant governor.

“Generally speaking, we request that voters do not mail, fax, or email completed applications for Ballot by Mail to the Secretary of State Office,” wrote Sam Taylor, the spokesperson, noting that the office would forward applications to early voting clerks “as a courtesy to help the voter.”

“It is not the voter’s fault if a third party put the incorrect return address on an ABBM, so we want to ensure voters are not adversely affected by that,” Taylor said.

This appears to be a departure from the office’s previous stance on applications wrongly sent to its office. The secretary of state’s website previously warned voters against sending applications to its office, noting that “all applications received by this office will be rejected.” That language was removed from the website at the beginning of the month, according to a screenshot of the same page archived by the Wayback Machine.

County election officials receiving the waylaid applications this week are now under a time crunch to process them and reach out to voters if their applications are defective. Hundreds of applications to vote by mail in the primary have been initially rejected in recent weeks after voters did not fill out new ID rules that require them to provide a driver’s license number or partial Social Security number.

Voters can correct the issue but must do so by the Friday deadline for counties to receive applications for the primary election. Otherwise, their application will be finally rejected.

Taylor said the secretary of state’s office had been working to “expedite” the forwarding of applications it received and planned to label those that came to them before the deadline to request mail-in ballots.

The unsolicited mailings come as the Texas attorney general argues in federal court that the restrictions on county election officials in regard to voting by mail are intended to limit “official encouragement” of voting by mail. In a hearing for a related case, a lawyer for the attorney general indicated to a federal judge last week that the state preferred people vote in person even if they qualify to vote by mail.

On Thursday, Blakemore defended the new prohibitions as “guard rails” established by the Legislature following Harris County’s unsuccessful attempt to send applications for mail-in ballots to all of its registered voters in 2020.

“It was that overreach, as well as drive-thru-voting, that brought about SB1,” Blakemore said.

In 2020, Patrick referred to vote-by-mail expansion efforts as a “scam by Democrats to steal the election,” saying there was no reason anyone under 65 should be “able to say I am afraid to go vote” during the pandemic. Patrick himself has used the voting option, opting to vote by mail in a 2007 Houston municipal election and an ensuing runoff.

Disclosure: The Texas Secretary of State has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

What does a world-famous bartender drink first thing in the morning?

First Things First is a series chronicling the morning beverage routines of some of our favorite people.


What can you learn about a person from their coffee mug collection? If that someone is Aaron Polsky, the Los Angeles–based founder of ready-to-drink cocktail company LiveWire Drinks, you’d rightfully surmise that he’s a loving cat dad with an affinity for rock and roll, Larry David’s bristly sense of humor, and old-school Nintendo games. But then, as you make your way toward the back of the shelf, you may wonder about an outlier cup adorned with ballet slippers and more text than a Dr. Bronner’s soap bottle. Don’t worry, there’s a story behind that one, too.

“I now have an excess of mugs,” says Polsky, who likes deploying them as a lighthearted form of self-expression—particularly in the era of Zoom meetings. “I feel like coffee mugs and T-shirts are very important to curate.”

The bartending alum of such notable hot spots as Amor y Amargo in New York and Harvard & Stone in L.A. has never been much of a morning person. In March 2020, he started LiveWire, which features canned cocktails developed by accomplished bartenders who also share the profits—a model akin to running a record label. Between navigating a start-up business all day and supporting bar customers often till 1 or 2 a.m., Polsky’s work life all but requires that his days start late.

“I try to find balance the best I can,” he says. That includes drinking plenty of water throughout the day, and—most importantly—getting seven to eight hours of sleep each night. “I don’t try to get up too early. Sleep is the most important thing to having a clear head.”

Once he’s awake—usually between 8 and 9—and has fed and watered his cat sons, Mr. Brownstone and Night Train (yes, those are Guns N’ Roses song titles), the next vital task is singular: to brew the sole cup of coffee he’ll drink that day—black and unsweetened—which he makes in his Bonavita automated pour-over coffee maker.

“I like my coffee really strong and rich and flavorful, and if I were to do more than one cup, it would probably kill me,” he says. “I used to do my own pour-over, but this coffee maker puts out water at exactly 203°F, and it’s very fast and simple.”

Polsky weighs and grinds 30 grams of locally roasted beans procured from nearby Obet & Del’s Coffee, and measures out exactly 17 ounces of filtered water (he is a drinks professional, after all). He adds them to the coffee maker, which deposits 15 ounces of coffee right into one of two Curb Your Enthusiasm mugs he owns. He sometimes meditates during the 6 minutes it takes to brew, though work has often already won the battle for his attention by then.

As most of Polsky’s coworkers know from Zoom calls, his go-to Curb mugs feature a cartoon of David’s spiteful mug and a nod to one of Polsky’s favorite lines, which David says during an episode when he orders at a Starbucks: “some vanilla bullshit latte cappa thing.”

Polsky found the set on Instagram after recently sizing up his morning caffeine injection. Before that, he was rotating between his “Black Coffee” mugs written in the Black Sabbath band font (Polsky also has an undergraduate degree in music); a pair of heat-activated, color-changing Nintendo mugs; and, more rarely, a “cat dad” Target mug given to him a friend. But all were suddenly too small, forcing the brief cameo of a certain timeworn cup adorned with colorful ballet slippers and numerous lines of prose describing dance “as the art of the movement of the body,” Polsky says. “So, you know, I needed to really fix this situation.”

But this mug, too, tells a key part of the Aaron Polsky story. It represents half of a set his parents bought after immigrating to the U.S. from the Soviet Union, in 1978.

“They came here with, like, $200 to their name,” he says. “That mug is at least as old as I am.”

Tom Cotton, upset by George Floyd protests, is now holding up Biden’s nominees to the DOJ

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., is slow-walking the confirmations of multiple nominees for U.S attorney over a local clash between Portland protesters and U.S. marshals during the George Floyd protests back in the summer of 2020, according to The Detroit News. 

Cotton formally objected to their confirmations during a Wednesday Senate hearing, demanding that the Justice Department pay the legal bills over four U.S. marshals who were sued by Portland protesters injured during the protests. 

“I’m sorry if your lawyers have to wait for a week or two to get confirmed to the U.S. attorney’s position,” Cotton said. “I’m worried about four heroes who defended federal property from left-wing street militias. So yeah, I will object.”

RELATED: Sen. Tom Cotton campaigned on his “experience as an Army Ranger” — but he didn’t have any

Cotton further asked for a “satisfactory, fact-based” as to why the department won’t represent the marshals. 


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


“Maybe some of my Democratic colleagues could call (Attorney General) Merrick Garland or Vinita Gupta and ask them for such an answer,” the Arkansas senator continued. “Or maybe just call them and say, ‘Why don’t you represent these four marshals?’ That seems like an obvious, satisfactory outcome for everyone here.”

In one exchange Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durban, D-Ill., pointed out that Cotton, who is staunchly pro-law enforcement, was actually holding up a confirmation process that would make law enforcement run more smoothly.

“Try to follow that logic, if you will. The senator is so committed to law enforcement, he is so committed to U.S. marshals, he won’t let us appoint people to fill vacancies,” Durbin said. “Why are we in such a hurry? We’re in the second year of this president’s administration. It’s time to fill these vacancies.”

Senator Catherine Marie Cortez Masto, D-Nevada, likewise called Cotton’s position “nonsensical.”

“He can’t continue to use the same talking point that he’s defending law enforcement, when at the same time, he’s harming law enforcement across the country,” she said. 

RELATED: WATCH: Ted Cruz, GOP senators clowned by Biden judicial nominee

In the hearing, Cotton also called out the Democrats for backing the 2018 First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill designed to reduce the federal prison population. The bill was, however, passed by numerous Republican senators during the Trump administration. 

Director on the appeal of “The Automat,” which was “the coolest cafeteria of them all”

Anyone — and perhaps everyone — who remembers the Automat remembers it with affection. Lisa Hurwitz’s charming documentary, “The Automat,” exudes nostalgia for Horn & Hardart’s remarkable restaurant chain that has customers put nickels in slots to secure everything from fresh sandwiches and entrees like Salisbury steak, to cakes and pies, and coffee (which spouted — with milk! — out of fabulous bronze dolphin heads). The restaurants only existed in New York and Philadelphia, and they were favored by the likes of Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner, Colin Powell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elliot Gould, and even Howard Schultz, who modeled Starbucks on the Automat’s presentation of “theater and romance.” 

Hurwitz’s film shows that the Automat’s success was based not only on the efforts and principles of its owners, Joseph Horn and Frank Hardart, but also their commitment to provide good quality food at cheap prices. For decades, everything cost a nickel! (And the business took a nosedive on November 29, 1950, when the price of a cup of coffee doubled). Moreover, the Automat was a democratic place where immigrants who did not know English could eat, as could women who were entering the workforce in large numbers. Swell couples could easily share a table with a houseless person, and the fabulous cafeterias were always integrated. The Automat was an equalizer that was able to feed anyone and everyone because it benefitted from economies of scale.

RELATED: New York’s dying signs: what we lose when corporate logos take over

Hurwitz spoke with Salon about the emotional attachment so many folks have for this bygone experience and her film.

It’s an obvious question, perhaps, but as someone from Philadelphia who has incredible nostalgia for the Automat — despite having never been to one! — what do you recall about going to the Automat? Or like me, have you never been?

I’ve never been! The last one closed the year after I was born. I am from Los Angeles, but I live in New York now. I learned about the Automat in 2011 or so. I found out about it in my college library, just reading. I was very interested in cafeterias, so I was trying to understand the history of cafeterias in America and that’s when I came across Horn & Hardart.

Let me ask you the questions you asked Alec Shuldiner, the automat historian, in the film. How and why did you get involved with this project? 

A film wasn’t my initial intention. It was a curiosity that kept growing. At first, it was a short, profile on Steve Stollman, the automat collector — that barn in the film is his — then the focus kept changing. I had this short that I had done for my class, and I felt there was something there and I could keep going with it. 

Why did this topic appeal to you to make a film about it?

The initial appeal was that, to me, Automats were the coolest cafeteria of them all. I loved my school cafeteria and ate there constantly and had wonderful experiences — not just with the food. Growing up, I ate on my own a lot, and a cafeteria was a place I could eat with others and the food always changed, so there was this security and the food was hot. I made friends there; it was a welcoming space, and I would hang out there a lot.

When I came across the Automat, it was this really cool concept. When I saw it was prominent in pop culture, I realized it was a big deal. People from all over the country would go to New York, and what was on their hit list? To see the Automat. I started meeting the Horns, the Hardarts, and some key executives. I didn’t know what I was doing, but I thought I should figure out how to make a movie because this is too good, and this story is preserved so well. 

What can you say about the research you did for the film? There are some fabulous images.

I knew about the New York Public Library’s archives, which were massive and very rich. But I didn’t know about Temple University’s Urban Archives. The story was preserved very well, and no one had done anything with it, which to me, seemed crazy. Temple [archivist] John Pettit was always unearthing more and more footage — their Urban Archives has the best collection of automat footage. Places like Getty have drive-bys and generic stuff. But Temple has the local TV station archives and John [Pettit] wants to make it accessible; he wants the content to get out there. He was digging to find everything he could. Temple has its own thank you in the credits.

What can you say about assembling all of the material into a lively 80-minute film?

We were trying to not only tell the story of the Automat but also give some social commentary and wishes for the future. The moral of the story here and my nostalgia for the Automat was about this time where people were rubbing elbows and they liked that. They were sharing tables. A business was providing them with a beautiful space with really good, affordable food. It was a beautiful time and a different world. I’m someone who is very idealistic, so it was very important to me that my editors infused the Horn and Hardart story with idealism — that is the way the world should be, and how we should all take care of each other. I credit my editors. It’s subtle in the film. You don’t watch it and feel the film is politicized, or that we are shoving something down your throat, but it is there — this proposition for the way of the past. We are carrying it with us; it lives on with those who went there or heard about it from their relatives.

You also get some wonderful stories from famous people who adore the Automat. Why do you think folks have such affection and emotional attachment to this particular restaurant chain?

It was really that wonderful of a place, and it was representative of a much simpler time. It was like a second home for so many people that it played an important role in their lives. It was a place you would go with their relatives. People who are around today, their relatives took them there. We interviewed older folks who went there throughout their lives. It was a family-oriented place and that plays a key role why they have such nostalgia for it — they associate it with loved ones who are gone. But they also have nostalgia for it because the food was so awesome. 

The film chronicles the success of the Automat — it filled a real need during the Depression and for different social groups and yet remained good, cheap, and democratic. The economies of scale bolstered its success. What observations do you have about the popularity of the Automat? Because it fell out of favor for almost the very reasons it succeeded.

Something that is maybe an unpopular opinion of mine about patronizing large businesses and maybe the beauty in large businesses is the scale that they are able to operate at and then offer something high quality at a lower price. I think that when we all put into the same pot, we are all able to get something great back; it is the way to make things affordable. Today, we have too many options. If we had fewer options, we could have more high quality options. That’s also my opinion about health care. Once Horn & Hardart didn’t have the volume of people to serve, the quality went down, and the system couldn’t sustain itself. It was not a flexible system. It was created to be in bulk and they could not gracefully scale it back. It’s an important business lesson – you have to make it scalable. If they had, maybe they would still be with us. 

Horn & Hardart was operating in a time when society had different ideas about making things to last and quality. For a company to be really rich, it would make sense to me to become less rich and raise the quality and have pride in what you are serving. Values in business have really shifted a lot since the time of the Automat. They served very high quality at affordable prices.

One of the more touching anecdotes in the film was adman Ron Barrett’s campaigns to help bolster the Automat during its decline. Do you think it could have been saved/sustained?

I’d like to think that things could have [changed] but they needed to take drastic action — much more than an ad campaign. I’m not a scholar of business, but if it could have survived, it would not have looked like what it did in the beginning. What you had in the beginning were these expensive to operate commissaries that were giant, occupying valuable real estate in New York City. An ad campaign was not enough. They were trying, but the thing that was working the best for them was converting and franchising Burger King and Arby’s. That was the moneymaker, but they had debts in so many areas they had to sell those franchises back to Burger King and Arby’s. 

The people in Philadelphia who purchased the Horn & Hardart brand name tried many times to revive the Horn and Hardart name, and after 1991 they opened Horn & Hardart cafes in Pennsylvania and tried to bring back the coffee, selling bags of it, but customers who tried what they had said it wasn’t the same coffee, so the family realized that you can’t compete with people’s memories. People forgot about the Automat eventually. They loved them from childhood, but stopped going there, or moved to the west coast and then you realize later you really miss it. Businesses change all the time. They would have had to change substantially. 

If you were to work in the Automat, what job would you want? Nickel changer?  

Oh, wow! I’m so flattered that you think I would be good enough to be able reach in and just know 20 nickels. I don’t understand how people did that, but people don’t understand how you can make a film, but you just figure it out! Thank you. I’ll be a nickel thrower. I’d like to think that I could have been that pioneering female executive in that all-male executive team breaking barriers in that office. Or maybe I would have been behind the steam table giving customers dollops of carrots and carving their turkey.

“The Automat” opens Friday, Feb. 18 in New York before it expands in theaters. It will be available on digital in June.

More stories you might like:

Grand jury indicts 9 Texas police officers on excessive force charges related to 2020 BLM protests

Nearly two years after demonstrators and police clashed in Austin during nationwide protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd, a Travis County grand jury on Thursday indicted at least nine officers accused of excessive force and Austin officials agreed to a $10 million settlement with two men shot by police with beanbag rounds.

“We believe many protesters injured by law enforcement officers during the protest were innocent bystanders. We also believe that the overwhelming majority of victims in the incidents that were investigated suffered significant injuries,” Travis County District Attorney José Garza said during a Thursday press conference announcing the indictments. “Some will never fully recover.”

More officers could be indicted, but the Travis County District Attorney’s office has not announced the final tally. Last week, the Austin American-Statesman reported that the grand jury was considering charges for up to 18 officers.

The names of the officers being indicted are not yet known. Travis County District Attorney José Garza said during a Thursday press conference that his office is prohibited by law to disclose details of an indictment until that person is arrested and booked into jail.

“We do anticipate that many indictments will be forthcoming in the days ahead,” Garza said.

The cases will be argued in front of a judge before a verdict is handed out. The cases will probably take months or years to resolve.

In addition, under a settlement unanimously approved Thursday by the Austin City Council, demonstrator Justin Howell will receive $8 million — the highest amount ever awarded in an excessive force case involving an Austin police officer, the Statesman reported. Anthony Evans, another protester, will get $2 million.

Both men sued the city after suffering severe head injuries in May 2020, when Austin police officers fired on demonstrators protesting police brutality in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Michael Ramos in Austin.

Howell, then a 20-year-old Texas State University student, had a fractured skull and brain damage, his brother said at the time. The same weekend, Austin police fired on Evans as he walked away from a demonstration, fracturing his jaw, according to news reports.

“Today’s settlement reminds us of a difficult and painful moment for our city,” Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in a tweet. “No one should be injured while exercising their constitutional right to protest.”

Even the council’s staunchest police allies approved of the settlement. Austin City Council Member Mackenzie Kelly said the Austin Police Department “instructed officers to use tools that were intended to help manage the crowd — for everyone’s safety, including officers,” but she still voted in favor of the settlement.

“I don’t believe that the injuries sustained by Mr. Evans and Mr. Howell were the intended results,” Kelly said in a statement. “Regardless, these men were seriously injured, and I think it is right for the City to pay the damages.”

Austin Police Chief Joe Chacon — who took the job more than a year after the protests — said in a statement he understands why City Council members opted to settle the case and expressed sympathy for Howell and Evans, though he didn’t name them.

Chacon said APD “did not anticipate the injuries that occurred from the use of the less-lethal rounds,” which the department later decided to stop using.

“In hindsight, we were not prepared for the heightened frustration felt by so many community members, nor the size and scope of the crowds,” the chief said.

The violence that weekend spurred more than a dozen lawsuits against the city and police officers by people injured by police, the Statesman reported. So far, the city has settled three of those lawsuits.

Tens of thousands of people protested Floyd’s death in Austin for over a week in May 2020. Floyd, a Black man, was killed by a white Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, after he kneeled on Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes in May 2020. Chauvin was found guilty of murder last year.

Floyd’s death spurred a nationwide outcry against police brutality against Black people, who are killed at disproportionately higher rates in police custody. Texans protested across the state, including in Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Fort Worth.

Cities and communities in Texas continue to grapple with the aggressive tactics that police waged against protesters that year. Police officers all over Texas and the nation have faced charges for how they dealt with protesters.

Law enforcement officials have defended the use of force during the protests, saying it was warranted amid the chaos. They have pointed to reports of people throwing bottles and rocks at officers, sometimes injuring them, damaging police cars and breaking into stores.

But advocates and protesters expressed outrage over police officers turning to violent crowd-control measures, especially in light of what they were protesting.

Last week, the Dallas county attorney’s office issued warrants for two Dallas police officers’ arrest for their alleged use of force during the 2020 racial justice protests in that city.

Figure skating medalists’ bittersweet win after Kamila Valieva fails to finish in top three

Despite getting a chance to compete after violating the rules, Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva was unable to secure a spot on the podium (which she wouldn’t have been able to stand on anyway).

The 15-year-old skating prodigy placed first in the short program on Tuesday but ultimately finished in fourth place after falling multiple times during her free skate on Thursday. Valieva first made headlines when it was revealed that she had tested positive for the banned metabolic modulator trimetazidine. The revelation also delayed the medal ceremony for last week’s team event; Valieva and her fellow ROC teammates have not received their gold medals.

On Monday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) announced that Valieva could continue competing in the individual events but stated there would not be a medal ceremony if she finished in the top three.

RELATED: Sha’Carri Richardson, Tara Lipinski, Johnny Weir and others push back at doping decision leniency

“The panel considered that preventing the athlete to compete at the Olympic Games would cause her irreparable harm in the circumstances,” CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb told the AP.

The decision prompted former figure skaters Adam Rippon, Yuna Kim, Scott Moir and Kaitlyn Weaver to speak out against it. NBC commentators Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski also agreed that Valieva should not be allowed to skate.

“It’s not just about her skating or not skating,” Lipinski said. “It’s affecting everyone at these Olympic Games to think that there’s going to be no medal ceremony if she’s on the podium . . . I can’t even comprehend that. Imagine how it’s affecting so many other skaters’ lives and their experiences.”

Following Valieva’s free skate, both Weir and Lipinski reiterated their disapproval but also offered a few words of sympathy.

“I can’t imagine how tough this has been on Kamila and it makes me angry that the adults weren’t able to make better decisions and guide her and be there for her because she is the one now dealing with the consequences,” Lipinski said. “And she’s just 15 and that’s not fair. With that being said, she should not have been allowed to skate in this Olympic event.”

“On a human level I can’t imagine going through what she has been through,” Weir said. “But that doesn’t change the fact that she should’ve been nowhere near this competition. Every athlete at this level knows and understands that if you test positive for a banned substance you will not compete.”


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


Valieva broke down in tears after receiving her result on Thursday. She reportedly declined to speak with the press afterwards.

“The court that ruled to allow Kamila to skate in this competition was worried about the ramifications on her mental health of not competing,” Weir added. “And I wonder what they are thinking now as to what just happened to Kamila Valieva.”

Valieva’s teammates Anna Shcherbakova and Alexandra Trusova took home the gold and silver medals. Kaori Sakamoto of Japan won bronze. 

“Thank goodness for all the other medalists to have that moment,” Lipinski said at the end of the program.

The top three finishers must have been relieved to be able to celebrate such a win and actually share it with the world, but also it no doubt comes with mixed feelings. The ruling committee’s decision to allow Valieva to compete – but with such a caveat and to such backlash – couldn’t have been good for the teen’s mental health. It certainly played out in her performance, and one must question if the leniency did her more harm than good.

More stories you might like:

Scientists think they know why hundreds of birds mysteriously fell from the sky in Mexico

A bizarre video of birds literally just dropping dead and falling from the sky in northern Mexico has gone viral. The spooky video looks like a scene straight out of Alfred Hitchcock’s horror film, “The Birds.”

According to NBC News, a security camera captured the video footage of a moment when a massive flock of yellow-headed blackbirds fell from the sky, hitting the pavement en masse in Chihuahua, about 230 miles south of El Paso, Texas. While the footage showed many of the birds flying back upward in a matter of seconds, many were left as corpses on the ground.

The eerie video was covered by local media last week; at the time, local authorities could not determine a cause for the birds’ sudden death and strange behavior. Unsurprisingly, this paved the way for a slew of conspiracy theories that followed.

Since the video didn’t capture a possible collision, speculation is open as to the reason for the mass bird death. Yet scientists have a couple of ideas. The first, and most popular credible theory, is that the birds were running from some sort of predator — like a falcon, hawk or owl.

“This truly was an ‘oops’ moment for the birds,” Kevin J. McGowan, an ornithologist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology told The Washington Post. “A really big ‘oops’ moment.” McGowan said it’s “the only thing that makes sense” to justify their behavior, suggesting that in this quick escape the birds made a few mistakes along the way.


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


Dr. Richard Broughton, an ecologist with the UK Center for Ecology & Hydrology, told The Guardian that while a predator isn’t seen in the footage, he’s also 99 percent sure that it caused the eerie behavior from the birds. A predatory bird may have tussled with them mid-air and drove them towards the ground, forcing the ones flying closer to the ground to crash into it.

“This looks like a raptor like a peregrine or hawk has been chasing a flock, like they do with murmurating starlings, and they have crashed as the flock was forced low,” Broughton said. “You can see that they act like a wave at the beginning, as if they are being flushed from above.” Murmuration is a term that refers to when a vast number of birds all fly together in a mass, swirling pattern; often, it is used in the context of starlings or other birds that fly in mass formations with hundreds or thousands of others.

Dr Alexander Lees, a senior lecturer in conservation biology at Manchester Metropolitan University, agreed with Broughton’s theory. “For my part and from one video and no toxicology, I’d still say the most probable cause is the flock murmurating to avoid a predatory raptor and hitting the ground,” he said.

RELATED: Massive numbers of birds are dying in New Mexico and no one knows why

According to the National Audubon Society, yellow-headed blackbirds are often seen flying in flocks of thousands.

“There always seems to be a knee-jerk response to blame environmental pollutants, but collisions with infrastructure are very common,” Lees said. “In a tightly packed flock, the birds are following the movements of the bird in front rather than actually interpreting their wider surroundings, so it isn’t unexpected that such events happen occasionally.”

This isn’t the first time mass bird death footage has stirred the world. In 2020, thousands of birds were found mysteriously dead in New Mexico. Since they were found emaciated, scientists suspected the massive die-off could have been caused by the birds not being able to fly anymore due to malnutrition. Wildfires in California could have caused the birds to begin migration before they had enough food stored.

In 2019, 225 starlings were found dead on a road in Anglesey, an island in Wales. Similarly, the birds dropped dead from the sky, and became the subject a slew of wild conspiracy theories. Investigators ultimately concluded that “the injuries and death of the birds was caused by the birds striking the tarmac or the nearby bushes, and probably consistent with the birds avoiding either severe weather or a raptor in the area.”

Read more from Salon on environmental concerns:

Custard toast is an actually delicious TikTok trend

TikTok’s mysterious algorithm churns out tons of viral recipes that get obscenely popular, some of them because they combine simplicity and flavor, others for their absurdity. But the most interesting of them take a cool idea, a super easy technique, and offer endless options for variation, because that is when the app really shows off what it does best: let millions of people showcase their own spin on an idea. The latest viral recipe to emerge, called #CustardToastor #YogurtToast, makes it easy to customize a piece of toast into a rich, sweet meal. The former hashtag has 3.3 million views and the latter 13.8 million views, with an incredible number of the videos going up just in the past few days—meaning we’re dealing with feta-pasta or dalgona-coffee speeds of virality.

One of the original videos to show the technique, from user Moody Day, calls it “An easy cheesecake copycat”, summarizing the appeal of the dessert-like breakfast or snack. The catchy recipe starts with basic ingredients most folks have on hand, meaning they can make it as soon as the video inspires them: two slices of bread, a few spoonfuls of yogurt, one egg, a dollop of honey, and the fruit of your choice. Then you use a fork to flatten a little pool in the center of each slice of bread and stir together the wet ingredients. Fill the flat part of the bread with the mix, top it with the fruit, and slip it into an air fryer for about 10 minutes, or a 400°F oven for a bit longer, until the bread is crisp and the custard set.

Of course, that’s just the starting point, as TikTok goes in with the usual slate of variations: first trying various types of fruit, then obviously a few vegan versions, and after that people start trading out the fruit for other flavors, like chocolate, tahini, or just confectioners’ sugar sprinkled on top. The honey can become maple syrup, you can add cinnamon or other spices, turn the custard colors, or add protein powder; the world is your oyster! Speaking of oysters, brace yourself: It’s only a matter of time before the savory versions start.

Joy Behar’s plan to mask “indefinitely” triggers Marjorie Taylor Greene, Don Jr.: “Why not use duct tape”

During Thursday’s broadcast of “The View,” outspoken co-host and comedian, Joy Behar, revealed that she plans to continue wearing a protective face mask even after the CDC gives the all-clear. This declaration was made during the opening segment of the popular, and often controversial chat show while the hosts talked over recent murmurings that the CDC plans to ease up on mask protocols due to a decrease in coronavirus cases. 

“Personally, I listen to the little voice in my head that doesn’t really follow 100% what they tell me because they keep changing it,” Behar said on the show. “A very short time ago, they were saying put the N95 masks on, and now make sure it’s a – and now they’re saying you don’t have to wear them anymore.”

Related“The View” has an anti-vaxxer problem: Why replacing Meghan McCain is reportedly so hard

Behar doubled-down on her view (pun intended) saying “So if I go on the subway, if I go in a bus, if I go into the theater … a crowded place, I would wear a mask, and I might do that indefinitely,” she added. “Why do I need the flu or a cold even? And so I’m listening to myself right now. I don’t think it’s 100% safe yet.”


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


The thought of Behar’s mouth being covered in perpetuity delighted many an internet troll, as well as a few public figures such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump Jr.

The topic of whether to mask, or not to mask, is a hot button following CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s statement on Wednesday that “her agency would “soon put guidance in place” on mask-wearing that will be based on science and data.”

Read more:

Poll: Americans, especially conservatives, have lost trust in scientists since the pandemic started

As the pandemic nears the conclusion of its second year, a new report from the Pew Research Center shows Americans’ faith in medical scientists and scientists is slipping. Not only that, but Americans’ confidence in all nine groups on the survey fell in the last year just as the omicron variant was first detected in the United States.

The polling also illustrated a stark partisan divide related to political affiliation and trust in science and medicine. In 2016, 16 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans or leaned Republican said they had little or no confidence in medical scientists. By December 2021, that number rose to 34 percent. In contrast, those who were Democrats or leaned Democrat saw virtually no change in their feelings towards medical scientists in the same time span.

Overall, trust in medical scientists and scientists dipped to levels not seen since the pandemic began. While the partisan divide continues to grow regarding trust in medical scientists and scientists, both groups remain the most trusted of any institution included in the survey.

In stark contrast, business leaders and elected officials represented the two least trusted groups. While both saw a decline last year, the percent of Americans that believe business leaders have their best interests in mind is about 16 points higher than the percentage of those that believe the same about elected officials. Only 24% of Americans trusted elected officials as opposed to the 40% of Americans that trusted business leaders.

According to Pew, this is consistent with typically low confidence in recent years for journalists, business leaders, and elected officials — but even for these groups, public confidence continues to trend downward.

Now, 78% and 77% of Americans believe that medical scientists and scientists, respectively, act in the best interest of the public. Overall, confidence in both groups spiked in the early months of the pandemic and has since been on the decline. Both metrics are 8% lower than they were in November 2020. 


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


The polling separated respondents by political affiliation, which allows for a view into how politics has created a rift. Indeed, Republicans consistently reported declining confidence in medical scientists since January 2019 and scientists since April 2020. At the same time, Democrats with a “great deal” of trust consistently rose — that, is until the most recent survey. Confidence in both fell by 10 percent among Democrats.

Pew’s findings point to polarization as the cause — at least for medical scientists and scientists. Professor of International Politics at Tufts University Daniel W. Drezner suggests this may be true of the military as well.

“What might be happening is that polarization is causing partisans to distrust any institution not entirely in sync with their ideological priors,” Drezner wrote in The Washington Post.

It may well be the case that partisan polarization has eroded a historically held belief in the military as an apolitical institution. Journalists provide an apt comparison and trajectory for the military if this is the case. Once regarded as objective, journalism has become inundated with and subject to the whims of partisan politics; hence, Pew’s poll found only four in ten respondents said they had “a great deal or a fair amount of confidence” in journalists. 

RELATED: Why Joe Rogan’s vaccine misinformation is so dangerous

Indeed, a polarized public attributes handling of the pandemic, withdrawal from Afghanistan, police brutality, critical race theory and book bans, abortion challenges, job security, and inflation to groups responsible. Ebbing faith in the objectivity of journalists and scientists are subject to public perception regarding their assumed benevolence. As with scientists in the pandemic, trends with public confidence in journalists relate to external factors. Consequently, perceptions are likely skewed.

“Republicans’ confidence in other groups and institutions has also declined since the pandemic took hold,” the Pew report read. “The share of Republicans with at least a fair amount of confidence in public school principals is down 27 points since April 2020. Views of elected officials, already at low levels, declined further; 15% of Republicans have at least a fair amount of confidence in elected officials to act in the public’s best interests, down from 37% in April 2020.”

Significantly, although it is abundantly clear that Republicans are driving the overall trend in scientific skepticism, erosion of trust is no longer strictly divided along party lines. Democrats still report confidence in both groups, but the extent to which that is true is waning. Only 10% of Democrats have little to no confidence in either — an all-pandemic-high for both. While the vast majority of Democrats are overwhelmingly hesitant to express outright mistrust of medical scientists and scientists, something shifted in the December 2021 survey.

Read more on science and misinformation: