Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Disgraced pizza mogul “Papa John” Schnatter to speak at CPAC

On Thursday, Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, tweeted that disgraced pizza mogul “Papa John” Schnatter had been confirmed as a speaker at next week’s Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. 

“CONFIRMED: @IAmPapaJohn,” Schlapp wrote about an image displaying a smiling Schnatter. The caption below his photograph simply read: “Papa John.” 

Schnatter founded Papa John’s Pizza in 1984 and remained the chief executive officer until January 2018, when the National Football League (NFL) terminated its business affiliation with the company following comments Schnatter made accusing the league of not doing enough to stop players from kneeling during the national anthem. 

RELATED: Papa John’s founder now claims that he was set up — and vows “the day of reckoning will come”

“The controversy is polarizing the customer, polarizing the country,” Schnatter said during a conference call about the company’s earnings, according to the Chicago Tribune

Papa John’s apologized for those comments two weeks later after white supremacists praised Schnatter. The Louisville, Kentucky-based company distanced itself from the group, saying that it did not want them to buy its pizza.

Schnatter remained involved with the company as the chairman of the board of directors until July 2018, when it was revealed that he had used the “n-word” during a sensitivity training, claiming, without evidence, that Colonel Harland Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, had used the slur without repercussion. 

In a 2018 interview with San Francisco news station KRON 4, Schnatter blamed the company’s marketing agency, who was present on the call, for overblowing the story.

“It wasn’t a slur,” Schnatter said. “It was a social strategy and media planning and training and I repeated something that somebody else said and said, ‘We’re not going to say that, We don’t use that kind of language or vocabulary.’ And sure, it got taken out of context, and sure it got twisted, but that doesn’t matter.” 

He continued: “They [the marketing agency] tried to extort us and we held firm. They took what I said and they ran to Forbes and Forbes printed it and it went viral.” 

As Salon’s Igor Derysh wrote in 2019: “After his resignation, the company removed his image from all promotional materials and the Papa John’s logo. Schnatter then tried to mount a comeback and launched SavePapaJohns.com in an attempt to offer his account of what happened. He went on to accuse the company’s executives of sexual harassment and bigotry.”

Since being booted from the company, Schnatter’s public image has been in a bizarre tailspin — like when he announced in particularly sweaty interview that he had eaten 40 of his own pizzas in 30 days and felt the quality had dropped — though he has found an eager audience among right-wing conservatives who view him as a capitalist pioneer who had been unfairly ousted from the company he built for speaking his mind. 

In a 2021 interview with One America News Network, a far-right and pro-Trump cable channel, Schnatter indicated that he had spent the last 20 months attempting to remove the “n-word” from his vocabulary, while also saying that he wanted to “get on with [his] life.” 

This came after an earlier interview with a Louisville news station during which he ominously said that a “day of reckoning was coming.” 

The NFL and “n-word” fiascos weren’t Schnatter’s first foray into political controversy. According to Business Insider, in 2012, Schnatter came under fire “for saying that the Affordable Care Act could be ‘lose-lose’ for Papa John’s franchisees and employees. Schnatter argued that Obamacare would cost Papa John’s $5-8 million annually and ultimately drive up the price of pizza.” 

Schnatter also donated $1,000 to former president Donald Trump’s campaign, but did not make any effort to publicly support the politician. The two will, however, rub shoulders at CPAC, which is being held in Florida next week.

Trump is the marquee speaker at the event. Other speakers include: Glenn Beck, Candace Owens, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep. Madison Cawthorne and Sean Spicer. 

Related stories: 

Trump’s anti-vaccine hysteria has a mission: violence

It was already thin and porous — the line between Republican members of Congress and the domestic terrorists who stormed the Capitol at Donald Trump’s bidding on January 6 — but it only got more so this week, when an anti-vaccine activist embraced by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin went on “The Alex Jones Show” and unsubtly encouraged the enormous, conspiracy theory-addicted audience to commit acts of violence

“The job of soldiers during war is to arrest and/or kill the enemy,” ranted Ben Marble, who Johnson hosted at an anti-vaccine panel in the Russell Senate Office Building on January 24. “Well, first you have to know who the enemy is. And I’m clearly stating who the enemy is. The enemy is Nazi Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates of Hell, George Sore-ass, Dr. Death Fauci, Dementia Joe, Kamala Whore-is.”

Marble is technically a medical doctor, but his main job these days appears to be grifting gullible Trump supporters by telling them he’s got some formula to stay safe from Covid-19 without being vaccinated. (He does not.) At Johnson’s panel of anti-vaxxers, Marble was invited to hype his website, where he peddles fake treatments like ivermectin to people foolish enough to reject the vaccine.

RELATED: Insurrection by other means: The far right is using anti-vax sentiment to radicalize Republicans

The panel was just one of the more recent attempts by Johnson to push  “inject bleach” levels of fake Covid-19 cures. But by putting a veneer of respectability on creeps like Marble, Johnson also, wittingly or not, is contributing to an increasingly dangerous atmosphere of political violence and domestic terrorism. And this is not an outlier, unfortunately. The anti-vaccination movement is increasingly being used by fascists and other authoritarian groups to radicalize everyday Republican voters. Enthusiasm for violence, unfortunately, goes hand-in-hand with far-right ideologies, for a very simple reason: They know they can’t get their way through peaceable means. The majority of the public rejects these views, and so the only real way to win, for the far-right, is through force. 


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


Unsurprisingly, then, the right-wing media — and Trump himself — are exploiting this Canadian trucker situation in Ottawa to inject more fantasies of political violence into the heads of their followers.

The protest is ostensibly about vaccine mandates, but really, it’s much broader than that, as Vice journalist Mack Lamoureux explained on the “Fever Dreams” podcast. In sum, it’s an anti-democracy movement of people who believe a tiny fringe of far-right extremists should rule instead of the duly elected government. Basically, it’s the same mentality that drove the January 6 insurrection — which is why Trump and his media allies see so much potential in using it to stoke more violence like the kind Trump instigated at the Capitol. 

On Fox News, they’ve been doing everything they can to encourage the Ottawa trucker situation to happen in the U.S., because they’re impressed by the way this unpopular fringe has held the city hostage. Trump joined in over the weekend in an interview on the network, saying, “you can push people so far and our country is a tinderbox too, don’t kid yourself.” He repeated the “tinderbox” language while fantasizing about the trucker blockade being replicated in the U.S., saying, “our country, I think, is far more of a tinderbox than Canada.” On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity engaged in the same violent fantasizing, threatening that if Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sends law enforcement “in there directly to confront them, I can’t guarantee that at that point people won’t defend themselves.”

RELATED: The Bundy takeover is now complete: How the GOP has embraced pro-terrorist politics 

Both Trump and Hannity are more clever than Marble is at adopting the passive language, so they can pretend that they’re not pushing violence, when that is, in fact, what they’re doing. This is a standard authoritarian rhetorical tactic: Pretending to be “peaceful” by trawling for a fight, and then pretending your violence is mere “self-defense.” Of course, there is nothing “peaceful” about what Hannity and Trump are envisioning here. The truckers have been blocking traffic, honking horns at all hours of the night, and making life a living hell for the residents of Ottawa. That’s an act of aggression, and if they are arrested for it, they are not actually entitled to shoot police in “self-defense.” Certainly, actual practitioners of non-violent protest know that, if you get arrested for breaking the law, the point is to go peacefully to jail. 

As Salon’s Kathryn Joyce reports, Glenn Beck has also been engaging in this rhetoric, advancing a conspiracy theory that the unvaccinated are going to be put in reeducation camps. His guest, conspiracy theorist James Lindsay, declared, “It’s coming for them. They’re going to lose all of their power. They’re going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we’ve never seen in human history.”

Again, we see the same passive construction (“it’s coming for them”) paired with a violence-justifying conspiracy theory (“reeducation camps”). That allows these propagandists to float the idea of violence while pretending not to have responsibility for it, even as they construct the justifications for why it’s necessary. 


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


Unsurprisingly, Tucker Carlson also joined in on his Fox News show in his usual way: Pushing baseless conspiracy theories. On Tuesday, Carlson floated a claim that “state intelligence agencies” are behind the hacking of a site that the truckers are using to fund themselves. (Something the site itself does not claim.) And on Wednesday, Carlson escalated, accusing the Washington Post of “incitement to violence” for a piece revealing the identities of Americans who have been giving the truckers money. 

This sort of rhetoric, like Hannity and Trump’s, pretends at violence but is actually the opposite. By framing the truckers and their supporters as victims of “violence,” Carlson is propping up a justification of actual violence as mere “self-defense.” 

So far, there hasn’t been much violence at the Ottawa blockade, but that doesn’t mean the threat isn’t very real. Canadian law enforcement exposed a plot from some of the protesters this week “to use force against the police if any attempts were made to disrupt the blockade.”

And it’s absolutely true that, if Fox News succeeds in spreading this Canadian situation to the U.S., it will likely get violent. Not because of Trump’s passive language about the U.S. being a “tinderbox,” however, but because Trump and his allies have spent years nurturing the growth of far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers, who were a big part of organizing the Capitol storming of January 6

So far, the anti-vaccination movement in the U.S. has been more focused on dying than killing. Indeed, unvaccinated people are 97 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those who are vaccinated and boosted. Still, the fact that so many Americans are willing to risk death in order to stick it to President Joe Biden is alarming. People who are willing to die for a cause, however idiotic, are often willing to do violence for it. We saw that on January 6. And the people who stoked the violence that day are now using anti-vaccine rhetoric to stoke it even further. 

Trump’s “free speech” app charges users a fee that goes to the National Republican Senate Committee

Many tech programs, from social media to browsers to business networking apps, are free to use — even if they try to entice users into paying for a premium account with premium features. But one platform that may not be free, according to The Focus, is former President Donald Trump’s new social media platform Truth Social.

Right-wing have media have been hyping Truth Social as a MAGA alternative to Twitter, Facebook and Instagram — one that, they insist, will be fair to MAGA Republicans, unlike those other platforms. Truth Social, according to The Guardian, is scheduled to go live on Monday, February 21.

The Focus’ Bruno Cooke reports, “Truth Social doesn’t currently appear on the Apple Store or Google Play Store, although former U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be active on a beta version of the app…. Ahead of its launch, those tempted to join the Truth Social app would do well to know (that) username reservation seems to cost money in the form of a donation, although joining the wait-list is free.”

Cooke goes on to describe what the registration process is like with Truth Social. Users, Cooke reports, are “required to enter your first and last names, an e-mail address and a mobile phone number.”

“The mobile number is required, although the accompanying text includes the sentence ‘if you would prefer to donate online without providing your phone number, click here,’ with a link to a similar webpage asking for donations,” Cooke explains. “The question is: why redirect people to a donation page as an alternative to providing a phone number? The answer appears to be a donation is required to join the Truth Social app.”

Cooke adds, “After submitting a valid name, e-mail address and phone number, the webpage redirects you to the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s (NRSC’s) WinRed page to reserve your username…. Truth Social allows users to join the app waiting list for free, but it doesn’t let you reserve a username. To do that, you have to make a donation to the NRSC.”

Cooke reports that although the “exact figure you need to pay to gain access to the app isn’t clear,” reporting in the Daily Dot “suggests it is $35.”

“However,” Cooke writes, “The Daily Dot also appears to have managed to reserve a username for as little as $1.”

The Truth Social platform will be the first product of Trump’s new tech company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which is separate from the Trump Organization, which he took over in the early 1970s. According to The Guardian, TMTG merged with Digital World Acquisition Corp. “at a valuation of $875 million” in October 2021.

“If Truth Social does cost money to sign up when it finally launches this month,” Cooke notes, “it would be one of a small number of social media apps to do so. Most are free to join and make their money from advertisers.”

Greg Abbott’s latest border stunt may blow up in his face: Texas Guardsmen look to unionize

Several Texas National Guardsmen, stationed as part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to combat illegal immigration through the southern border, are now are pushing to unionize amid reports of pay delays, poor living conditions, self-harm. 

Military.com reports that at least six troops are currently in talks with the Texas State Employees Union due to the increasingly abject conditions of the mission.

“We’re getting treated like sh*t,” the soldier leading the organizing effort told Military.com. “This is all politically driven. I voted for Abbott. I agree with a lot of his politics, but not when it comes at the expense of the involuntary mobilization for upwards for 12 months. That isn’t what we signed up for. We signed on the dotted line, but not for this.”

“Fundamentally, deep down in my heart, I know that … there’s really no point to this thing,” echoed another soldier told Texas Public Radio. “It’s a huge expense. It’s a huge waste of time. It’s a huge waste of effort.”

RELATED: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order targeting migrants likely violated the Constitution: judge

“There’s guys standing at our points doing nothing, so they don’t really see a mission. They just see this as we’re just used as political pawns for an election year,” another soldier told CNN. The network reported that common complaints from Guardsmen stationed at the border include cramped quarters leading to Covid-19 outbreaks and delayed paychecks.

The troops were originally deployed in March of last year as part of Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star,” which has called for the deployment of roughly 10,000 troops along to the U.S.-Mexico border in an apparent effort to combat illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The plan was immediately condemned by immigration advocates, who accused the mission of being illegal, largely because immigration is federally regulated. 


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


Last month, the operation was ruled plainly unconstitutional by a Texas county judge, who ruled that it “violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and represents an impermissible attempt to intrude on federal immigration policy.” Nevertheless, the mission has led to the arrests of roughly 160,000 migrants since it first began. 

While Abbott’s initiative is no doubt exacerbating what’s already a humanitarian crisis at the border for migrants, it’s also facing internal ethics complaints from soldiers, who have for months been beleaguered by poor living and working conditions. Supply shortages, cramped living spaces, and low morale have led to several suicides and attempted suicides. According to Texas Public Radio, soldiers have at times slept in bunk beds in 18-wheeler trailers, sometimes with 30 troops in one trailer. 

RELATED: Greg Abbott’s privately funded Texas border wall bankrolled almost entirely by one billionaire

“These conditions are just, I think, unparalleled,” a guardsman told Texas Public Radio. “I mean, really, the only comparison I could draw would be the Hurricane Harvey mission where we were sleeping in high school gymnasiums or other military armories that didn’t have power. But you know, at least in those situations, you could explain that away, because a Category Four hurricane had just hit the city…it makes sense that you would live in poor conditions.”

Back in January, the Department of Justice wrote in a court filing that service members were not federally exempt from joining a union on state orders. As Military.com noted, members of the National Guard on state missions do not have federal benefits, including disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

“These are people who dedicated their lives to serve their country,” Will Attig, executive director of the Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO, told Military.com. “These members clearly felt the need to have a voice. What does that say about the state of affairs over there?

Want all the flavor of eggplant parmigiana in half the time? Try Martha Stewart’s eggplant stacks!

Eggplant parmesan is verifiably one of the most delicious dishes in existence. But what is one to do if you want the flavors, warmth, and medley of textures without the effort that goes into making the Italian-American classic? Martha Stewart has the answer!

If you need a stellar finger food for your next party, or relish in the delight of eating handheld snacks, these eggplant parmesan stacks are what your dreams are made of. 

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

You’ll need to prep the components for each layer, and once that’s done, assembly is done in a pinch! This will include slicing your eggplants into evenly-sized rounds, as well as roughly chopping your plum tomatoes for the sauce. 

To start, preheat the oven to 425 degrees Fahrenheit. Season your eggplant rounds with salt and gently fry them in extra virgin olive oil or the oil of your choosing. Once they’re golden brown, drain them of excess oil by laying them on paper towels.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Martha Stewart (@marthastewart)

Keep your remaining oil in the pot and then add garlic for about 20 seconds to add flavor without allowing the garlic to develop a bitter, acidic flavor. Add your tomatoes and salt, and stir frequently until your tomatoes break down. This should take about 10 to 15 minutes. Then you’ll add your coarsely chopped herbs, basil and oregano and stir them in as well.

Now you’re ready for assembly! 

Line six slices of your fried eggplant on a rimmed baking sheet. Then, add one tablespoon of sauce to the rounds, and top them off with your fresh mozzarella, and sprinkle with two teaspoons of freshly grated parmesan cheese. Then, repeat the layering process twice.

The stacks are now ready for the oven. Pop them in for about 12 minutes, until they are baked through and the cheese is bubbling. Top them off with an extra sprinkle of parmesan and oregano, and watch your guests’ eyes light up! Click here for the full recipe with measurements. Happy stacking and snacking!

More of our favorite Italian-inspired recipes: 

 




 

Is America really disintegrating? If so, it’s been coming for a long time

There are those who think the United States will not survive its current existential crisis.

One of those, possibly, is former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh. Speaking to me on the podcast “Just Ask the Question” on Wednesday, Walsh said he believes we could see the U.S. splitting into several countries during the next 25 years. “During the lifetime of our children,” he suggested. 

Sooner than that, Walsh sees a third major political party rising to power. He hopes it will become a dominant, centrist party that will unify the country and prevent a worst-case scenario.

RELATED: Joe Walsh on what the left doesn’t get: TrumpWorld “would happily burn this country down”

Walsh is hardly the first to show such dire concerns about the path this country is taking. There are many who question our national direction and believe we’ve never been as divided as we are now — or at least not since the beginning of the Civil War. On a personal note, I remember 1968 and the riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago when Mayor Daley’s cops beat people, including many Black Panthers. That was the same year as the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, the same year we lost Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. and the same year North Korea captured the USS Pueblo. Apollo 8 circled the Moon, the My Lai massacre occurred in Vietnam, and thousands of students protested the war while older Americans pronounced, “America: Love it or leave it.” Tommie Smith and John Carlos bowed their heads and raised their black-gloved fists recognizing the Black Power movement during the playing of the national anthem when they received Olympic medals in Mexico City. Richard Nixon won the White House.

We are divided now, but we have been divided for most of my lifetime, and at least now we’re not mired in a seemingly unending war. The trepidation now comes after decades of divisive politics, beginning with Nixon and the emergence of the far right, which came of age under Ronald Reagan, along with supply-side economics and the destruction of unions. Ultimately, today, the biggest perceived division is between rural and urban voters.

Those who believe the disintegration of the country to be inevitable see Donald Trump not as a cause but a symptom, and believe that poor communication, and the ignorance it has spawned, are the fuel stoking the fires of dissolution. 

The immediate results of this problem include the very real fear that the Democrats will lose their advantage in the House and the Senate in this year’s midterms. Walsh, among others — including many Democrats — blames Joe Biden for not effectively communicating the problems we face. Our democracy is still hanging by a thread, the argument goes — and we’re not facing it, or refusing to do so.

I’ve heard that inside the walls of the White House from staffers with some experience. I’ve heard it from Democrats and Republicans who represent us in Congress. After Biden got an infrastructure bill passed, he held a bipartisan celebration on the White House South Lawn. Nearly a thousand people attended. It was a historic victory. But since Biden signed that bill in November, it’s almost been forgotten. Part of that is because of the pandemic and the problems in Ukraine, but as Biden’s critics point out, it’s also because the administration has quit beating the drum about the victory while hyping the Build Back Better agenda Congress failed to pass. BBB is apparently dead, yet as recently as this week the White House continued to tell us otherwise. 

Why, some want to know, doesn’t Biden merely focus on infrastructure and the pandemic. Why is he so scattered? Why are his communications so poor? More importantly, why are the Democrats fighting among themselves? Don’t they get it? All of those questions circle anyone who seeks answers in D.C.

But it wasn’t Joe Biden who created the miscommunication and ignorance that continues to drive us all apart and it would be unfair to expect him to shoulder full responsibility for it. He too is just a symptom of our problem.

A Joe Rogan fan I ran into during the weekend said the United States is destroying itself, and that free speech is in peril. He said it’s the “far left wacko liberals” who are responsible and blamed “cancel culture” for trying to shut down an “American patriot,” i.e., Rogan. This same fan, however, supports the “book bans” that have regained popularity across the United States and now include the Holocaust graphic novel “Maus.” I tried to explain to this person that you can’t defend Rogan’s right to speak and at the same time endorse banning books. “That’s really an Orwellian concept,” I said.  Orwell’s “1984” is often among the books banned, however, and my interview subject had no idea what I was talking about.

RELATED: Why Joe Rogan’s vaccine misinformation is so dangerous — and so appealing to his audience

As reported in Vox recently, according to a new American Library Association report there were 330 “book challenges” last year — a sharp increase over recent years. “Parents, activists, school board officials and lawmakers around the country are challenging books at a pace not seen in decades,” the New York Times reported.

It doesn’t end there. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has voiced his support of a bill to prohibit discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in the state’s primary schools. That is a straightforward example of the government trying to stifle free speech. DeSantis says that speech is “entirely inappropriate” for teachers to have with students. At the same time, he also endorses teaching “the U.S. Constitution, what makes our country unique, all those basic stuff” [sic]. The irony was entirely lost on him.

RELATED: The secret plan behind Florida’s “don’t say gay” bill: Bankrupting public education

The attack against free speech is most aggressively waged by those who claim to defend it — and it is that attack that divides the country and perhaps will lead to the disastrous outcome Walsh and many others fear.

In one of Donald Trump’s first appearances in the Brady Briefing Room at the beginning of the pandemic, a little more than two years ago, I asked him why he wanted to sue the New York Times over an editorial — after all, everyone has a right to their opinion. “Wrong opinion,” Trump replied.

That was also the basis for Sarah Palin’s recent suit against the New York Times. Trump threw down the gauntlet and Palin picked it up, suing the Times for an opinion piece in which the editors made a factual error. In the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that a public figure cannot sue for libel based on an honest mistake. You have to show malicious intent. When I spoke to Judge Jed Rakoff on a different matter a few weeks ago, he mentioned he was presiding over the Palin case and noted that the Sullivan ruling was at the heart of Palin’s suit. At the end he dismissed the case, and the jury also found that Palin had not proved any malicious intent by the Times.

That would seem to be a big victory for the press, but as others have noted, the assault on free speech is not only ongoing but gathering steam. More challenges are sure to come, and in the end if politicians are able to shut down the free press because we print things they don’t like, then we’ll be driving down the highway toward a day when only propaganda and slogans approved by politicians can be printed, broadcast or published on the internet.

It used to be that we defended free speech in this country by saying, “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Today we’ve replaced that with “I disagree with what you say and since I’m in power, sit down, shut up and do what you’re told.”

That’s no way to run a railroad, but it is a perfectly good way to run a fascist dictatorship. It certainly contributes to the notion that we’re a divided nation headed toward a break-up, and further helps to divide it by continuing to spread disinformation.

At the end of the day, the endless miscommunication and the torrent of lies told about our differences are what divide us most. Right-wing media, press releases and articles written about or for Donald Trump spout opinions like “When Politics Becomes War, the President Needs Fighters.” That only inflames both sides and could well lead to the destruction of our country.

It’s not that people begin believing the lies. It’s more that they don’t know what to believe and retreat into their comfort zone — a comfort zone often filled with ignorance and fear. If Walsh and others are right and the country ultimately breaks apart, it will be disinformation, misinformation and a lack of shared belief in truth that drive us there.

We have far more in common than we realize. But those who seek power for their own sake don’t want us to know that.

Read more from Brian Karem on the trials and travails of the Biden White House:

In-utero alcohol exposure: new tools for a difficult diagnosis

By the time kids diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder meet with clinical psychologist Mary O’Connor, they have often been taking multiple medications or unusually high doses of stimulants like Ritalin. “They may have had a trial of stimulants that worked initially,” she says, but when the effect waned, their physicians prescribed higher doses, sometimes to the point of toxicity.

O’Connor researches fetal alcohol spectrum disorders at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she has provided both diagnosis and treatment to children exposed to alcohol in the womb. At one end of the spectrum sits fetal alcohol syndrome, characterized by facial abnormalities, growth problems, and intellectual disabilities. The other end of the spectrum is characterized by subtler symptoms, including poor judgement and impulsivity — in other words, what looks to many like ADHD.

But experts say standard ADHD treatments often don’t work as well for children exposed to alcohol in-utero. And lack of awareness, a shortage of specialists, and social stigma have combined to limit families’ ability to receive an accurate diagnosis and support for FASD, a condition that is underdiagnosed in the United States and could affect between 1 and 5 percent of this country’s children. The lack of diagnoses, scientists say, stifles research on treatments and may even cloud data on therapies for other disorders.

Researchers, therefore, are searching for measurements called biomarkers — objective medical signs, such as the presence of a certain molecule in the blood — that will improve diagnosis and may provide clues as to which drugs and interventions are most likely to help patients. In a paper published last year, O’Connor and her colleagues found that brain scans measuring things like the diffusion of water through white matter in the brain could accurately distinguish ADHD with and without prenatal alcohol exposure. More work is needed to determine whether these scans might work in a clinical setting, but researchers hope that the search for biomarkers like these might ultimately lead to more accurate diagnoses.

The need has taken on new urgency, experts say. Alcohol consumption increased in the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic, and some suspect that this has led to an increase in children exposed to alcohol in the womb. Jonathan Sher, a public health advocate who leads the Healthier Pregnancies, Better Lives program at the Queen’s Nursing Institute Scotland, says that the stress wrought by the pandemic has created an environment in which “the risk of more FASD is actually pretty obvious and pretty heightened.”

It’s only been about 50 years since scientists started to document the effects of in-utero alcohol exposure. Fetal alcohol syndrome, the most severe form of FASD, was first described in a study published in 1973. At the time, “people didn’t believe it,” says Joanne Weinberg, a neuroscientist at the University of British Columbia. Doctors considered the effects of alcohol on the fetus to be relatively benign. Some obstetricians would even administer alcohol intravenously to women who were at risk of a preterm birth in hopes of staving off labor.

Over time, researchers learned that the effects of in-utero exposure can vary dramatically based on the timing, dose, and even the genetics of the fetus. Patients with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder can experience a range of effects from difficulty with attention and impulse control, to growth deficiencies and more. “Every child seems to be different,” says Elizabeth Elliott, a professor of pediatrics and FASD expert at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Today, many women know that alcohol can be damaging to a fetus, but experts say some may consume alcohol during the first trimester before they know they’re pregnant, struggle to abstain due to an untreated alcohol use disorder, or hold the misconception that smaller amounts or certain types of drinks like red wine are safe in pregnancy.

The proportion of people with FASD is “much higher than conditions like Down syndrome or cerebral palsy or even autism spectrum disorder,” behavioral scientist Elizabeth Dang said in a talk as part of a fellowship through the Association of Health Care Journalists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But too often, she said, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders go “undiagnosed or misdiagnosed or treated with the wrong medications that won’t help.”

In July 2020, Sher published a letter in The Lancet, warning of the possibility of FASD as preventable “collateral damage” of the pandemic. Drinking among pregnant people had been on the rise before the Covid-19 hit, and some experts guessed the stresses of balancing work and caregiving may have exacerbated that increase. According to one study, women reported 41 percent more heavy drinking days in the late spring of 2020, after social distancing had set in and before vaccinations became available, compared with approximately the same time period in 2019. It’s not yet clear, however, that the pandemic caused a spike in consumption among pregnant women in particular, and a recent CDC report found that pregnant adults in the United States did not drink more in 2020 compared with the previous year.

Kathy Mitchell, vice president and spokesperson for FASD United (formerly the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome), noted that more pregnant women called in to the organization looking for help to stop drinking during the pandemic compared with previous years. Normally she’d connect them to a local treatment center, but “there was nowhere to send them,” she said at the AHCJ-CDC fellowship talk. “I couldn’t get them in anywhere.”

Experts have known for some time that those with prenatal alcohol exposure require specialized treatment, like programs where children practice social skills that might come naturally to others, even if their symptoms match those of behavioral conditions like ADHD or language disorders. But the road to a diagnosis is complicated, and many patients simply lack access, physicians say.

Currently, to receive an accurate diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a patient must undergo a comprehensive battery of tests and also have a known exposure to alcohol in the womb, explains Susan Hemingway, a pediatric epidemiologist who runs the Washington State Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Diagnostic and Prevention Network. This often happens at a specialty clinic, where it can take four to six hours for an interdisciplinary team to assess growth deficiencies, cognitive function, and the facial features that accompany the most severe diagnoses, such as a thin upper lip, smooth philtrum (the vertical crease under the nose), a flat nasal bridge and midface, and small eyelid openings. Experts say there aren’t nearly enough clinics. One family in Maine had to drive almost two hours to see a specialist.

A physician or other clinician will typically ask for confirmation from the birth mother or other family members, or consult past medical or social service records in order to determine whether the individual was exposed to alcohol in-utero. In some cases, this is required prior to assessment. “At the moment, we only accept referrals of children where there’s known to be alcohol exposure during pregnancy,” says Elliott, speaking about her clinic in Australia. “Otherwise, it just opens the floodgates to hundreds and hundreds of kids with neurodevelopmental problems.” Hemingway says her clinic in Seattle employs a similar policy.

While this type of policy makes work manageable at clinics, it also excludes a lot of children who might have a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. There’s little research on how often physicians ask, but a 2013 survey conducted at one medical school suggested that only about a third of doctors in the U.S. regularly ask patients who were pregnant or planning to become pregnant about their drinking, meaning they’re missing a crucial moment to lessen or even prevent the impact. If mothers aren’t screened, the child’s pediatrician can’t be notified about the mother’s drinking behaviors. If the individual was adopted or placed in foster care, there may be limited options for confirming an exposure.

And many pregnant people may be afraid to admit to drinking, even if doctors do ask. The public may judge mothers of children with FASD more harshly than those with other substance use disorders, mental illnesses, or those who have spent time in jail, according to a 2017 survey. Vanessa Parisi, a New Jersey-based OB-GYN and member of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ FASD Prevention Program, cites difficulties in underreporting: “It was very challenging for me in the beginning to ask those questions and try to ask it in a way that I would actually get answers.”

As a result of all this, children with FASD often aren’t diagnosed until they “get into trouble,” says O’Connor. When she was working on the inpatient service at the UCLA neuropsychiatric hospital, she found that about a third of the kids she saw had undiagnosed prenatal alcohol exposure. “They’d never been asked. They’d never been diagnosed.”

Once the patients receive a diagnosis, they can be treated by the same psychiatrists, counselors, therapists, and teachers that they may have already been working with, but the way that treatment is delivered might change. For example, instead of going over class rules at just the first meeting of an ADHD treatment program, instructors might repeat the rules at the start of every lesson, to accommodate memory problems, says O’Connor. “If the therapists are trained to do that, then these kids can be treated in a community mental health setting with other kids with ADHD.

The first traits used to diagnose fetal alcohol spectrum disorders were the facial features that now characterize fetal alcohol syndrome. In 1981, Kathleen Sulik, with colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, showed that mice exposed to alcohol in-utero developed the same unique features. Weinberg, the neuroscientist at UBC, says the study was “really powerful” and a “very critical study in the field.” It confirmed that exposure to alcohol at a particular time in early gestation could cause specific facial effects.

These features tend to develop in patients exposed to alcohol between gestational weeks seven and 12. But alcohol exposure at other points in pregnancy can disrupt development of the brain and other bodily systems without changing the face, depending on dose and timing of the exposure. Facial features, therefore, can only identify a small subset of patients. The presence of alcohol metabolites in a pregnant person’s blood — or in a baby’s first fecal matter — could potentially identify an additional subset. But because these metabolites break down quickly, the window for testing is limited.

Advances in molecular biology and imaging have allowed scientists to explore many more possible biomarkers from the structure of the brain to molecules that regulate gene expression. As of yet, none can act as definitive diagnostic tools, but some have yielded clues as to how alcohol affects the developing fetus.

“A classic example,” of the importance of an accurate diagnosis, said Dang, is where people get diagnosed with ADHD but then they’re “prescribed medications that won’t work. And then the family and the physician is wondering why it doesn’t work.”

O’Connor and her colleague Joseph O’Neill, a neurophysiologist, set out to find whether the difference between ADHD with and without prenatal exposure could be found through objective measures such as brain scans. They used a variety of neuroimaging techniques to look at the brains of patients aged 8 to 13 years old who had been diagnosed with ADHD, some of whom had known prenatal alcohol exposure. No single imaging technique could differentiate the two groups on its own with good accuracy. But by combining findings from different types of imaging techniques, the researchers found that patients with prenatal exposure to alcohol had a different combination of molecular and structural changes, such as the organization of white matter and the concentration of certain chemicals in the brain. When looking at imaging techniques combined with neurobehavioral measures, the researchers were able to distinguish between the two groups with even better accuracy.

The researchers hypothesize that drugs that use a different mechanism may be more effective than stimulants for FASD patients with ADHD symptoms.

O’Connor and O’Neill point out that differences in biology and responses to treatment, like the ones seen in children with FASD and ADHD, suggest that researchers studying all kinds of neurological disorders should be screening patients for prenatal alcohol exposure. Screening could also help researchers better understand FASD, as well as other disorders. O’Connor adds that “it’s really important” that researchers studying any psychiatric disorder make sure that their results can’t be explained by prenatal alcohol exposure in a subset of their patients.

While many experts focus on the neurological components of the disorder, alcohol also affects development of bodily systems beyond the brain. FASD patients “have all kinds of problems that are unrecognized and unappreciated,” says Weinberg. Biomarkers can help scientists identify the specific systems altered by alcohol. For example, some “develop autoimmune disorders in their 20s, way before typically developing individuals develop them,” Weinberg explains. Her team has found immune markers unique to prenatal alcohol exposure.

Others are probing the patients’ epigenetic profiles — molecular markers that belie changes in gene expression — to look for a diagnostic signature, as well as clues as to how two children exposed to similar levels of alcohol in-utero might end up with different constellations of symptoms.

Advocates are working to train community health care workers to recognize the signs of FASD and refer those affected to specialized clinics. Biomarkers could strengthen their confidence in these referrals. O’Connor and O’Neill hope to develop protocols so any trained technician can use scans and behavioral testing to diagnose patients at mental health clinics.

After seeing a young inpatient last year who was on four medications including a heavy dose of an antipsychotic, O’Connor says, “It’s just very painful to see this happening and the lack of hope that the parents had.”

“The question,” she says, “is could he have been diagnosed earlier and could he have been managed better by people who understood this diagnosis better?”

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

In a Feb. 5 appearance on Glenn Beck’s talk show — which Beck called “probably the most important podcast perhaps that we’ve ever done” — self-proclaimed critical race theory expert James Lindsay issued a dire warning. While discussing dark right-wing theories about “The Great Reset” and Democratic-run reeducation camps for the unvaccinated, Lindsay warned that a severe reckoning was at hand for the world’s elites: “It’s coming for them. They’re going to lose all of their power. They’re going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we’ve never seen in human history.” 

Beck, perhaps a close second to Alex Jones as the reigning conspiracy theorist of the right, seemed to glow with enthusiasm as the two agreed that a revolution was coming and “if they don’t have us all in cages, they’re in a lot of trouble.” 

The appearance was one of many Lindsay has conducted in recent days, as he promotes his new book, “Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Practice,” published on Tuesday and, as of Wednesday, the top title in Amazon’s “philosophy criticism” section. If his digression into fantasies of bloody revolt against a cadre of bankers, media and George Soros — what one Lindsay-watcher called “straight-up Hitler talk” — seems like an odd detour, it’s one of many he’s made over the years: an academic turned intentional academic fraud, a “new atheist” who now counsels Christians on heresy, a blue-no-matter-who Obama volunteer turned intellectual leader of the far right. So meet the man behind the man behind the right’s most consuming contemporary moral panic. 

RELATED: The critics were right: “Critical race theory” panic is just a cover for silencing educators

In 2018, as a math PhD running a business that fused massage therapy with martial arts, and a supporting character in the foundering New Atheism movement, Lindsay became a national name by pulling off a deft hoax that made liberal academics look dumb. Along with two co-conspirators, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, Lindsay drafted 20 fake research papers with outlandish premises — to research canine “rape culture” at dog parks, or a proposition that men use dildos on themselves to overcome transphobia — and submitted them to a series of often obscure scholarly journals. 

Around a third of the papers were accepted, and in 2018, the hoaxers, all of whom then called themselves liberals — although Boghossian was closely associated with accused white supremacist and “race realist” Stefan Molyneux, who has argued that Black people are “collectively less intelligent” than other races — revealed the experiment as an exposé on the terminal wokeness of academia, particularly the identity-oriented fields that the three called “grievance studies.” 

The stunt received massive attention, including front-page treatment on The New York Times and airtime on Joe Rogan’s podcast. When Vox reporter Zack Beauchamp asked Lindsay whether he feared their prank would become a “tool of the right,” Lindsay took umbrage, asking, “Have you seen me go on Tucker Carlson yet? Do you think he hasn’t asked?” 

RELATED: Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right

Lindsay still hasn’t done that, but Christopher Rufo, the Manhattan Institute fellow credited with sparking the right’s obsession with “critical race theory,” absolutely has. In September 2020, Rufo appeared on Carlson’s broadcast with a direct challenge to Donald Trump, demanding that the then-president issue an executive order banning CRT from any federal training programs. The following morning, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was on the phone with Rufo to sort the details out. 

But while Rufo has been heralded as the little man behind the big war, Rufo himself credits Lindsay. In a joint August appearance with Lindsay on right-wing personality Jack Murphy’s podcast, Rufo said that he had relied on Lindsay’s theoretical explanations of CRT in order to craft his more populist appeals. 

“James is really the theory expert,” Rufo said. “I mean, James is an encyclopedia of theory connecting all the dots laying out the case…creating this giant content to guide all of us into this world. And then I think I come in as a complement to what James is doing, really following his lead with the praxis or the practice, which is translating the theory into the realm of practical politics and then translating this kind of esoteric knowledge that school moms and school dads can use at school board meetings and hammer their school boards with.” 

RELATED: Meet Christopher Rufo — leader of the incoherent right-wing attack on “critical race theory”

Sam Hoadley-Brill, a fellow at the progressive think tank African American Policy Forum, which recently launched an initiative to defend the teaching of CRT against right-wing critics, has tracked Lindsay’s evolving arguments for the past two years. These began with the anti-racism protests of the summer of 2020, which initially drew support even from numerous conservatives, but quickly prompted a right-wing backlash. And as corporations began responding to the movement by instituting or publicizing new diversity programs, Lindsay was ready. 

That August, Lindsay and Pluckrose published a co-authored book, “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity — and Why This Harms Everyone,” that was widely-discussed on the right and landed on several bestseller lists. 


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


By the following spring, after the new Biden administration had reversed Trump’s executive ban on CRT, Lindsay was tapped to narrate a Cliff Notes version of the conservative case against CRT for the right-wing media organization Prager U. In it, he argued that CRT “holds that the most important thing about you is your race”; that the theory was “not a continuation of the civil rights movement” but a “repudiation of it”; and that there hadn’t been “a social movement so obsessed with race” since the Nazis or South Africa’s apartheid regime. “Defend yourself,” Lindsay concluded the video. “While you still can.” 

Around the same time, reported Peter Montgomery at Right Wing Watch, a speech Lindsay gave at the Leadership Institute — a longstanding training ground for young conservative activists — was turned into an e-book that the Institute used to recruit potential candidates for a right-wing “school board takeover.” On Twitter, Lindsay suggested that “Extra right-wing anti-Semitism is arising because lots of progressive Jews are nonsensically Woke.”

And despite his long association with militant movement atheism — including co-writing three books about it — in the spring of 2021 Lindsay also waded into Christian communities’ internal debates around CRT, warning that the best way to “end Christianity” is to “make [it] woke.” As Bob Smietana reported in Religion News Service, Lindsay interjected himself into the Southern Baptist Convention’s bitter 2021 feud over CRT, appearing in a documentary and a promotional video created by Founders Ministry, a conservative faction within the denomination that seeks to “return Southern Baptists to their roots.” Lindsay also appeared on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler’s YouTube show, where Mohler praised “Cynical Theories” as an “intellectual tour de force.”

Smietana’s investigation also revealed that Lindsay’s website, New Discourses, is owned by right-wing activist Michael O’Fallon, president of the Christian nationalist group Sovereign Nations, who believes that George Soros has bought off most Christian leaders and who seeks “to start a new reformation to counter the social justice movement in the church.” 

This January, Lindsay followed up by calling on the SBC to oust leaders, including Mohler, who had failed to denounce CRT forcefully enough. “[W]e really don’t want to see our large religious institutions taken over by a totalitarian ideology that’s trying to infect and command everything,” Lindsay said in a New Discourses podcast last month. “We want to have something that can stand up against it.” 

Lindsay went on to call CRT, which a number of Black Southern Baptists have embraced, “an explicit and intentional act of heresy.” Christians who incorporate elements of it or intersectionality into their practices, he continued, “can damn well bet, Christians — damned well bet, like condemned, like damned, like y’all demons — if you’re doing this … you’re falling for a demonic trick.” 

In 2021, Hoadley-Brill founded a Substack to debunk anti-CRT claims, starting with Lindsay’s. In reference to Lindsay’s @ConceptualJames handle on Twitter, where he’s an exhaustively prolific commenter, Hoadley-Brill named his website “Conceptual Disinformation.” In it and elsewhere, he chronicles the sometimes ridiculous aspects of Lindsay’s crusade: He described himself in a virtual New Hampshire legislative committee session as a self-taught “world-level expert in critical race theory”; or his frenetic participation in a Dr. Phil roundtable; or his recent confounding remarks to Beck about “Fasho-Communism.” 

But Hoadley-Brill is motivated by a deeper concern: that as in the “grievance studies” hoax — whose success largely rested on intentionally and grotesquely misrepresenting nuanced academic arguments, even those that deserved legitimate criticism — the current anti-CRT movement relies on misrepresentations that most people outside the academic world will never even perceive. 

“That hoax was so successful is because the entire point was, ‘Look, we’ll do the reading for you. People aren’t qualified to go in and parse all the stuff in these fields, so we went and immersed ourselves in it, and it’s all a bunch of bullshit,'” said Hoadley-Brill. “That’s what led me into pushing back against these people: because the attention and credulity that people were giving them is now fueling this right-wing backlash, and people are being manipulated.” 

But since he started tracking the movement, Hoadley-Brill says Lindsay has continued to move rightward. “It was my perception that Lindsay was jealous of Rufo getting all this attention, and in response, he started to get more radical with his propaganda,” he said. “With his messaging, the only further audience to capture is further to the right. So you start seeing him saying things like, ‘CRT is just the tip of a 100-year long spear to infiltrate the United States with Marxist ideology,'” which Hoadley-Brill describes as “straight up neo-Nazi conspiracy theorizing.” 

While Lindsay used to acknowledge on his website that “Cultural Marxism,” a term embraced a few years ago by the alt-right, was associated with antisemitism and white supremacy, and warned people against using it, nowadays such caution has been thrown to the wind. In Lindsay’s new book, Hoadley-Brill notes, he argues that “neo-Marxists” have successfully redefined Cultural Marxism to smear it by association with antisemitism. Last fall, Lindsay published an episode of his podcast entitled “Groomer Schools 1: The Long Cultural Marxist History of Sex Education,” which argues that sex-ed classes aren’t “just a fluke of our weird and increasingly degenerate times” but “a long-purposed Marxist project reaching back into the early 20th century.” On Twitter, he responds to people concerned about the spread of “Don’t Say Gay” bills with the pithy, “Ok groomer,” effectively accusing anyone who believes children should learn that LGBTQ people are part of the human community of being a pedophile.

RELATED: A user’s guide to “Cultural Marxism”: Antisemitic conspiracy theory, reloaded

And in a Tuesday pub-day appearance on far-right commentator and former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka’s livestream show on Rumble, amid ads for gold, silver or Mike Lindell’s pillows, Lindsay argued that queer theory — which he sees as part of a grander suite of fields, alongside CRT, that comprise “woke Marxism” — was one aspect of a decades-old Cultural Marxist plot to wage “a war on objective reality” and “separate one generation from the previous.”

“This goes back to the first Cultural Marxist, Georg Lukács,” he said, referencing the Hungarian Marxist intellectual, “who became deputy commissar for education, and what did he implement? Comprehensive sex education. Exactly the stuff we see with the gender theory, the queer theory, these very perverted books in the school library teaching children to become sexually active and sexually aware. Why? Because what are they going to do? They’re going to become, frankly, little perverts and they’re going to go home, and their parents are going to say no, and they’re going to use the rebelliousness of the teenage years — of the youth — to say you don’t understand me.” If you can thus “separate a new generation away from its parents,” family, religion and culture, he concluded, they can be led wherever you want.

(It’s true that Lukács, who is far better known as the author of dense works of Marxist philosophy and literary criticism, was deputy commissar of education and culture in the Hungarian Soviet Republic — an embattled Communist state that existed for about four months in 1919. It seems unlikely he had time to enact ambitious educational reforms, but a century later, he’s become the face of right-wing narratives about “The Communist Sexual Agenda.”)

Lindsay’s conversation with Gorka wound up in similarly ominous territory as his talk with Beck, complete with insinuations of violence. 

“I’ve been screaming about this for years. It’s like screaming into a hurricane,” said Lindsay. “And now all of a sudden, the wind has changed. The wind’s at my back now.” As parents and the working class wake up to the “nonsense” of CRT, he said, and also to what he called “this radical agenda, especially with the gender and sexuality stuff and the pedophilia, that your children are genuinely in danger of groomers that the Marxists have brought in,” parents are reaching the point where they’d “die for [their] kids.” 

Lindsay claimed a political scientist had imparted this wisdom: “There are just a couple ways a cultural revolution gets stopped. One is you have a character like Putin come in and start killing journalists and take authoritarian power and stamp it out. The other is that parents wake up.” In Lindsay’s telling, those things sound eerily similar.  

The pandemic is almost over — unless you’re pregnant

As COVID-19’s omicron wave slowly declines nationwide, states like California have lifted their mandates requiring universal masking in public. Beyond California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and New York, have lifted mask mandates as well. 

While the optics of the transition to a (hopefully) post-pandemic world appears to signal a moment of respite, many people who are considered to be at high risk for COVID-19 — particularly pregnant people — are rightfully wary of a return to a so-called normal. Indeed, because the squirrelly omicron variant can infect those are who are vaccinated (and boosted) against the virus — and because the risk of severe infection is higher for this demographic group — many of those who are pregnant are now left wondering how they are expected to navigate a less-cautious world, in which they remain more vulnerable.

Despite the omicron variant’s ability to partially evade vaccines, ongoing evidence is clear that those that are pregnant should get vaccinated against COVID-19. Such vaccinations also protect the fetus, evidently: data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Tuesday showed that the chances of a baby 6 months old or younger being hospitalized due to COVID-19 are 61 percent lower if the mother received two shots of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine while pregnant. Likewise, vaccinated pregnant women people are at a lower risk of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to unvaccinated pregnant people.

Yet research also continues to show that pregnant people are at a higher risk of experiencing severe illness from COVID-19 compared to those who aren’t pregnant. Several studies have found that those who have COVID-19 during pregnancy are more likely to be at risk of preterm birth, stillbirth, preeclampsia, and other pregnancy complications.

While vaccinations reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19, vaccinated and boosted people — pregnant or not — can still get infected with the highly contagious omicron variant. Vaccination helps reduce the severity of the illness. This tricky balancing act highlights the disparities between who gets to enter this next stage of the pandemic worry-free and who does not.

Yet likely due to misinformation and fear, not enough pregnant people are vaccinated in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are 201,075 pregnant people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 as of February 14, 2022. Dr. Melissa Simon, an obstetrician gynecologist at Northwestern Medicine, tells Salon that is not enough — “period.” 


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


It’s a “cause for alarm,” Simon continued. “Lifting mask mandates really harms vulnerable people, and that includes pregnant people [and] those under age five who can’t get vaccinated.” Simon said that a pre-pandemic normal would be “dangerous for people who are immunocompromised, and people who just can’t get the vaccine because of certain reasons.”

Simon also noted that just because governors are lifting mask mandates does not mean that theirs is a decision “rooted in science.”

“It does not mean that it is the right thing to do, and that is really an important message that I don’t hear anywhere,” Simon said. “The governors that are lifting mask mandates are not scientists; they are politicians.”

Dr. Stephanie Gaw, an assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, agrees.

“I think it’s a little bit early for mask mandates to be lifted, to be honest, with the rates as high as they are,” Gaw told Salon. “I would advise all my pregnant patients to continue masking in higher risk areas, indoors, with people you don’t usually interact with, and maintain all the Covid precautions.”

In a study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in January, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital reported that they detected the delta variant in the blood and placentas of women who had stillbirths and serious pregnancy complications, adding to a suspicion that the delta variant in particular was especially a danger to pregnant people. Notably, none of the women in the study had been vaccinated against COVID-19.

As science catches up with the omicron variant and how it might impact pregnancy, researchers are still investigating. Most recently, Oxford University scientists announced that they were going to study specific COVID-19 variants on pregnant people and newborns.

Simon tells Salon despite vaccination status, all pregnant people should still mask up.

“Regardless if you’re vaccinated and boosted, if you’re pregnant, when you’re outside in a well ventilated area and you are alone, or you are with a group of people you normally associate with — like your family and friends who are also vaccinated and boosted, if you feel comfortable removing your mask, then fine,” Simon said. But in more crowded and less ventilated areas, a mask is still a good idea. “The omicron variant is highly contagious, and therefore it’s important to practice mitigation strategies,” Simon added.

Simon urged anyone who is pregnant to avoid catching COVID-19 as best as they can.

“To this day, the data clearly shows that if you are pregnant and you get COVID-19, you have a higher chance of getting admitted to the hospital,” regardless of which variant you contract, Simon said. “We know vaccination and boosting helps protect against severe cases of COVID and it helps protect against admission into the hospital and it helps protect against being transferred to the intensive care unit if you are pregnant,” Simon continued.

But why are pregnant persons at higher risk if they contract COVID-19? Dr. Stephanie Gaw, an assistant professor of maternal fetal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Salon there are two reasons that they face higher risk of hospitalization for severe disease with COVID-19. The first is that a pregnant person’s immune system is a little weaker than usual, to maintain tolerance to the fetus while also protecting it.

“Pregnant women mount kind of a weaker immune response . . .  they don’t get sick with everything, all the time, but this is a little bit attenuated, a little bit weaker than when you’re not pregnant,” Gaw said.

Second, Gaw said, is the way that COVID-19 affects the respiratory system — and how that interacts with a pregnant person’s body.

“The biggest danger with getting COVID or a respiratory disease during pregnancy is that when you’re pregnant, your body changes and you need more oxygen — you have higher respiratory needs because as the baby’s developing, and then you have lower oxygen reserves,” Gaw added.

Gaw said this doesn’t mean pregnant people shouldn’t travel at all — or not do anything. Rather, everyone must make their own assessment.

“I don’t think it’s so dangerous that nobody should travel at all, but be thoughtful about where you’re going and the COVID-19 rates where you’re going,” Gaw said. “The highest risk interactions are going to be in transit, like lining up in a queue, boarding the plane, et cetera — that’s why mask mandates in higher risk areas like that are really important.”

Read more on the omicron variant:

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

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Tuesday accused corporate executives of using inflation as a cover to jack up the cost of meat, vegetables and cleaning products and rake in record profits. 

“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,” the Democrat added. 

Last year, the consumer price index saw a 7% increase, the largest 12-month gain since 1982. Inflationary pressures have had a particular impact on the prices of meat, poultry, fish and eggs, which increased by 12.5% in 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

RELATED: What’s really driving inflation? Corporate greed

This is clearly hitting ordinary consumers hard, and is disproportionately impacting poor and low-income people. But executives of major grocery chains, meat producers and household products manufacturers openly crowing about the phenomenon, largely because it has created higher profit margins. 

On an earnings call with analysts Thursday, Rodney McMullen, CEO of the supermarket retail company Kroger, said the company “operates the best when inflation is about 3% to 4%,” adding that “a little bit of inflation is always good in our business,” according to CNN.


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


The CEO also noted that the increasing cost of goods, fundamentally driven by soaring demand and a supply chain backlog, can be passed off to consumers because they “don’t overly react to that.”

“Businesses like ours have done well when in periods where the inflation was 3% to 4%,” Albertsons CEO Vivek Sankaran echoed during an investor conference Tuesday.

RELATED: Can we learn to love old (and more sustainable) beef?

Last week, the CEO of Tyson, the nation’s second largest processor of chicken, beef and pork products, attributed price increases to rising manufacturing costs and materials shortages, saying in an earnings call: “We’re not asking customers or the consumer ultimately to pay for our inefficiencies. We’re asking them to pay for inflation.”

During the final quarter of 2021, Tyson’s average price of beef rose by roughly 31%. The company’s share price shot up by 11% on Monday after it reported profits that doubled in the first quarter of 2022, according to Reuters.

Consumers also face similar difficulties in the household products market. 

Last month, Procter & Gamble — which manufactures or distributes a wide range of cleaning and hygiene items as well as food, snacks and beverages — said on Wednesday that the company expects profits to increase into 2022, even as the cost of labor, freight and raw materials continues to rise, according The Wall Street Journal.  

RELATED: How the meat industry killed the free market

“The consumer is very resilient and very focused on these categories of clean home and health and hygiene,” P&G finance chief Andre Schulten told the Journal.

On CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” P&G CEO Jon Moeller called pricing “a positive contributor to our top line for 17 out of the last 18 years.” 

“When you have a business model that’s founded on innovation that provides higher levels of delight, solves problems better upon the consumers, you are able to charge a little bit more,” he added. 

Last quarter, P&G outperformed Wall Street’s expectations, leading to a 3.8% jump in share price. The company has also projected a strong financial outlook for 2022. 

Lindsay Owens, executive director at Groundwork, a progressive economic think tank, wrote on Twitter last week that “if you want to understand the role of corporate greed in price hikes & inflation in America today, you don’t have to take the word of watchdogs or critics of corporations,” 

“CEO’s are admitting it themselves in plain daylight,” she said. “And they’re betting they can get away with it.”

RELATED: Meat enables a capitalism defined by inequality

This apparent profiteering is finally receiving scrutiny from the Biden administration. In a blog post from December, the White House said that meat processors’ profits were too high to justify their claim that price increases are the result of supply chain issues, noting that gross profit margins are up 50%.

“If rising input costs were driving rising meat prices, those profit margins would be roughly flat, because higher prices would be offset by the higher costs,” the National Economic Council wrote. “Instead, we’re seeing the dominant meat processors use their market power to extract bigger and bigger profit margins for themselves.”

In September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a plan to crack down on “pandemic profiteering” by enforcing antitrust laws, improving transparency in labeling, creating a fund of $1.4 billion to help independent meat processing companies and related businesses get through the pandemic, and continuing a joint investigation with the Justice Department into the chicken processing industry.

Just this month, beef giant JBS was forced to pay $52.5 million to settle a price-fixing lawsuit, according to CBS News. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Dan Gustafson, said the settlement could be an “icebreaker” that might prompt similar cases against other big meat producers, including Tyson, Cargill and National Beef.

Pentagon general suspended for allegedly creating racist work environment

If someone holds extremist views, the last place they should be is the Pentagon or the U.S. military. But according to Task & Purpose, a three-star general at the Pentagon is on suspension while allegations of overt racism are investigated.

Task & Purpose’s Haley Britzky, in an article published on February 16, reports that U.S. Army Gen. Duane Gamble “has been suspended while the service investigates claims that he created a toxic climate, regularly degraded others in public forums, went out of his way to criticize the performance of Black officers, and made racist remarks.”

“Lt. Gen. Duane Gamble, the Army deputy chief of staff for logistics — head of an office commonly referred to as the G-4 — was reported to the Army’s Office of the Inspector General in September 2020 amid accusations that he cultivated a toxic environment in the office,” Britzky explains. “Two months later, an official investigation was launched.”

Cynthia Smith, a U.S. Army spokesperson, told Task & Purpose that the U.S. Defense Department Inspector General’s Office completed its investigation of Gamble on February 11. Smith, on February 15, confirmed that Gamble had been suspended, according to Britzky.

“Three sources who spoke with Task & Purpose, including a recently retired Army colonel, described a harmful work environment which one source described as ‘racist and toxic,'” Britzky reports. “The general was known to frequently degrade subordinates and peers alike, and regularly made inappropriate comments during staff meetings. This article is based on interviews with those three sources, all of whom have direct knowledge of Gamble’s remarks and the culture within the G-4 office, as well as documents and e-mails outlining the allegations against Gamble while he served as one of the Army’s most senior logisticians.”

Britzky adds, “Gamble, who is white, almost exclusively made disparaging comments about Black general officers he worked with and knew, the sources said. He often spoke down to Black subordinates in meetings and overlooked their suggestions, only to praise the same suggestion when it came from a white colleague.”

According to Britzky, “Sources also accused Gamble of making insensitive and inappropriate comments in the wake of the death of George Floyd, a Black man who was killed after a white police officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes.”

Capitol rioter punished with reading civics book for 60 hours

For the past year, many activists have complained that Jan. 6 attackers haven’t faced harsher punishments that fit the crime. First-time offenders who did little other than enter the Capitol and who didn’t touch anything or break anything are being given community service or probation.

Such was the case with Edward Hemenway, who submitted his community service was done because he reviewed a civics and American government textbook for 60 hours, wrote BuzzFeed justice reporter Zoe Tillman.

Hemenway agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for illegally parading at the US Capitol. While he got 45 days in prison, when it came to community service, he filed a letter that is drawing questions.

According to his claim, he read “training materials” about “Anger Management, Civics, Drug and Alcohol Awareness, Parenting and American Government.” He then effectively wrote a book report on it.

“Hemenway’s codefendant and cousin Robert Bauer, who received the same sentence, also confirmed to the court that he’d finished his 60 hours of service, Tillman wrote. “Bauer appeared to take a more traditional route, attaching a letter from the public works department in his hometown of Cave City, Kentucky, that he’d performed ‘general labor.'”

It’s drawing attention to those who received lower-level punishments beyond jail. Most judges are also blocking requests from media about the specifics of the community service. Records about Anna Morgan-Lloyd, who claimed to have been “played” by Laura Ingraham, for example, has been hidden by the judge in Indiana.

One online company called Logan Social Services helps those on probation or mandated to do community service meet their hours. They claim that working through them “truly helps your community” because it’s more widely available. They provide online class options for anyone tasked with mandated classes on “parenting, drug and alcohol abuse, anger management, driving, domestic violence, shoplifting, and sexual harassment,” said the report. The company is run by a non-profit church that doesn’t list its religion.

Climate change brings thinner, more unstable ice to the Great Lakes

A snowmobile trip off the shore of Northern Ohio’s Catawba Island recently turned into a daring rescue by helicopter and airboat when Lake Erie’s famed winter ice gave way, leaving 18 people stranded on an ice floe drifting away from the shore. 

The snowmobilers were trapped for several hours last Sunday before being rescued  by the U.S. Coast Guard and a “good Samaritan” with a boat. Though none required medical attention, the incident was another reminder of a growing problem in the Great Lakes region — its shrinking ice. Although conditions vary from winter to winter, average maximum ice cover on the lakes has fallen 22 percent over the last 50 years, according to the research group Climate Central

The lakes are also staying frozen for less time each year, and the ice that does form is more unstable thanks to shifting climate patterns and water temperatures, said Jia Wang, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. Average temperatures in the Great Lakes region rose 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1951 and 2017, according to NOAA, and Wang said that warm water temperatures carry over from previous years, creating a feedback loop that builds every winter. It causes ice to form later into the next winter season and leaves less time for it to build up in a thick layer. 

Cold snaps like the one that froze 41 percent of the lakes’ surface in early February — after researchers initially predicted the region would experience its lowest ice cover in decades — can deposit just a thin sheet of ice, leaving it vulnerable to breaking, Wang said. Despite ice cover on Lake Erie reaching 92 percent the day before the snowmobilers’ stranding, the National Weather Service warned people to stay off the ice due to “hazardous conditions,” noting that several large cracks had already formed.

“It’s super dangerous out there,” U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Trent Gulliford told a Cleveland-area news station after the episode. “You don’t know how thick the ice can be or what lies underneath the snow or on top of the ice, so there is a lot to factor in.”

Incidents like the rescue are already becoming more common as the climate changes, Wang said. In January, ​​​​34 anglers had to be rescued when a chunk of ice broke away from the shore of Lake Michigan in Green Bay, Wisconsin. And Wang added that he expects to see similar situations in the future, though he cautioned that it’s hard to know what conditions will look like from year to year. 

“It’s a chaotic natural system, which is very difficult to predict,” Wang said.

To learn more about what the future of the Great Lakes’ ice will look like, Wang will be participating in an upcoming research project sponsored by the University of Michigan and NOAA. Over a week in February, scientists from more than a dozen U.S. and Canadian institutions will sample ice and water from all five Great Lakes to understand how shrinking ice cover and warming temperatures are affecting “ice properties, water movement, nutrient concentrations and lake biology,” according to a press release

“Winter is rapidly changing on the Great Lakes, but our ability to understand and predict the consequences of those changes is impeded by a shortage of winter-period studies on most aspects of Great Lakes limnology,” project leader Ted Ozersky, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, said in the release. 

Starving manatees rely on deliveries of 3,000 pounds of lettuce a day to survive

Florida wildlife officials are implementing a new feeding program at a temporary field response station in Cape Canaveral to prevent manatees from starving. The program, which was put into practice in early 2022, includes direct lettuce deliveries to the manatees upwards of 3,000 pounds a day, and 20,000 pounds a week.

The vegetation deliveries consist of primarily romaine and butter leaf lettuce, according to CNN, and officials hope that the easy access to food will lessen the animal’s quickening mortality rate. More than 1,000 Florida manatees died last year, according to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and they haven’t seen numbers like those in decades.

Related: We saved the puffins. Now a warming planet is unraveling that work

“At this point in time, we have been successful. Manatees are eating the romaine,” said Ron Mezich of the FWC. “We are exposing [a] large amount of animals to this food source and we are making a difference.”

In 2021 the FWC responded to the alarming amount of manatee deaths in the area by issuing a press release directly stating their plan of action. 

“We understand the importance of a timely response. Our agencies and Unified Command partners carefully considered all aspects of a short-term feeding trial,” said Shannon Estenoz, Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in the press release. “It is critical we help manatees in the short term with actions that are compatible with their long-term well-being and resilience.” 


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


The release detailed the steps they intend to make, many of which are already underway, including efforts “to reduce manatee mortality and to reduce the number of animals in need of rescue, allowing the limited space in permitted critical care facilities to remain open for animals needing rehabilitation for other reasons.”

Officials point towards “the loss of seagrass associated with poor water quality within the Indian River Lagoon” as being one of the main contributing factors of manatee deaths in these extreme numbers. And while they state that they know their recent efforts won’t eradicate those deaths, they hope to slow them.

Read more:

Prince Charles’ charity investigated for allegedly extending honors for cash

The Prince’s Foundation, which is the organizational catch-all for Prince Charles’ charity endeavors, is being called into question by London police for apparently offering “honors and citizenship for a Saudi national” in exchange for donations, according to CNN

Michael Fawcett, the one time chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation, was named in a Sunday Times expose in 2021 for allegedly aiding in Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, a Saudi businessman, being nominated for an honorary title. As the report details, the title in question was Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, otherwise referred to as CBE, which is one of the highest honors a non-citizen of the Commonwealth can receive.

RelatedCNN’s fascinating series “The Windsors” confirms why the dysfunctional royal family still rules

The investigation of Prince Charles’ foundation is being invoked under the Honors (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 to determine why an honor such as the CBE, which is usually reserved for annual presentation by the Queen for people who were found to have “made achievements in public life” and “committed themselves to serving and helping the UK,” was awarded to the businessman in question, according to CNN. 


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


Fawcett resigned from his position as head of the Prince’s Foundation when an independent investigation was put into play against him last year. The investigation determined that Fawcett had “coordinated with so-called fixers over honors for a donor,” according to the PA Media news agency report from December highlighted in CNN’s reporting. 

A spokesperson for Prince Charles states that “the Prince of Wales had no knowledge of the alleged offer of honors or British citizenship on the basis of donation to his charities,” and furthers that “it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing investigation.”

As of the time of this post, no arrests have been made in association with the investigation. 

Read more:

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

The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) decision on Monday to allow Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva to continue competing after a positive drug test quickly spurred outrage amongst those within the athletic community, especially former Olympians. In particular, the decision attracted the attention of a notable track & field star, who wasn’t treated that leniently in a similar situation.

U.S. sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson first shocked the world after winning the 100-meter dash in last summer’s Olympic trials. She shocked the world a second time when she tested positive for marijuana and was forced to serve a mandatory 30-day suspension and opt out of the Tokyo Olympics. During an interview on NBC’s Today show, Richardson apologized for her actions and explained that she started using cannabis to help cope with her mother’s death.  

RELATED: Did trimetazidine help Russia win gold? Experts unsure whether metabolic drug is actually helpful

Commenting on a USA Today post disclosing the news allowing Valieva to compete, Richardson noted that the only difference she could see between her situation and the skater’s was race.

“Can we get a solid answer on the difference of her situation and mines?” Richardson wrote. “My mother died and I can’t run and was also favored to place top 3. The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady.”

Valieva, who is just 15 years old, made history after becoming the first woman to land a quad jump — which touts four rotations — during the figure skating team event. The Russian Olympic Committee later won gold but were not awarded their medals due to Valieva’s positive test. The recent CAS decision cleared Valieva for competition in the individual programs but prohibits her from attaining a medal if she secures a medal contending spot.

Former figure skaters, who’ve also been subject to the same doping rules as Valieva, also voiced their displeasure at the unfairness of allowing her to compete. Before and during the women’s singles short program on Tuesday, former ice skaters and commentators Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski 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.” Lipinski, who won gold in the 1998 Nagano Olympics, added that the decision is “putting a permanent scar on our sport.”

Weir agreed with Lipinski, “The Olympics were everything that I ever dreamed about, everything that kept me going on the day-to-day and to have that experience and that feeling . . . diminished because of a positive drug test on one of your competitors when everyone else adheres to the rules . . . it’s a slap in the face to every other skater.”

Former figure skaters Adam Rippon, Yuna Kim, Scott Moir and Kaitlyn Weaver have also expressed their disapproval with the decision.  

Both THC and trimetazidine — the heart medication found in Valieva’s sample — are recognized as banned substances by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Richardson specified in a separate tweet that THC is not a performance enhancer. But trimetazidine, on the other hand, increases blood flow and may improve endurance, allowing athletes to compete and train in rigorous conditions.

A recent report from The New York Times also found two additional metabolic enhancers in Valieva’s sample: Hypoxen and L-carnitine. Both substances are not banned but their presence alongside trimetazidine and in such a young athlete was regarded as “highly unusual” by an antidoping official.

CAS also explained that Valieva’s status as a minor played a large part in their overall decision and noted that Richardson was 21 years of age at the time of her positive test.

“In terms of Ms. Richardson’s case, she tested positive on the 19th of June, quite a way ahead of the (Tokyo) Games,” IOC spokesman Mark Adams said, per Yahoo! Sports. “The results came in early in order for USADA to deal with the case on time, before the Games. Ms. Richardson accepted a one-month period of ineligibility that began on June 28. So I would suggest that there isn’t a great deal of similarity between the two cases.”

The answer still feels unsatisfactory and frankly puzzling. It seems that Valieva’s status as a minor shouldn’t be used as an excuse to bend the rules, rather it should be a reason to uphold the rules to allow her – and those who mentored her – to learn from the mistake. At 15, she’s young enough to still be eligible to compete in another Olympics, one in which a medal-winning performance won’t be tarnished by one athlete’s disregard for fair play.

More stories you might like:

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

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., along with fellow Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, on Wednesday attacked a judicial nominee who works to free wrongfully jailed people for advising “radical district attorneys who let violent criminals go,” which he said results in “skyrocketing homicide rates.”

“Do you care about the innocent people being killed because of the policies you’re implementing?” Cruz asked Nina Morrison, a senior litigation counsel with the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that works to exonerate individuals who have been wrongly convicted. 

Morrison, who was tapped by President Biden for a lifetime seat in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, faced a series of acrimonious questions from Senate Republicans, who were determined to blame her progressive record for unrelated crime rates. 

RELATED: How Republicans unleashed a new crime wave in America — through worsening inequality

In the hearing, Hawley reportedly barraged Morrison with an array of scare-mongering snarl words like “murders” ,”throwing rocks”, “gasoline”, “assault”, “looters,” and “rioting,” according to HuffPost’s Jennifer Bendery. 

“I cannot support your nomination,” Hawley apparently said, citing her “soft-on-crime” policies – which he alleged were a “pattern with [the Biden] administration.” 


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


The record shows, however, that the federal prison population and police funding has expanded under President Biden despite progressive calls to limit both. 

Cotton, notorious for his call to set the military on George Floyd protesters, also threw out fighting words during the hearing.

“Are you proud that you encouraged such defiance in convicted murderers?” the Republican senator asked Morrison, whose work has led to the exonerations of at least 30 people who were wrongfully convicted. In one exchange, Cotton challenged Morrison over the execution of Ledell Lee, an Arkansas man who was convicted for the murder of his neighbor in 1993. Back in 2017, Morrison casted strong doubt over Lee’s prosecution, which she said overlooked “significant” DNA evidence suggesting that Lee was innocent. 

“[Lee] was convicted based on eyewitness testimony,” Cotton fumed during the hearing. 

“Eyewitness identification, which you referenced, is actually the single leading proven cause of wrongful convictions,” Morrison responded. 

RELATED: Is your memory good enough to convict?

Watch the exchange below: 

NFTs aren’t art — they’re just the Cult of Crypto’s latest scam

“If it looks like a scam, it’s probably a scam.”

Cryptocurrency and its ugly art spin-off, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), are perhaps the 21st century’s greatest example of that eternal principle. 

But don’t try saying that to anyone who’s been sucked into the Cult of Crypto, because the next hour — or five!— of your life is about to be spent buried in technobabble jargon to make this particular form of tulip-trading sound like it’s simply mathematics on a plane too high for your small brain to comprehend. And also, your interlocutar is going to be laughing all the way to the bank, mark his leetspeak-drenched words. It’s maddening, and best avoided by disavowing all contact with anyone dumb enough to make an expensive NFT their social media profile.

But if you just can’t help yourself, there’s now an excellent resource that will break down for you exactly why NFTs, and cryptocurrency generally, is a joke. Dan Olson of the Folding Ideas video stream recently released a two-hour video essay explaining exactly why that knee-jerk instinct is right: NFTs and cryptocurrency look like a scam, because a scam is what they are.

RELATED: What is an NFT, and why does John Cleese want to sell you his for $69.3 million?

Olson typically makes videos about the art of filmmaking but took time to create this video so that normies who are absolutely sick of hearing about what is clearly just a speculation bubble are finally armed with solid arguments to explain why. It’s a fun and surprisingly watchable video, despite the soul-crushing amount of jargon that Olson painstakingly defines for his audience. It should truly be the last word on a trend that, in a more sensible world, would have died years before Matt Damon was making stupid commercials hyping this shady product. 

I spoke with about the problems with cryptocurrency and NFTs, a product he convincingly argues was created for no other purpose than to sell cryptocurrency.

This interview has been edited for lengthy and clarity

I’m sure you saw that Paul Krugman recently wrote a piece about crypto, and he had an interesting statistic. Unlike people who buy stocks, “who consist disproportionately of affluent, college-educated whites, survey research shows “44 percent of crypto investors are nonwhite, and 55 percent don’t have a college degree.” And I was wondering what you make of that? What kind of people are being preyed on by the crypto industry?

That by and large sums it up.

In traditional investing, you need certain licenses and whatnot in order to be a trader of regulated securities. With crypto, there isn’t a line between who is running a pump and dump, who is starting a legitimate well-intentioned project, who is just a buyer, who is a speculator, who’s an investor, who’s a collector. It gets very vague. Similar to the structure and flow of multi-level marketing, everybody sort of exists in this nebulous state of being both a buyer and a seller.

Sellers are targeting people with a very specific economic narrative about the system, with these myths of freedom and liberation. It’s like, “Oh, the man can’t track your money anymore. You don’t need those pesky regulations. Those regulations just exist to keep you excluded.”

We live in desperate times and it makes people irrational. Because if everything else around you is irrational, why bother trying to behave rationally?


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


In the video, I think you do a really good job of delineating between the rich Elon Musk types out there who are hyping crypto and the people who are getting suckered into the hype. The latter group is frequently used, then, as a shield to defend crypto. Have you encountered this reaction? 

Oh, tons. Like Neil Gaiman pulled out of a thing, pulled out of an auction that wound up being crypto based. So there’s a tweet circulating that’s basically like, “Neil Gaiman is in favor of children starving.” I see that narrative constantly where there’s the claims of like, “Oh, well you are just opposing this because you oppose people. You are actually trying to keep the system in place that keeps these people down.” 

Sure, there are a few success stories where somebody in a marginalized position got lucky. But also there’s a lot of cases where those narratives aren’t entirely trustworthy because people who get involved have an incentive to perform successfully because that’s culturally ingrained into it and ties back to a lot of just general finance industry narratives of like: “Success comes to those who are the hungriest for it, who want it the most.” Or “that you got to rent the Lambo if you want to be able to buy the Lambo. You got to perform that role.” But if you dig into it a lot of the narratives of like, “Oh, I’m an artist from Venezuela, my life was changed by switching to selling NFTs,” and you dig into their actual wallet and it’s like — they haven’t sold anything.

They just have all this fictional wealth sitting in crypto and it hasn’t translated into real money yet?

One thing that I see a lot is people who have sold things and then you sort of press them on it and they’re like, well, I haven’t actually cashed it out. It’s all still sitting in the ether. It’s like, okay, so you didn’t actually, the money didn’t actually change your life. 

Watching your video, I was also really struck by how much crypto and NFTs have a lot in common with multilevel marketing schemes like LuLaRoe, Amway, Mary Kay. They all target women, specifically housewives, the kind of people that have some disposable income but feel shut out of traditional or mainstream ways of having a career or having an income.

I mean right now that’s the big thing, there are so many just “girl boss” projects. I featured a couple in the video, but I’ve seen like a dozen more just in the last two weeks that all cropped up in January.

The older crypto narratives are: Here’s your chance to live the financial dream, loner nerd who never leaves his apartment, with a single bare mattress on the floor. The structure of that argument ends up pivoting really well to basically anyone who is isolated from downtown culture. It was really easy to repurpose for the same targets as MLM, housewives like that, and the like because they also spend all day at home. All we got to do is we just got to take this language and polish it up a little bit, but we’ve got decades of MLM communication that it was really easy for them to transition the pitch.

Your video is about NFTs really more than crypto, but the two are really tightly connected. In fact, you openly say in the video that NFTs exist to get you to buy crypto.

The biggest problem that’s been plaguing crypto since 2009 has been a lack of things to use it on and a lack of respectability that comes out of that. It’s like, “nah, it’s not a currency. You don’t use it to buy and sell stuff.” Crypto has a long history of not being spendable. There’s nothing that you can actually use it on.

So NFTs effectively get built as a thing to spend crypto on. The two end up being unextractable from one another. NFTs, they’re literally built on top of cryptocurrency. They literally share the same technological foundation. NFTs were basically these goods being wheeled into existence in order to provide something crypto can be spent on.

Honestly, again, it reminds me so much of multi-level marketing schemes, where there’s always some “product” that’s being propped up. There’s the LuLaRoe legging, there’s the Amway cleaning products, but that’s not really what these companies are selling. That’s just vaporware to get people to lure other people into the system.

The product exists to sell the culture and the culture exists to get people to buy into the ecosystem and buy the starter pack and sign up and develop a downstream and recruit, recruit, recruit.

I think people accurately recognize that just by watching people get involved in crypto. You watch an artist who starts selling NFTs, and over the course of months, their artwork itself shifts and it starts becoming more and more about crypto itself. We see those shifts in the people around us and the people who get involved in it, it’s like it becomes the singular thing that they talk about. It very much mirrors the same cultural trajectory of somebody getting involved in multi-level marketing.

One of the things that is really difficult is, if you’ve ever seen anybody get into multilevel marketing or into crypto, trying to get them out is so hard because there’s a lot of defensiveness around it. 

Yeah, it’s built to be sticky. 

The systems share the general sunk cost fallacy. You were promised returns, you put a bunch of money in, you haven’t seen those returns, and in fact, you’re probably massively in the red. Nobody wants to see themselves the fool. Nobody wants to admit that they got had. Nobody wants to admit that they fell for something. Nobody wants to admit that like, “Hey, I just basically burnt a bunch of money that I didn’t have to spend.” Both ecosystems utilize the twin demons of sunk cost and shame.

You did this video, it’s really gone viral. When we first watched it at my house, it was just a couple 1000 views. Now it’s like millions of views on it. You usually do videos about cinematic language and narrative storytelling. Why did you decide to do a video about NFTs and crypto?

Because they’re an ecosystem that exists entirely in the language of stories. That’s the main thing that’s being sold here. Crypto isn’t functional. It doesn’t do what the builders claimed it was being built to do. It has succeeded at very few of its public-facing goal. But it still transacts based on those stories, based on what it could become, based on what it intends to do, based on what it, in theory, might do in the future. It’s a cultural moment that intersects with entertainment and the business of entertainment and the business of culture in a way that is just unavoidable.

How do we maintain sympathy for the victims of this, the people who are sucked into what is basically a scam? It’s so hard sometimes, with all the online rhetoric, to tell the difference between the victims and the people perpetuating this particular scam?

These systems — and MLMs are another great example of this — they blur the lines between the victim and the victimizer, because in order to succeed, particularly the further down the line you are, the more aggressive you need to become. You need to become a victimizer yourself in order to get your head back above water. Sympathy ends up being tricky and fraught. The best way of maintaining sympathy is in remembering that fraught relationship there. That this is a system that is set up to turn victims into victimizers. Beyond that, remember it’s a very individual thing. Everybody gets into it for granularly different, local reasons like personal incentives and personal circumstances, but it’s hard. It’s hard and it’s made hard on purpose.

What would you like to see in terms of a response from the government? What would you like to see happen to stop this, to save our economy and save the people that are getting suck into this?

Minimum wage corrected to inflation, public housing, equitable public housing policies, student debt forgiveness.

We need fundamental changes to our economic policies and to our social policies that remove or that mitigate the desperation that allows schemes like this to take root. That’s the only answer. Anything else is just…

Regulating NFTs as securities is useful, but it’s not going to fix the problem. The problem is metastasizing out of deeper structural problems, deeper social policy issues. We’ve got minimum wage that is so stagnant. We need to actually address the root problems. The material existence of people sucks at the moment because we’ve allowed a lot of rot to get very deep into our society. It’s squeezing people, it’s making people feel like the future doesn’t exist. That leads to desperate reactions. There’s a good article in from Mother Jones that argues this.

If the normal world is so broken, if the future looks so broken by the normal systems, then why not gamble on crypto? Is it any less insane than this other broken system? I think that is an accurate assessment of the place that people increasingly find themselves in and the answer is to fix that problem.

It’s like buying a lottery ticket is irrational, but is it when you have no other opportunities to build wealth?

Yeah, if all you’ve got is five bucks left at the end of the week, it’s like, well, you’re never going to buy a house off of five bucks a week. You’re never going to buy anything off of five bucks a week, so why not a lotto ticket? 

To end on a more fun note, I have a question that you bring up in the video: Why is the art of NFTs just so dang ugly?

Because they don’t care.

The folks who are steering all of this, the guys who are in charge, or the guys who go out and make something like Bored Ape Yacht club, like they’re just hollow inside. They don’t understand art. They don’t understand culture. They don’t watch television. They don’t watch movies. They don’t read books. They don’t read comics. They just, they know that these things exist and they know that other people care about them and they’re just performing culture because they see culture just as a commodity.

Once the tempo is set, once larval labs and bake set the rhythm with crypto punks and Bored Ape Yacht club, it’s all downhill from there. It’s like, oh, well we can just copy this. We don’t need to up our game because look at these jackasses! Look how much money they’re making off of this! Look at how much lazy lion is making off of their garbage! We don’t need to try! Trying is for suckers!

The market has, to use their own language, the market has signaled that quality is not relevant. So people optimize for responding to that, which is that it’s like, oh, well, if I don’t need to worry about quality, that saves me a bunch of time and effort.


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


If “Jeen-Yuhs” is in the eye of the beholder, this film doesn’t adequately explain Kanye West’s

A point arrives in Clarence “Coodie” Simmons’ and Chike Ozah’s Kanye West documentary “Jeen-Yuhs” when one of the hip-hop legend’s confidantes, Rhymefest, poses the question at the project’s heart to the man now legally known as Ye.

“Who are you to call yourself a genius?” Rhymefest asks his friend. “It’s for other people to look at you and say, ‘That man’s a genius.'”

By then Simmons has positioned himself as that validating force, the man who’s always in the room, cameras rolling, catching every frame of his subject’s rise.

Two decades later Simmons and Ozah, who go by Coodie and Chike, have winnowed down hundreds of hours of footage into “Jeen-Yuhs,” a biographical triptych whose greatest strength is its thorough chronicling of Ye’s career in its nascency – before his 70 Grammy nominations and 22 wins, before he signed with Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella records.

Before all of that, Ye was a Chicago kid known for his production prowess and doubted as a lyrical technician. Coodie saw something else in him: the potential focus of a hip-hop version of Steve James’ “Hoop Dreams.” Eventually he sees their relationship as something deeper than that of documentarian and subject. By the end of “Jeen-Yuhs,” one can’t clearly ascertain how the performer views the filmmaker – or, for that matter, whether Coodie and Chike effectively answer that original question about the nature of Ye’s virtuosity.

RELATED: The fall of Kanye West-ern civilization

Rhymefest is right about genius being determined by others and evaluated based upon a number of metrics – natural talent, drive and accomplishment, certainly, but also originality and influence. Ye fulfills all of these expectations and sets new ones for himself, making him one of popular culture’s most prominent forces.

But his frequently erratic behavior requires the broader audience to be reminded of this, along with an explanation as to why this is true – apart from the award wins and the financial success of his apparel and sneaker business, Yeezy. Along with his other ventures, his clothing label’s partnerships with Adidas and other global brands have made him a billionaire.

Cultural ignoramuses top Forbes’ richest people lists all the time. Many, but not all, are driven in a way the average person is not.

Very few have made a lasting impression on American culture.

If “Jeen-Yuhs” took us inside that part of Ye’s process even a little that would justify each section’s long running time; the shortest of its three parts is a wide yawn at 89 minutes. It assumes, perhaps correctly, that super fans want a full accounting of each time he was turned down by a label. The rest of us may wonder why we’re spending so much time staring into this man’s mouth during a dental reconstructive procedure.

(At least those who know Ye’s career understand why Coodie includes that excursion. It’s part of the “Through the Wire” hit single’s  origin story, which Ye rapped while his jaw was wired shut following a serious car crash in 2002. Coodie directed that video and included slivers of that office visit footage along with other life snippets revealed in the documentary.)

How a person values “Jeen-Yuhs” also depends on what they expect from a documentary profile like this, which can be as varied as how one defines a “good” documentary.  Do we want to feel like we’re part of an artist’s entourage, or do we want insight into what makes his art and creativity singular? Do we want to better appreciate his complexity and see him as an extension of the possibility within ourselves, or do we want a more intricate rendering of his C.V.?

The world doesn’t lack for worshipful profiles of how a famous person climbed from anonymity to stardom.

Ye is in a rarer category, and the footage seen here proves he’s always known that. Billed as “A Kanye Trilogy,” Coodie and Chike’s work functions best as a tale of relentless hustle, divided into two personalities. This is not a reference to Ye’s very public struggle with bipolar disorder, but the examination of the clean split between who he used to be and who he is.

This distinctly occurs in 2006, after he wins his first set of Grammys for “The College Dropout” and starts working on his follow-up “Late Registration.” Coodie believed Ye’s first Grammy conquest marked the perfect ending to a documentary that could show the world where he came from, but his subject shut him down, explaining he wasn’t ready for the world to see the real him. With the world’s camera on him, Coodie says, “He told me he was acting now – playing a role.”

Here begins the Kanye West most of the world is familiar with – the bombastic artist who calls himself a God, who interrupted Taylor Swift’s Video Music Awards acceptance speech for Best Female Video. Who went on TV to call slavery a choice, caped for Donald Trump throughout his presidency and in 2020 mounted a failed and widely derided run for President.

That character is punchline- or a headline-generating menace. Recently targets of his ire have included Billie Eilish and his ex-wife Kim Kardashian‘s new boyfriend Pete Davidson, who he outright threatened in a now-deleted series of Instagram posts. Last month he was named as a suspect in a criminal battery incident for allegedly punching a fan in Los Angeles.

Owing to Coodie’s sympathetic point of view, we do not see much of this side of Kanye beyond clips from entertainment news shows or much of anything expressly Kardashian-related. Not that we need more of that.


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


Over the first two installments, titled “act i: VISION” and “act ii: PURPOSE,” Coodie establishes himself as the mostly unseen narrator invited by the rapper to bear witness to his journey. And if you know Ye’s career, these episodes yield a trove of firsts.

We see him hustle his way into the offices of Roc-A-Fella to rap for whomever is present, even office assistants, since nobody believed in his lyrical skills. We watch him chafe against the industry’s insistence that he stay in his production lane despite his confidence in himself as a performer.

But the most precious parts of “Jeen-Yuhs” are the moments Coodie captures of Ye in the presence of his mother Donda West, a professor at Chicago State University and the chair of its Department of English, Communications, Media and Theater. Donda’s influence on her son is widely known through her many public appearances with him at events and on talk shows such as “Oprah” and “Ellen” before she died suddenly in 2007 due to post-operative complications resulting from a cosmetic procedure.

Here we see her not simply alive but impressing upon her son the importance of remaining true to who he is while maintaining faith in his confidence and talent. A defining scene in the documentary shows Donda comforting her son as he’s smarting from another Chicago rapper’s public rebuke. “The giant looks in the mirror and sees nothing, ” she tells him, explaining that if he remembers to stay grounded, then he can be in the air at the same time. “That’s what I think it means when it says the giant looks in the mirror and sees nothing: everybody else sees the giant.”

The documentary evinces this, particularly in the “act iii: AWAKENING” when the narrative jumps from the time shortly after Donda’s death to 2014, when Coodie and Chike reunite with Ye and begin filming him again. The change in Ye after his mother’s death is tangible although the filmmakers view it from a distance, along with everyone else.

Up close, Ye’s zest for creating is matched by his escalating mania, captured in a scene where Ye rants at columnist Dan Barry and real estate mogual Michael Novogratz: “”Have you guys ever been, like, locked up in handcuffs and put into a hospital because your brain was too big for your skull?” he asks. “OK, I have, so . . . next conversation.” Coodie, acting out of empathy, cuts the camera soon after that.

Making from-the-heart choices like this to protect his subject’s dignity are understandable. Given the access the filmmakers were granted in recent years, other editing choices are more puzzling.

jeen-yuhs: A Kanye Trilogyjeen-yuhs: A Kanye Trilogy (Netflix)

 In “Awakening” Coodie marvels at how much Kanye has manifested without exploring how he realized his achievements. He could have recorded insights from other prominent artists with whom Ye has partnered, for example.

One such opportunity presents itself in a trip to Japan for a meeting with famed designer Takashi Murakami. Never does anyone ask Murakami for his insights about Ye. In another Coodie joins his friend at the 2016 launch of his clothing label at Madison Square Garden, an apt time to mention Ye’s early connection to the iconic late designer Virgil Abloh.

Instead Coodie only observes, “Kanye used to say he wanted to be the best dressed rapper. Now here he was with his own fashion line.” From there he keeps the camera trained on Ye’s reaction to the fashion show, instead of showing us much of the show itself. Predictably, the artist is pumped at what he’s seeing, leaving us to guess at the visual.

Whether you see this omission as missed opportunity or in line with the filmmakers’ fly-on-the-wall approach probably depends on your level of fandom. I submit that it’s entirely possible to maintain a documentary’s intimate, knowing feel while also providing the audience context that lends weight to the subject’s legacy.

Even the execution of the documentary’s personal elements are questionable. From the start Coodie establishes himself as the narrator of Ye’s story, but doesn’t satisfactorily flesh out his own arc. Instead, the videos of his personal life appear when Ye disappears, which occurs far enough into the piece to make it seem like filler.

Mind you, these are vital life moments, including the birth of his child and the last scenes of his father before he passes. But we’ve spent so much time investing in Ye’s journey and so little with Coodie beyond his hosting shout-outs for “Channel Zero” as to confuse us as to the purpose these scenes serve in the larger films, other than padding. This places its usefulness on par with the frenetic montage of entertainment news headlines about Ye that bridge chasms in the timeline when the filmmaker wasn’t part of his subject’s inner circle.

In a few recent interviews the filmmakers stress that this is not the definitive biography of Kanye West,  a declaration mainly made in response to another social media post in which Ye demanded final cut. (His request was denied.) This also establishes “Jeen-Yuhs” is only partly authorized, which could have lent weight to whatever broader observations the filmmakers might have made about their subject.

Instead it relies on Coodie’s prescience about his subject’s potential, illustrated in such scenes when a pre-fame Ye explains to those who will listen, “I’m trying to get to the point where I can drop my last name off my name, get to the point where people can look back and say, ‘Man, dude remember dude used to just make beats for people?'”

He has arrived. The frustrating part is that “Jeen-Yuhs” never sufficiently illuminates the path that led us here.

Act i of “Jeen-Yuhs: A Kanye Trilogy” is streaming on Netflix, with subsequent installments debuting on Wednesdays. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories like this:

 

 

 

Bob Saget’s family files lawsuit to block the release of graphic records related to actor’s death

A week after his official cause of death was disclosed, Bob Saget‘s family is taking further action to maintain their own privacy and well-being.

On Tuesday, Saget’s widow, Kelly Rizzo, and his three daughters, Aubrey, Lara, and Jennifer, sued Orange County Sheriff John Mina and the medical examiner’s office, asking them to stop the public release of graphic medical records concerning Saget’s death. 

“In the process of these investigations, Defendants created records which include photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, statutorily protected autopsy information, and all other statutorily protected information,” the lawsuit outlines, per CNN. “Upon information and belief, some of these Records graphically depict Mr. Saget, his likeness or features, or parts of him, and were made by Defendants during Defendants’ investigations.”

RELATED: What made Bob Saget’s Danny Tanner so different from other sitcom dads 

The family asserts that “no legitimate public interest would be served by the release or dissemination of the records to the public.” They claim that the release of such documents would cause them to “suffer irreparable harm in the form of extreme mental pain, anguish and emotional distress.”

Saget’s family also asked for a temporary injunction while the court reaches a decision on their request. The family’s attorney, Brian Bieber, told CNN that the injunction was filed to “prevent disclosure of any photographs or videos of Mr. Saget made by the authorities during their investigation.”

“The facts of the investigation should be made public, but these materials should remain private out of respect for the dignity of Mr. Saget and his family. It’s very simple – from a human and legal standpoint, the Saget family’s privacy rights outweigh any public interest in disclosure of this sensitive information.”


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


On Wednesday, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement that they are “sensitive” to the family’s privacy concerns but must also consider their “commitment to transparency, compliance with the law, and the public’s right to know.”

On Jan. 9, Saget was found unresponsive in his hotel room at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando, Florida — he was just 65 years of age and pronounced dead at the scene. The “Full House” star suffered from head trauma after receiving an accidental blow to the back of his head and falling asleep.

Saget’s autopsy report, obtained by PEOPLE, revealed that he had skull fractures, brain injuries, abrasions and blood buildup within his brain tissue and underneath his skull. Saget also tested positive for COVID-19 prior to his death. Clonazepam, a prescription medicine used to treat seizures, panic disorder, and anxiety, and the antidepressant Trazodone were all found in Saget’s system. 

More stories you might like:

From “Meatballs” to “Ghostbusters,” Ivan Reitman was the anarchic boomer voice for Gen X nihilism

Ivan Reitman, who died Sunday at 75, was a baby boomer, but if you grew up watching any of his earliest comedic hits as a producer and director — “National Lampoon’s Animal House,” “Meatballs,” “Stripes” or “Ghostbusters” — you’d be forgiven for assuming he was a generation younger. There wasn’t an authority figure he couldn’t be cynical about: parents, the United States Army, academia, rich people, hotel managers, and librarians, just to name a small handful. He thumbed his cinematic nose at all of them, becoming the leading cultural voice of Gen X nihilism during the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Reitman’s parents, Leslie and Clara, were Czechoslovakian Jews. They met in 1938, not long before Hitler invaded the country. Leslie barely avoided a trip to Auschwitz when a non-Jewish friend intervened on his behalf. Later, he joined the Czech underground, fighting the Nazis as a guerilla. Clara wasn’t so lucky. Against the odds, though, she survived Auschwitz, reuniting with Leslie after the war to marry and start a family. Reitman was born, also in Czechoslovakia, in the aftermath of World War II

After the war, Czechoslovakia became a Soviet satellite. Life under Stalin was dangerous for observant Jews like Leslie and Clara, so when Ivan was four, they escaped, drugging their son to keep him quiet as they snuck out of Europe and made their way to Canada, settling in Toronto.

RELATED: 10 memorable PSAs that attempted to save Generation X

His parents’ landing spot proved to be auspicious. Toronto was fertile ground for comedy. In 1973, Chicago improv troupe The Second City opened a theater in Toronto, bringing performers like Gilda Radner to the city. Lorne Michaels, who later created “Saturday Night Live,” produced comedy for the CBC using Radner, Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, and Bill Murray, who would go on to become The Not Ready for Prime Time Players. Reitman befriended them all, and the anti-establishment comedy he created for the rest of his career contains clear echoes of their collective irreverence.

After graduating from McMaster University, where he studied music, Reitman took his first producing job at a local television station that also hired Aykroyd, who later went on to appear in several Reitman films. In 1978, he hit it big, producing “National Lampoon’s Animal House,” a juvenile comedy about the exploits of an out-of-control fraternity full of misfits at a preppy elite liberal arts college in the early 1960s. The movie went on to great success, kicking off Reitman’s long and storied career as a producer.

“Ivan Reitman influenced everything we all love about film comedy,” tweeted Judd Apatow. “A true legend.”

In 1979, Reitman took up directing as well. “Meatballs,” which gave Bill Murray his first starring role, followed the working-class campers and counselors at Camp North Star as they faced off against their wealthy adversaries from nearby Camp Mohawk. Murray played a camp counselor whose rousing speech, delivered to a bunch of teenagers, got his ragtag counselors chanting, “It just doesn’t matter,” over and over again in unison.

If that’s not Gen X, nothing is.


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


Reitman followed “Meatballs” with “Stripes,” another Bill Murray movie, which depicted the American army as a collection of morons and butt-kissers financed by easily conned Congressmen. Unsurprisingly, given Reitman’s family history, the Soviets in the film were just as incompetent.

Roger Ebert called “Stripes,” “an anarchic slob movie, a celebration of all that is irreverent, reckless, foolhardy, undisciplined, and occasionally scatological.” In the middle of the Cold War, Reitman’s film seemed to suggest that Americans were more likely to suffer fools than to suffer any military casualties.

Reitman’s signature achievement as a director was “Ghostbusters,” which premiered in 1984. Aykroyd and Harold Ramis played two members of a trio of university scientists studying the paranormal. Murray played the trio’s third member, a fast-talking con artist. 

Bill Murray; Harold Ramis; Dan Aykroyd; GhostbustersBill Murray, Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd on the set of “Ghostbusters,” directed by Ivan Reitman (Columbia Pictures/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images)

In the process of saving New York from netherworld invaders, they manage to poke fun at everyone from the Mayor to the Cardinal Archbishop of New York to a pinhead bureaucrat from the Environmental Protection Agency, all of whom spend the film looking out for their own self-interests.

“If I’m right, Lenny,” Murray’s character Dr. Peter Venkman says, persuading the Mayor to let the Ghostbusters fight off the paranormal threat invading Manhattan, “you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters.” The tactic, of course, worked.

In taking the high-and-mighty down a peg, Reitman was reintroducing the sort of anti-establishment comedy that had long since vanished from Hollywood films. His early work had the same chaotic energy of the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges, who never knew a top hat they couldn’t knock off, but infused with a modern juvenalia. It wasn’t Godzilla who was threatening New York, after all, it was the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. The annihilation threatening contemporary America wasn’t evil, it was absurdity. After a generation of baby boomer children hiding under school desks frightened by bomb scares, “Stripes” rolled its eyes and said, “Lighten up, Francis.”

Reitman’s anarchic approach was chicken soup for the Gen X soul. Stuck in the shadow of the previous generation, X-ers watched their parents’ “All You Need Is Love” ethos become “Greed is good,” the instant they reached their peak earning years. Baby boomers were phonies, they realized, just like everyone else. There was no good and evil, just self-interest and incompetence. The deep snark of Reitman’s early films spoke to their entrenched skepticism and sarcasm.

Reitman’s later films as a director were more measured in tone, though they maintained the same skepticism about authority. In Dave, for example, Kevin Kline plays a Presidential impersonator who gets shoehorned into leading the country, only to reveal corruption at the highest levels of the United States government. Reitman even managed to turn Arnold Schwarzenegger into a gentle comic figure in both Twins and Kindergarten Cop, saying “Hasta la vista, baby” to the toxic masculine formula that characterized the actor’s earlier (and later) roles.

RELATED: New “OK Boomer” book tries to heal generational rift between boomers and Millennials

As busy as he kept himself directing, Reitman was even more prodigious as a producer, shepherding a wide variety of projects. His interests ranged widely, from animation (“Space Jam,” “Heavy Metal”) to G-rated fare (the Beethoven films) to serious drama (Hitchcock). In the latter category, his most successful project was “Up in the Air,” which was directed by his own son Jason. The film netted both father and son Academy Award and Golden Globe nominations.

“I had the honor of working so closely with Ivan, and it was always such a learning experience,” posted Paul Feig, who directed “Ghostbusters: Answer the Call,” the 2016 reboot that Reitman produced. “All of us in comedy owe him so very much.”

The original “Ghostbusters” might have been the high point of Reitman’s early career, but the characters he helped create returned just in time to bid him farewell at the end, too. “Ghostbusters: Afterlife,” the hit sequel directed by his son, premiered only a few short months before his death. Reitman actually played a small role in the film, appearing in ghostly form as the stand-in for the late Harold Ramis’ character, Egon Spengler, and he couldn’t have been any prouder of his son’s accomplishment.

“It just took my breath away,” Ivan told Empire. “I literally cried; I even cry right now when I start to think about it. It was a very emotional experience.”

As an artist born in the shadow of Hitler’s death camps, the product of a love that survived the Holocaust, Reitman might have been forgiven for making bleak art. Instead, he exorcised the demons his parents faced by bringing the world joy, telling stories in which awkward kids at a summer camp, Army grunts, and disgraced scientists all find a way to punch up and defeat their antagonists. He wasn’t afraid, to paraphrase the title song from his most famous film, of ghosts. He laughed at them instead.

More stories to check out:

Here’s why agricultural experts think an avocado shortage — and price surge — may be looming

Over 80% of the avocados found in the United States — whether that be in supermarket produce sections or on the line at your local Chipotle — are imported from Michoacán, Mexico. However, over the weekend, the United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA) suspended avocado imports from the Mexican state after an American inspector was allegedly verbally threatened on his official cellphone. 

According to the USDA, the agency is working with Customs and Border Protection to funnel avocados that were certified for export on or before Feb. 11 into the United States. However, avocados certified for export after that date will not be allowed to enter the United States “as long as necessary to ensure the appropriate actions are taken, to secure the safety of APHIS personnel working in Mexico.” 

RELATED: We aren’t only facing a supply chain issue — for grocery workers, it’s also a labor rights issue

No timeframe for a possible suspension lift was given, though the USDA released a similar statement in 2019 when a team of inspectors was “directly threatened” in Ziracuaretiro, a town just west of Uruapan. According to local authorities, a gang robbed the truck in which American inspectors were traveling at gunpoint.

The USDA wrote in a letter at that time “for future situations that result in a security breach, or demonstrate an imminent physical threat to the well-being of (inspection) personnel, we will immediately suspend program activities.”

The 2019 suspension was short-lived, however amid ongoing supply chain disruptions, some agricultural and culinary professionals are forecasting that the current suspension’s effects on avocado pricing will be felt far more quickly. 

“In a few days, the current inventory will be sold out and there will be a lack of product in almost any supermarket,” said Raul Lopez, the Mexico manager of the agriculture market research company Agtools, in an interview with the Washington Post

He continued: “The consumer will have very few products available, and prices will rise drastically.”

There are some avocados grown stateside in California, but those farms won’t be able to keep up with the Americans’ nearly insatiable demand for the fruit. While avocados have long been a key part of many culture’s cuisines, as the demographics of the United States have shifted and as millennials embraced them as sources of healthy “good fat,” avocados reign as one of the world’s trendiest foods. 

According to Business Insider, prices for single avocados have surged by 129%, with the “average national price of a single Hass avocado reaching $2.10 in 2019, almost doubling in just one year.” 

The anticipated shortage could increase these prices by an even higher percentage, which may leave them out of reach for many consumers and restaurant purchasers, especially as the next “avocado-centric” holiday — Cinco de Mayo — looms just 11 weeks away. 

More stories about the labor behind our food systems: 

 

Will culture war doom Dems? Internal polls find they must respond to GOP attacks

Democrats are already facing a potential red wave in this year’s midterm elections — but November could turn into a virtual bloodbath if vulnerable incumbents don’t respond to Republican “culture war” attacks, according to an internal Democratic poll.

A poll conducted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last month showed Democrats trailing Republicans by four points in a generic ballot of swing districts, even though voters generally support Democratic policies, according to Politico. But if Democrats don’t respond to Republican culture-war attacks accusing them of supporting efforts to “defund the police” and “open borders,” the GOP lead swells to a whopping 14 points, the survey found.

The DCCC warned battleground members that its research shows voters in those districts view the party as “preachy,” “judgmental” and “focused on culture wars,” according to the report. Republican attacks focused on public safety, critical race theory and parental rights in education have proven “alarmingly potent,” warned a recent DCCC presentation.

The presentation did offer some hope to vulnerable House Democrats, finding that the Republicans’ 14-point lead drops to 6 points if Democratic candidates hit back at GOP attacks. But with Republicans just five seats away from regaining a House majority, that might not shift the likely outcome.

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

DCCC chairman Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., has pushed frontline Democrats to counter the attacks more forcefully. Party officials in recent weeks urged Democrats not to ignore the attacks, pushing them to reiterate their support for police, reject policies of “open borders or amnesty” and talk about their efforts to keep the border safe instead, according to Politico.

The party’s polling found that the Republican attacks are most effective with center-left voters, independents and Hispanics – groups that have begun to trend away from the Democrats in recent elections.

The more aggressive strategy comes after the DCCC last year went all-in on touting President Biden’s accomplishments, even as his Build Back Better proposal and voting rights proposals fizzled out amid internal party divisions. A growing number of Democrats also balked at the group’s focus on linking Republican candidates to former President Donald Trump, a move that appeared to backfire for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in his loss to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin last November. The DCCC also backed a small group of House Democrats who insisted on passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill without attaching it to the Build Back Better proposal, a maneuver that effectively doomed Biden’s dual-track effort by removing his leverage to pressure moderate members into backing the larger bill.

Maloney is now urging Democrats to drop their support for mask requirements and focus on efforts to support law enforcement and immigration restrictions. Some progressives, who would prefer to focus on turning out new voters rather than luring back moderates, say that kind of pivot isn’t likely to win elections either.

“Democrats trying to out-Republican Republicans is not a winning strategy,” tweeted Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who has clashed with House Democratic leaders over her support for the “defund the police” movement.


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


The DCCC told members that policy solutions will not win them many races because “voters are not generally opposed to Democratic policies,” according to Politico. “Rather, Democrats need to demonstrate they fully understand and care about stressors in people’s lives” and focus on the issues “without stoking divisive cultural debates,” the group said in a presentation.

The DCCC stressed that it is not trying to “offer a specific rebuttal” to GOP attacks, arguing that the best response is one that is authentic to each member and their district, according to the report.

Many Democrats have tried to focus on positive economic numbers, pointing to rising wages, GDP growth and improved hiring. But Republicans have sharpened their attacks by blaming Biden and Democrats for rising gas prices and inflation, which affect more people more directly.

While it’s conceivable that “defund the police” and “open borders” attacks will damage some swing-district Democrats, there’s not much evidence that pivoting toward the center or even the right on culture war issues is likely to shift the overall political narrative, or save the Democratic House majority in November.

Biden’s average approval rating currently sits at under 42%, according to FiveThirtyEight, while his disapproval rating has steadily grown to 52.8%. Despite an improving economy, voters trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the economy by 18 points, according to a recent NBC News/Marist poll. At least 30 incumbent House Democrats have already announced they will not seek re-election.

“One thing that we know pretty reliably from political science is that economic performance, especially indicators like inflation, gas prices, are strongly predictive of the electoral success of the incumbent party,” Josh McCrain, a political scientist at the University of Utah, told Insider. “If Democrats don’t want to get absolutely destroyed in the midterms, they need to make it clear to voters that inflation is high but overall economic indicators are still good. That’s a tough sell.”

But after the collapse of the Build Back Better proposal and voting rights legislation, some progressives say Biden and party leaders need to do a better job of making good on their promises. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said that the president needs to follow through on his campaign promise to cancel student debt if he wants to appeal to a larger electorate.

“I can’t underscore how much the hesitancy of the Biden administration to pursue student-loan cancellation has demoralized a very critical voting block that the president, the House, and the Senate need in order to have any chance at preserving any of our majority,” she told The New Yorker. She urged Biden to use executive power to compensate for the stalled Democratic agenda in Congress, which she called a “shit show.”

Read more on the 2022 midterms:

Trump’s new “spying” Clinton conspiracy theory is a success as cowardly mainstream media confounded

Have you heard of the latest conspiracy theory fueling the bizarre fantasy life of the right?

The liars of the right definitely think they’ve got a hot one with this “Durham report,” an official-sounding document that Republican propagandists will have you believe “proves” Hillary Clinton was spying on Donald Trump. The “report,” however, is actually just a court filing made by John Durham, a right-wing lawyer installed in the Department of Justice by Trump and then-attorney general Bill Barr for the obvious purpose of generating conspiracy theories to feed into the right-wing propaganda mill. Fox News has been humping this non-report nonstop. Trump just used it as an excuse to once again threaten Hillary Clinton’s life. And unfortunately, the mainstream media is failing to push back by labeling this conspiracy theory for the bucket of nonsense that it is.

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

Mainstream media is letting the right’s tendency to use confusing accusations and dense language scare them off of direct and clear descriptions of lies as lies. Certainly, there’s woe in the future of anyone who actually tries to read this supposed “evidence” for Clinton’s “spying operation.” The court filing is full of techno argle-bargle that would cause the eyes of even the most enthusiastic programmer to glaze over, much less the average journalist.  

The Government’s evidence at trial will also establish that among the Internet data Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited was domain name system (“DNS”) Internet traffic pertaining to (i) a particular healthcare provider, (ii) Trump Tower, (iii) Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and (iv) the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”). (Tech Executive-1’s employer, Internet Company-1, had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided DNS resolution services to the EOP. Tech Executive-1 and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.)

So if you feel baffled, imagine how impossible it is that Donald “Maybe Inject Bleach?” Trump understood any of this language. He certainly couldn’t explain why he claims this is a “scandal far greater in scope than Watergate.”

Spoiler alert: It’s definitely not.


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


Many gallant reporters — including Jon Skolnik of Salon — actually tried to figure out what the hell Durham is on about. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion is that this is a big, fat nothingburger — another in a long line of empty right-wing conspiracy theories about the Clintons that dates all the back to Whitewater. Yet, the mainstream media is once again letting right-wing bullying scare them off of plainly labeling lies and conspiracy theories for what they are.

The headline for the New York Times debunking of the Durham conspiracy theory lamely called it “off track,” even though “plainly nonsense” is a conclusion anyone who actually reads the article — which will be a tiny percentage of people — would reach. Worse is the Washington Post’s supposed “fact check,” which is headlined, “Here’s why Trump once again is claiming ‘spying’ by Democrats,” without noting that it’s a lie or falsehood. The article debunks Trump, but again, few will actually read the whole article, especially since it’s full of the same dense legalese and techno-babble. Worse, CNN simply ran with, “Special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump,” replete with the “one side says/the other says”-style reporting, without indicating that the Trump side is a bunch of loony liars, as usual. 

This failure to call Trump’s lies out for what they are is especially troubling in light of Trump exploiting this conspiracy theory to call, once again, for the death of Hillary Clinton.

RELATED: Republicans have hijacked the process: Congressional hearings are now rife with conspiracy theories

 It’s “the sort of thing that directly endangers people by putting a target on them,” as Aaron Rupar of Public Notice wrote, and isn’t just conjecture. Trump supporters have repeatedly attacked, attempted to kill, or killed people he has targeted with such rhetoric, from the El Paso shooting to the Capitol insurrection. In fact, there’s already been one famous attempt on Clinton’s life by a Trump supporter acting on his hero’s rhetoric. 

The obtuse nature of the “Durham report” is typical of right-wing conspiracy theories, as anyone can attest who has tried to figure out what the hell “Benghazi” is about or what the QAnoners believe. These conspiracy theories are more elaborate than the family trees of “Game of Thrones,” full of contradictions and red herrings, and impossible for even the people who are making this crap up to follow along. This is very much by design because it works so well at gaming the flaws in the mainstream media. 


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


For one thing, the confounding nature of right-wing conspiracy theories scares off would-be debunkers. As Charlie Savage at the New York Times wrote, they “tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time,” that is energy and time most people don’t have. Sadly, a lot of even well-meaning people will not realize that this is a good sign that they can write the conspiracy theory off completely. Instead, they’ll lean on the shortcut of assuming that this smoke must mean there’s a fire. And to help prop up the illusion of fire, the right has grown adept at putting an official-seeming gloss on the smoke they generate. They use prosecutors and congressional hearings to make their conspiracy theories seem more legitimate. Unfortunately, those strategies also intimidate the media into not calling out lies for what they are, as evidenced by the squirrelly coverage this conspiracy theory is getting simply because it’s being fed by a guy that was given an official-sounding job by Trump. 

RELATED: Biden can’t save us from Trump’s Big Lie: Why the fight for democracy has to be a grassroots effort

The right’s non-stop abuse of government power to prop up conspiracy theories also serves another function: It distorts the signal-to-noise ratio to the point where the average American can’t find the signal in all the noise.

The flood of false accusations of conspiracies and spying and blackmail and election stealing from the right is meant to overwhelm people so that they tune out the news entirely and just assume it’s all a bunch of partisan nonsense. That way, the actual crimes and conspiracies engaged in by Trump and his allies get lost in all the chaos. Aided by a media that is addicted to false equivalencies, a lot of people will simply assume both sides are totally corrupt. 

This is how Trump has always hidden his corruption in plain sight: Not by claiming innocence, but by arguing that everyone is guilty and therefore he is being unfairly singled out by the “deep state” or the “elite” or whatever the shadowy conspiracy term is du jour on Fox News.

It’s almost certainly not a coincidence that Durham fed the right-wing noise machine these crumbs right as there’s been a torrent of evidence released pointing to Trump’s very real crimes. Trump’s accounting firm just fired him, in response to new documents filed by New York District Attorney Letitia James showing “significant additional evidence” that Trump and his family committed financial fraud. And that’s on top of a surge of reports from both media sources and the January 6 committee indicating that Trump was on a document destruction spree while in office, especially with regards to anything that could expose a conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election. 

It’s important to note that the relentless conspiracy theories and lies aren’t just about covering up Trump’s crime with a false “everyone does it” narrative. This sort of thing also feeds the long term goals of authoritarianism, which feeds off public cynicism and malaise. As Trump ally Steve Bannon notoriously said, the idea is to “flood the zone with shit” so that ordinary people get exhausted and give up trying to fight the fascists.

Rational discourse is the enemy of authoritarians because they know they cannot win in a reasonable debate based on facts. So, their strategy is to make rational discourse impossible, by spewing so many lies and conspiracy theories that it’s impossible to tell up from down or right from wrong. And unfortunately, the media is once again helping them get away with it.