What’s protecting Trump and the coup plotters: American exceptionalism — how do we fight that?

It has now been more than a year since the attack on the U.S. Capitol, with no clear signs that Donald Trump or any other of the major coup plotters will ever be punished. Many of the foot soldiers in that assault have been arrested and charged, but only a few have faced serious legal charges. Trump and the Republican fascists are plotting their next attacks on American democracy in plain sight, and in apparent total impunity.

As others have asked, is this the least punished coup attempt or insurrection in recent history? That is a question for historians, legal scholars and other experts, but an affirmative response does not seem unreasonable.

Almost every week brings more evidence of the true scale of the Trump cabal’s coup attempt and its larger plot against American democracy. We now have firm confirmation that Donald Trump and his regime at least contemplated plans to order the military to confiscate voting machines after he was defeated by Joe Biden on Election Day. Such a move was meant to be legitimated by the false claim that voting machines in “battleground states,” i.e., those where Trump lost to Biden by a relatively small margin, had somehow been compromised. The seizure would apparently also have involved declaring some type of national state of emergency, presumably granting Trump and his regime broad powers to act outside the boundaries of the law and the Constitution.

Last Friday Politico reported on this:

The executive order — which also would have appointed a special counsel to probe the 2020 election — was never issued. The remarks are a draft of a speech Trump gave the next day. Together, the two documents point to the wildly divergent perspectives of White House advisers and allies during Trump’s frenetic final weeks in office.

It’s not clear who wrote either document. But the draft executive order is dated Dec. 16, 2020, and is consistent with proposals that lawyer Sidney Powell made to the then-president. On Dec. 18, 2020, Powell, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump administration lawyer Emily Newman, and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne met with Trump in the Oval Office.

In that meeting, Powell urged Trump to seize voting machines and to appoint her as a special counsel to investigate the election, according to Axios.

That order would reportedly have empowered the defense secretary to “seize, collect, retain and analyze all machines, equipment, electronically stored information, and material records,” under the terms of a federal law on the preservation of election records. The defense secretary would have been given 60 days to submit a written assessment of the 2020 election, which as Politico reports, “could have been a gambit to keep Trump in power until at least mid-February of 2021.”

Ordering the military to interfere in domestic politics would have entered a space where talk of potential civil war or sectarian violence would no longer seem far-fetched. Would the military have obeyed Trump’s orders? Would some factions have resisted?

We have also learned in recent days that forged electoral documents were submitted to the National Archives by Republican operatives in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, as part of a larger scheme aimed at nullifying Biden’s victory and either awarding those states’ electoral votes to Trump or throwing the presidential election into the House of Representatives.

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

The sum total of information now publicly known confirms that this was a coordinated nationwide conspiracy aimed at overturning the 2020 presidential election and keeping Donald Trump in power. But that calamity has not been consigned to the past. The coup continues; it never stopped. The danger is escalating.

In a certain sense, the Trump cabal are very lucky that they committed these crimes in the United States. If this had happened in another country, the consequences would almost certainly have been much more severe.

Donald Trump admires dictators and demagogues such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, Viktor Orbán and other such leaders. We already know how they respond to coup plots and other such attempts.

According to another draft memo obtained by Politico, Trump considered saying this in the immediate aftermath of his followers’ attack on the Capitol:

The Demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American Democracy…. I am directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We must send a message — not with mercy but with justice. To those who engaged in acts of violence and destruction, I want to be very clear: you do not represent me. You do not represent our movement. You do not represent our country. And if you broke the law, you belong in jail.

Trump never made that speech. But the irony here should be obvious: Trump and the members of his cabal have been treated much more gently by the Biden administration and the Department of Justice than what Trump himself appeared ready to demand last year.

Trump has left such language far behind (however performative it may have been at the time) and now describes his followers who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “patriots,” “heroes” and “political prisoners.”

In fact, the Trump cabal is being protected and enabled by the power of American exceptionalism, and the broken politics of our country in this moment. America’s elites, by and large, prefer stability and some sense of “normalcy” (however false or manufactured) as a way of moving beyond the events of Jan. 6. There is little to no appetite among American elites for the type of national reckoning that this moment of democracy crisis requires.

In fear of setting a “dangerous precedent” regarding the presidency, or of accusations of partisan political retribution, the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland appear uninterested in holding Donald Trump personally accountable for their likely high crimes. It seems improbable that Trump will ever be criminally charged, let alone convicted, for his role in those events.

It remains possible that other high-ranking coup plotters may face criminal charges — for example, Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows already do. But it is highly unlikely that their punishments, if any at all, will amount to more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. Trump and his cabal, almost entirely a group of white men, are also being protected by the way American society, including the legal system, is organized to maintain white male privilege. (Especially if those men are rich Republicans and other “conservatives”.)

The mainstream news media, meanwhile continues to default to obsolete habits, seeking out “both-sides” arguments, horserace journalism and a return to “normal” politics, even as the country experiences a worsening slide into autocracy. There is no indication that the media is embracing the kind of pro-democracy advocacy journalism that would be required to hold the Republican fascists accountable for their actions and mobilize the American people to defend democracy.

In other countries, there would likely have been massive, sustained protests and other civil disruptions following a leader’s attempt to discard the votes of 81 million people as part of a coup. But public opinion and other research has consistently shown that the American people are becoming bored and exhausted by the events of Jan. 6 and have no appetite to pursue justice for those crimes. To a large extent, Americans worn down by the Age of Trump and the pandemic have succumbed to learned helplessness, and view the federal government with increasing distrust and little confidence in its ability to solve important problems.

Instead of being mobilized in defense of democracy, Americans are becoming increasingly demobilized — which amounts to de facto surrender to the Republican fascists. As political commentator Umair Haque warns:

To really stop the Republican plan, something remarkable would have to happen. Americans would have to reclaim their democracy at a grass-roots level, and take all those local offices back from the Trumpists who are claiming them. That’s not going to happen — the average American’s unfortunately worked to the bone and more interested in influencers and superhero movies in their (increasingly spare) spare time than anything real. Or maybe there would have to be mass defection from the Republican Party. That’s not going to happen either, because, and this is the most fatal fact of all — and sadly, you already know it….

Americans are severely, severely underestimating how much danger their democracy is really in. Partly, that is because they don’t care — too many are greedy, selfish, violent people who care more about status and power and money than democracy. Too many have been so abused they’ve had no choice but to buy into those very same values. And partly, it’s because they’re weary. But most of all, it’s because even though they’re beginning to be warned, those warnings are not nearly real enough yet, not urgent or clear or strident or sharp enough for the average American to begin to take seriously how much deadly and desperate and real danger their society and future is now really in.

So let it be said with crystal clarity.

This is not a drill, not a game, not some kind of Hollywood movie. This is the real thing. These are the final stages of American collapse. The chances to stop the Republicans are already vanishingly slim — I’d put them at less than 10%. And they dwindle every day. It’s now or never.

Here we have one of the most ironic and tragicomic elements of this era: Trump and his cabal are being protected against serious consequences for their actions by precisely the democratic norms and traditions of a political culture and political system they are doggedly trying to undermine and overthrow.

In their private moments, are Donald Trump, the members of his cabal and their followers aware of this? Do they tell themselves, “I am so lucky that I did these things here in America, where I am protected by the rule of law. The president and the entire political system does not want to see me punished, and most of the population doesn’t take what I did seriously, and just wants to get on with their lives”?

Probably not. Donald Trump is personally incapable of such introspection. He wants to retake the White House as a means of exacting revenge on his enemies, making himself a virtual dictator and accumulating as much power, privilege and wealth as possible before mortality finally claims him.

Trump’s followers, whether they literally attacked the Capitol last January or merely supported and sympathized with that attack, believe that they are part of a noble and patriotic cause in defense of “freedom” and “patriotism.” This is the same logic used by the Confederacy when it broke away from the Union to protect and expand the evil institution of white-on-Black chattel slavery, launching a civil war that cost the lives of more than 750,000 Americans.

Ultimately, the same civic religion of American exceptionalism, which enabled and encouraged Trump and the Republican fascists’ coup attempt in the first place, now protects them from any meaningful consequences — which makes it far more likely that their next attack on democracy will go much further and be more successful.

Read more on the slowly unfolding investigation into Jan. 6 and Trump’s attempted coup:

COVID-19 is making us less religious — with some curious exceptions

In times of crisis, humans often turn to faith for reassurance. Oddly, the COVID-19 pandemic might go down in history as an exception — when, according to some research, many people actually turned away from faith, and became less religious.

According to a study published earlier this month in the Journal of Religion and Health, the two largest religious groups in Germany both saw significant drops in religious faith during the COVID-19 pandemic — particularly during the more stringent lockdowns which followed the second wave.

Examining how Catholics and Protestants measured their own wellness and faith at various points during the pandemic, the researchers found that 15 percent of the surveyed participants during the first wave said they had lost faith in God or a higher power because of COVID-19. During the second wave, 21.5 percent said they had lost faith as a result of the pandemic, and the pattern of decline continued during the first half of 2021. The authors added that things “started to improve slightly” during the fourth wave, which began near the end of 2021.

“In our area, we have noticed a decline of religious interest also before the pandemic,” Arndt Büssing, the corresponding author for the study and a professor on the faculty of health at Witten/Herdecke University, told Salon by email. “Now during the pandemic, social restrictions and the lockdowns lead to an increase of perceived loneliness and social isolation with a decline of emotional wellbeing. An argument is that faith could be a resource to cope, to find meaning in times of darkness and insecurity. However, due to the long course of the pandemic with less hope that things will significantly change, even when we now have a vaccination, people may lose their hope.”

Büssing explained that there are a number of ways in which this manifests itself. Some people feel that their prayers are going into “the void,” and others simply observe that faith no longer provides them with comfort. There are individuals who respond to the pandemic by asserting it shows God’s indifference to humanity. In addition, there is the phenomenon of “hope fatigue,” in which “religious people have expected ‘responses of hope’ and supporting reactions from their church” and missed them. The survey found low levels of satisfaction with the support people felt they had received from their local religious communities, and some of them may have become more privately religious in response.

“This is a problematic situation for the churches as one may assume they focus too much on other ‘topics of interest’ rather than what several of their parishioners may see as relevant in their concrete life,” Büssing observed.

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

Yet other recent studies found that religious faith was not hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic, at least in certain situations and for certain groups. In the journal European Societies, a group of scholars in October 2020 revealed that Italians who had a COVID-19 infection in their family were more likely to become religious both in terms of attending religious services and privately praying. Yet this finding primarily held for individuals who had been socialized into religion as children, and therefore already had those religious tools at their disposal when needing comfort during the difficult time.

“This reinforces the role of family transmission as a way to shape religious beliefs and behaviours and to provide individuals with religious coping strategies,” the authors of the European Societies wrote. They noted that their findings “suggest that under dramatic circumstances a short-term religious revival is possible, even in contexts where the process of secularization is ongoing.” Their study also noted as one example that in the United States, one-quarter of adults said their faith had become stronger as a result of the pandemic.

Other studies have further complicated the analysis about the relationship between religion and the COVID-19 pandemic. A March study in the journal Frontiers in Psychology explored whether religion helped or hurt the psychological resilience of healthcare workers in a group of South Taiwanese hospitals. While the German and Italian studies looked primarily at Christian faiths, this study was able to compare Christian and non-Christian religious groups. This allowed them to look at how specific religious values have an impact on various metrics of psychological well-being. They found that Buddhists and Taoists were less likely to experience mental distress and, as a result, would see an indirect increase in their level of happiness. Workers from Christian/Catholic backgrounds, by contrast, showed better psychological well-being but over time had a slower recovery rate than people from other religious faiths.

“Christianity values high-arousal positive states (such as excitement), whereas Buddhism values low-arousal positive states (such as calm),” the authors explained. In addition, Buddhists are encouraged to find “a balance between asceticism and self-indulgence” and emphasize values like “tolerance, non-violence, respect for the individual, and a belief in the fundamental spiritual equality of all humans” through collectivist cultural beliefs. Christians, on the other hand, “believe in a personal soul and internal attributes of a person who behaves in the way they do because of their traits or disposition and their personal faith in God.”

Büssing also offered another observation, based on the results of his research, about what might separate people who find comfort in their faith from those who do not.

“We have to differentiate two approaches,” Büssing wrote, namely one which assumes that God will intervene during hardships and one which places unconditional trust in God’s judgment. “The first group may easily be disappointed and lose their faith, while the second remains close to God (even in their struggle) and expect ‘dawn’ in times of darkness.”

Read more on religion and culture:

Ethics investigation finds GOP congressman misused House resources

Although Colorado is more Democrat-friendly than it was in the past — President Joe Biden carried the state by 14% in the 2020 presidential election, and former Sen. Cory Gardner was voted out of office — it still has its share of veteran Republicans who have been fixtures in Colorado politics. One of them is Rep. Doug Lamborn, who represents the Colorado Springs area in the U.S. House of Representatives and has recently faced an ethics probe.

On Monday, January 24, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) issued a report on the 67-year-old Lamborn. The OCE, according to Washington Post reporter Mariana Alfaro, found that he “misused his congressional staff and resources by having aides run errands for his family and that he solicited or accepted improper gifts from his subordinates.”

The report, Alfaro notes, also “found that Lamborn’s staffers were often asked to help out his children, including preparing his son for interviews for a job in the federal government, and throwing a party for his daughter-in-law after she became a U.S. citizen.”

Ethics report alleges GOP Rep. Lamborn misused congressional resources https://t.co/qdBH9XHjcn via @marianaa_alfaro

— Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) January 24, 2022

According to the OCE report, Lamborn’s wife Jeanie Lamborn — who he has been married to since 1977— allegedly told a staffer, “If mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy.”

The OCE report says that Jeanie Lamborn “was deeply involved in all personnel aspects of Rep. Lamborn’s office, including but not limited to hiring, firing and promotions.”

“While it is not unusual for spouses to play a role in a congressional office or have an official e-mail account,” the OCE report says, “evidence obtained by the OCE indicated that Mrs. Lamborn had a role in the office that exceeded what is permissible for spouses.”

The congressman, according to Alfaro, is denying the allegations in the OCE report, saying, “A thorough review of the facts will make it clear to everyone that no ethical violation has occurred.” The OCE, however, is recommending that the House Ethics Committee conduct an investigation.

Rep. Lamborn, originally from Leavenworth, Kansas, served in the Colorado State Legislature during the 1990s and part of the 2000s — first the Colorado House of Representatives, then the Colorado Senate — before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006. He was reelected in 2020.

Antiwar critics blast Pelosi over fast-track $500M military aid to Ukraine

Despite warnings that a dangerous war with Russia could soon be unleashed if diplomatic efforts fail, House Democrats are reportedly looking to bypass typical procedures and fast-track a vote on legislation that would send $500 million in military aid to Ukraine — a move that critics say only adds fuel to the fire.

The Intercept reported Tuesday that “Democrats in the House of Representatives are planning to expedite a massive bill that would dramatically increase U.S. security assistance to Ukraine and lay the groundwork for substantial new sanctions on Russia — hastening a war-friendly posture without opportunity for dissent as concerns over a military invasion abound.”

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told members on a caucus call Tuesday that she’s looking to skip marking up the bill and move it straight to the House floor, setting up the possibility of a vote as soon as early next week,” The Intercept reported, citing two unnamed congressional sources.

Formally known as the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, the legislation is co-sponsored by 13 Democrats in the House and 41 in the Senate, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

News of the push for speedy passage of the bill comes just one day after President Biden put 8,500 U.S. troops on standby to deploy to Eastern Europe and as antiwar voices increased their warnings against military action.

One senior Democratic aide told The Intercept that the House leadership’s plan to rush a vote on the Ukraine measure “is how the space for nonmilitary options gets slowly closed off in Washington, without any real debate.”

“This is how the space for nonmilitary options gets slowly closed off in Washington, without any real debate.”

Sigh. When will we learn…? https://t.co/QfqrkilOBc

— Win Without War (winwithoutwar.bsky.social) (@WinWithoutWar) January 25, 2022

If passed, the bill would authorize $500 million in “supplemental emergency security assistance to Ukraine” if Russia invades the country. The legislation would also green-light $3 million in “international military and education training” for Ukraine and ramp up U.S. sanctions against Russia.

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

“Is Pelosi insane, fast-tracking massive weapons transfers to Ukraine and ginning up a new war with a nuclear-armed Russia? Don’t these Democrats get it?” Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink (and a frequent contributor to Salon), told Common Dreams in response to the news of House Democrats’ plans. “The American people don’t want more war!”

“We can think of a lot better uses of $500 million than weapons to Ukraine that only intensify the conflict and feed the war machine,” Benjamin added. “What we desperately need is de-escalation and vigorous diplomacy, including guarantees that Ukraine won’t join NATO.”

It’s unclear how much opposition the attempt to provide Ukraine with more U.S. arms will spark within the Democratic caucus, which has struggled to pass legislation that would confront pressing domestic and global crises, from child poverty to climate change.

No Republican has co-sponsored the Ukraine legislation, which is led by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., in the House and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in the Senate.

Warren Gunnels, staff director for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted an antiwar quote from the late rapper Tupac Shakur in response to the Intercept story on House Democrats’ plan. Sanders is not among the Ukraine bill’s Senate co-sponsors.

“They Have Money For War But Can't Feed The Poor,” Tupac Shakur https://t.co/4rRsDzCl7H

— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) January 25, 2022

Even without action from Congress, the U.S. is currently pouring arms into Ukraine, as evidenced by Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov’s tweet Sunday hailing the arrival of “80 tons of weapons” from “our friends in the USA.”

As the New York Times reported Tuesday, the U.S. “has authorized Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to send Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukrainian forces, augmenting the Javelin anti-tank missile deliveries to Ukraine that Britain began this month.”

Such developments in recent days have intensified concerns that the U.S. is on the verge of embarking on yet another military intervention that could have devastating human consequences.

Warning against military action and pressing all parties to engage in diplomatic talks, Bridget Moix of the Friends Committee on National Legislation said Tuesday that “war represents a calamitous failure of governments to do their most basic job of keeping their people safe.”

“President Joe Biden and members of Congress, expanding NATO any further would constitute an unnecessary provocation as well as an unwise military obligation,” she continued. “Taking such expansion off the table would address Russia’s primary security concern and reduce the likelihood that U.S. troops will be sent to yet another unwinnable war. Simply by acknowledging this, you could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.”

Read more on the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the threat of war:

“Please clap”: Donald Trump has his Jeb Bush moment

The 2016 election had barely started when former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) was desperately begging a crowd of supporters, “please clap.” Now, in 2022, former President Donald Trump appears to be the one desperate for applause.

In a video posted by ParlerTakes, a video from Mar-a-Lago shows the former president entering the dining area to applause. He then appears to wave on the audience, asking that they give him more. He then flashes a double thumbs-up.

It isn’t the first time the story is being told. Some of the many books that were published about Trump’s post-presidency have told stories about him begging for a standing ovation when he walks into the dining room. This video doesn’t appear to show anyone standing.

Phil Rucker and Carol Leonig reported in their book I Alone Can Fix It describes the scene as Trump holds court in the dining room.

“As more dinner guests with plates began queuing up in the room to visit the raw bar and other food stations, Trump finally decided it was time to wrap up our conversation. He invited us to stay for dinner and instructed the maître d’ to find us a table. Then the former president stepped onto the veranda and into the last of the day’s sun. Right on cue, the dinner guests immediately stood up at their tables to applaud him. He took it all in, smiling,” the book said. “Just another Wednesday night at Mar-a-Lago. And off he went, table by table, to greet friends.”

“When you’re down there talking to him, there’s a distorted reality he’s presenting, not only to us, but the dozens of guests that come to Mar-A-Lago every night for dinner and give him a standing ovation at sunset, and then you leave Mar-A-Lago and you realize what’s happening in the world the reality is so different from what he’s trying to tell his supporters,” Leonig described after the book came out.

The video was quickly ridiculed by those who saw it. You can see the video, responses and a reminder of the Jeb Bush video below:

In other words, “please clap.” Same energy as Jeb Bush.

If you’re able to support us in monitoring the right wing, please consider a retweet and a small donation. No obligations as always. Your support is always appreciated.https://t.co/feKTmTIiZv

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) January 23, 2022

Please clap https://t.co/T7gJwr9ZLR

— David Pakman (@dpakman) January 23, 2022

Trump needs lunch crowd love/applause at Mar-a-Lago. Where is Ivanka, Melania, Don, Jr., Eric? https://t.co/kVL3ecNEaT

— Kathleen (Kate) Zutell (@katezut) January 23, 2022

Jimmy Carter builds houses for the poor. Clinton has a foundation. Bush has a think tank and paints portraits of veterans. Obama has a foundation.

Trump begs for applause at brunch at his gaudy golf club. https://t.co/2Ph3lyhiaI

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) January 23, 2022

I think those giving Trump his needed smattering of applause are even more pathetic. https://t.co/MBOdOLKmKt

— LibertyIsStillALady (@still_liberty) January 23, 2022

Trump gets the clap. https://t.co/GpzNGBy8kH

— Fade to Black (@mcgregor1956) January 24, 2022

Check out the Mar-a-Lago employee on the right. Trump pays people to clap for him. pic.twitter.com/R4qurRWsND

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) January 23, 2022

After the tequila boom, “Dos Estaciones” shows how the Mexican communities left behind have changed

In the sensitive drama, “Dos Estaciones,” premiering at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, María García (Teresa Sánchez) is the formidable owner of a tequila factory in Mexico. However, she is struggling. With fusarium plaguing the agave that isn’t being stolen, and foreign factories buying everything up, María is having trouble paying her employees full wages. She hopes to turn things around by hiring Rafaela (Rafaela Fuentes), and yet, María’s interest may be more than professional.

Director and cowriter Juan Pablo González has created an intimate character study that addresses themes of tradition and change. He also introduces a storyline involving Tatín (Tatín Vera), María’s hairdresser, who also has aspirations. How these two characters grapple with their personal and professional affairs forms the basis for this absorbing film.

González spoke with Salon during the Sundance Film Festival about “Dos Estaciones.”

What I really admire about your film is that you open in the agave fields and over the course of the film take viewers along the conveyor belts, into the rooms where tequila is made, so the process and care of a family operation is felt. Can you talk about how you presented the “work” in the film? “Dos Estaciones” has an almost documentary feel to it, and I was impressed by all the details I saw.

It is a film about work, and labor, and physical labor. I grew up Atotonilco el Alto in the state of Jalisco, this town where we shot. I was raised in front of my grandfather’s tequila factory — we literally lived across the street from the factory that my father worked in. I saw this labor since I was a child. I know it well, and I know a lot of people who do that work. It was really important for me to have that in the film because the labor is so related to the place and to the landscape of this place, so it was crucial for me.

María is desperate and yet she comes across as very stoic, even when Rafaela is telling her that she can pay her bills if she sells. Yet she does smile doing donuts in her truck, or when she dances with Rafaela. What can you say about developing her formidable character?

Obviously, it took us time to build María’s character. We worked with Teresa back in 2017 and we shot in 2020. As we developed the character, we were also writing the film. The character of María is complicated because she had this very stoic side that represents her present —everything she had gone through in life, which is why she is who she is at the present moment — but there are also these glimpses at her past joy, when she is doing donuts, dancing, or having dinner with Rafaela. To build a character who was this stern, but also had enough complexity to show her multidimensional persona, was very important for us. All of María’s relationships are transactional. The film is not overt in this, but it is commenting on a certain class in Mexico. Even in these towns, you see that class structure that effects human relations.

The perfect scene that illustrates this is the birthday party where María comes to ask Rafaela to work for her. María wields a certain amount of power as the world around her changes. What are your observations on that?

Her existential problem is that María doesn’t hold the power that she used to hold. She has the status, but it was gained through history and tradition. She doesn’t have the power or money anymore, so how she deals with that on a human level really interested me. María is someone who had a lot more power in her past. She is a complex human being, but she is also part of a powerful class structure that has given her a lot of power and privilege — and that power means control. At this time of her life, she is losing that control and that power. There is a very clear scene where she offers to help Tatín, and she thinks María is delusional: You are going through all these issues and you want to help? Is it really that you want to help, or that you just want to maintain power and control over others?

We don’t know what María’s life was like before she gained control of the factory. What was her family’s life was like?

I had not thought about that. Not seeing her family makes us think about who María was growing up, and how did she end up having and inheriting this business? At the end of the day, María is a woman in a business that in the ’80s and ’90s was so macho. That also informs her present demeanor and relationships.

What decisions did you make regarding Tatín’s character? She provides an interesting parallel and contrast to María.

Tatín was very important. Tatín is Tatín in real life. She has a salon in this village, very close to where María lives. She goes to the casino with her mother every weekend. It was important to portray her quotidian life to compare her to Maria where all her relationships are all relationships of power. María lives on top of a hill, far away from everybody. Tatín is a window to the community, but she is a character that is rare in Mexico to be portrayed in this quotidian way, and she has this full life in a town in the highlands of Jalisco, which is always stereotypically thought of in Mexico as a backwards, culturally static place.

The film is a quiet love story. Why did you depict the romance in such a lovely, subtle way?

It was important that in both stories, especially their love stories, were from their point of views. When Rafaela puts her hand on María’s shoulder, she can’t allow María to feel more than this. María feels things and thinks about intimacy and desire in ways that are different. What happens between Maria and Rafaela is not overly dramatic. Going back to stereotypes of my hometown, it’s not [a telenovela]. With Tatín, it was important that she meets a guy, they like each other. This is what happens. That’s life!

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

“Dos Estaciones” points to the larger implications of foreign factories and celebrity tequila brands and how big business is jeopardizing family-owned operations. Can you talk about that aspect of the story?

When I thought about making this film, I grew up here and my family has been involved in making tequila for more than a century, but when I was growing up in the late ’80s and early ’90s, this tequila boom was happening, and these communities have transformed a lot. My interest is commenting and focusing on this transformation, how foreign forces affect everyday life of people here.

There are several beautiful scenes that show beauty and destruction of the natural world. How is climate change impacting the tequila industry?

It is something we all know is happening, and it is present everywhere. In this community, it Is very present for people who grow corn, which is established by the rainy season. Even that has changed. It is so important and for understanding the passage of time and landscape changes and that what you can and cannot grow is impacted. That is so affected by climate change. The way the land is treated, with pesticides, are taking a huge toll on these other plants like agave and green lime, that grows in this region, so the interaction with nature in this film is really important because of that.

More stories to read:

Sects, lies and videotape: “Archive 81” and the mystique of the semipermanent artifact

There’s just something about a videotape.

In 1989, “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” billed itself as “the most provocative film of the year.” I was surprised to discover upon first watch much later, it’s not really about sex tapes, per se, at least not the Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee variety. Rather, the story concerns a man who videotapes women talking about their sex lives, confessing secrets and fantasies on camera for him. “Why don’t you let me tape you?” James Spader‘s character asks.

Video is alluring as a medium. And in Netflix’s mystery series “Archive 81,” it takes on a power as mysterious and majestic as Cthulhu. Video is ethereal, delicate, easily changed or ruined — the perfect house for our obsessions. And maybe for a demon too.

“Archive 81” is about a young man (Mamoudou Athie in a memorable, empathetic performance) who works as a film restorer. He gets a mysterious job offer too good to refuse: $100,000 to restore videotapes from the personal collection of a generous donor to the film museum where he’s employed. It’s refreshing to see a character working on screen, doing a job that is precise and skilled. The scenes of Athie’s character Dan methodically restoring are mesmerizing, like occupational ASMR: the white gloves, the cotton balls dipped in rubbing alcohol. He is delicate, almost reverent as he pulls tape from ruined casings, exacting and deliberate.

Because the medium is not. So many of the videotapes that pass through Dan’s archivist hands look warped, disfigured by mold, heat, or just plain time. And for the job that Dan accepts? The tapes are too fragile to even be moved. He has to work on site, at the remote research facility of a mysterious company known as LMG.

The tapes in LMG’s possession and now under Dan’s care are Hi8 tapes, and immediately he gets drawn into their mystery. A woman named Melody Pendras (Dina Shihabi) made the tapes in 1994. She was a grad student, moving into an apartment building called the Visser, intending to interview residents there on video for her dissertation. But in 1994, the Visser burned down. After the blaze, 13 people were never found, including Melody.

“Archive 81” takes found footage to a different level, as the show soon slips into Melody’s POV, and later, goes back even further in time. Videotape is the perfect medium for this slippage. It’s already nostalgic for those of us who lived through the ’90s. My sister, for example, had a big collection of videotapes on which she had recorded episodes of “The Young Riders.” I meanwhile dutifully recorded Tori Amos performances on late night talk shows. Did we re-watch these tapes? I feel like we didn’t. But there was something about having them.

The Fisher Price PXL2000 toy camcorder makes an appearance in “Archive 81.” Manufactured for less than a year in the 1980s, the toy has been used by filmmakers from Richard Linklater to Michael Almereyda in his 1994 vampire classic NADJA (“Archive 81” features NADJA actor Martin Donovan). It’s legendary as a tool, that a cheap plaything for children could create such art. I gasped when I saw the camera onscreen as the memories of wanting it (and never getting one) came flooding back. “Archive 81” taps into that wistfulness and obsession.

The New York City of the first episode could be at any time. With a vendor (Malachi Nimmons Jr) hawking tapes on the street — “Cassette tapes! Come get your tapes!” — I assumed at first it was the ’90s or earlier. But it’s the present day, and the vendor lures Dan with a storage space auction find, peddling to the cult following of videotape.

That following makes sense given that “Archive 81” is based on a podcast by the same name which . . . had quite the cult following itself. And oh yes, this show is about a cult too.

Part of the mystique of videotape is the potential discovery of what it contains, “the hunt” as the vendor says. Videos can be taped over and over (I believe my sister and I had some drama involving her TV show and my Tori overlap). Memories can be erased in a heartbeat, or half-erased. Or disguised. One part of “Archive 81” involves the labeling, re-labeling and mislabeling of tapes.

You never know what exactly is on a videotape until you watch it, which is time-consuming. Fast-forwarding: awkward and imprecise. Rewinding: a rote task the video store would get mad about. Videotapes are also cumbersome. I remember teachers rolling the AV cart into classrooms during days we were lucky enough to watch a video; how heavy and annoying those carts were, full of VCRs and CRT screen TVs. Videotapes and their accoutrements take up a lot of space, even compared to CDs and their shattering plastic cases. It’s a commitment to be devoted, as Dan is, to videotape.

And interviewing on videotape, as Melody does, is a calculated and laborious task. It takes a lot of effort carting a big video camera around, having the courage to whip it out. You can’t hide it, like a phone. You couldn’t record on video in the early ’90s without being noticed, especially not with the head-sized camera of Melody Pendras.

Videotape is also delicate. Despite their large size and plastic casing, videotapes have only the illusion of permanence. They can be damaged easily, not only by something like a fire in the Visser apartments, but by absorbing moisture, by being placed near a magnet, by being left too long in a car.

Videotapes suffer from “generational loss.” Every time you make a copy of a videotape, the quality is less. You’re not getting an exact copy, as with a DVD, but one that is watery, filtered, as if through time. It makes sense that videotapes take on an extra power in “Archive 81” because they’re such an elusive medium. One character mysteriously connected to Melody calls Dan’s work “thin[ning] the veil enough to crack inside.”

Older, damaged, or copied videotapes can pop, fuzz, hiss with static. Sometimes, that damage can take the form of art in itself. (“The Blair Witch Project” and HBO knows this well.) Wavy, staticky lines in an old video message from Dan’s dad (Charlie Hudson III) look like the weave of canvas visible on a painting. Likewise, when an artist friend of Melody’s, Annabelle (Julia Chan), who takes up residence at the Visser, begins to make new paintings, they resemble the paused frames of a videotape.

Every episode of “Archive 81” starts with vintage footage, a clip that serves as an introduction to the episode’s theme or an Easter egg. The videotape is a conduit to another world — to the past, if nothing else. Dan’s archivist predecessor used an older digital video camera to record the strange goings-on at the research facility, for example, not a phone. With so many characters steeped in archaic technology, of course time and reality would start to get a little wobbly in “Archive 81.” What better way to step directly into the past — or, as in films like “The Ring,” to have the past step out to you — than with a videotape?

“Archive 81” also raises the question — can we have a digital mystery? Though Dan’s scenes are set in the present, the show quickly removes those technological advances that might, well, crack the case. There’s no internet at the research facility. Cell phones don’t work. The landline is tapped. It starts feel like a heavy artifice, as in “Harry Potter” where computers just don’t operate on Hogwarts grounds: a convenient magic. “I’ll be your Google,” Dan’s friend, a podcaster named Mark (the likable Matt McGorry), tells him.

Other mysteries like “Stanger Things” set their storylines entirely in the past to do away with pesky, mystery-solving technology like the internet and smart phones. (As in “Stranger Things,” an alternate world in “Archive 81” is delineated visually with particles spinning slowly in the air — other worlds must be very dusty.)

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

But, despite its fickle tendency to get damaged, despite its changeable and cumbersome nature, videotape is also timeless, recognizable to my Gen Z son as an important object, if nothing else. An artifact that matters, whose presence lasts beyond its physical, plastic, erasable form.

And as the present and past of “Archive 81” blur together, the story takes on a “Somewhere in Time“-type urgency, and sets itself up well for a second season, similar to the series “Inkheart” by Cornelia Funke in another timeless medium: books.

In 1981, the Buggles sang “video killed the radio star” on the very first video to air on MTV, the music channel which makes an “Archive 81” appearance. I mean, it’s possible.

More stories like this:

After slamming Taylor Swift’s songwriting, Blur frontman Damon Albarn continues to play the victim

Instead of owning up to what he said, Blur frontman and Gorillaz co-founder Damon Albarn has continued to throw a journalist under the bus.

During his Walt Disney Concert Hall show on Monday, Albarn revisited his previous comments about singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, asserting that they were “misrepresented” in the Los Angeles Times.

To recap, in the Sunday article, Albarn claimed that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs” after music critic Mikael Wood noted that the pop singer was a talented songwriter.

“That doesn’t count. I know what co-writing is,” Albarn said. “Co-writing is very different to writing. I’m not hating on anybody, I’m just saying there’s a big difference between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes. Doesn’t mean that the outcome can’t be really great.

“A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish and her brother,” he added. “I’m more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift. It’s just darker — less endlessly upbeat. Way more minor and odd. I think she’s exceptional.”

On Monday, Swift responded to Albarn’s remarks via Twitter, stating, “I was such a big fan of yours until I saw this. I write all of my own songs. Your hot take is completely false and so damaging. You don’t have to like my songs but it’s really f**ked up to try and discredit my writing. Wow.”

Albarn swiftly responded with an apology, also on Twitter.

“I totally agree with you,” he tweeted. “I had a conversation about songwriting and sadly it was reduced to clickbait. I apologize unreservedly and unconditionally. The last thing I would want to do is discredit your songwriting. I hope you understand.”

Bleachers lead singer Jack Antonoff and country singer Maren Morris defended Swift during the heated online exchange.

Antonoff — who collaborated with Swift on her fifth studio album “1989,” her eighth studio album “Folklore” and additional projects — tweeted, “I’ve never met Damon Albarn and he’s never been to my studio but apparently he knows more than the rest of us about all those songs Taylor writes and brings in . . . if you were there, cool go off. If not, maybe shut the f**k up?”

In a separate tweet, Morris simply said, “Writing songs with songwriters means you’re a songwriter.”

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

To be clear, Albarn doesn’t deny actually saying the comments. Instead, he somehow blames Wood for doing his job and using provocative quotes that are on record . . . and for a tweet that the Los Angeles Times posted with an excerpt of those quotes. In the same article, Albarn also took shots at the Rolling Stones (“I’m not into how beloved you become of the smell of your own farts. The greatest exponent of that is the Rolling Stones, who just couldn’t let it go. It’s disappointing”) and the Beatles (“I’m not watching 17 hours of the Beatles rehearsing.”)

But sure, claim you’re the injured party when you’re the one doing the slinging. At his recent concert, Albarn dedicated a song to Wood, but not without once again playing the victim.

In a Twitter video posted by one of the show’s attendees and cited by Variety, Albarn pokes fun at Wood and states, “Before he cast me into the social media abyss,” Wood asked if he would play “Song 2,” Blur’s 1997 single on their eponymous fifth studio album. Albarn had initially refused, but ultimately performed the song and dedicated it to Wood at Monday’s concert.

.@damonalbarn mentioned that LA Times interview, and then played @blurofficial’s “Song 2”(!) pic.twitter.com/Kgo6I0EgAu

— You shouldnt post on X anymore (@torrHL) January 25, 2022

Albarn is used to saying what he wants, once labeling Adele as “insecure” after recording with her. The difference now is that he didn’t expect the amount of backlash that comes with attacking Taylor Swift, her fans and collaborators. Also, it’s somewhat ridiculous to claim that she doesn’t write her own songs when that’s pretty much the hallmark of her appeal.

More stories you might like:

What Julia Child’s favorite soup recipe teaches us about the art of cooking

When I moved into my first “grown-up apartment,” a dear friend slipped me a slim bag with a housewarming gift — a prayer candle emblazoned with the luminous face of Julia Child, the patron saint of the kitchen. It was a wink at my Catholic school upbringing and a nod to my lifelong desire to embody the ease and joy with which Child cooked.

That’s not to say she never made mistakes in the kitchen — Dan Aykroyd famously caricatured Child in a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, during which he warbles at the audience to use chicken liver as a coagulant after slicing into his hand — but she moved with the kind of laissez-faire confidence that’s only possessed by those who are truly comfortable in their level of knowledge. Child was, after all, a graduate of Le Cordon Bleu and took 10 years to research and write her first book, “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.”

While the prayer candle was unfortunately lost during a move, my dog-eared and slightly stained copy of that cookbook has held a prominent place in my kitchens for more than a decade. Highlighted within is one of my favorite quotes of all time about the art and science that exists behind a love of food.

“Just like becoming an expert in wine – you learn by drinking it, the best you can afford – you learn about great food by finding the best there is, whether simply or luxurious,” Child wrote. “Then you savor it, analyze it, and discuss it with your companions, and you compare it with other experiences.”

One of the most interesting recipes of Child’s to analyze is also one of her simplest: vichyssoise. The traditional chilled soup has only seven ingredients: potatoes, leeks, chicken stock, whipping cream, salt, white pepper and minced chives. Compared to some of her other recipes — like beef Bourguignon or poached eggs in aspic — it’s practically spartan.

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

However, it was reportedly Child’s favorite soup — and it turns out there’s a lot you can learn about cooking by studying what makes this particular recipe work. These are the five big lessons Child’s vichyssoise teaches us:

Buy the best ingredients you can

Child was once quoted as saying, “You don’t have to cook fancy or complicated masterpieces — just good food from fresh ingredients.” This soup embodies that philosophy. With a short ingredient list, it becomes imperative to buy the best, freshest ingredients possible. While that’s going to look different for each cook, this is the time to splurge a little bit on organic vegetables and dairy. This is also the time to break out your homemade chicken stock!

Take care in preparing the ingredients

The leeks and potatoes both need some extra love before they’re incorporated into the soup. Here, potatoes are better peeled, which takes a little time.

Leeks, meanwhile, are grown in sandy soil and can sometimes contain residual grit within their vegetal layers. Take an extra few minutes to soak them in a bowl of cool water. Give the leeks a shake and then let them soak a few minutes more to let the sand settle to the bottom of the bowl. Next, gently pat the leeks dry before slicing them.

When you buy good ingredients, taking appropriate care of them helps them shine.

Time is your friend here

If you toss cubed potatoes and chopped leeks in boiling stock, they will both soften in just over 10 minutes. However, vichyssoise isn’t a recipe to sprint through; Child recommends letting the vegetables gently simmer for 40 to 50 minutes. This really lets the flavors develop and meld before blending the soup and adding the cream, salt and white pepper.

Fat isn’t a bad thing

One of the things that I most appreciate about Child’s cooking style is her enthusiasm for individual ingredients and how they round out a dish. She was a devoted disciple of the beauties of butter because “fat gives things flavor.”

Butter is, however, conspicuously missing from this soup recipe. In its stead is a hefty pour of cream. It adds a velvety smoothness and creamy flavor to the soup that’s particularly noticeable once the vichyssoise chills. As Child would say, “If you’re afraid of butter, just use cream.”

Use your imagination

While part of the beauty of this soup is its simplicity, Child encouraged cooks to make their own additions to the recipe by “using [their] imagination to the full.” So have fun! Substitute scallions for leeks. Try different types of potatoes. Serve this soup warm with chopped bacon and a swirl of crème fraîche or chilled with smoked salmon and a sprinkle of dill.

“You may find you have invented a marvelous concoction, which you can keep as a secret of the house,” Child said.

More of our favorite simple weeknight recipes:

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

Do face shields actually do anything to protect us? Here’s what we know

Omicron is the most infectious variant of SARS-CoV-2 to date, sending COVID-19 infection rates around the world to record-breaking heights and leaving many searching for supplemental ways to protect themselves.

As to why omicron is so transmissible, science has yet to find a definitive answer aside from its ability to evade immunity. As Nature recently reported, the viral load— which is the amount of virus that builds up in someone’s body — in people infected with delta appears to be slightly higher than those with omicron. Omicron’s rapid spread could also be a result of Americans, particularly in states with few protective measures, going about their lives unmasked after testing positive with omicron.

Common means of reducing transmission include social distancing, sanitization, and mandating masks of varying degrees of filtration. These protective measures all rely on the principle that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spreading through the mouth and nasal passages.

Yet what if COVID-19 were spreading in other ways?

This is the hypothesis that was partially tested by a study published in the Cambridge University Press journal Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, in which researchers tested the effectiveness of a “multimodal” preventative measure policy implemented in long-term care facilities. This included having employees of these care facilities universally don face-shields, in addition to masks. The personal protective equipment policy was successful, and the long-term care facilities reported “no cases within 20 nursing home units over the first 6 months of the pandemic.”

Because this study was performed with multiple modes of protection, it is hard to single out the singular effect of the face shields within the mix of protective gear.

“We have demonstrated that proactive and comprehensive strategies, including universal face shield and face mask, can effectively prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in [long-term care facilities] in regions with high-levels of community transmission even without universal testing,” the researchers stated.

Indeed, if face shields do slightly lower COVID transmission, the reason could be related to the potential for the virus to spread through infection via the eye. That infection could come about in one of two ways: through contact with infected air particles, or through rubbing one’s eye.

Scientists know that COVID-19 generally spreads by breathing in air when one is in close proximity to an infected person. In the standard transmission model, a person inhales small particles, known as virions, from the infected person. These virions contain the virus. Once the virions enter a person’s body, the virus’ spike protein facilitates the transfer of the virus’ contents into one’s cells. The virus eventually binds to a specific receptor, known as the ACE2 receptor, which leads to an infection.

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

“The ACE2 receptor is present all over your body, and of course, then, when the virus encounters a cell with that receptor, it can get inside and reproduce and infect other cells in your body,” said John Volckens, an aerosol scientist and professor in the Colorado School of Public Health at Colorado State University (CSU).

Still, Volckens was somewhat skeptical that the virus might get in via one’s eyes.

“Yes, your eye does have these two receptors, so it is possible to get infected by SARS-CoV-2 through your eyes — but I would say it’s unlikely,” he noted.

But why? Volckens said it’s a numbers game, and that it is simply much easier for the virus to infect via one’s lungs.

He compared the area of different organs for infection. “The surface area of your eye is about the size of your thumb, if you open your eye wide, but not much bigger than that,” he said, whereas, “the surface area of your lungs is the size of a tennis court.”

“Furthermore, you’re constantly cycling air over the surface of your lungs, so if you breathe about 10 cubic meters of air, enough air to fill up a small kitchen per day, that’s a huge amount of air to cycle over a huge surface area — unlike your eyes,” he added.

Volckens said from a “dimensional standpoint,” the lungs represent a larger site of infection than your eyes, which is why he said it is less likely — though not impossible — to get an infection vis-a-vis one’s eyes.

Yet there is one more likely route of eye infection of COVID-19: if one were to touch an infected surface and rub their eyes, that might result in infection.

“There have been suspected cases of eye infection for SARS-CoV-2, and most of those reports suggest eye touching — not someone sneezing in your eye,” Volckens said. “Yes, I mean if someone was really sick and infectious with SARS-CoV-2 and they sneezed in your face, you bet you’d get infected through your eyes, but that just doesn’t happen very often, so it’s less likely — what’s more likely is that someone sneezes in the room near you and you inhale that air.”

Volckens said he would still recommend face shields for those who are in frequent contact with people face-to-face — say, a bank teller, or someone who works with high-risk individuals who cannot be masked for some reason.

“Somewhere where you’re indoors and you’re taking orders at a restaurant, like a fast food restaurant, where you’re two or three feet from 1,000 strangers per day, and they’re all talking at you right within six feet, and they’re all unmasked — if all those things are true I could see a face shield being a helpful source of personal protective equipment,” Volckens said. “But if you are indoors and people are masked, and you’re in a mask, face shields are not going to do much for you.”

Researchers believe that the omicron variant is highly transmissible — about 2.7 to 3.7 times more infectious than delta in vaccinated, boosted people and unvaccinated people. So could a small measure, like wearing a face shield, have a minute effect on lowering transmissibility?

“You might see more eye infections [with omicron], but we’re talking like one in a 10,000 to two in 10,000 infections — whereas the other nine 9,998 are more likely to happen through airborne transmission or through surface transmission where you touch something and infect yourself,” Volckens estimated.

Read more on the omicron variant:

Dust is a growing problem. What role does farmland play?

As hurricane force, record-breaking winds blew through eastern Colorado in mid-December, the skies took on an eerie sepia glow. Visibility dropped to almost zero as a massive dust storm roiled through the Great Plains states, impacting 100 million people. Two weeks later, high winds and severe drought led to the devastating Marshall wildfire in urban northern Colorado.

Dust storms aren’t unusual in these areas, but they typically occur in the spring and at a smaller scale. And yet, as a two-decade drought persists in the West, scientists are concerned that they could become even more prevalent. This is, after all, Dust Bowl terrain. “It was never easy land to begin with; climate change is just going to make it more difficult,” says Becky Bolinger, a Colorado state climatologist who shared a warning on Twitter about the possibility of a dust event the day before the storm.

Dust is a growing concern for a number of reasons. As the climate-fueled drought across the western half of the country continues and irrigation sources likely become limited on farms — resulting, potentially in the increasing the amount of bare, fallowed land — researchers are working hard to identify dust hot spots and how they are linked to agriculture.

As the percentage of dust in the air increases, so do hospital visits for respiratory complications, as well as dust-borne diseases such as Valley Fever and meningococcal meningitis. Traffic accidents are also a growing concern across the western U.S., where dust affects road visibility. In the last two decades, car crash victims and insurance companies have shown an interest in holding farmers accountable for poor practices that created dust sources — but their liability is hard to prove.

Importantly, many of today’s dust events are region-wide phenomena. All fall, throughout eastern Colorado, “it’s really been bone dry,” says Bolinger. “I’m not sure there was much that agricultural communities could have done to mitigate the amount of dust that was up in the air.”

At the same time, tillage has increased in the region in recent years as farmers work to combat a growing number of herbicide-resistant weeds, explains Eugene Kelly, a soil scientist at Colorado State University.

During the unprecedented December storm, satellite imagery captured dozens of sitesin the southeastern corner of Colorado and the Oklahoma panhandle where the dust was first lofted into the air, a region known among dust researchers as an active source area. Eastern Colorado soils are 70% windblown loess, but cultivation, grazing, construction, and roads — anything that destabilizes the soil — can generate dust, says Kelly. “These episodic events are really damaging because they can move an awful lot of material,” he adds.

Still, scientists are working to understand “the chaotic cascade of dynamics that causes a dust storm to initiate a particular point in space and a particular point in time,” says Thomas Gill, a dust researcher at University of Texas at El Paso. Nevertheless, his research points to agriculture as an important source to watch.

Gill co-authored a 2020 study using data from satellite imagery to characterize sources of dust in the Southern Great Plains. It showed that the Great Plains contained seven times more dust points than the Chihuahuan desert (over 1,200 compared to 187). Cultivated fields comprised 43% of them, while shrublands and grasslands combined contained 40%.

As the public’s interest in air quality grows, as evidenced by Purple Air’s network of over 10,000 air quality monitoring devices, researchers are eager to identify the dustiest sources to inform policymakers. And they will soon have new tools available. Continued advances in modeling capabilities — and soon data from satellites to be launched in 2022 and 2023 — not only promise to make pinpointing dust sources more routine, but also to enhance dust forecasting. What that will mean for agriculture is harder to predict.

Monitoring dust

Without a dedicated dust monitoring network, researchers have long relied on the two nationwide air quality sensor networks and happenstance satellite imagery.

One network was designed to monitor the particles that contribute to haze near national parks in order to maintain clear views. The other network, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Chemical Speciation Network sensors, are located predominantly in urban areas to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

“These were never designed to monitor dust,” says Jenny Hand, an air quality researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. Notably, a small percentage of the ground-based sensors from both networks are located in or near agricultural areas.

Still, the data these networks generate has shed light on modern dust dynamics. Two sizes of dust are typically monitored — PM2.5 and PM10, shorthand for particle micrometer diameters. In recent years, regulatory effort has focused largely on the smaller PM2.5 particles, which can penetrate deeper into the lungs than PM10. While interest has shifted to the health concerns of PM2.5, PM10 is still a problem. Exposure can aggravate heart disease and asthma and damage lung tissue. Recent research shows that long-term exposure to PM10 can also increase the severity and mortality of COVID-19. For example, a recent study found the relative risk of hospitalization for a range of conditions significantly increased after a dust storm in El Paso.

Read more Civil Eats: Farmworkers Bear the Brunt of California’s Housing Crisis

In fact, the nationwide decline in PM 2.5, as a result of the regulation of combustion, is an often-overlooked success story. But particulate matter is an ongoing concern, for example, in several parts of farm country.

Hand co-authored a 2019 analysis of dust particles sized between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, called “coarse mass”, between 2000-2016. The study revealed that California’s Central Valley, along with southwest Arizona and parts of the central U.S. — all agricultural areas — are coarse mass hotspots. And while we don’t have the ability to identify the exact sources of the dust, agriculture is likely the cause given the seasonality of the dust, which is often heavy during harvest time, explains Hand.

Last year, Hand and colleagues used satellite imagery to detect a 5% increase in airborne dust every year in the Great Plains between 2000 and 2018. Not only has cropland coverage increased by 5-10% in the same region, but increases in dust have been found to coincide with the harvest and planting of dominant crops — notably, soybeans in Iowa and corn in the southern Great Plains.

“Marginal lands are the ones being developed [as farmland],” says study co-author Andy Lambert, currently a physical meteorologist at the Naval Research Laboratory. All the best farmland has long been in production and prices have been high for corn and soy crops in recent years offer a greater financial incentive than the programs such as Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to leave the land undeveloped. As a result, adds Lambert, “Grassland is being developed at much higher rate than it used to be.”

Improving technology

Scientists have been able to detect dust storms with satellites for over 55 years — but only if the satellites had the right sensors and were in the right place at the right time. For example, one of the most commonly used satellites for recording dust only takes one image at mid-day over the entire U.S. Yet dust storms often kick up in the late afternoon. When it comes to satellite imagery, there has long been trade-offs between the frequency of images, spatial reliability, and even the accessibility of the data, explains Gill.

But that is swiftly changing. NASA is upping its air quality monitoring considerably over the next year. The Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (dubbed EMIT), scheduled for launch to the International Space Station in May, will produce maps of the minerals transported from dust-producing regions. In December 2022, NASA is scheduled to launch a new satellite called TEMPO, which promises to further enhance not only the search for specific dust sources, but also other agricultural air pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and formaldehyde. TEMPO will make hourly observations and produce a new dust source map for North America, which will help scientists track dust plumes backwards to their sources.

And earlier this year, Gill and colleagues demonstrated how “CubeSats,” a constellation of over 200 nano-satellites orbiting close to Earth, can capture plume development in the Chihuahuan Desert. The images showed numerous distinct point sources, essentially 8% of the focus area was eroding.

Will more science bring more regulation?

Whether all this improved technology will alter land use policy or prompt more regulatory enforcement of dust-prone agricultural areas is yet to be seen. For starters, little has been done in farm country to enforce the current air quality standards.

For example, California’s San Joaquin Valley is home to a great deal of the state’s farmland and is one of the primary areas that has experienced increased air quality standard exceedances since 2017. According to data obtained on the California Air Resources Board website, PM10 values in the district have steadily gotten worse over the last few years.

In 2020, 18 of the 21 PM-10 monitors in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin exceeded the 24-hour maximum standard at least once, and often several times throughout the fall months that correspond to harvest — a typically dry period when the soil is disturbed. One site had air that exceeded the safety limit for a total of 36 days in mid-August through early November. On one day in September 2020, the PM10 reading topped 480 — over three times the EPA standard.

The monitors gauging PM 2.5 in the air in the valley showed similar numbers. In 2020, 37 out of 45 PM 2.5 monitors exceeded the standards. In 2021, it was 28 out of 31.

“The San Joaquin Air Pollution District has a very hands-off approach in how it chooses to regulate agricultural sources,” says Brent Newell, senior attorney focused on food and farming at Public Justice, a national legal advocacy organization that works on civil rights and environmental justice. “When it does, the regulations are milquetoast.” For example, to comply with the rule, Regulation VIII, adopted in 1993, which governed directly emitted PM10 particles from agricultural operations and roads, farmers were only required to check boxes on a menu of actions that were basically what they were already doing, such as water or oil down roads or reduce the speed limit, says Newell.

Paul Cort, an attorney with Earthjustice who unsuccessfully challenged the agricultural dust control measures in the San Joaquin Valley in 2009, agrees. “To the extent any regulation has occurred, it’s been done in a way that is super flexible to the point of being almost toothless,” he says. If it’s dust, he says, the odds are good that it’s coming from agriculture.

“No one is arguing it comes from construction or road dust or from some other source,” says Cort. What’s more, there’s little public concern about PM10, which is often seen as simply airborne soil, and part and parcel of farming communities. “There’s some public perception that that’s not the pollution we need to be worried about. [That] it’s just dirt,” he says.

But soil degradation is becoming a chronic problem, says Kelly. He argues that the amount of dust in the atmosphere offers a way to take the pulse of ecosystems. “What’s happening now is we’re getting much larger events, not only in terms of the wind speeds, but over much larger geographic areas,” he says. And, he adds, it will take decades for the soils to recover from the ongoing drought.

Kelly suggests that a large-scale, multi-agency effort — one that combines satellite imagery, climate models, historical data, and new sensors is needed to identify the most vulnerable landscapes — and potentially stop farming them, at least for the time being. “We need to get to the point where we can identify these areas and say we cannot put these lands into production because they are too risky,” he says.

Neil Young leaves Spotify over COVID misinformation: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both”

In a now-deleted letter addressed to his management team and record label, singer and musician Neil Young declared that he wants all his music to be removed from Spotify, Rolling Stone reported.

The reason for Young’s harsh demand? Spotify is also the home to Joe Rogan’s infamous podcast — “The Joe Rogan Experience” — where the controversial commentator and former television presenter spews false information regarding COVID-19 and vaccines.

“I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines — potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them,” Young wrote. “I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform. They can have [Joe] Rogan or Young. Not both.”

UPDATE: On Wednesday, Spotify stated it would be removing Young’s music at his request. A statement by a Spotify rep to Variety reads:

We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users. With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators. We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to COVID since the start of the pandemic. We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon.

Recently, a group of scientists, medical professionals and public health experts penned a letter to Spotify, expressing concern over a December episode of the podcast (JRE #1757) featuring Dr. Robert Malone and urging the company to take action against it.

“By allowing the propagation of false and societally harmful assertions, Spotify is enabling its hosted media to damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals,” the letter states. “JRE #1757 is not the only transgression to occur on the Spotify platform, but a relevant example of the platform’s failure to mitigate the damage it is causing.

“With an estimated 11 million listeners per episode, JRE is the world’s largest podcast and has tremendous influence,” the letter adds. “Though Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, the company presently has no misinformation policy.”

“The Joe Rogan Experience” is one of the most popular podcasts and the most-searched-for podcast on Spotify, according to a brief posted on Spotify’s For the Record. The podcast, which premiered in 2009, was acquired by the music & audio streaming provider in May 2020 through a multi-year exclusive licensing deal.

More stories you might like:

Court strikes down Alabama GOP’s racist redistricting maps

With the midterm elections just months away, a trio of federal judges late Monday struck down Alabama’s newly drawn congressional districts on the grounds that they discriminated against Black voters, forcing state lawmakers to craft new maps.

In its unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel ordered that “any remedial plan” from the Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature must “include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.”

The map that the judges deemed discriminatory contained just one majority-Black district in a state where Black people make up roughly 27% of the population.

“Under the totality of the circumstances, including the factors that the Supreme Court has instructed us to consider, Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the judges wrote.

Alabama’s Republican attorney general swiftly vowed to appeal the ruling, a move that could ultimately put the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Evan Milligan, one of the plaintiffs in the case, applauded the judges’ decision, arguing in a statement Monday that “the congressional map our legislature enacted fails Alabama’s voters of color.”

“We deserve to be heard in our electoral process, rather than have our votes diluted using a map that purposefully cracks and packs Black communities,” said Milligan. “Today, the court recognized this harm and has ordered our elected officials to do better. My co-plaintiffs and I hope that more Alabamians will embrace the important role we play in holding our officials accountable, until all of Alabama’s voters are fairly represented.”

Alabama’s racially gerrymandered map was just the latest Republican-led redistricting scheme to be struck down in the courts as voting rights groups and activists rush to challenge the GOP’s nationwide map-rigging spree — with no help from Democratic lawmakers at the federal level.

Earlier this month, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the state’s GOP-drawn congressional districts. Civil rights organizations are also challenging gerrymandered maps in South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere throughout the country.

“We’ve said since the beginning that we would refuse to let unconstitutional maps be used without a fight, so we are pleased that the court recognized the importance of urgently remedying the congressional district maps ahead of November’s election,” Tish Gotell Faulks, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, said late Monday. “It’s past time for Alabama to move beyond its sordid history of racial discrimination at the polls, and to listen to and be responsive to the needs and concerns of voters of color.”

The redistricting cycle that began in 2021 was the first since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the section of the Voting Rights Act that required states and localities with a history of racial discrimination to obtain “preclearance” from the Justice Department or a court before implementing new maps.

The 2013 ruling helped unleash a wave of Republican-led voter suppression that continues in the present, threatening to disenfranchise millions of voters across the nation.

“In five of the six redistricting cycles since 1960, Alabama’s legislative districts — congressional, state, or both — have violated the rights of voters under the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. Enough is enough,” the ACLU said Monday. “Lawmakers cannot manipulate district lines to undermine the political power of Black voters — in Alabama or anywhere. We won’t stop fighting for fair maps.”

Extremist politicians aren’t a “both sides” issue — it’s strictly a GOP phenomenon

Could there be two politicians more different than Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Cruz not only voted for Donald Trump’s coup but continues to use conspiracy theories to support it. Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, is a progressive who is both honest and committed to using democratic systems to advance a forward-looking agenda. Cruz is a notorious online troll who deliberately provokes liberals with lies and culture war nonsense. Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly spoken out about the toxicity of such trolling behavior, and how it leads all too often to real life threats of violence, including against her.

So comparing these two is a little like comparing Audrey Hepburn and Ted Bundy simply because both have Netflix documentaries about them. Yet that’s exactly what Axios did on Tuesday morning, with an article headlined “America can’t quit polarizing politicians.”

Axios writers Neal Rothschild and Sara Fischer draw a false equivalence between Ocasio-Cortez and Cruz because both “garner the most attention online” to point to American politics as “a breeding ground for more extreme politicians to run — and sometimes win — elections.”

It’s only been a year since a Republican president attempted to overthrow democracy to install himself illegally as president, summoning a violent mob to the Capitol to help with the task. And even though Trump’s entire party continues to support his coup and is engaging in what amounts to a national effort to make sure the next one succeeds, far too much of the mainstream media has reverted back to the comfy bothsiderism that treats the two parties as moral equivalents. And so Ocasio-Cortez and Cruz are treated as one and the same, even though the latter is a wholly destructive force who deliberately stokes chaos, radicalizes his followers, and works against democracy — while the former is trying to be a positive force standing against all of that grotesque behavior.

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

It is true that both Cruz and Ocasio-Cortez are “lightning rods” who draw as much attention from their opponents as their supporters, but again, a moment’s thought exposes how glib such a comparison is.

Cruz openly trawls for negative reactions from his political opponents, so he can use them to brandish his trigger-the-liberals credibility. The attention Ocasio-Cortez gets from the right is mostly unwanted. Right-wing pundits and editors understand their audience is flush with racist misogynists who are furious that a woman of color has come so far based on her smarts and her charisma. Plus, she’s conventionally attractive, and nothing sets off right-wing male anger more than being reminded of all the hot women out there that want nothing to do with them. There’s a real blaming-the-victim vibe to Axios’ piece, which is especially gross considering the very real danger Ocasio-Cortez was in during the Capitol insurrection — an insurrection that Cruz helped foment with his lies and trolling.

This disparity is seen across the other politicians Axios highlighted for drawing the most engagement when there are news stories about them. The other two most attention-getting among the GOP were Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. Both have drawn attention for being aggressively pro-COVID-19, anti-democracy, and obnoxiously racist. Taylor Greene, for her part, is so bad that she got herself banned from Twitter. Meanwhile, the biggest draws on the Democratic side that Axios could point to, besides Ocasio-Cortez, are Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. It’s disingenuous to ignore that both these women draw huge amounts of negative attention from right-wing media, which brandishes the images of both to provoke their largely male audiences into fits of misogynist outrage that has very little to do with the behavior of either. Pelosi, in particular, acts in bland ways, but the very existence of a woman with that much power is a reliable source of conservative ire.

This article follows one from Monday that played the same game, but with open congressional seats instead of social media traffic. “Perfect storm brewing for extreme politicians” read Axios’ Monday headline, noting that many of the open seats in the 2022 midterms heavily favor one party over the other. This, according to Stef W. Kight and Neal Rothschild, is dangerous because such places “produce the deepest-red Republican or deepest-blue Democrat,” which is supposedly a problem because “Congress already finds it difficult to compromise on anything or get things done.”

Again, what is being held out as a “both sides” problem is actually just a Republican problem.

Indeed, many of the seats that are open in 2022 are already held by truly extremist candidates — but only on the right. For instance, Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Jody Hice of Georgia hold two of the reddest seats Axios looked at. Both are openly pro-insurrection and big proponents of Trump’s Big Lie. Brooks was even one of the speakers who riled up the crowd on January 6 before they stormed the Capitol. Hice is leaving his seat to run for secretary of state in Georgia, campaigning unsubtly as someone who is willing to steal the election for Trump. He contrasts himself with the current GOP secretary, Brad Raffensperger, who rejected demands that he falsify votes to throw the election to Trump.

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

Meanwhile, the two Democrats from the bluest districts who are leaving Congress are Rep. Karen Bass of California, who wants to fight homelessness and enact police reform, and Rep. Jackie Speier of California, who has been working to fight abuse of power and sexual harassment in Congress. It’s unlikely that they will be replaced by anyone who stokes violence, wants to undermine democracy, defends the insurrectionists, wishes to spread COVID-19, or advocates for Trump’s Big Lie. But that cannot be said about the likely candidates vying for open seats in red districts — or the incumbent Republicans, for that matter. After all, the majority of currently seated Republicans in the House voted to overthrow Joe Biden’s election and install Trump illegally as president.

There is simply no “both sides” narrative to what is often euphemistically called “partisan polarization.” America has one political party, the Republicans, wholly devoted to extremism, authoritarianism, and trolling. The other party, the Democrats, has a range of politicians, from centrist to progressive, who all fall within the range of normal political views and none of whom oppose democracy or support violence. People like AOC aren’t “provocative,” so much as they appeal to a bunch of normie Democrats who have a positive and progressive view of politics — and the negative attention they get is largely from rabid right wingers who are tearing this country to shreds. There’s no equivalence here, just one party that is trying to destroy the U.S. as we know it and another party that has some people in it that are trying to stop them.

“Trump in a red vest”: School districts sue Glenn Youngkin after so-called moderate goes full MAGA

Seven school districts have sued newly-elected Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin over his executive order ending a statewide school mask mandate, one of several executive orders Youngkin has signed that have undercut his “moderate” campaign image.

During his campaign against former Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe, Youngkin sought to distance himself from former President Donald Trump and was described as a “moderate conservative” in the mainstream press. He has gone full Ron DeSantis after taking office, issuing nearly a dozen executive orders on his first day that hit many of the biggest conservative culture-war issues.

Youngkin, a former private equity executive, issued an order barring school mask mandates, despite vowing on the campaign trail that he would allow local governments to decide their mask policies. He also issued orders banning employer vaccine requirements and the teaching of “critical race theory” — which is not taught in public schools — and slashing government regulations. On Monday, Youngkin announced a special tip line for parents to report teachers who discuss “divisive” topics in the classroom. He has also nominated former Trump EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who decimated federal environmental protections, to be his secretary of natural resources.

But as with DeSantis and other governors who have sought to ban schools from requiring masks, his first slate of executive actions has already been met with legal challenges. Seven school districts that serve a combined 350,000 students filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Youngkin’s mask mandate ban.

The lawsuit “defends the right of school boards to enact policy at the local level, including policies that protect the health and well-being of all students and staff,” the districts said in a statement to The New York Times.

The suit challenges Youngkin’s authority to “unilaterally override” the authority of school boards under both the Virginia constitution and state law.

“Without today’s action, school boards are placed in a legally untenable position — faced with an executive order that is in conflict with the constitution and state law,” the lawsuit says. It goes on to argue that schools have “students and staff members who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19, and for whom an infection with the virus could lead to serious illness or death.”

Youngkin also faces a lawsuit from 13 parents, arguing that his executive order “rejects the recommendations of the CDC” and violates state law.

In all, 58 of the state’s 130 school districts have either filed lawsuits or pledged to keep their mask mandates in place, according to The Washington Post.

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

Youngkin spokeswoman Macaulay Porter told the Times that the governor was “disappointed that these school boards are ignoring parents’ rights” and is committed to fighting the lawsuit.

“They haven’t been recognizing the rights of parents all along,” Youngkin told conservative radio host John Fredericks on Monday. “So I’m not surprised at all to hear these reactions from school boards that have consistently prioritized bureaucrats and politicians over the rights of parents.”

Youngkin framed the issue in partisan terms, arguing that public opinion on mask mandates is “moving against the left liberals.” He later acknowledged in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he has consulted with other Republican governors as he begins his term. Hewitt mentioned DeSantis, and although Youngkin did not confirm who he has spoken to, he said, “It’s been a great support network. And what we’re seeing, of course, is states led by Republicans outperforming states who are led by Democrats.”

It’s a remarkably quick turnaround for a candidate whose campaign vowed just before the election that Youngkin “would not go quite as far as DeSantis” and would “leave the policy decision about masks up to local school districts and ‘strongly encourage’ them to let individual parents decide.” Even after his win, Youngkin said that “localities are going to have to make decisions the way the law works.”

Fredericks, who served on both of Trump’s presidential campaigns, told the Post that he has been pleasantly surprised that Youngkin has been far more right-wing than advertised when he was seeking votes.

“He’s Trump in a red vest,” Fredericks, referring to the vest the former private equity exec wore on the campaign trail. “It’s exceeded everybody’s expectations. … From the beginning of his campaign to the Saturday he put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, I was his biggest skeptic. And now, two weeks into his administration, I’m his biggest supporter.”

Fredericks said he believes Youngkin went further right after backlash from Trump supporters.

“He got blasted by the whole Trump-ecosystem base,” he told the Post. “If he wants to run for something else or keep his coalition together, you simply can’t alienate us.”

But the sudden right turn could alienate far more people. A poll last fall found that 71% of Virginians supported a statewide school mask mandate and 57% said they would support a full indoor mask mandate for everyone.

Eileen Filler-Corn, the Democratic leader in the Virginia House of Delegates, on Tuesday said she stands with school districts challenging the governor and called on Youngkin to “rescind his unconstitutional executive order.”

“Youngkin claims to fight for the rights of parents, but this rushed directive is a clear political stunt that has thrown families, teachers and schools into turmoil with little guidance,” she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. “With coronavirus cases rising and our hard-fought recovery still so fragile, Youngkin is putting the health and education of our children at risk to satisfy his political base. That is unacceptable.”

Read more on Virginia’s new GOP governor:

Laura Ingraham breaks out a self-parody by imitating Kate McKinnon’s impression of her

Fox News host Laura Ingraham had a go at Kate McKinnon of “Saturday Night Live” fame on Monday, bizarrely breaking out her own impression of McKinnon imitating her.

Ingraham’s foray into self-referential humor came in response to McKinnon’s SNL cold open this past Saturday, in which the comedian played a comical version of Ingraham railing against Biden and the left.

“Inflation’s out of control, gas is at $19 a gallon,” McKinnon said, imitating the host. “And the green M&M has been canceled just for being a whore. Things are so bad in Biden’s America, even according to former Wendy’s spokes-girl Jen Psaki.”

On Monday, Ingraham attempted to one-up McKinnon by parodying the comedian’s imitation of her.

“Now, there’s a reason I like Kate McKinnon, I have so much respect for her as a talent,” Ingraham started. “She’s so even-handed in her political commentary.”

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

“But seriously, think of all the low-hanging fruit provided by Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, little Petey B and the squad on a near-daily basis,” the conservative host added. “I mean, I think this is kind of comedy gold, don’t you?”

Ingraham’s jab did not sit well with critics online, many of whom thought it was comically off the mark.

“Kate McKinnon is much more respected than Laura Ingraham,” tweeted digital journalist Jess Balzer.

“snl seems to have finished laura ingraham,” echoed Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko.

Funnily enough, Ingraham wasn’t the only conservative to respond to her own portrayal on SNL this week.

Conservative commentator Candace Owens also had a bone to pick with actress Ego Nwodim, who played the right-wing pundit this past weekend, tweeting: “Hey @nbcsnl—not sure who this woman is you have playing me but I am much better looking than this.”

“Next time just reach out and I’ll play myself,” Owens added. “That way the skit will actually be funny and America might even tune in to the show again!”

Hey @nbcsnl —not sure who this woman is you have playing me but I am much better looking than this. 😂Next time just reach out and I’ll play myself. That way the skit will actually be funny and America might even tune in to the show again! #SaturdayNightLive pic.twitter.com/wnjEKwgBTJ

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) January 23, 2022

Boy, do we need a “deep state” now — but not the way the Trumpers mean it

Democracy is complicated. It often feels as involved as the maneuvering required to make NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope functional: Deploying the sun shield took some 107 different actions, and to fully engage the telescope, 18 different mirrors must be focused.

Defending democracy seems at least as intricate, dependent on the rule of law with all its hearings and investigations and honoring the time-consuming rights of the accused. Critically, it’s also dependent on tradition and something once known as political comity. It’s also a game of numbers: gerrymandering and court-packing; population shifts, with 50 Democratic senators now representing 41.5 million more Americans than 50 Republican senators; confusing filibuster and Electoral College rules and shenanigans.

Attacking democracy, by comparison, seems to be a cinch: A high-level thug coaxes a bunch of small-time thugs to blatt up on Harleys to surround and invade a state capitol because they don’t want to wear masks in a pandemic — and, Hey, let’s grab the governor! Or he lures a crowd of followers to Washington and exhorts them to go to the Capitol to “fight like hell” to stop the peaceful transfer of power — and, Hey, let’s hang the vice president! Lie incessantly about voter fraud, because you embody the fraud. Pay for fraudulent audits by fraudulent companies. Bray to your followers about having all the “evidence,” while admitting in court after court that you have none. Send forged certifications of ascertainment with phony slates of electors to the National Archives. When you’re not specifically trying to overturn a fair election, create a roiling atmosphere of confusion and mistrust, to undermine people’s confidence in voting because you cannot admit defeat; you’re a fanboy of authoritarians and want them to be proud of you.

How many times did Donald Trump brag that he had the tough guys on his side? He even advised people to play tough with COVID, like that’s something that could even be done with a deadly airborne virus. (Actually playing tough with the virus entailed doing the boring, irritating responsible things: masking up, social distancing, getting the vaccine and then the booster.) Many men (and women) will be forever mystified about his appeal to other men as a “manly man.”

It’s much like that adage often misattributed to Mark Twain: “A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” Or, as physicists might put it, all things tend toward disorder. Or, as Yeats put it in his “Second Coming,” Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold. Not, at least, without a whole lot of work. As Ezra Klein recently wrote, the Trumpian Party knows how to do this — to organize at every level. But even many Democrats understand this (ask Stacey Abrams what it takes, or the students and faith leaders on hunger strikes for voting rights, or many others doing good work). Donate, volunteer, organize, run. Participate in your democracy or lose it. Challenge seditionists in Congress to prove they are constitutionally eligible to run again.

Still, these days, protecting democracy feels a lot like bringing the Constitution to a bar fight — or, rather, to a medieval hand-to-hand battle of insurrection.

Earlier this month, another former president (one who has by his deeds burnished that title more and more), Jimmy Carter, published a guest essay in the New York Times in which he spelled out the steps we must take as citizens and as a country to save our democracy. We must “demand that our leaders and candidates uphold the ideals of freedom and adhere to high standards of conduct.” Though we may differ, citizens “must agree on fundamental constitutional principles and norms of fairness, civility and respect for the rule of law.” Carter, who spent decades after his time in the White House observing elections around the world, writes that we must make voting accessible and ensure “transparent, safe and secure electoral processes.”

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

And we must fight disinformation. Carter writes, “especially on social media,” but I would add “Fox News” and the like. We simply must come up with laws about the purposeful promulgation of disinformation through the public airwaves day in and day out. Telling Fox and OAN and Newsmax they cannot use the word news in their titles would be nice, but they’d no doubt just become FoxRetorts or OANthem or Truthmax or some such. A democracy must require a level of honest reporting, which is not to say they cannot also be opinionated. If individuals are held liable for crying fire in a crowded theater, the time has come to not allow corporations to cry fire — with absolutely no evidence of a fire — in a crowded democracy.

The Webb Space Telescope is an expression of what we can accomplish with a democracy, when we allow the best and the brightest to do the work they are capable of and capture the imaginations of all people, bringing us together in a sense of awe and wonder. This week, the craft is reaching a gravitationally stable spot, a place called L2, where it can “park” to preserve fuel and stay cool — two things we need to do ourselves here on Earth, while we peer into our relatively immediate future, as well as (via the telescope) into the unfathomably distant past. In both realms, we have much to do and to learn.

On the other hand, the defeated president, a career flouter of law and a well-known know-nothing about almost everything that can be known, has a natural dislike for any level of expertise because he feels knowledge shows him up and thus is “hurtful” to him. Given his gift for the grift, he particularly despises experts in justice and seeks to undermine or otherwise control them. Thus, his endless attacks on the “Deep State” and, beyond self-aggrandizement, his only truly diligent and, unfortunately, successful work: to divide us from each other.

All reasonable Americans pine for a deep state — deep in knowledge, expertise, leadership, empathy. To survive, we must have a deep state with the kind of expertise that has given us the awesome mission of the Webb telescope, not this deeply wounded state that has put people like Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene anywhere near the centers of power.

Read more on the battle to save democracy — or to create it:

How NYC’s public housing authority plans to transform the market for clean heat

In the late 1990s, the New York City public housing authority, NYCHA, challenged manufacturers to design a new energy-efficient refrigerator. While suburban homeowners had their pick of energy-saving fridges, no one was selling an efficient model that was small enough for a typical urban apartment. A 1995 New York Times article referred to the refrigerators NYCHA was using at the time as “the kitchen equivalent of gas guzzlers.”

Part of the problem was that fridge manufacturers didn’t see a market. There was no incentive for the average landlord to spend extra money on efficient appliances because they didn’t pay the electricity bills. But NYCHA both bought fridges and paid the bills. So the agency worked with the New York Power Authority, a public electric utility that serves NYCHA buildings, to hold a contest. They promised the winner a minimum purchase of 20,000 units.

Maytag, a smaller player at the time, won with a fridge called “the Magic Chef” that would cut energy consumption in half compared to existing NYCHA fridges and was priced below comparable models. Ultimately, the agencies partnered with other public housing authorities in the region to place bulk orders, lowering the cost even more.

Now, NYCHA is trying to repeat this success story with a new contest challenging manufacturers to invent an easy-to-install space heating system that doesn’t heat up the planet.

NYCHA is the largest public housing authority in the country, overseeing more than 300 buildings that contain 177,000 apartments. Under New York City law, the agency must cut greenhouse gas emissions from these buildings by 80 percent by 2050, and 70 to 75 percent of its emissions come from old steam heat systems with boilers that run on natural gas. To comply, the agency aims to replace many of them with heat pumps, fully electric space heating appliances that are much more energy efficient than boilers and furnaces and do not directly produce carbon emissions.

Heat pumps work by absorbing heat from the outside air, even on cold days, and pumping it indoors. They can also run in reverse, providing cooling in the summer and eliminating the need for an air conditioner. While they have existed for decades, earlier models were more suitable for mild climates, and only recently has the technology advanced to the point that it works well in colder climates like New York City. Now, many cities aim to transition buildings to heat pumps to eliminate the major greenhouse gas and pollution footprint of natural gas and oil-based heating.

But while that plan sounds straightforward, installing heat pumps in existing buildings that aren’t designed for them can be complicated — and costly.

In 2020, NYCHA undertook its first big experiment installing heat pumps in seven apartments on the top floor of the Fort Independence Houses in the Bronx, a 21-story building with more than 300 residences. The agency had to hire engineers to do a structural analysis of the rooftop to ensure it could support the outdoor components, which can weigh several hundred pounds. It also had to coordinate plumbers, carpenters, and electricians to install tubing filled with refrigerant, a chemical that transports thermal energy, between those outdoor components and the indoor units that were mounted on apartment walls. The installation required taking down parts of the ceiling and navigating residents’ furniture and other unforeseen obstacles like built-in cabinets. It took about 10 days per apartment, was disruptive to residents, and was generally an administrative nightmare.

“Each apartment was a story,” Jordan Bonomo, a program manager at NYCHA, told Grist. Those stories had a moral: “We quickly realized that while we like the technology, we couldn’t possibly scale that effort across our portfolio,” Bonomo said.

Despite that conclusion, NYCHA didn’t give up on heat pumps. “The only way that we can reduce our emissions by 80 percent within any of our lifetimes really is by electrifying our heating and hot water,” Bonomo said. Instead, the project inspired the agency to hatch a new plan: Could it once again use its buying power to lure manufacturers into developing a new product?

In December, NYCHA partnered with NYPA and the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority to launch the Clean Heat for All Challenge. The contest asks manufacturers to design a heat pump that can simply be installed in window frames, like an air conditioner. The agencies promise to put $263 million toward the purchase of up to 24,000 units of the winning model.

Officials have high hopes for this prospective product. Keith Hayes, the senior vice president of clean energy solutions at NYPA, said it could make carbon-free heating accessible not only for NYCHA but for thousands of apartment building owners — especially owners of buildings with low-income tenants — who can’t or won’t invest in the work that traditional heat pumps require. “We really see ourselves moving the market here,” said Hayes.

Another potential benefit of the new heat pumps is that they would give NYCHA tenants the power to control the temperature of their apartments. Taylor Morton, the director of environmental health and education at the NYC-based environmental justice nonprofit WE ACT, who manages the organization’s NYCHA Healthy Homes Campaign, said public housing residents want more ownership over their apartments and agency over decisions like temperature. Since the boiler systems are centrally controlled, if it gets too hot or too cold in an apartment, there’s nothing tenants can do other than crack a window and let the heat seep out, or contact building management and wait for repairs. NYCHA heating systems fail frequently.

Morton thought the new heat pumps sounded promising but worries about the agency focusing too much on long-term goals while residents are suffering in freezing apartments today. “We haven’t always seen follow-through with NYCHA,” they added.

The Clean Heat for All Challenge asks companies to design a window heat pump that costs no more than $3,000, can operate when the temperature outside is 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower, and can be installed in less than two hours. Entrants will get extra points for quieter systems that minimize window light obstruction, and if they can deliver the heat pumps on an accelerated timeline.

NYCHA aims to select winners by early summer and give them up to 18 months, or until around fall 2023, to produce 30 prototypes. The goal is to test those through the heating season and put in the order for the rest of the 24,000 units by early 2025. The agency could also again partner with other public housing authorities to place bulk orders. NYCHA has obtained expressions of interest from agencies in Jersey City, Boston, and Seattle that together oversee almost 24,000 apartments.

There are already a few companies making products that are close to qualifying. A company called Ephoca makes a model that mounts on the wall and only requires two small holes through the external wall of the building to install. Bonomo said NYCHA rigged one of them into a window in a building supervisor’s office and that it was working well. Another company called Gradient is developing a sleek saddle-shaped heat pump that rests over the windowsill without blocking the window. Gradient also advertises the use of a more sustainable refrigerant — the chemicals are typically powerful greenhouse gases that can be detrimental to the climate if they leak.

Vince Romanin, the CEO of Gradient, told Grist the company intends to participate and that he is excited about the contest. “This is a signal from NYCHA that there could be a better way to get these into buildings,” he said. “If we can streamline the install process, make something that’s easier to use from the customer’s perspective and that doesn’t require any professional labor to install, we can do this much faster.”

There’s one potential catch. Sean Brennan, the director of research at the sustainable building nonprofit Urban Green Council, warned that it will be hard to design something that matches the efficiency of traditional heat pump technology. Since heat pumps absorb heat from the air — and since in the winter, the heat in the air is more diffuse — the larger the area of the device that is exposed, the more efficiently it can operate. Designing a unit for the window puts physical limitations on the total area that can be exposed to the outdoors. The NYCHA contest specifies a minimum efficiency requirement, but it’s about half as good as the current top models.

Brennan said that if all of New York City decided to electrify with these window units, it would be a problem in terms of power demand. But he believes they are a promising solution for the next 10 to 15 years while the industry works on finding easier ways to do full building heat pump retrofits. His only other concern was that if NYCHA didn’t pair the new heat pumps with better insulation, some residents may find themselves missing their radiators. “The worst thing that could happen is that people are unhappy with their comfort and then they buy a resistance space heater,” he said, pointing to the recent deadly fire in a Bronx apartment building that was caused by a portable space heater. (Disclosure: I previously worked for Urban Green Council as a contract copy-editor.)

NYCHA is well known for failing to provide adequate heating for residents, among a litany of other failures, including addressing lead paint, mold, asbestos, and pests. Two years ago, after a federal investigation into mismanagement and general dysfunction at the agency, NYCHA signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development establishing deadlines for the agency to remediate certain hazards, including unreliable heat.

But the agency’s progress has been hindered by the same central issue that has dogged it for years: inadequate funding. NYCHA estimates that it would cost $40 billion to complete repairs on all buildings, systems and grounds, but the agency’s five-year capital spending plan only provides for about $7.5 billion. Vlada Kenniff, NYCHA’s vice president for energy and sustainability, said the agency hasn’t received federal funding for capital improvements for two to three decades now. Kenniff said the agency is holding out hope that Congress will pass the Build Back Better Act, the social spending and climate bill that is stalled in the Senate, an earlier version of which included $65 billion to repair public housing.

Marquis Jenkins, an organizer who grew up in public housing and runs a group called Residents to Preserve Public Housing, said fault also lies with the state, which has provided only about $650 million to the agency over the last five years. Jenkins’ group is asking Governor Kathy Hochul to allocate $3.4 billion to NYCHA for capital repairs in the 2023 state budget, and to maintain that baseline funding in the years following.

Kenniff said that at a minimum, the agency plans to install new weatherized windows along with the heat pumps, but that it could potentially do more if the Build Back Better Act passes. She and Bonomo also said NYCHA would keep the existing heating systems in place as backup heating, at least at first. The agency is also not abandoning plans to pilot traditional heat pump technology — it’s currently working on another project to install heat pumps in an entire 20-story building on Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan.

“I think it’s fair to say that the majority of our systems are at the end of their useful lives,” said Kenniff. Today, when funding does trickle in, it’s usually calculated for one-for-one boiler replacements, since that’s the most cost-effective option. She said the goal of the contest was to be able to make an argument to spend that money on heat pumps instead. “We want to be able to say, ‘You’re not going to have to go and find additional millions of dollars for an electrification option. You can affordably electrify the building now.'”

What the Supreme Court has done to women: We will not forget

My friend and I drew up to a drab brown brick building. An older man, shrunken and slouched, opened the door furtively. We climbed a flight of stairs in a putrid green escape well and emerged into a hallway, then entered a dark apartment. I imagined fleeing down the stairs but then considered the consequences.

“Wait here,” the man commanded. After a few minutes he re-emerged from another room and asked me some questions. I tried to stay calm. I felt as if I were sinking into a huge hole from which I might never emerge. “Come with me,” he said, leading me into what must have been a kitchen. It had a table in the center of the room, at the foot of which, between stirrups, was a lamp on a stand, and a stool. The table was covered with a sheet of white paper with a thin pillow on it. Next to it was a tray bearing silver instruments and a large jar. The man told me to take off everything from the waist down. There was no privacy screen. I asked him for something to cover myself. “You won’t need that,” he said. “Just get on the table.”

He put my feet into the cold stirrups. I’d never been exposed like that. I felt dirty, naked into my soul. I shivered uncontrollably. He handed me a towel, but no blanket. I wondered if he would wash his hands or put on gloves. I stared at the ceiling, tears dripping from my eyes. Why wasn’t there a nurse, I wondered? He came toward me with a wad of gauze in his hand. “Breathe,” he said, forcing the gauze down on my mouth. I thought I would suffocate.

Then I woke up, still on the table, legs straight, a sheet over me. Pain burned between my legs. I felt as if my stomach had been pulled out of me. The man fiddled with instruments. I heard a whimper and realized it came from me. I passed out. When I woke, the man said, “You need to get up and leave. Get dressed.” He handed me a sanitary pad. I rose slowly, waiting for the dizziness to stop. The pad I had shoved between my legs felt saturated already. I hoped I wouldn’t die.

* * *

That did not, in fact, happen to me. I imagined that scene for a novel I was writing. My character was one of the lucky ones: She did not die from a back-alley abortion. I was lucky too, because despite a few scares I never needed an abortion. But I knew lots of women who did. I covered for a friend who had to flee the U.S. to get one, and because I worked in women’s health I knew where to refer my friends, single and married, for safe abortions.

Now here we are again, having just passed the 49th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which gave women agency over their bodies and their lives. It is inconceivable for those of us who remember life before legal abortion and who fought hard for reproductive control to find ourselves back in the trenches, fighting for the sovereignty of self as the Supreme Court drags us backward, starting with the Court’s support of a draconian abortion law enacted in Texas, soon to be followed by similar laws in as many as two dozen other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The court’s shocking decisions and its collective lack of knowledge about, or regard for, women’s lives and the role that reproductive autonomy plays in those lives is staggering. This court apparently views abortion as an easy method of birth control instead of a deeply difficult choice, and adoption as a good way out of parental responsibility. It’s a court that has no concept of pregnancy confirmation, fetal viability or the lifelong trauma of rape and incest.

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

Neither does the court have a clue or a care that without safe abortion there will still be unsafe abortion resulting in death, irreparable psychological harm and possible suicides among women of childbearing age. Many other women will be deprived of economic security, quality of life aspirations or the fulfillment of life goals.

“The erosion of reproductive rights is a result of raw, bare-knuckled politics, of a minority exercising their power over a majority,” Cecile Richards, past president of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a New York Times essay after the court’s latest decision regarding SB8, the Texas law that limits abortion. “The millions of Americans who are watching, horrified, as the Supreme Court prepares to roll back a right they have had for nearly half a century need to be just as dogged and determined. But it’s going to take unprecedented levels of political activism to fight back.”

Perhaps it is Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose words ring out most clearly. “This case is a disaster for the rule of law,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. “It allows the State yet again to extend the deprivation of the federal constitutional rights of its citizens through procedural manipulation. The Court may look the other way, but I cannot.”

Nor can the millions of women who will pay the price of this cruel procedural manipulation.

Read more on the downfall of Roe v. Wade and the fight for reproductive justice:

In Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement, OxyContin’s many victims may receive nothing at all

When I was appointed by the Department of Justice to serve on the creditors committee in the landmark Purdue Pharma bankruptcy, I knew getting justice was the longest of long shots. The company that gaslit America’s opioid overdose crisis filed for bankruptcy in September 2019, in order to settle over 2,700 lawsuits for their role in getting millions hooked on their opioid products. As someone in long-term recovery from an opioid addiction that began with OxyContin, a Purdue product, I felt a moral calling to help dismantle Purdue. Purdue nearly destroyed my life. They certainly destroyed countless others. Serving on this committee was my only chance to make sure my community — a community of survivors, victims, and families — got any direct compensation for the indescribable destruction we experienced through Purdue’s greed, which was then owned by members of the infamous Sackler family.

Yet I soon found the creditors’ committee had far less power than I had been led to believe. For over two years, the creditors committee met virtually due to COVID-19, spending countless hours trying to hammer out a settlement. Sadly, the victims on the committee were outnumbered by corporate interests (five corporate members to four victim members).

This also meant that victims’ interests were unevenly represented as well. Indeed, many of Purdue’s victims are nearly bankrupt themselves, after years of trying to pay for treatment, seek medical care for addiction, and burying family members. We are broken-hearted, with many of us mourning the deaths of our loved ones. We are waiting for the next overdose or batch of illicit fentanyl to kill off our friends. And we are saddled with the stigma of addiction, which prevents us from getting the help so many of us are dying for.

On December 16, 2021, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York overturned the Purdue Pharma settlement plan. The plan, which was approved in September by bankruptcy judge Robert D. Drain, released Purdue’s billionaire owners — members of the Sackler family — from civil liability in opioid-related cases in exchange for a $4.5 billion contribution to the settlement. Judge McMahon’s decision to overturn the plan based on the contested Sackler family releases offering civil immunity was the right decision, but it came with a heavy price tag to victim compensation. As negotiations begin around a possible new settlement, direct victim compensation must come first — not last.

As the former co-chair of the official unsecured creditors’ committee in the Purdue case, the only statutory body representing over 600,000 claims against Purdue, I had a front row seat to the painstaking negotiations. When it came to direct reparations, victims were, again and again, pushed to the back of the line, behind corporate and government interests. People who had lost everything to OxyContin — the product created by Purdue and pushed on an unsuspecting public — were due to receive a mere 7.5% of the total settlement. The remaining 92.5% went to government and corporate interests.

That plan was, ultimately, overturned. But the new plan could be worse — and victims are now at risk of going home empty-handed.

Most of us whose lives were destroyed by Purdue’s crimes never wanted to see members of the Sackler family — who caused so much pain, death, and destruction to our families and communities — walk away with their billions intact. We also aren’t willing to surrender our lion’s share of the settlement to state and federal government creditors, who are currently renegotiating Purdue’s bankruptcy plan and have blurred the lines between direct victim compensation and funds to provide future addiction treatment.

The issue isn’t the bankruptcy court’s civil immunity for the Sacklers. It’s the “either-or” choice between releasing the Sacklers or relinquishing the small settlement that victims deserve. Victims have been held hostage — when in reality, we should be able to both hold the Sacklers to meaningful accountability and protect direct victim compensation.

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

As it stands today, eliminating the Sackler releases also eliminates the $750 million that was to be divided among over 138,000 victim creditors. Without the Sacklers’ substantial financial contribution to the overall settlement, there is no guarantee that victims will receive any compensation for the life-shattering losses they suffered. The U.S. Department of Justice has an obligation protect the victim claims and prosecute members of the Sackler family criminally, or victims will lose both their settlement and any chance at meaningful justice.

The claims process for victims was arduous. Unlike state attorneys general, individual victims had to present “proof” of harm, including medical records, receipts, and death certificates that drew a direct line of causation to Purdue. Victims were subjected to a humiliating process that required producing evidence of a death, sky-high expenses from treating an addiction, or the birth of a child exposed to OxyContin during pregnancy. Many of us, including myself, had a difficult time “proving” a direct link between our life-threatening opioid addiction and Purdue, and will likely receive the minimum payout of $3,500. Those who came up with the receipts would receive a tiny fraction more — way less than what they deserve.

Considering the cost of addiction treatment, funerals, emergency room bills, and the other outcomes victims have suffered, an average amount of $5,400 per victim isn’t fair. It isn’t even close to fair. It’s an insult.

Yet, even this small sum runs the risk of disappearing in the legal mire. Victim compensation as originally negotiated ranged from $3,500 to $48,000. Even in the most qualified cases, the latter is not enough to cover a loved one’s medical bills and funeral expenses. It’s certainly not enough to compensate for the loss of a loved one. Judge McMahon has ruled that the Sacklers won’t get their civil immunity. As a result, without finding money from a different source other than the Sacklers, there is no money left over for victims’ claims, either. Individuals who have endured the worst will never see a dime of the money they deserve.

This is unacceptable. Preventing future harm, such as providing funding for future treatment programs, is not the same thing as compensating for past harm. States have other funding streams to implement their treatment programs — such as the taxes we pay as citizens — and do not need to deprive victims of their rightful share in the bankruptcy plan. We must hold the Sacklers accountable while ensuring the victims don’t lose what’s left of their $750 million allocation.

Victims must be front and center. Every claim in the Purdue case is built on the victims’ suffering, yet the victims themselves have been shoved aside by larger interests. Now that the Sacklers’ $4.5 billion is no longer on the table, government creditors must come to the table to ensure that under any new plan, direct victim compensation is protected.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) October 2020 settlement with Purdue presents an opportunity for the biggest creditor in the bankruptcy to finally stand up for the smallest. After years of hard work by the FBI and its partners to combat the opioid overdose crisis in the U.S., the DOJ announced a global resolution of its investigations into Purdue Pharma. Purdue agreed to plead guilty to a three-count felony: one count of dual-object conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The resolution includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, including a criminal fine of $3.544 billion and $2 billion in criminal forfeiture. Purdue also agreed to a civil settlement of $2.8 billion to resolve its civil liability. The Sackler family agreed to pay $225 million in damages. Approximately $1.35 billion of these criminal fines were levied against Purdue in bankruptcy court as a “super” priority claim — meaning the DOJ would get paid first when bankruptcy dollars are finally distributed.

The resolution only included fines — and the DOJ did not rule out the possibility of criminal prosecution against members of the Sackler family, although they have yet to indicate any intention to press formal charges.

Part of the settlement was that the DOJ would use their “super” priority claim of $1.35 billion in the bankruptcy to release to states and local governments for addiction treatment services. Now that the plan has been overturned by the district court, the federal government is set to keep that money or renegotiate terms under a new bankruptcy plan.

Now, through the renegotiation process, victims may receive nothing. Zero. Zip. For me, that means a decade of misery, sickness, and despair because of Purdue, with nothing owed to me for their crimes. Every time I used, my life was at risk. I lost jobs, was homeless, and panhandled to pay for my OxyContin prescription. There is no price tag on what I suffered. Many of my friends lost far more than me.

That is why any new DOJ settlement must cover the victims’ claims in the case before any dollars go toward preventing future harm. Over 138,000 victims currently have one realistic path towards reparations, and that’s in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy. Rather than push victims to the back of the line, we should be first. All other groups’ claims are based on our suffering, yet we are treated like second-class citizens when we ask for our fair share.

We must hold the Sacklers accountable in front of a jury of their peers, and ensure victims aren’t upended by this recent decision. It’s time for the DOJ to intervene and protect victims. They have the authority to negotiate terms in their settlement and bankruptcy claim. They can guarantee that $750 million is set aside for direct victim compensation and protected at all costs. They must do this, even if that means forfeiting a piece of their $1.35 billion “super” priority claim to do so.

People, not corporate or government interests, must be first. A state does not bury its only child. And an insurance company does not mourn its best friend. Government does not suffer the same way we do. Victims have carried the burdens of Purdue’s crimes for too long and we deserve reparations for that suffering. Given the recent uprooting of the former plan, it’s the responsibility of the federal government to put people first. Putting us last will only end more lives — and perpetuate the tragic losses that we have already endured.

Read more on OxyContin and Purdue Pharma:

U.S. troops on standby as tensions with Russia worsen over possible Ukraine war

Despite warnings that U.S. actions not focused on diplomacy with Russia risk setting the stage for an “exceedingly dangerous quagmire,” the Pentagon announced Monday that roughly 8,500 U.S. troops have been put on “heightened preparedness to deploy” to Eastern Europe amid rising tensions with Russia over Ukraine.

Speaking at a news briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the “steps to heighten the readiness of … forces at home and abroad” were aligned with U.S. commitments to NATO.

President Biden wouldn’t deploy the troops unless activated by NATO’s Response Force (NRF) “or if other situations should develop,” said Kirby.

The U.S. would also be ready to deploy additional combat teams and other support including logistics and surveillance, he said, though no deployment has yet been made.

According to Kirby, “It’s very clear the Russians have no intention right now of de-escalating.”

Anti-war critics immediately decried the latest development.

Good god. Biden is considering sending more US troops to Eastern Europe to confront Russia. We must make it clear that the AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T WANT A WAR WITH RUSSIA OVER UKRAINE!!! @codepink @WorldBeyondWar @Roots_Action @WinWithoutWar @QuincyInst @VFPNational @pdamerica

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) January 24, 2022

The announcement came as Biden was set to hold a video conference Monday afternoon in the Situation Room with European leaders, including NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to “discuss diplomacy, deterrence, and defense efforts.”

In the U.K., meanwhile, Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned of the possibility of a “lightning war” touching off.

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

“The intelligence is very clear that there are 60 Russian battle groups on the border of Ukraine,” Johnson said Monday. “The plan for a lightning war that could take out Kyiv is one that everybody can see. We need to make it very clear to the Kremlin that that would be a disastrous step.”

On Monday, the Associated Press reported:

Russia has massed an estimated 100,000 troops near Ukraine’s border, demanding that NATO promise it will never allow Ukraine to join and that other actions, such as stationing alliance troops in former Soviet bloc countries, be curtailed. Some of these, like any pledge to permanently bar Ukraine, are nonstarters for NATO — creating a seemingly intractable deadlock that many fear can only end in war.

Russia denies it is planning an invasion, and says the Western accusations are merely a cover for NATO’s own planned provocations. Recent days have seen high-stakes diplomacy that failed to reach any breakthrough and maneuvering on both sides.

That effort included a face-to-face meeting Friday in Geneva between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. While Blinken said that “we are … equally committed to the path of diplomacy and dialogue to try to resolve our differences,” he added that “we’re also committed, if that proves impossible and Russia decides to pursue aggression against Ukraine, to a united, swift and severe response.”

The U.S. and U.K. have also drawn down their staff at the embassies in Ukraine over the past two days, and the U.S. last week approved transfers of U.S. weapons from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to Ukraine.

According to Joseph Gerson, president of the Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security, the situation is “a totally unnecessary” crisis but one that “has been years in the making.”

In an op-ed published at Common Dreams Monday, Gerson wrote:

Rather than acknowledge and compensate for errors made along the way, U.S. and NATO leaders’ arrogant inability to acknowledge legitimate Russian security concerns have precipitated what is termed the Ukraine crisis. It is actually a trans-European crisis. Contrary to all sides’ harsh public rhetoric, a near-term Russian invasion of Ukraine appears to be unlikely. But it could be triggered by an unintended incident, accident or miscalculation.

A chorus of voices warning against war continues to urge restraint from the U.S.

“Coming so soon after their 20-year war in Afghanistan,” said David Gibbs, a professor of history at the University of Arizona, “U.S. officials should not be looking for new foreign interventions in the Ukraine — which risks even worse outcomes than the ‘War on Terror’ produced.”

Warnings also came from Lyle Goldstein, director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities, who argued that even indirect intervention by the U.S. could bring “deleterious and even catastrophic consequences.”

“An indirect U.S. military role, such as offering weapons and military trainers, may sound appealing,” Goldstein told Responsible Statecraft. “Yet, such activities would further cement the ‘New Cold War,’ might prolong the war and the killing, would strain the NATO alliance, and could encourage Russian horizontal escalation, whether in Syria or even Venezuela.”

Read more on the new Cold War — and the threat of a “hot” one:

Virginia’s new GOP governor calls on parents to report teachers for “divisive” subjects

New Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin is begging Virginia parents to call his tip line to report teachers for teaching “divisive” subjects. While they called it a tip line, the office only revealed an email the press release: helpeducation@governor.virginia.gov.

According to the Washington Post, the number hasn’t been up long enough for activists to clog the line. When former President Donald Trump put up a tip line over voter fraud, he wasn’t able to capture any actual cases of voter fraud, but the young conservative staffers were “traumatized” by obscene phone calls and pornographic imagery coming into the online reporting site.

“We’re asking for folks to send us reports and observations,” Youngkin said, “help us be aware of … their child being denied their rights that parents have in Virginia, and we’re going to make sure we catalogue it all. … And that gives us further, further ability to make sure we’re rooting it out.”

Youngkin admitted in a Fox interview that “critical race theory” isn’t being taught anywhere in Virginia, despite making it a key component of his 2021 campaign.

Daily Beast reporter salary Matt Fuller, taking the word “divisive” literally, couldn’t help but joke that he expects many reports on math teachers over multiplication.

Wisconsin judge blocks hospital workers from starting new jobs with better pay

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a vicious cycle in American hospitals. Overwhelmed by the stress the pandemic has created, many medical workers have left their hospital jobs — at a time when hospital workers are needed more than ever.

Leaving those jobs doesn’t necessarily mean that they have left the medical professional altogether; some have left for other medical jobs. In Wisconsin, employees of ThedaCare left for jobs with Ascension Northeast Wisconsin — and ThedaCare responded by taking legal action in the hope of keeping them longer.

CRAZYu2014When 7 Wisconsin hospital workers quit to work at another hospital for better pay & work/life balance, the 1st hospital didn’t try to match the 2nd hospital’s offer. It instead got a judge to issue a temporary order blocking the workers from leaving.https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2022/01/21/what-we-know-ascension-thedacare-court-battle-over-employees/6607417001/u00a0u2026

— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1642971371

Madeline Heim, a science reporter for the Appleton Post-Crescent in Wisconsin, explains, “It was unclear whether a group of former ThedaCare employees would be allowed to start their new jobs at Ascension Northeast Wisconsin Monday after lawyers for both health systems made their first appearance in court Friday morning. The uncertainty is the latest development in a battle over health care employees that began late Thursday and is now playing out in court. It comes as staff shortages strain health systems nationwide — nearly one in five health care workers have quit their jobs since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This has been a local Wisconsin story — a friend in Wisconsin brought it to my attention. Only now, thanks in part to social media, is the national media learning about this, and I hope some in the national media will cover it.

— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1643034233

Added to court docs today is a letter from Timothy Breister, one of the 7 employees. nnBreister wrote he applied to the Ascension job for better work-life balance & was told when asking Theda to match the offer that “the long term expense … was not worth the short term cost.”

— Madeline Heim (@Madeline Heim) 1642810678

In Wisconsin, Outagamie County Circuit Court Judge Mark McGinnis, Heim notes, temporarily blocked the medical workers from starting their new jobs with Ascension. ThedaCare asked the judge to keep them from starting at Ascension until replacements could be found.

READ: ‘Threat to democracy is real’: Experts nuke ‘fascist’ Newt Gingrich over his threat to jail Democrats

“The employees were part of an 11-member interventional radiology and cardiovascular team, which can perform procedures to stop bleeding in targeted areas during a traumatic injury or restore blood flow to the brain in the case of a stroke,” Heim notes. “Each of them (was) employed at-will, meaning they were not under an obligation to stay at ThedaCare for a certain amount of time.”

“The Gilded Age” is a glittery confection that’s more “Dynasty” than “Downton Abbey”

“The Gilded Age” theme song discernibly lacks the piano part that lent a warmth and grace to John Lunn’s signature melody for “Downton Abbey.” This is the first clue that Julian Fellowes’ latest period drama is a different creature from his PBS showpiece, announcing the story’s soul with forceful a string section in furious conversation with baritone brass swell.

One side is as demanding and impertinent as new money. The other is the voice of a dug-in, unmovable establishment. But the strings wash over the brass like the waves on an incoming sea storm.

Some might not immediately love Harry and Rupert Gregson-Williams’ audacious composition for the very reason it works so well with the story. Like Fellowes’ take on 1882 New York society, there’s an unapologetic too-muchness about it that nevertheless builds upon what came before.

“The Gilded Age” was first announced in 2012 as an NBC series intended to recreate the magic of “Downton,” only set in Edith Wharton’s stomping grounds. This goes some way in explaining why its depiction of stupendous familial wealth feels equally as inspired by “Gossip Girl” and made for an audience that judges the value of a new prestige show by the faces on its cover.

Thus, we have Christine Baranski (“The Good Fight”) and Cynthia Nixon (“And Just Like That“) representing the old-money contingent as Agnes van Rhijn and her spinster sister Ada Brook, arsenic and old lace personified. They live across Fifth Avenue from George and Bertha Russell, Vanderbilt types played by Morgan Spector and Carrie Coon, frigidly cooing some approximation of a mid-Atlantic accent.

Agnes and Ada pride themselves on being descended from old New York stock, blue bloods who claim roots reaching back to the 1600s. To them the Russells are vulgar robber barons who came from nowhere, outfitted their garish palace with castoffs from European aristocracy and must never enter their social circle.

Cynthia Nixon and Christine Baranski in “The Gilded Age” (Alison Cohen Rosa/HBO)

Never mind that the Russells’ newly constructed home is palatial next to their own, built by a fortune that eclipses that of New York royalty like the Astors. They are nothing to society’s old guard, and Bertha makes it her mission to crash its padlocked gates.

“The Gilded Age” plays like some overlap in a Venn diagram between “Dynasty,” “Downton” and a mostly de-sexualized “Bridgerton,” and some people are going to hate that. One imagines literary purists puffing, “Well, it’s certainly nowhere near the level of our Edith!” and . . . they’re right.

The counterpoint is that a good deal of the “Downton” viewership to whom this is designed to appeal probably read more literature by the likes of Julia Quinn – and please understand, that is not meant as a slight. Fellowes is a populist’s period drama designer, which you can see in the costumes and set design and hear in the dialogue’s zesty sprinkling of anachronisms.

Fellowes goes a bit wilder with them here, in fact, as he’s channeling the cadence of Charles Lederer or other Hollywood Golden Age screenwriters into the dialogue. Those benefiting the most from this are Coon and Spector, who play their parts with the air of early 20th century film stars.

Spector makes George a charmer even when he destroys people, which he does; he’s a bastard, but an admirable one. When it comes to business he has ice in his veins but his heart blazes for his wife and children. And he has a perfect match in Bertha, a brazen striver whose favorite six words consist of two phrases: “Until I say” and “When I say.” To call them pre-Trumpian is accurate in the attitudinal sense but doesn’t do justice to their panache and cleverness.

“Did you know they shot Jesse James?” George blithely tells his wife as he reads the paper to which she coolly replies, “He had his troubles; I have mine.” At this he sweeps her off her feet for a loving embrace.

Like its public television predecessor, Fellowes’ latest examines class stratification and prejudice through an upstairs-downstairs lens while widening the view from one household into several, but primarily navigates these two through a pair of well-meaning outsiders.

Agnes and Ada’s unmarried, penniless niece Marian (Louisa Jacobson) comes from Pennsylvania to live with them after her father dies and befriends a Black woman, Peggy Scott (Denée Benton), along the way. Marian is entirely baffled about the labyrinthine rules of the social class while Peggy has both the blessing and the burden of sitting on its borders as an observer.

This in itself makes “The Gilded Age” noteworthy among corsets-and-silks types of pieces in that it attempts, albeit in the slightest of terms, to portray the era’s race and class divisions without losing any of its confectionery appeal.

Louisa Jacobson and Denee Benton in “The Gilded Age” (Alison Cohen Rosa/HBO)

If you’re looking for accuracy on this front, “The Knick” rings truer. But those seeking a series that includes Black characters within its fantasia of wealth and status and grants them a realistic version of both, may find that this one initially does a decent job of developing these characters with a sense of agency apart from the white upper-class world around which most of the story revolves.

Of the two ingenue roles, in fact, Benton’s is the more engaging – especially when she’s teamed with Baranski’s “Good Fight” co-star Audra McDonald, who has a modest role as her mother. And one can see executive producer and director Salli Richardson-Whitfield’s fingerprints on this part of the story as well, since Peggy is a talented writer who dreams of being published in a city, and country, and in a time, that valorizes white novelists and journalists.

Benton delivers a firmly planted interpretation of Peggy as a woman who knows who she is and what she’s doing, and that includes placing herself inside a world determined to treat her as a lesser. But both she and Marian have a front-row view of what we know as history, with Marian hobnobbing with the Astor matriarch and Clara Barton and listening to scandalous gossip about the likes of J.P. Morgan, while Peggy received a front row view of the city’s power brokers whose deeds and stunts make for terrific material.

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

Otherwise, Fellowes upcycles many of his “Downton” character types, with Baranski stepping into the Dowager countess role and Nixon taking on the part of her kindly foil Isobel Crawley. This also means she gets many of the best exchanges dripping with the type of polite poison that only vipers of a certain vintage can spray.

“Gilded Age” also has a scheming ladies’ maid and a few delicate housekeepers, a closeted gay character determined to better his position and a battle ax of a housekeeper. Maybe that makes their various subplots predictable; possibly not. For his part Fellowes doesn’t attempt to camouflage his return to the formula mine that made his fortune. “The vengeful lady’s maid!” one of his gentleman remarks upon hearing gossip about a rival’s household intrigue, adding, “Sounds like a character in a melodrama.” Ha, ha.

What’s important for the viewer is whether you see these remakes and enjoy how they’re being employed in a broader and more ostentatious stage, or scoff at Fellowes’ nearly precise lifts from Wharton or her male contemporary Henry James.

One front upon which “The Gilded Age” challenges us is to discern which side in the society battles is worth rooting for. As is Fellowes’ way with his figures there are no pure black hats here, although he constructs the Russells in a way to make them more appealing to a modern audience than Agnes and Ada, who are uncharacteristically open-minded but still very much old society.

All of it dares a certain kind of “Masterpiece” acolyte to complain about missing the relative quietude of English countryside and nitpick over elocutionary details. The rest of us will be content to drool at each of Bertha’s fabulous dresses or chortle at Agnes’ quick comebacks. We’ll always have the Granthams; in fact, their movie sequel is due to be released this year. But for now, to paraphrase Bertha, it’s perfectly fine to want new friends, even ones whose egos and personalities can only be captured by an orchestra on full blast.

“The Gilded Age” premieres at 9 p.m. Monday, Jan. 24 on HBO.

More stories like this: