Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The stunning differences between Trump’s public COVID recommendations and the treatment he received

A new analysis is highlighting the disturbing distance between former President Donald Trump’s public COVID-19 recommendations and the treatment he actually received to fight the virus. Washington Post correspondent Philip Bump recalled the pandemic timeline, along with the drugs Trump touted compared to what he was actually given when his own life was on the line.

In his new book, titled “Chief of Chiefs,” former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows discussed Trump’s stay at Walter Reed, explaining he was treated with Regeneron’s FDA-approved monoclonal antibody treatment.

“For months, Trump tried to insist that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against COVID-19,” Bump notes in his Post analysis. “Meadows describes that effort — but then reveals that the drug was not part of Trump’s treatment regimen. For all of Trump’s bluster on the subject, when his life was on the line, hydroxychloroquine was apparently not part of the picture.”

At the onset of the pandemic, Trump was vocal about his support of drugs like hydroxychloroquine despite having no evidence of its effectiveness for treating COVID-19. Many of the former president’s daily COVID-19 briefings featured him touting the unproven drug even after he faced stark criticism from medical experts, lawmakers and other members of the scientific community.

However, the drug was not included in his treatment when he was actually hospitalized for COVID. Bump makes it clear that this revelation further discredits Trump’s touting of hydroxychloroquine and its effectiveness in treating COVID-19.

What Republicans know that Democrats don’t: Power matters more than policy

After days of rumors swirling among reporters on Capitol Hill, President Joe Biden confirmed it late Thursday evening: The Build Back Better plan is not going to pass this year. Which almost certainly means that the timeline for passing it is never.

Biden, of course, denied that “never” is in the cards. Instead, he released a statement to reporters, claiming, “My team and I are having ongoing discussions” with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., the primary holdout stopping Democrats from passing the bill through the Senate. “Leader Schumer and I are determined to see the bill successfully on the floor as early as possible,” Biden insisted. 

Still, there’s good reason for skepticism.

As I note in Friday’s Standing Room Only newsletter, the past 11 months have made it impossible to believe that Manchin is negotiating in good faith. Instead, every move Manchin makes suggests that his plan is what skeptics thought it was all along: pull out the few items that he and his rich benefactors approve of to pass through a slim bipartisan bill, and then doom the larger Build Back Better plan by wasting time with fake objections until Republicans retake Congress and permanently destroy it. Manchin explodes with hair-trigger defensiveness at even the mildest question that reminds him his “support” for the policies in Build Back Better is a big, fat lie. This is not the behavior of a man who actually intends to vote for a bill he keeps swearing he’s one more tweak away from supporting. 

RELATED: Joe Manchin goes off after reporter asks about Biden’s stalled agenda: “You’re bull—-“

Instead, Democrats are indicating a pivot to a voting rights agenda, which has been put on the back burner for months while Congress has been tangled up in the “will he or won’t he” dance with Manchin. Biden told reporters Wednesday that “there’s nothing domestically more important” than passing a voting rights bill. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — who drafted the original Build Back Better bill and clearly sees it as the culmination of his life’s work — told reporters on Wednesday, “it’s a lot more important that we deal with the voting rights issue” right now. 

These statements are 100% true, as anyone who has been paying close attention can attest.


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


Donald Trump may have failed to overthrow the 2020 election by sending a mob to storm the Capitol on January 6, but his coup is not over. Indeed, all signs show that his plans to steal the 2024 election are coming together nicely. Honest election officials are being purged across the country, replaced with Trump stooges who will invalidate election results Republicans don’t like. Insurrectionist types are taking over state legislatures, armed with plans to throw electoral college votes to Trump, regardless of how the people in their state vote. And it’s widely believed that, if Republicans control the House in 2024 — which all signs suggest they will — they will simply refuse to certify any election Biden wins. 

This is happening all out in the open. And yet somehow the majority of Democratic voters don’t seem to notice or care that Republicans are literally plotting a fascist takeover of the country. As Zach Beauchamp of Vox wrote earlier this month, “Neither Democrats nor the general public are doing much of anything to stop [Republicans].” He cited a troubling October poll that shows only 35% of Democratic voters even recognize that democracy is under serious threat. 

RELATED: GOP already has enough safe seats — through redistricting alone — to win back House in ’22

Why Democratic voters are so blind to a threat that’s playing out right in public isn’t a surprise: The behavior of their leaders signals that there’s no reason to worry. Oh sure, Democrats like to talk about how democracy is in danger. But rather than focus their energies on saving democracy, they spent the past 11 months trying to negotiate a social spending bill that was never going to get past Manchin’s bad faith objections. 

This isn’t to say that the items in Build Back Better — child care, better drug prices, climate change provisions — aren’t important. They are, in fact, critical. But Democrats failed to understand what Republicans know in their bones: This isn’t an episode of “West Wing.” The guy who gives the best speech doesn’t win. Ideas don’t matter. All that matters is power. The greatest agenda in the world — without the power to make it happen — is worth less than your March 2020 stockpile of toilet paper.


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


The prioritizing of Build Back Better over voting rights couldn’t be a better symbol of how Democrats’ understanding of power is totally backward. Their hope was that passing bold economic legislation and improving people’s lives would prove to Americans that government works, leading Americans to feel more protective of their democracy. But what they’ve discovered is that, without a working democracy, bold economic legislation is just a fantasy.

Perhaps there was never any hope for a voting rights bill. Both Manchin and his fellow Democratic obstructionist, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, are clearly too sold out to corporate interests to care about the fate of the nation. But if Biden and Democrats had approached voting rights with the singular focus they brought to Build Back Better, they could have gotten the news to pay real attention, and, eventually, even the voters. Instead, most Democrats were lulled into thinking the Trump threat is over, and why shouldn’t they think that? Biden was more focused on child tax credits than fighting fascism, and voters followed his cues. 

As this collapse of negotiations over Build Back Better shows, Biden was foolish to think he could prove that government works when government clearly doesn’t work, due in no small part to the already massive inroads Republican have made in their war on democracy. Democrats got millions more votes than Republicans in the 2020 election, and yet lost seats in the House and only control 50% of the Senate. The situation is only going to get worse once Republicans finish the next round of gerrymandering — just in time for the 2022 midterms. 

All of which really underscores what is a major difference in the parties: Republicans understand, and have understood for a long time, the importance of building power from the bottom up.

It’s why they’re responding to Biden’s presidential win with a hyper-local strategy focused on school boards and precinct chairs. It’s why they don’t have majorities in Congress and don’t have the White House, yet somehow still have total veto power over Biden’s legislative agenda. 

The abortion issue best exemplifies this difference between the parties.

Democrats have absolutely won the national debate on the issue. Strong majorities of Americans support reproductive rights and want Roe v. Wade to stay in place. In Democratic “West Wing” fantasies, this issue should done and dusted, since the left won the argument years ago. But abortion is still going to be banned in much of the country by this time next year, and, if and when Trump steals the White House in 2024, the GOP-controlled Congress will likely pass a federal ban on abortion. That’s all because Republicans didn’t worry too much about winning the argument over abortion, which they couldn’t do anyway. Instead, they carefully built the power with each federal court appointment and state legislative seat. Now Republicans can ban abortion all they want, and public opinion has no power to stop them. 

Power matters more than policy.

Democrats had it backwards, believing good policies would lead Americans to reward them with more power. Now they are finding out, much to their chagrin, that “good policies” count for nothing without power. Meanwhile, Republicans are moving full steam ahead with their already successful plan to amass so much power that they never have to answer to voters again. And there’s little Democrats can do to stop them because, due to their slim majority, a couple of corrupt senators are going to block voting rights just as surely as they blocked Build Back Better. Democrats don’t even have a popular movement to fight for democracy, having spent 11 months focusing their voters on this theory that good policies would lead to more power. Now it’s clear that the reverse is true, and it’s probably too late to fix the situation. 

Kanye West’s “independent” 2020 campaign described as “GOP plant,” may have broken law

Hip-hop artist Kanye West’s third-party 2020 presidential campaign hid ties and payments to Republican operatives, in possible violation of federal law, according to documents obtained by The Daily Beast.

West, a longtime friend of former President Donald Trump, launched his dubious bid in the summer of 2020, although he did very little actual campaigning and failed to get on the ballot in most states. The New York Times reported last year that Republican activists in at least a half-dozen states were involved in getting West’s name on the ballot, raising suspicions that the effort was intended to siphon Black voters away from Joe Biden. If that was indeed the plan, it was not effective: West only ended up getting about 67,000 votes nationwide. After Trump lost the election, West’s publicist flew to Georgia to unsuccessfully pressure a local election worker targeted by Trump to back up his false claims about the election, though the publicist denied that she was “associated” with West at the time.

The new documents, revealed in a lawsuit from a vendor accusing the campaign and consultants of a breach of contract, show that West’s campaign appears to have disguised “potentially millions of dollars” in services it received from a “secretive network of Republican Party operatives,” according to the Daily Beast. The campaign did not report some of the payments, which campaign finance experts told the outlet appear designed to conceal the Republican connections and could represent a violation of federal law.

The documents suggest that Jill Vogel, a Republican Virginia state senator and longtime political operative, and her law firm Holtzman Vogel, played a central role in West’s campaign while it also represented Trump in a Pennsylvania lawsuit ahead of the election. The firm also has ties to the Honest Elections Project, a conservative dark-money group pushing voting restrictions around the country. The West campaign also paid $60,000 to the Minnesota law firm Mohrman Kaardal in December 2020 after it filed a lawsuit baselessly alleging election fraud. That firm is also linked to the Amistad Project, a right-wing legal group that challenged the election results and worked with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. A month after the election, the West campaign paid $152,000 to the law firm BakerHostetler, which also works for the Republican National Committee. Sources who spoke to the Daily Beast also speculated that West may have been coordinating with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with West at his Wyoming ranch before his campaign launch.

RELATED: Kanye West publicist attempted to pry bogus fraud confession out of Georgia election worker

“It’s very clear that the whole point behind Kanye’s campaign was to try to re-elect Donald Trump,” Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told the Beast. “Whether that was a goal of Kanye is another issue. But he was clearly seen as a way to steal potential votes from Biden.”

Paul S. Ryan, vice president of the government watchdog group Common Cause, called the findings a “big deal.”

“The importance of disclosure in this matter can’t be overstated,” he told the outlet. “It’s no secret that Kanye West’s candidacy would have a spoiler effect, siphoning votes from Democrat Joe Biden. Voters had a right to know that a high-powered Republican lawyer was providing legal services to Kanye — and federal law requires disclosure of such legal work.”

West campaign sources, including lawyers who represented it, told the Daily Beast that they had been solicited by outside Republican operatives.

“I can tell you that he did not seek me out. Somebody else did,” Arizona attorney Tim La Sota, who represented the campaign, told the outlet.

The documents were included in a lawsuit filed by former campaign subvendor SeedX, which alleged that the campaign failed to pay it to build and maintain its website and merchandise operation. The documents include hundreds of pages of communications with campaign officials and contractors. The lawsuit was initially dismissed because it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction but the company plans to refile the suit in the correct venue soon, according to the report.

The documents show that Vogel began advising the West campaign on legal issues by at least August 2020, although a source told the Beast that Vogel had been “basically behind it all” since the previous month, when the campaign launched. Vogel has extensive ties in Republican politics. Her law firm has worked for Karl Rove’s  super PAC American Crossroads and the Senate Leadership Fund, which is tied to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

“She is a name that comes up a lot when you’re looking at right-wing money operations in general, tied to a lot of major players,” Libowitz told the Daily Beast. “She and her firm have ties to people like [the Federalist Society’s] Leonard Leo, just really big Republican money.” He added that Vogel may have sought to keep her name off the West campaign’s filings to avoid “any embarrassment that may come with being publicly affiliated with the trainwreck that was the Kanye campaign” and because “she did not want people to know that a Republican operative was behind his campaign.”


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


None of the West campaign’s filings to the Federal Election Commission mention Vogel or other Republican operatives who worked for the campaign, even though Vogel described herself in multiple texts and emails to SeedX as the “campaign lawyer.”

Whatever the reasons were for omitting Vogel’s name from FEC filings, the failure to disclose her work could run afoul of election laws.

 “If an outside group was paying for them, that needs to be disclosed as an in-kind contribution, and if that’s the case you would immediately run up against limits,” Libowitz told the Beast.

Ryan added that “if Holtzman Vogel’s legal services extended beyond compliance with federal campaign finance law to other matters, then the value of those services would constitute a potentially-illegal contribution to Kanye’s campaign.”

John Boyd, a consultant for West, denied that the musician had been manipulated by Republican operatives but acknowledged that the campaign was disorganized and that West did not fully control his operation.

“He had companies, individuals working for him, I don’t even know if he knew what they were doing that deeply. That’s my personal view,” Boyd told the Daily Beast. “There were definitely agendas out there that perhaps he didn’t have full control over.”

Libowitz said it was evident that Republicans involved with his campaign had ulterior motives. “So many of these firms work for major Republican organizations, and they are not doing this for him out of the kindness of their hearts,” he told the outlet. “It’s pretty clear Kanye was a GOP plant, whether he knew it or not.”

Read more on Kanye 2020 and its inglorious conclusion:

“I didn’t want to be complicit in so many lies”: Fox News contributor explains why he finally quit

A former longtime Fox News contributor, Jonah Goldberg, opened up on Tuesday about why he left the channel last month, claiming that he could no longer “be complicit in so many lies.”

Goldberg’s resignation was announced back in November, alongside Steve Hayes, former editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard. “Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis,” the duo wrote at the time. “But the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible.”

Goldberg and Hayes originally cited host Tucker Carlson’s controversial documentary “Patriot Purge” – which explores the Capitol riot through the lens of unproven right-wing conspiracy theories – as the singular breaking point for their careers with the channel. 

RELATED: Two longtime Fox News contributors quit over Tucker Carlson special: “It will lead to violence”

But on Tuesday, in a sharply penned essay in The Dispatch, Goldberg condemned the channel’s “lies” more broadly, saying that he’d actually exercised “a good deal of restraint since news broke that I left Fox News.”


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


“I know that a huge share of the people you saw on TV praising Trump were being dishonest,” Goldberg wrote. “I don’t merely suspect it, I know it, because they would say one thing to my face or in my presence and another thing when the cameras and microphones were flipped on.”

Goldberg also criticized the channel’s coverage of the January 6 panel’s findings with respect to Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s White House Chief of Staff. This week, the panel unearthed texts sent by three Fox News hosts – including Laura Ingraham – to Meadows, asking the Trump aide to have the former president call off the Capitol riot as it was unfolding. Though Ingraham publicly condemned the riot, Goldberg wrote, she couldn’t bear to admit that it was incited by Trump – which her texts indicated. 

RELATED: Veteran anchor Chris Wallace leaving Fox News after 18-year run

“What she didn’t say is that the mob’s passions boiled over because of Donald Trump’s lies—and the megaphone she and her colleagues gave to those lies,” Goldberg wrote. “From her texts it’s reasonable to assume that she believed – rightly – that this mob was Trump’s to command because the mob believed it was doing Trump’s bidding.”

“By the time the cameras went on, Laura was still willing to condemn the president’s mob, but not the president,” he added. 

Goldberg capped off with an indictment of whataboutism, saying that the channel’s “​​audience craved … whataboutism as an exit ramp from having to confront the actual facts.”

“It wasn’t always explicitly whataboutist. Sometimes the whataboutism was simply implied. Don’t talk about Trump’s lies, mistakes, or misdeeds, just focus on the hypocrisy or hysteria of liberals who point out Trump’s lies, mistakes, or misdeeds,” Goldberg argued. “Eventually, I felt like a cog in the whataboutist machinery.”

The incisive essay comes just days after the resignation of former Fox host Chris Wallace, who had been with the channel for eighteen years. Wallace is reportedly set to join CNN’s new platform to host a weekday show.

Trump’s coup accomplices in Congress: The House Freedom Caucus is a major problem

Around this time one year ago, Donald Trump was leaning heavily on the Justice Department (DOJ) to help him overturn the presidential election. According to notes taken by top DOJ official Richard Donoghue, after attorney general Bill Barr had abruptly skedaddled out of town before the proverbial manure hit the fan, the president called up the newly installed acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and told him “just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”

That Nixonian “request” was denied by Rosen, since it would have been a bald-faced lie but as we later learned, the White House was also plotting with an obscure DOJ lawyer named Jeffrey Clark to put the heat on Rosen to squeeze state election officials in states Trump claimed without evidence had been stolen from him. Rosen was told that Trump planned for Clark to replace him if he didn’t comply but Rosen resisted and Trump backed off after his own White House counsel convinced him that there would be mass resignations at the DOJ if he followed through. Other than one congressman from Pennsylvania, a Republican by the name of Scott Perry who had reportedly called up Donoghue to threaten him into doing Clark’s bidding, until now we didn’t know exactly who the “R. Congressmen” were. Now The New York Times reports that Trump’s accomplices were none other than the members of the House’s far-right Freedom Caucus.

The Times names Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, Louis Gohmert of Texas, Mo Brooks of Alabama and Pennsylvania’s Perry, who is described by the Times as the coordinator of the plans to replace the attorney general with the compliant Clark. They all worked closely with one of the original founders of the Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows, the former North Carolina congressman who served as Trump’s chief of staff.

The Times reports on a previously unknown meeting that took place shortly after the election which included Jordan, Perry and Meadows along with White House adviser Stephen Miller, Trump’s campaign manager Bill Stepien and press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Jordan claims it was purely a media strategy meeting. But when it comes to The Big Lie, that amounts to a strategy to overturn the election. Everything flowed from that. These Freedom Caucus members were all over TV spreading falsehoods about voter fraud. They pressured Republican officials and ran around chasing rumors of foreign interference. And after Barr announced that the DOJ had found no evidence of fraud, they smeared the FBI and the DOJ in the press. That’s when they turned their full attention to overturning the election, focusing on January 6th.


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


Gohmert sued vice president Mike Pence to force him to nullify the election. (The case was thrown out of court.) Perry forwarded a letter from some Pennsylvania state legislators to Sen. Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader in the House, asking them to delay the certification which they had no authority to do.

And they met personally with the president to make plans to “stop the sedition.”

And now we know from the Times’ reporting that the PowerPoint coup plot was forwarded to Meadows by none other than Jim Jordan — who Trump awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom after the insurrection. (That would be the same Jim Jordan who Kevin McCarthy had the chutzpah to attempt to install on the Jan. 6th Committee.)

The “R. Congressmen” were up to their necks in coup plots. But that’s not surprising. If anyone had told me five years ago that we’d have an attempted coup in America I would have assumed that the Freedom Caucus would be involved. They’ve been practicing for years on their own party.

RELATED: House Freedom Caucus expanding to the states — because GOP isn’t right-wing enough

When the Freedom Caucus was formed in 2015, Mark Meadows was one of its founding members. So was Mick Mulvaney, another former Trump chief of staff, and current Florida Governor Ron Desantis among others, like Jordan. They presented themselves as dedicated to fiscal conservatism and re-establishing congressional prerogatives but from the start it was clear that their prime directive was to make the GOP leadership miserable and drive Democrats to drink.

Meadows went even beyond the caucus at times, unintentionally showing the way forward. He challenged then House Speaker John Boehner’s leadership by deploying an obscure procedure that hadn’t been used since 1910. It failed, but it riled up the right-wing media and the base in a way that only Trump has since mastered. With their in-your-face extremism they managed to create so much chaos in the GOP caucus that House Speaker John Boehner was eventually forced out.

They refused to vote for his assumed successor, Kevin McCarthy of California, helping to doom his candidacy and instead they got Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, an up and coming conservative superstar who had run for Vice President on the ticket with Mitt Romney in 2012. Ryan was considered one of their own at the time, although he wasn’t a formal member of the Freedom Caucus. But that didn’t really work out all that well either. They made Ryan’s life hell too and he ended up quitting politics altogether in 2018.


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


The truth is that the Freedom Caucus has been running the House Republican caucus in a reign of terror for over half a decade now and if they manage to take the majority in 2022, Kevin McCarthy is likely to have a big fight on his hands. He’s never been one of them and despite his desperate attempts to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Freedom Caucus is going to want to put a homeboy in charge for real. That person is almost surely going to be Jim Jordan, the man who helped Mark Meadows plot the attempted coup.

These people have been fighting a guerilla war against their own party for years and were the perfect choice to be Trump’s personal henchmen. In many ways they paved the way for his mafioso style of governance. And you can bet that as Trump goes around the country wreaking revenge on all those who betrayed him over the next few years, the Freedom Caucus will be right there with him. When it comes to stabbing fellow Republicans in the back, they are professionals. 

The ocean is returning our plastic waste. That’s a real problem

Some say that the ocean throws back anything it does not want. In the wake of new research on plastic waste, the truth of this aphorism has taken on new meaning: Recent studies have revealed that the ocean is spitting tiny bits of plastic pollution back onto land.

In a paper published earlier this year, a team led by Janice Brahney of Utah State University and Natalie Mahowald of Cornell University found that the oceans have been spraying a steady stream of microplastics into the atmosphere, where they can float across continents and oceans before eventually settling back to earth. The work illuminates a global cycle of plastic, akin to other biogeochemical cycles like those of water, nitrogen, and carbon.

But it also puts the problem of plastic pollution in a new, disheartening light. The study by Brahney, Mahowald, and their colleagues is among the latest in an accumulating body of work that suggests the estimated 8.8 million tons (8 million metric tons) of plastic waste that annually slide off the continents doesn’t just pose a problem for aquatic life. Rather, there is no final resting place for plastic, no corner of the globe that is spared. The plastic waste we produce today will continue to haunt us for generations to come. In other words, we may have vastly underestimated the scope, breadth, and intractability of the global plastic pollution problem.

To say that plastic is everywhere isn’t really a revelation anymore. By now, it’s been established that plastic waste in the environment is broken apart primarily by sunlight, abrasion, and temperature into fragments ranging from the size of tiny pebbles to the size of bacteria. This microplastic can break down even further: Nanoplastic, which scientists are only beginning to measure but expect is equally abundant, can be as small as a virus.

Microplastic — often laced with potentially harmful chemical additives — is known to alter soil quality, diminish crop production, and move through food chains. Research suggests we eat an estimated 39,000 to 52,000 pieces of microplastic a year and inhale tens to hundreds of pieces a day into our lungs, and microplastic has even found its way into hard-to-reach places like the human placenta. Microplastics, and the chemicals that ride them into our bodies like a trojan horse, are being investigated as possible causes of immune system dysfunction, reproductive complications, neurodevelopmental delays in children, and other disorders.

According to Brahney, all dust on earth now contains microplastic. Microplastic rains down from the Antarctic to the Arctic, from Tibetan Plateaus to the peaks of the Pyrenees. More than 1,100 tons of microplastic — or 132 pieces per meter per day — fall annually on remote landscapes in the Western U.S.

Yet, it was only during the past two years that scientists began to fully understand the sources of all this plastic. In 2020, a team led by Steve Allen of Canada’s Dalhousie University and Deonie Allen of Scotland’s Strathclyde University showed for the first time that microplastic can be lifted off the ocean surface through the complex physics of bubbles and sea spray. They estimated that more than 149,000 tons of ocean plastic were being spat back onto shorelines through coastal breezes around the world every year.

Brahney and her colleagues went a step further, showing that these sea-sprayed plastics could be lofted not only onto shore but also into the atmosphere. Their model suggests that the plastic ejected from the ocean — on the order of millions of tons per year — is part of a continuous, global transaction of plastic dust between the ocean, the atmosphere, and the land. They concluded that even in remote areas of the Western U.S., roughly 11 percent of all raining microplastic originated from the ocean. In fact, the model suggests the ocean is sending almost twice as much plastic back onto the continents as the continents are sending atmospherically to the ocean — a counterintuitive finding that Brahney attributes to the vast amount of plastic that’s already accumulated for decades in areas like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

“What we’re seeing in the atmosphere is legacy pollution. It’s not this year’s emissions,” Brahney explained to me. “It’s decades of emissions.”

The implications of this finding could be profound. It suggests that even if humanity stopped producing plastic tomorrow, the problem of plastic pollution would remain with us for generations. For a substantial amount of plastic that finds its way into the oceans, the sea is not a final destination, but a mere pitstop on a journey that will eventually see it back to land — back to us — in a dusty form that makes it seem nearly impossible to remediate. Trying to corral decades of plastic dust cycling the globe would be like trying to sweep during a sandstorm. (Regardless, plastic production is escalating, not waning. At the current rate, the annual global flow of plastic into the ocean will nearly triple by 2040.)

It’s also possible that microplastics lofted into the skies could alter physical processes in the atmosphere. Some scientists are probing whether the particles could behave like aerosols, possibly absorbing enough radiation to have a net warming effect on the planet. Others have shown that floating microplastics can seed ice crystals, possibly forming clouds, which also could have climate effects.

To be clear, the existence of a global plastic cycle does not significantly mitigate the threat that plastic waste poses to aquatic life. Scientists estimate that there are 24.4 trillion pieces of microplastic floating on or near the ocean surface, swirled into enormous ocean gyres, with concentrations that call up images of soup or even smog. Still, 99 percent of all plastic dumped into the ocean has sunk below the surface. Recent research shows much of it is now being swept into mounds by deep sea currents, often in areas of deep ocean biodiversity. (Yes, there are essentially garbage patches on the ocean floor too.) Although we still know less about the topography of the deep sea than the surface of Mars, preliminary work suggests that deep sea canyon microplastics can be resuspended, only adding to the growing evidence that even the deep sea may not be willing to sequester our plastic problem forever.

Perhaps the most important lesson of the newfound plastic cycle is that plastic pollution is a global problem that demands global cooperation. We cannot solve this issue by shipping our plastic waste to other countries, as many first world nations have done for decades. As Allen, author of the 2020 paper, told me, “There are no borders in nature, and plastic is a prime example.”

The science journalist Christina Reed has aptly called this moment the “dawn of the plasticene age.” These days, we can get a mouthful of plastic when biting into a Hot Pocket or enjoying a beer. Even a baby’s first poop can contain plastic. And now we know that we are constantly being showered with microplastic from around the world. The ocean, apparently, does not want it.

***

Charlotte Stevenson has a M.S. from Stanford University in environmental toxicology, was a National John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellow, and is currently a Masters candidate at the Johns Hopkins program in science writing. Her work is published with University of Southern California Sea Grant, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOAA, and Age of Awareness.

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

We asked scientists what the omicron variant is going to do to the United States

If you want to get a good sense of how the omicron variant of COVID-19 is going to spread in the United States, just look across the ocean. In the United Kingdom and South Africa — two nations in which the omicron variant is quickly becoming more dominant than delta, or has already — infection rates are surging, largely because the variant is so much more transmissible. While current evidence suggests patients stricken with omicron are less likely to require hospitalization or die, huge infection rates have put massive pressure on both nations’ infrastructure. 

Now that omicron has graced the shores of the United States, we appear to be in the early phases of what the aforementioned countries are experiencing. In New York City, the percentage of people testing positive for COVID-19 doubled in three days this week, with a Mayor Bill de Blasio advisor attributing the spike to the omicron variant. During a Tuesday briefing for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), top federal health officials told reporters that there had been a sevenfold jump in the prevalence of the omicron variant over the course of a single week.

Although the surge could subside after the spring, they added that if current trends persist there may be a public health crisis. This would be especially so if the delta variant continues to wreak havoc, and an influenza epidemic exacerbates the problem caused by the pair of COVID-19 strains. The former scenario is already occurring and the latter is increasingly plausible, at least based on the timetable that scientists have established for when the omicron variant is likely to surge in the United States.

“Based on data from South Africa and Europe we can expect a significant increase in case numbers here in the US in the next several weeks,” Dr. Stephen Goldstein, professor at the Eccles Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Utah, told Salon by email. “It is possible to likely that peak cases numbers will exceed last winter’s peak.”

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, predicted that omicron will become the dominant variant in the United States within three to six months.

“This is based on its high degree of infectiousness, the significant number of people unvaccinated and the degree of breakthrough infections for people that are fully vaccinated but un-boosted,” Benjamin explained in writing. “Breakthrough infections in people that are fully vaccinated and boosted do occur, but are at a lower rate.”

The underlying problem is that the omicron variant is more transmissible than previous variants. When it comes to stopping a pandemic, there are few things that epidemiologists dread more than a hyper-transmissible bug.

Indeed Dr. Russell Medford, chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, told Salon by email that he expects the omicron variant to dominate in the United States just as it currently does in the United Kingdom because “the omicron variant is significantly more transmissible than delta.” 

Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, also said that the omicron variant is “more transmissible and will cause a wave of new infections,” but added that “there is now evidence that Omicron is less severe than previous strains.” What scientists do not yet know, she added, is “if this is because of increasing cellular immunity in the population in December 2021 versus an inherent property of the strain that makes it less virulent.”


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


Beyond transmissibility, the next-biggest concern with omicron is the question of vaccine resistance. In the past six months, the delta variant’s spread was blunted by the number of vaccinated Americans — and while delta was faintly vaccine-resistant, the majority of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths in the United States were among the unvaccinated, prompting the head of the CDC to dub the situation a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” 

Yet omicron may be more vaccine-resistant than delta, primarily for reasons relating to mutations on the spike protein. B.1.1.529 (the omicron variant’s official name) has 30 mutations located near the spike protein — which is worrying mainly because the mRNA vaccines produced for COVID-19 specifically target it. The spike protein comprises the spikes that jut out from around the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ central sphere like spines on a sea urchin. The virus uses those spikes to enter a body’s cells, like a pick being used to open a lock, while existing vaccines help one’s cells produce proteins like those on the spikes that the immune system produces antibodies against. If the mutations sufficiently alter the spike protein, the body’s immune system may be less adept at recognizing the virus, having been prepared to fight a different version of the spike. 

“The two vaccinations, typically of any of the vaccines, offer virtually no protection against infection and transmission,” Dr. William Haseltine, founder and former CEO of Human Genome Sciences and currently the chair and president of the global health think tank Access Health International, told Salon. “Three vaccinations offer only very temporary protection after three months.”

Haseltine also noted that the vaccines were adept at reducing hospitalization and death, perhaps even by as much as tenfold, but “will not eliminate it.” And, he added, the vaccines “will not spare those who are infected from you who are not similar protected from the consequences of the disease, which can be quite serious.” That’s because the vaccine is defensive, Haseltine said: it does not stop the virus from entering the body, only fights it once it is inside. 


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


Goldstein drew attention to a different caveat to the undeniable advantages of pre-existing immunity (whether through vaccination or infection).

“While encouraging on an individual basis, this coming surge will almost certainly produce enough severe infections to overwhelm already stretched healthcare resources,” Goldstein pointed out. “Double vaccination or prior infection, though they likely blunt severity, will not provide substantial protection from infection and onward transmission of omicron. It is imperative that people get vaccinated and/or boosted as soon as possible to protect themselves from the imminent omicron surge.”

Medford seemed more cautiously optimistic in his assessment. He told Salon that the omicron variant was “considerabl[y] more resistant than delta to the neutralizing antibodies generated by our first line mRNA vaccines, and even more so with other vaccine types” and added that “fortunately, a third dose of the mRNA vaccine, or booster, appears to largely correct this vaccine resistance.” He said he thinks it is likely that the mRNA vaccines remain effective, “especially with a third dose booster,” when it comes to preventing hospitalizations and deaths from serious omicron variant infections — although he added this has not been formally documented.

When it comes to the long-term consequences of the omicron variant in terms of the COVID-19 pandemic, two of the experts who spoke with Salon used the same word — “endemic.”

“The pandemic is transiting into a phase where it is endemic,” Benjamin told Salon. “This means there will episodic outbreaks that will be managed by contact racing, individual quarantines, targeted closures of activities or events and vaccinations /revaccinations for people that need it. Eventually as the disease becomes less severe/lethal some of these pubic health measures may be relaxed.”

Medford had a similar observation.

“COVID-19 variants such as omicron and others in the future will become an endemic feature of this disease akin to seasonal influenza,” Medford explained. “The data today with current vaccines are promising in that full vaccination (3 doses) are remain effective even in the face of new and structurally different viral variants.”

If COVID-19 truly is going to be endemic, then perhaps policymakers will need to take that into account. Looking forward, Gandhi (who did not use the word “endemic” in her email) suggested that it might be wise for public health officials to base their policies off of hospitalizations rather than infections, given that the omicron variant could lead to a surge of mild cases.

“We are likely to get many cases with omicron worldwide but – since the severity of disease is reduced — the impact of this variant (and restrictions such as mask mandates and capacity limits) should be based on hospitalization metrics for COVID-19,” Gandhi pointed out. “If the omicron variant is that transmissible but causes less severe disease, it is likely to find unvaccinated individuals, leading to more immunity in those populations, and infect even vaccinated individuals, boosting their immunity even further — which will hasten more immunity and hopefully make the pandemic calm own worldwide.”

Ohio candidate J.D. Vance calls out Walmart for “slave labor” — and heavily invests in its stock

Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance has accused Walmart of using “slave labor” to make cheap products that undermine American jobs. But his latest personal financial disclosure shows he owns at least $50,000 in Walmart stock.

Vance, who made a fortune as a venture capitalist before writing the best-selling book “Hillbilly Elegy,” submitted his personal financial disclosure last month after missing the original filing deadline. It indicates that he owns between $50,000 and $100,000 in Walmart stock. (Such disclosure forms list ranges, rather than precise amounts.)

Vance also participated in a 2017 “fireside chat” with Walmart executive Daniel Eckert to discuss business issues as well as the “populist movement” that “propelled Donald Trump into the presidency.”

Now that he is seeking the Republican nomination for an open Ohio Senate seat — and hoping to land former President Donald Trump’s endorsement — Vance has taken to criticizing the company and its reliance on China, which has become a popular GOP target.

During an event in Dover, Ohio, in October, Vance blamed politicians from both parties for shipping “a lot of our manufacturing base off to China.”

“The thought was we get a lot of cheap stuff in return,” he said. “They make it more cheaply because they were relying on slave labor. So maybe you go to Walmart and things don’t cost as much. But in the process, a lot of middle-class people lost those good jobs that enabled them to support them.”

RELATED: J.D. Vance leads GOP hypocrisy on “Big Tech” — while raking in cash from Silicon Valley

Vance reiterated his belief that Walmart relies on slave labor in an interview with conservative commentator Buck Sexton, accusing the company of using diversity and inclusion programs to distract from the issue.

“Who cares if you are employing Chinese slaves? Who cares if you are benefiting from the Communist Chinese Party’s slave labor?” he said. “So long as you are properly woke, so long as you teach diversity, equity and inclusion at your workplace, you won’t face any scrutiny, you won’t face any consequences.”

Walmart has faced allegations that it uses slave labor for years. The company says it has taken steps to address forced labor and ensure compliance with its responsible sourcing policies.

During an appearance in Youngstown last month, Vance argued that a “bunch of idiot leaders” decided to ship middle-class American jobs to China and “countries that hate us” in return for “a lot of cheap plastic garbage at Walmart.”

This has been a theme of his Ohio campaign since he announced his candidacy in July, arguing in an op-ed that American leaders had made the indefensible choice that Americans should “be able to buy cheaper consumer goods at Walmart instead of having access to a good job.”

On that issue, he has a point. An analysis by the progressive Economic Policy Institute found that Walmart’s outsourcing to companies in China may have eliminated 400,000 jobs between 2001 and 2013. But in none of his campaign speeches or appearances has Vance disclosed that he is an investor in the company he accuses of killing American jobs and relying on “slave labor.” A spokesman for Vance did not respond to questions from Salon.

“J.D. Vance keeps proving that he’s an untrustworthy fraud,” said Brad Bainum, a spokesperson for the Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century.


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


Vance has also drawn accusations of hypocrisy over his campaign against Big Tech, which he has accused of censoring conservatives, since he has spent years investing in tech startups at his venture capital firm Narya and before that at Mithril Capital, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, a Facebook board member.

On the campaign trail, Vance has also tied himself in knots trying to reposition himself as a pro-Trump Republican after repeatedly bashing the former president over the past several years before deciding to run for office himself. Vance in 2016 said he could not “stomach Trump” and said his policy proposals “range from immoral to absurd.” He now says he has had a change of heart and has ventured on something of an apology tour, even tagging along with Thiel — a major Trump donor who has sunk $10 million in Vance’s campaign — on a trip to Mar-a-Lago seeking an audience with Trump.

Vance’s campaign is also backed by the billionaire investors Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who helped fund Trump’s 2016 campaign and financially backed many of the players involved in stoking Trump’s election lies and the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

There has been little polling in the Ohio Republican primary race, which also includes former state Treasurer Josh Mandel, who has desperately tried to out-Trump Vance, and top Trump donor Jane Timken. Vance has consistently run behind Mandel in polls so far, although the Thiel-funded super PAC backing him has touted a recent poll showing him closing the gap.

“That’s why you raise money — so you can run a real campaign and do messaging,” Ohio Republican strategist Doug Preisse told Salon earlier this year about the Thiel and Mercer money flowing into the former never-Trumper’s campaign. “Sometimes you gotta try to put the shit back in the horse, which is what he’s probably going to have to spend some money doing.”

Read more on the impending Ohio Senate race:

Don’t turn away, and don’t turn off the news: We need bravery, now more than ever

I write in praise of bravery. Your bravery for paying attention to the news, for reading and sharing this story. For not looking away.

Thucydides, who had one of the clearest eyes in history about the dangers faced by democracies, said, “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet nonetheless go out to meet it.”

I have dear friends and family members who refuse altogether to engage with politics. Some say they consider it too crass for their taste, or irrelevant to their lives. Others have told me that it terrifies them: They’d rather not know what’s going on, in the hope that its consequences will never visit them.  

I honor their choices, although I’m haunted by the voices of people in the past who did the same. 

Milton Mayer chronicled the consequences of this “see no evil” approach to maintaining an apolitical life during a time of political upheaval.  

He was a Chicago reporter who, following World War II, went to Germany to interview “average Germans” to try to learn how such a terrible thing could have happened and, hopefully, thus prevent it from ever happening here. 

RELATED: Fascism or freedom? America is stuck in an ugly and dangerous in-between

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people,” Mayer wrote, “little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security….”

He wrote about living there and the 10 Germans he befriended: I found his description of a college professor to be the most poignant. As Mayer’s professor friend noted, and Mayer recorded in his book, “They Thought They Were Free“:

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. …

To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it — please try to believe me — unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, “regretted,” that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these “little measures” that no “patriotic German” could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

In this conversation, Mayer’s friend suggests that he wasn’t making an excuse for not resisting the rise of the fascists, but was simply pointing out what happens when you keep your head down and just “do your job” without engaging in politics.

Pastor Niemoller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing: and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. 

And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something — but then it was too late.

Mayer acknowledged the man’s story; it was a familiar one to him by then, told to him by German after German.

“You see,” Mayer’s friend continued, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next”:

You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not? Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. …

In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. …

But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked — if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. 

But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying “Jew swine,” collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. 

The world you live in — your nation, your people — is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. 

But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.

Mayer’s German professor friend pointed out the terrible challenge faced then by average Germans, and today by many Americans as authoritarians have taken over the Republican Party and are now openly trying to overturn our form of government.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men?” Mayer’s friend asked rhetorically. And, without the benefit of a previous, recent and well-remembered fascistic regime to refer to, he had to candidly answer: “Frankly, I do not know.”


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


This was the great problem that Mayer’s Germans and so many in their day faced.  They couldn’t see the full arc of fascism’s evil history because it had not yet happened and was merely in process. 

Just like many Americans today who refuse to keep up with the news, to acknowledge the fascist parallels to the Trump movement within the GOP, to involve themselves with politics.

As Mayer’s German friend noted:

I do not see, even now [how we could have stopped it]. Many, many times since it all happened, I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice — “Resist the beginnings” and “consider the end.” But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men?

Mayer’s German friends — and a few old Germans I got to know when I lived in Germany in the 1980s — didn’t have the benefit of history to see how a democracy could be turned to fascism by the will of a small group of people willing to bend or break the rules and employ threats of violence.

We, however, do have that ability — that gift of history — and I commend your bravery for joining the very real and often very difficult work to retain freedom in our democratic republic.  

The neofascists who have seized hold of the GOP will never give up: neither can we.

More from Salon’s coverage of the fascist resurgence:

Dems face 2022 nightmare if student debt payments restart and child tax credit ends, critics say

Progressives are spelling out for the Democratic Party the disastrous implications that are likely to come with the government’s possible failure to extend the enhanced child tax credit right as the White House plans to require tens of millions of people to restart their federal student loan payments—warning that the 2022 midterms could be “brutal” if the party imposes new financial burdens on working families.

With right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) telling the White House Wednesday he wants to “zero out” the child tax credit (CTC) in the $1.75 trillion Build Back Better reconciliation package, millions of families with children may have received their final monthly payment of up to $300 per child this week.

The most recent payment hit bank accounts on Wednesday as the White House announced it would shelve negotiations over the social spending package in light of Manchin’s objections.

In order to ensure families can receive another monthly check by January 15, the legislation would have to be approved by December 28, according to CNBC.


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


Without the CTC, nearly 10 million children are at risk of falling into poverty, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, while another 27 million children will lose income that has been credited with helping families across the country afford rising grocery bills, utilities, school expenses, and other necessities.

According to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the Democrats are “looking at all procedural options available for a stand-alone short term extension of the CTC,” which would require the votes of at least 10 Republican senators to pass with the legislative filibuster in place.

Without congressional action, wrote Eric Levitz at New York Wednesday, “shortly after Christmas—and in the midst of rising prices—just about every U.S. household with minor children will see its monthly income abruptly fall. It seems likely that this would be politically disadvantageous for the ruling party. It is certain that allowing the enhanced CTC to expire would increase child poverty.”

According to an analysis by the Urban Institute, the continuation of the CTC—which is only included in the current version of the Build Back Better Act for one year—would slash child poverty by 40%.

RELATED: Sinema’s giant flip-flop: She once campaigned on issues she now wants dropped from Biden’s plan

“Millions of people are depending on us,” tweeted Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

If the White House goes through with its current plans, weeks after receiving their final CTC payment tens of millions of Americans—including many who are raising children—will also be required for the first time in nearly two years to begin paying off their student loans again.

Congress imposed a moratorium on the payments in March 2020 and the pause has been extended several times by both the Trump and Biden administrations.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki made clear in a press briefing last week that the administration currently has no plans to extend more relief to student loan borrowers, whose monthly payments are nearly $400 on average.

RELATED: Joe Manchin goes off after reporter asks about Biden’s stalled agenda: “You’re bull—-“

Psaki told reporters that the White House is “focused on starting repayment” as planned. As Common Dreams reported in October, the Education Department has been examining ways to avert “a surge in delinquencies” through a “return to repayment” program.

“If I were trying to prevent handing power back to the GOP for at least a decade I would simply not do this,” journalist Kate Aronoff tweeted last week.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has been joined by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in urging the White House to cancel significant amounts of student debt—as the Higher Education Act permits—said Thursday that restarting monthly loan payments will be a “hard blow” to households across the country.

“The pause on federal student loan payments, interest, and collections has improved borrowers’ economic security, allowing them to invest in their families, save for emergencies, and pay down other debt,” wrote Warren, Pressley, and Schumer in a letter to the administration last week. “Restarting payments without canceling student debt will undermine these families’ economic progress.”

High school teacher and former UFC fighter Cory Gibson shared on social media how the Democrats’ failure to prioritize working families in the coming weeks will affect his family, saying they would face a “$1,400 swing” in income over the course of a month and a half.

Some progressives preemptively denounced centrist Democrats and pundits who may blame the left for congressional losses in 2022 rather than connecting negative electoral outcomes to the party’s failure to help working families.

“These are policy choices,” said the Debt Collective, which advocates for student debt cancellation. “We don’t have to choose this. All of this is 100% unnecessary and avoidable.”

While many progressives have denounced Manchin for his part in objecting to the extension of the CTC, Levitz pointed out that the party leadership chose to cut the extension down to one year rather than making it permanent to satisfy Manchin’s spending demands:

For months, the senator has suggested that he will not support new spending far in excess of $1.75 trillion, that he would like every cent of that spending to be offset with new taxes, and that cutting the bill’s costs by phasing out programs Democrats intend to eventually make permanent is a gimmick that would not satisfy his demand on the spending cap. As Manchin told Politico back in September, “Once you start doing something, it becomes ingrained in it. We want to do it and do it right and finance it.”

[…]

Even as Democratic leaders heeded Manchin’s demands on the bill’s top-line price and tax provisions, they ignored his consistent, emphatic opposition to budget gimmicks. Instead of paring down Biden’s social agenda to two or three programs and then funding full permanent versions of those policies, House Democrats chose to retain nearly all of Biden’s proposals and then cram them under a $1.75 trillion spending cap through a variety of means tests, phase-ins, and phaseouts.”

“Right now, Democrats have a rare opportunity to permanently expand the American welfare state,” Levitz continued. “Merely supplying permanent funding for the enhanced CTC would lift millions of U.S. children out of poverty a year, in perpetuity. Establishing universal prekindergarten or closing the Medicaid gap would be a similarly laudable achievement. By attempting to enact nearly all of Biden’s social policies in miniature, however, Democrats risk permanently establishing none.”

GOP to pay $1.6 million of Trump’s legal bills, a “highly unusual” move: report

In a “highly unusual” move, the Republican Party has agreed to pay $1.6 million of former president Donald Trump’s legal bills stemming from ongoing criminal and civil investigations into his company’s business practices in New York.

“The party’s executive committee overwhelmingly approved the payments at a meeting this summer in Nashville, according to four members and others with knowledge of the situation who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private meeting of the executive committee,” the Washington Post reported Thursday afternoon. “That means the GOP’s commitment to pay Trump’s personal legal expenses is more than 10 times higher than previously known.”

Emma Vaughn, a GOP spokeswoman, said in a statement: “The RNC’s Executive Committee approved paying for certain legal expenses that relate to politically motivated legal proceedings waged against President Trump. As a leader of our party, defending President Trump and his record of achievement is critical to the GOP.”


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


Campaign finance experts told the Post there appears to be nothing illegal about the payments.

“Still, paying Trump’s legal bills is a highly unusual move, longtime party observers and members say, because the spending has nothing to do with promoting the GOP’s policy agenda or political priorities, dealing with ongoing party business or campaigning in states — and relates to investigations that are not about Trump’s time as president or his work in the White House,” the newspaper reported.

Read the full story.

More on Trump’s ongoing legal troubles:

CEO of Trump’s social media “blank check company” sued by investor for “brazen act of fraud”: report

On Thursday, Axios reported that a private equity investor, Brian Shevland, is suing the CEO of the so-called “blank check company” behind former President Donald Trump’s attempt to build a new social media platform — and that he is alleging a fraud scheme.

“The lawsuit comes just a week after Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DWAC), led by Patrick Orlando, disclosed that it’s under investigation by federal securities regulators. It also comes several months before Trump’s company is slated to launch its first public products,” reported Dan Primack. “Shevland was an early director nominee of DWAC, but claims in his lawsuit that he was removed by Orlando without warning or notification — a move that denied him thousands of shares and the ability to buy more stock at a very low price.”

“The complaint suggests that conversations between Orlando and Trump began months before DWAC went public, which could violate federal securities law,” the report continued. “It also said that DWAC originally planned to pass on the Trump deal ‘due to opposition from board members who rejected an affiliation with former President Trump for personal reasons.'”


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


Trump’s company, which seeks to build a right-wing social network called “Truth Social,” has run into a number of controversies, including that many investors were apparently unaware of the former president’s involvement at the time they were enticed to invest.

Meanwhile, “Truth Social” has missed its launch date and appears to be built on shaky technology, and many investors appear eager to cash out, which led Popular Information’s Judd Legum to speculate the whole venture could be a “pump-and-dump” scheme.

You can read the complaint here.

Read more on Trump’s social media venture and the Bolsonaro regime in Brazil:

HBO Max’s must-watch “Station Eleven” brings comfort and joy after the eerily familiar apocalypse

Encountering “Station Eleven,” a story about the good that can rise out of a cataclysmic pandemic that reshapes existence within a matter of days, would be a strange and magical gift at any time. Seeing it arrive during  a pandemic that’s stretching toward the two-year mark is uniquely strange.

We’ve seen the world end in so many ways across TV and film. Some of these scenarios’ accompanying sights have recurred frequently enough to become central to our apocalyptic visual lexicon: planes dropping from the sky, highways choked by lifeless cars or riderless horses.  Each efficiently sounds the alarm that nobody is steering civilization’s tillers anymore.

That would seem to make Patrick Somerville’s choice to incorporate each within “Station Eleven” nearly obligatory, and not in a good way.

RELATED: Who lives and who dies? What TV has taught us about who’s lucky enough to survive

But as is the case with any piece of art, context is the border dividing cliché and inspiration. Instead of following the lead of shows such as “The 100” or “Y: The Last Man,” falling back on the popular assumption that society’s collapse would bring out the worst in humankind, “Station Eleven” takes the opposite route, presenting worldwide catastrophe as an opportunity for human resilience and kindness to arise out of the wreckage.

Somerville, who wrote for “The Leftovers,” follows the spirit of Emily St. John Mandel’s 2014 novel in his adaptation by focusing less on the circumstances that nearly obliterate humankind than the forces that inspire it to continue, namely camaraderie, community, and art as the glue that binds us.

There’s an audacity in that suggestion that also makes it singularly attractive to anyone but the hardest cynics, but even they might be won over by this story – even one incited by an extremely infectious, rapidly mutating virus with a one in 1,000 survival rate.

Monetizing violence and destruction is simple. To arrestingly depict creation in the wake of that, let alone sustain all the tension, uncertainty and wonder that comes with that effort, requires skilled restraint.

That Somerville and his directors (including “Atlanta” alum Hiro Murai, Helen Shaver and Jeremy Podeswa) commandingly succeed at this while seamlessly moving between past and future is an absolute achievement, enlivened by grounded performances from a cast guided by the affection and humor woven through the plot. Here, the world ends all at once and declines steadily. People are slow to believe the end has arrived, even as strangers wheel thousands of dollars of groceries up to the grocery store till. The electricity stays on, until it doesn’t. Charlatans spin wild promises of salvation for no reason other than to exert what little power they have in a situation beyond their control.

The title shares its name with a self-published graphic novel with a very limited printing, which gains massive significance 20 years after everything falls apart. In the future it lives and breathes alongside Shakespeare and great music, each valued as the aspects of civilization worth protecting and uplifting.

And long before the first of those previously mentioned harbingers of doom slices the screen, we’re already plummeting into the unknown courtesy of Jeevan Chaudhary (Himesh Patel, bringing levity to an emotionally grounded performance), a man adrift in the world. On a snowy Chicago night he’s in the audience of a production of “King Lear” when its star Arthur Leander (Gael García Bernal) keels over.

Jeevan rushes the stage despite having no apparent medical training, and subsequently ends up with eight-year-old Kirsten Raymonde (Matilda Lawler), a prodigy cast as Lear’s daughter Goneril. When the rest of the cast and crew forget about Kirsten in the mayhem following Arthur’s sudden death, Jeevan takes it upon himself to get her home. Then he gets a phone call that entwines their lives from that moment onward.

Mackenzie Davis as Kirsten Raymonde in “Station Eleven” (HBO Max)

Two decades later Kirsten (played as an adult by Mackenzie Davis, “Halt and Catch Fire”) helps lead a caravan of musicians and actors calling themselves the Traveling Symphony, stopping in makeshift towns to perform Shakespeare for communities that welcome reminders of the gentler past lost to the plague. For Kirsten, this is the manifestation of her life’s purpose; she announces to Jeevan that she knows she wants to be a Shakespearean actor on the night they meet.

To the people for whom they perform, and the troupe’s co-founder, who calls herself The Conductor (Lori Petty), Shakespeare is a codex explaining and processing life’s hardships and unfairness. But within this Kirsten holds the text and meaning of the graphic novel close to her heart, along with its story of an astronaut floating through memories of humankind as it was.

This adaptation of “Station Eleven” contains so many trapdoors and routes by which it could have gone astray.

Its web of interconnections and tangents would have thrown off lesser writers and directors, for one. The story also necessitates jumping around in the time through multiple perspectives – not just Kirsten’s but that of Arthur’s longtime friend Clark (David Wilmot), and Arthur’s ex Elizabeth (Caitlin FitzGerald), another famous actor with whom he has a child; and eventually that of Miranda (Danielle Deadwyler), the writer and artist who made the graphic novel.

This is a recipe for clumsiness at best and utter failure in typical executions of such material, even before the tale introduces the menaces roaming this world, including a charismatic stranger (Daniel Zovatto) and another murderous band. 

But wisely Somerville and his team avail themselves of the story’s dreamlike feel to merge past and present with complete clarity. Through masterful directing and editing, each episode conveys the way that history lives and breathes within memory, coexisting with the present, whether within a performance or a fugue state.


Want more incisive political commentary? Subscribe to Amanda Marcotte’s newsletter Standing Room Only.


Helping this along is the graphic novel’s hypnotic means of expressing disaster and hope as languages that share common phrases, some repeating throughout the series, such as “I don’t want to live the wrong life, and then die,” and the most prominent of them, “I remember damage.”

Part of what haunts Kirsten as an adult is whether her life with Jeevan and his reclusive brother Frank (Nabhaan Rizwan), with whom they take refuge when the pandemic strikes, might have been different if she hadn’t insisted on one indulgence.

Jeevan asks himself the same question, often, and usually in the service of keeping this child that calamity dropped into his lap happy. Both of these memories are connected to arduous turns which, even at their worst, crack open a window to allow a bracing gust of humor to cut the tension. Patel gets to make the most of this when, at his lowest point, he spontaneously opens Kirsten’s sacred text, peers at a page and bellows, “So pretentious!”

Preventing this from coming off as too affected, however, is the characters’ awareness of how absurd life has become, and how ordinarily dangerous it can be outside of the fantastical world they’ve constructed. Time stretches and contracts before rolling into a wheel of seasons, much in the way our lives do now. A transcendent score augments this, along with injecting fierce joy into moments that are otherwise frigid with despair.

A favorite scene of mine involves Frank blindsiding Kirsten and Jeevan in a ho-hum moment with a loop of vocalizations that become the beat propelling him into a cover of a ’90s hip-hop classic that bounces them out of their funk. Such moments highlight how astonishing and naturalistic this cast is onscreen, especially Lawler.

Rare are the times when a role played by a child and an adult could have as easily been led and forged by the younger actor or her mature counterpart. But that’s how good Lawler is – you can’t tell whether she’s matching Davis’ tenacity or establishing the baseline for who Kirsten becomes.

Her portrayal is one we’ll look back upon years from now as a signpost of greatness in the making, appropriate to a story championing art’s ability to makes sense out of chaos and repair broken lives. Crisis changes us, and can make us weirder, hopefully in good ways. Wilmot’s Clark evinces this, as does Petty’s Conductor, who regularly reminds people her music used to be played on NPR, along with an oddball ambassador played by Enrico Colantoni. And creativity is the lifeblood of weirdos.

“That’s what matters – making things,” Arthur says in a fit of earnest self-importance that accidentally rings true both in the show and in our now, emphatically arguing for the necessity of art and “Station Eleven” in this sore and precarious moment. 

If humanity is to move forward, “Station Eleven” shows us, it must create for its own sake, not simply to drive us but to rally the spirit and remind us of life’s meaning, as the story voices it. That is, survival is insufficient.

The first three episodes of “Station Eleven” debut Thursday, Dec. 16 on HBO Max, followed by two episodes weekly on subsequent Thursdays leading up to the final episode on Jan. 13. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories like this:

Clinton pokes fun at Meadows’ use of private emails, says he was “plotting a coup d’etat”

All throughout Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign, the former secretary of state was besieged by attacks related to her use of private emails for official public communications. Now that Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s White of Chief of Staff, is under federal scrutiny for allegedly doing the same thing, Clinton was quick to pounce online.  

The development came after a Tuesday blog post published by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who argued that “if Hillary Clinton’s email protocols were a major national story for over a year, Mark Meadows’ use of private email accounts matters, too.”

Quote-tweeting Maddow’s post Thursday, Clinton responded: “Especially since his emails were about plotting a coup d’etat, while ours were about gefilte fish.”

RELATED: Mark Meadows is having a really bad week — and Trump’s is even worse

Back in September of 2015, while Clinton’s election was underway, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General was tasked with reviewing Clinton’s use of a private email server to send and receive hundreds of classified emails. (One email under review involved a U.S.-Israeli trade dispute around tariffs on imported carp, which is a main ingredient for gefilte fish.) Ultimately, then-FBI Director James Comey concluded that Clinton had been “extremely careless,” but did not act with criminal intent, freeing her from potential charges. The apparent scandal was one of the most widely covered political stories at the time, and many critics felt that it contributed heavily to her 2016 loss. 

This week, the House committee charged with investigating the Capitol riot has been probing Meadows’ communications with various Trump allies, including a number of Fox News hosts. 


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


According to The New York Times, Meadows was in contact with numerous Republicans in the House, all of whom were conspiring to reinstall Trump as president despite his electoral defeat in the 2020 election. Among them include Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Mo Brooks, R-Ala. and Scott Perry, R-Pa. The congressional coterie reportedly led a coordinated effort, spanning multiple agencies and state legislatures, to overturn the election in several battleground states. All of their efforts failed, and no evidence has yet emerged that the election was “stolen.” 

RELATED: REVEALED: Fox News hosts, Donald Trump Jr. bombarded Mark Meadows during Capitol riot

Last week, Meadows turned over a PowerPoint presentation that laid out a number of different, legally dubious pathways through which Vice President Mike Pence could have supposedly nullified the election certification process. In fact, Pence’s role — as is the case with all vice presidents — was entirely ceremonial. 

On Wednesday, the House voted to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress over his refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena. President Biden endorsed the vote Wednesday, saying that the Trump aide was “worthy of being held in contempt.”

Jaskier goes to “a darker place” in “The Witcher” season 2

The Witcher” became an instant hit when the first season came out on Netflix in 2019, for a lot of reasons. There was the dark fantasy vibe from Andrzej Sapkowski’s books, the charismatic lead performance from Henry Cavill, the the special effects and sets . . .  but the thing that went most viral was the song from the second episode, “Toss a Coin to your Witcher,” sung by the bard Jaskier. That thing was everywhere for a minute.

Joey Batey, who plays Jaskier, will be back for season 2, and apparently things are going to be a mite more serious for him this time. Speaking to Metro at the show’s red carpet premiere, Batey said that the second season will “push Jaskier to a darker place.”

He feels more emotionally vulnerable, open, engaged, he’s also braver. For the first time he’s risking his life to do something that is morally good, which is perhaps the first time he’s done this in his life, so that was really rewarding.

In the first season 1 Jaskier was mostly around for comic relief, and I’m sure that will continue, but Batey says that he becomes more of a “three-dimensional character” in season 2, one who’s “textured and layered and perhaps a little more detailed.”

We get to see Jaskier in his element, and then we get to see him very suddenly not in his element, and that wrong footing and that sort of feeling of being out of place and out of time in some points ends him in some real trouble. That’s the stuff that I found most difficult and most challenging to play, but also is the most rewarding I think.

The Witcher season 2 finale will be “epic”

The second season of “The Witcher” will adapt “Blood of Elves,” the first book in his series to read more like a novel than a collection of short stories, and apparently that will allow for one heck of an “epic” climax. Batey said he felt “worn out” by the finale.

It feels like an ordeal and an endeavor. These characters are going through some big stuff, and I think that’s hopefully what’s going to be imparted on the audience. It’s something that I’m really excited for the audience to experience.

And if the second season is a success, and there’s no reason to think it won’t be, Batey promises more to come. “[W]e’re off and we’re only just getting started.”

“The Witcher” season 2 comes out in its entirety on Netflix on Dec. 17. Pray for Jaskier.

Actor Chris Noth accused of sexual assault, as Peloton promptly deletes his new ad

Actor Chris Noth was accused of sexual assault by two women, with the alleged incidents occurring more than a decade apart, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The women, identified by pseudonyms in the piece to protect their identities, allege the assaults occurred in 2004 and 2015 respectively, and that “promotions and press reports of HBO Max’s “Sex and the City” sequel series “And Just Like That,” in which Noth reprises his role as Mr. Big, stirred painful memories.”

Noth’s character Mr. Big dies in the first episode of “And Just Like That,” in a scene many viewers have described as bizarre. Mr. Big suffers fatal cardiac arrest after exercising on his Peloton, and after his longtime off and on again love interest, now wife Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) does not call 911 nor attempt to perform chest compressions

With stock prices dropping, Peloton was quick to issue a statement after the episode that it was Mr. Big’s unhealthy lifestyle, including smoking a weekly cigar, and not exercising on a Peloton, that killed the fictional character. The company then swiftly released a new advertisement for the bike featuring a grinning Noth with actual Peloton instructor (and Mr. Big’s instructor in the show) Allegra (real name: Jess King), and a voiceover by Ryan Reynolds asserting “he’s alive.” That ad has apparently now been deleted.

RELATED: There is a national student movement underway: Why kids across the country are walking out

The news of the alleged assaults have led some to wonder if HBO Max knew the allegations were pending and killed the character off, and perhaps explains some of the strange writing in “And Just Like That” centered around Mr. Big’s death, including Carrie’s muted reaction and Miranda’s (Cynthia Nixon) odd elegy

The Hollywood Reporter writes that the two women accusing Noth of assault do not know each other and contacted the trade independently, months apart, with their stories.


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


In a statement, North denied the allegations, asserting, “These stories could’ve been from 30 years ago or 30 days ago — no always means no — that is a line I did not cross. The encounters were consensual. It’s difficult not to question the timing of these stories coming out. I don’t know for certain why they are surfacing now, but I do know this: I did not assault these women.”

Flashback: When Republicans backed filibuster exceptions

Many Republicans are often quick to defend the Senate filibuster, especially when it comes to voting rights—and centrist Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have been staunch defenders of the filibuster as well. But Politico’s Burgess Everett, this week, has found an example of Republicans coming out in favor of a filibuster exception: the debt ceiling.

Everett tweeted:

Twitter users weighed in on Everett’s post, some of them noting how dangerous it would be economically if the U.S. were to default on its debt obligations.

West Virginia Sen. Manchin takes the teeth out of Democrats’ plan for seniors’ dental care

Sharon Marchio misses having teeth for eating, speaking and smiling.

For the past few years, after the last of her teeth were extracted, she’s used dentures. “My dentist calls them my floating teeth because no matter how much adhesive you use, if you eat something hot or warm, they loosen up and it is a pain,” said Marchio, 73, of Clarksburg, West Virginia.

Marchio believes that losing her teeth was merely part of getting older. It’s quite common in West Virginia, where a quarter of people 65 and older have no natural teeth, the highest rate of any state in the country, according to federal data.

Like half of Medicare enrollees nationally, Marchio has no dental insurance. Worries about the costs led her to skip regular cleanings and exams, crucial steps for preventing infections and tooth loss.

Medicare doesn’t cover most dental care, but consumer advocates had hoped that would change this year after Democrats took control of the White House and Congress. President Joe Biden and progressives, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, sought to add the benefit to a major domestic spending package, the Build Back Better Act, that Democrats are seeking to pass.

But those chances are looking slim because at least one Democratic senator — Joe Manchin of, yes, West Virginia — opposes adding dental and other benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. He says it will cost the federal government too much.

In a Senate split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, losing Manchin’s vote would likely sink the proposal, which is unlikely to get any Republican votes.

Last month, the House passed the roughly $2 trillion package of Democrats’ domestic priorities that include health measures, free preschool, affordable housing programs and initiatives to fight climate change. It added hearing services coverage to Medicare but no dental benefit. The package is expected to undergo revisions in the Senate, and Democratic leaders hope a vote will happen in the chamber before the end of the year.

In West Virginia, one of the most heavily Republican states in the country, oral health advocates and progressives say it’s disappointing that Manchin would stand in the way of adding dental coverage for Medicare recipients — particularly given the state’s poor oral health record.

“It is unfortunate that our senator — who I respect and agree with on a lot of things — is going to draw the line on this issue,” said Fotinos Panagakos, associate dean for research at the West Virginia University School of Dentistry and a member of the Santa Fe Group, a think tank made up of scholars, industry executives and former government officials pushing for a Medicare dental benefit. “It would be a huge benefit.”

West Virginia has the third-highest share of people 65 and older, behind only Florida and Maine. Panagakos said that nearly 300,000 West Virginia Medicare recipients would gain dental benefits under the bill. Yet, Manchin’s efforts aren’t likely to cost him politically. He is not up for reelection until 2024.

“What political price do you pay when four other Republicans vote ‘no’ against everything?” Ryan Frankenberry, state director of the progressive Working Families Party in West Virginia, said, referring to the state’s three House members and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who all oppose the bill. “It’s a difficult argument to blame one person for not passing the benefit when every other Republican vote went against it.”

Manchin’s opposition, Frankenberry said, stems from the need to respond to the political pressures of representing an increasingly conservative state — and arguments from conservative commentators that Medicare is becoming insolvent and increasing the federal deficit.

Manchin, who did not respond to requests for an interview, has raised concerns about adding new Medicare spending when the Medicare Part A hospital trust fund is slated to become insolvent in 2026 if Congress takes no action. But that fund would not cover the proposed dental benefit; it would become part of Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient services such as doctor visits.

Manchin has also suggested that new social programs being advanced by the Democrats in the Build Back Better Act should be means-tested — in essence, offering the coverage only to people with lower incomes.

Dentists are concerned that Medicare — like Medicaid — would pay less than what they normally charge, said Richard Stevens, executive director of the West Virginia Dental Association.

The American Dental Association has also called for limiting any new Medicare dental benefit through means testing. ADA officials say a means test would ensure the benefit is helping those who really need it and save money for the Medicare program.

But critics say the ADA’s position is an effort by the powerful dental lobby to kill the benefit — because it knows Congress has little appetite to turn to means testing in Medicare. The program remains popular largely because everyone 65 and older is entitled to all its benefits.

“On the surface, their position sounds altruistic,” said Michael Alfano, who is a former dean of the New York University College of Dentistry and helped found the Santa Fe Group. “But there is no interest in Congress to make it a means-tested benefit.”

While adding a Medicare benefit would increase demand for dental services, it would also reduce what are considered dentists’ most lucrative patients, those who pay out-of-pocket and don’t benefit from insurer-discounted fees, Alfano said. “In my mind, the ADA did not have public interest at heart — they put the financial returns of dentists at the top of the ledger when developing this approach,” he said.

Alfano said there is still hope for an eleventh-hour change in the bill. “It’s not dead, but I would be lying if I said I was not disappointed,” he said.

West Virginia seniors have other options for getting dental coverage.

Many get some benefits when they enroll in private Medicare Advantage plans. And in January, West Virginia added an adult dental benefit to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for people with low incomes, giving enrollees an annual maximum benefit of $1,000. Previously, West Virginia was one of about a dozen states that either provided no adult dental benefit to Medicaid recipients or only covered emergencies.

Through September, about 53,000 of the nearly 390,000 adult enrollees in West Virginia’s Medicaid program had used the benefit.

Stevens of the West Virginia Dental Association said he could not explain why so few Medicaid enrollees had used the benefit, though he noted that the $1,000 maximum might not be enough to persuade some to seek care. “For people with more serious oral health conditions, $1,000 does not go very far,” Stevens said. “It’s hardly worth the time for the patient and not worth the time for the dentist.”

Craig Glover, CEO of FamilyCare Health Centers in Charleston, West Virginia, said a Medicare benefit would help the many older patients who come to his dental clinic. He said some patients don’t return for needed follow-up care because of concerns about costs.

Without dental coverage, older adults in West Virginia rely on community health centers — which offer a sliding fee scale based on income — and free health clinics for care. But they can still face higher costs than they can afford or long waits for care.

The dental appointments at the Susan Dew Hoff Memorial Clinic in West Milford, where Marchio has been treated, are booked several months in advance, said office manager Gail Marsh.


KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

What’s the difference between heavy cream and whipping cream?

Here’s the thing: It doesn’t really matter if there is a difference between heavy cream and heavy whipping cream. They’re both delicious dairy products that are the crucial elements behind some of our favorite recipes like whipped cream (duh), panna cottaice creamcrème brûlée pie . . . should I go on? But I understand that it can be confusing to decipher which one is right for your recipe, so I’m sharing what to know about these creamy ingredients.

Heavy cream vs. heavy whipping cream

Surprise! There is no difference between heavy cream and heavy whipping cream. They are the exact same product, just sold by different brands under two different names. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), heavy cream must contain at least 36% milk fat. It is pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized, and may be homogenized. The same can be said for any carton called heavy whipping cream. Again, different name, same rule. You can use them interchangeably, so my recommendation is to just look for which one is a better deal in grocery stores.

Heavy cream vs. whipping cream

There’s heavy whipping cream and then there’s just whipping cream (and sometimes, light whipping cream). And they’re not the same thing! Let’s revisit the FDA’s Code of Federal Regulations (you know you want to): Light whipping cream is cream that contains between 30% and 36% milkfat. Although you can use light whipping cream to make whipped cream, it won’t form really stiff peaks. Otherwise, they function similarly and you can generally use light whipping cream in recipes that call for heavy cream without noticing the difference.

Heavy cream vs. half-and-half

Now, do you think there is a difference between heavy cream and half-and-half? Think about it, really think about it, and then write your answer down. If you wrote, yes, there is a difference, then you’d be correct. Heavy cream and half-and-half are different from each other. According to the FDA, half-and-half must contain between 10.5% and 18% fat (and remember, heavy cream must contain at least 36% fat).

As its name would imply, this type of cream is squarely in the middle of heavy cream and milk. It’s your run of the mill coffee creamer, but it’s also a great way to add a luscious, creamy texture to certain recipes without using high fat cream. Heavy cream has a higher fat content than half-and-half and is, therefore, richer and adds more body for soups and sauces. In some cases, like mashed potatoes or tomato soup, you can use half-and-half in recipes that call for dairy products that have a higher fat content, like heavy cream. But it won’t work every time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you cannot use half-and-half in place of heavy cream to make whipped cream. It doesn’t have a high fat content and therefore won’t whip properly or hold its shape. Save it for your coffee instead.

The “Doomsday Glacier” may partially collapse. If it does, Earth’s sea level will rise by 2 feet

The widest glacier on the planet — nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” because its collapse could trigger a chain of events resulting in millions of people being permanently flooded out of their homes and becoming climate refugees — is showing signs of collapse.

It’s called the Thwaites Glacier, and it is the size of Florida. And what happens to it in the next few years could radically alter the future of human (and Earth) history. 

Located in western Antarctica, Thwaites Glacier currently empties 50 billion tons of ice into the ocean every year. As a result, the glacier is already responsible for roughly four percent of the planet’s annual sea level rise. That’s because when it warms enough to belch ice into the water, that ice slowly melts, causing the overall volume of water in the ocean to increase.

Fortunately, there is an eastern ice shelf on the Thwaites Glacier that holds back a significantly higher quantity of ice. If all of the ice that exists upstream in the glacier’s drainage basin were to melt, it would raise the height of our oceans by more than two feet.

Now, scientists believe there are signs that terrifying scenario might come to pass.

During a virtual press briefing on Monday, researchers at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) explained that the Thwaites Glacier is becoming unstable at its very foundation. The glacier, which spans approximately 80 miles and reaches depths of roughly 2,600 to 3,900 feet, begins as an ice mass attached to underwater land known as a seamount before eventually taking on a life of its own as a floating ice shelf in the Amundsen Sea. As the ocean water has warmed, and reached the area where the glacier rests atop the seamount, it has loosened the glacier’s grip. This, in turn, has caused the glacier to develop surface fractures that cross it like spiderwebs. Just as a glass window might shatter if it starts to develop enough cracks, scientists are concerned that the same thing could happen with Thwaites Glacier.

Thwaites has been deteriorating for a while: It has already lost 1,000 billion tons of ice since 2000. If the ice shelf starts to collapse, the best case scenario is that it would do so slowly, but even then it would almost inevitably wind up causing at least two feet of sea level rise. According to Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and the lead coordinator of The International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, that could just be the start.

“It could lead to even more sea-level rise, up to 10 feet [3 m], if it draws the surrounding glaciers with it,” Scambos explained in a statement.


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


Climate scientists who spoke with Salon expressed concern with the recent developments in Thwaites Glacier.

“This isn’t the lynchpin for the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet, but it’s a worrying development that underscores the urgency of efforts to decarbonize our civilization,” Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, told Salon by email. He later added that “it is one significant step along the path of Antarctic ice sheet collapse and major inundation of our coastlines. A worrying sign that really does underscore the urgency of climate action.”

His views were echoed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center of Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, who told Salon by email that “the risks are likely many years into the future, but the problem is that these processes are hard to stop. Even at ‘net zero,’ sea level will continue to rise and cause havoc in coastal cities.”

Indeed, one of the major problems that will be caused by climate change is uncontrollable coastal flooding due to rising sea levels. According to a report published by the journal Environmental Research Letters in October, there is enough carbon dioxide already trapped in our atmosphere that a certain amount of sea level rise (and thus coastal flooding) is unavoidable. Those scientists estimated that roughly five percent of the population (approximately 390 million people) live in cities, towns and other coastal communities that will be flooded due to climate change. It is likely that around 6.7 percent of New York City’s population lives on land that will be under the high tide line.

Under worst case scenarios, the amount of coastal flooding will be significantly higher. Asian nations are expected to be particularly hard hit, but the United States will not be spared. If global warming increases planetary temperatures by 1.5°C, more than 9 million Americans (roughly 2.8 percent of the population) would be directly impacted. Double that to 3°C and suddenly 7.9 percent of the American population, or more than 26 million people, would see rising sea levels where they live.

The melting of Thwaites Glacier is not the sole canary in a coal mine related to climate change. Earlier this year, a controversial report in the journal Nature Climate Change held that a series of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could be weakening. If that happens, or if it shut down, there would be rising sea levels along the North American eastern seaboard. In addition, there would be plummeting temperatures in Europe, while people in India, South America and Western Africa would experience food shortages.

Indeed, as the Earth warms, there are going to be many other problems in addition to rising sea levels. Supply chain disruptions will cause shortages in vital supplies from food to microchips. There will be far more extreme weather events like hurricanes and thunderstorms, and wildfires will regularly affect particularly dry areas. Large sections of land will be harder to inhabit due to heat and drought, and diseases will become more prevalent as overcrowding worsens. Rising sea levels will be a big problem, but also only the beginning.

Read about other canaries in the coal mine: 

 

 

How Trump just “snitched” on himself in New York fraud case

An ongoing fraud investigation in New York could “take an economic wrecking ball” to former president Donald Trump’s company, according to one legal analyst.

Tristan Snell, a former assistant attorney general in New York, appeared on MSNBC on Thursday to discuss a report that the state AG’s office is seeking a Jan. 7 deposition from the former president as part of its civil investigation into potential fraud inside the Trump Organization. 

Snell said he believes the report suggests that someone from Trump’s company is cooperating with the AG’s office and testifying against him. 

However, Snell added that he believes the backbone of the case is the evidence contained in documents. He pointed to a recent report from the Washington Post showing that the Trump Organization reported the value of one of its properties to lenders as $527 million, a few months before telling tax authorities it was worth only $16.7 million. 

“That is a 3,300 percent disparity between what they reported to a lender and what they reported to the tax authorities,” Snell said. “These numbers really speak for themselves. Donald Trump didn’t need anyone to snitch on him. He snitched on himself with how broad of a disparity that was.”

Snell went on to say that many people have been “sleeping” on the civil investigation because they want to see Trump go to prison on criminal charges. 

“However, this could take an economic wrecking ball to the Trump Organization,” he said. “This could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes, penalties, other fees that he could have to pay to the state as well as to the lenders that he defrauded, so this could be ruinous for him financially.”

Snell said the New York AG’s civil investigation — along with a separate criminal probe led by the Manhattan district attorney — could end up being a “one-two punch” for the former president. He added that the AG’s request for a deposition suggests the civil case is “really far along.” 

“We wouldn’t bring in somebody for this kind of testimony — 90 percent-plus of this case is already built,” Snell said. “Trump’s going to get it from both directions on this one.” 

Watch below.

“These colors don’t run”: Fox News compares Christmas tree attack to Pearl Harbor

Forty one hours after a 49-year old homeless man allegedly set the Fox News Christmas tree on fire, employees of the conservative cable channel celebrated the resurrection of its plastic holiday icon with a midtown Manhattan relighting ceremony, complete with members of the New York City Police and Fire Depts. in full dress gear, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, and “Judge” Jeanine, among others.

But it was Fox News contributor Rev. Jacques DeGraff who compared the attack on the tree to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Somebody asked me, ‘Why are you here?’ I’m here because these colors don’t run,” DeGraff declared, pointing to the new tree.

“80 years ago this week they tried to extinguish the darkness in a place call Pearl Harbor,” he continued. “We didn’t fold then, and we won’t fold now, because we’ve come this far, by faith. In our tradition we say, ‘This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.’ The red, the white, and the blue of America, we’re going to let it shine.”

On December 7, 1941, the the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service waged an attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in what was the Territory of Hawaii. 2335 U.S. troops were killed, another 1143 wounded. There were also 68 civilian casualties and 35 wounded.

On December 8, 2021, one plastic Christmas tree in New York City was set on fire in what police say was an act that had no political motivation.

Watch:

Ron DeSantis escalates his authoritarian purge: GOP bounty hunters are the next frontier

The Supreme Court just offered their blessing to the Texas abortion ban, which rewards bounty hunters for snitching on those who “aid and abet” abortions. Now less than one week later, Republicans are looking to use similar mechanisms to ban not just abortions, but the teaching of history.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has offered up the use of this novel enforcement mechanism to fight the culture wars in classrooms and corporations, which should send a chill down any freedom-loving person’s spine. Called the “Stop WOKE Act,” the bill would allow any parent to sue a school district for teaching “critical race theory.” 

While “critical race theory” is a scare term the right uses to make it sound like there’s some novel and esoteric indoctrination going on in schools, a little digging shows what Republicans actually mean by the term is any lessons or materials that acknowledge racism had any impact on American history. Conservatives groups are demanding schools ban books about the 1963 March on Washington or Brown v. the Board of Education.

In Texas, a Republican state representative circulated a list of books he wants banned, which includes books by Ta-Nehisi Coates, Margaret Atwood, and John Irving. Virginia’s winning GOP gubernatorial candidate, Glenn Youngkin, ran ads exalting an effort to censor “Beloved” by Toni Morrison. And schools officials in a Texas suburb argued that the restrictions required them to teach “both sides” of the Holocaust.

RELATED: Republicans’ war on education is the most crucial part of their push for fascism

In light of this, it’s not at all subtle what DeSantis is trying to do here: Intimidate schools into erasing much of American history. The Florida law bans teaching “that racism is embedded in American society and its legal systems.” Two of the most prominent historical examples of legal systems embedding racism are slavery and Jim Crow. If every Trump-loving parent can sue the school for teaching kids about the Civil War or the civil rights movement, some schools may decide it’s not worth the hassle to teach American history in any meaningful way at all. Teachers and other school officials may leave the state or the profession, rather than spend every waking moment worrying about being sued by racist parents for doing the job of educating students. 


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


This isn’t speculation. DeSantis is building on an already-growing national trend of school officials being purged for insufficient deference to the bigotries of the local MAGA nuts.  

On Monday, Jeannie Stone, the superintendent of Richardson ISD — a school district of suburban Dallas, TX — resigned her position after enduring months of abuse from right-wing forces in the community. Stone had been named the Superintendent of the Year by the Texas PTA in 2019, but in 2020, she stepped on a bee’s hive by declaring new school initiatives focused on diversity and inclusion. These policies reflected existing changes in the school district, which was once solidly white but has seen a dramatic demographic shift towards more diversity in recent years. Stone’s commitment to treating all students equally, however, caused a freakout — with the usual nonsensical accusations about “critical race theory,” as well as anger over mask mandates — leading to her resignation. 

“[Y]ou have chosen to amplify the voices of this small group of parents who would have our district turn away from science and reason, from progress and inclusion,” local mother Lowry Mandel, who formed the Lake Highlands Area Moms Against Racism Facebook page last year, wrote in an impassioned response on Facebook

RELATED: The Rittenhouse effect: Republicans want a Stasi of their own 

This follows similar fascistic purge efforts across Texas. In a nearby suburban school district, a Black principal named James Whitfield was pushed out of his job under similar nonsense accusations about “critical race theory.” His sin? Writing a public letter in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, in which he declared, “Education is the key to stomping out ignorance, hate, and systemic racism.” A lot of parents clearly prefer hate and ignorance and are willing to destroy anyone who would challenge them. Now another superintendent, Eric Williams — who runs a school district in suburban Houston — is being targeted by similarly hysterical accusations that he is “anti-white.” 

Spotsylvania County in Virginia recently drew national headlines for an aggressive book censorship effort by the school board that led to two members calling on books to be burned. The national spotlight caused the school board to back down, but the forces of anti-wokeism were still baying for blood. On Monday, they got it, forcing the resignation of superintendent Scott Baker. Baker came under fire from the pro-censorship forces for saying he trusted librarians to do their job, instead of immediately acceding to demands that libraries be purged of books that conservatives don’t like. 


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


While Republicans love to portray this rising up against “critical race theory” as a spontaneous grassroots reaction to progressive overreach, it’s hard not to notice a strong pattern in what districts just so happen to become hotspots for these racist panics, book bannings, and purges: Swing districts.On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the far-right nationalist group the Proud Boys plans “to bring their brand of menacing politics to the local level” in a campaign aimed at public schools. Some of their first targets are a suburb of Chicago, a coastal town in North Carolina, and a small town in Wisconsin.

Richardson ISD in Texas covers a county that was strongly Republican until 2018, when far-right Republican Pete Sessions was booted in favor for Black Democratic Rep. Colin Allred. Tarrant County, where Whitfield was pushed out of his job, was a nail-biter in 2020, with Joe Biden beating Donald Trump by .22% of the vote. The area targeted for a school purge near Houston is also a blueing suburb. The North Carolina area zeroed in on by the Proud Boys is literally known as a major bellwether for presidential elections. The Wisconsin district is blue but getting bluer. It’s same story with the Illinois suburb that’s been targeted. 

RELATED: Rising GOP star Ron DeSantis goes after campus thoughtcrime with vague, threatening new law

Many of these communities are part of a broader trend in the U.S., where a lot of inner ring and denser suburbs and even some small towns are moving left, politically, as college-educated white voters become more Democratic and some previously monotone communities are becoming racially diverse. Republicans clearly see the fake panic over “critical race theory” as a way to reverse that trend. Targeting schools is particularly smart.  Many people only start to get really interested in politics and their local community when their kids start going to school. Racialized panic is a good way to radicalize previously apolitical white people into joining the GOP cause, which is increasingly indistinguishable from the fascist cause. 

Spotsylvania County is proof of concept. It went for Biden in 2020, but heavily broke for Youngkin in 2021, after Republicans spent months whipping white people in the area into a frenzy of anger over “critical race theory.” But while the superintendent was harassed out of his job, Spotsylvania also offers evidence that this race-baiting strategy can be defeated —  but only if liberals and Democrats fight back. After all, the book-burners did back down from their efforts when they got pushback from local people who didn’t like all this book-burning talk. 

RELATED: The right’s attack on “critical race theory”: Another battle in the Orwellian war against democracy

DeSantis is taking this swing district strategy to the state level. Florida is going to be critical in the next few years for determining if the country falls to Trump and Trumpism, or if Democrats can eke out enough power to save democracy. Authoritarianism thrives in environments where people are paranoid and fearful, where community trust is depleted, and where the forces of education and rationality are being run out of town. So of course DeSantis wants to pass a law that will accomplish all those goals, by empowering racists to harass educators and cause as much community strife as possible. It’s a strategy that’s tearing apart community bonds across the country. And it may soon come to a town near you. 

Liz Cheney tears into Jim Jordan over his defense of Mark Meadows

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., tore into Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Tuesday, calling his defense of Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, “flat false.”

The acrimonious exchange came during a hearing led this week by the House committee charged with investigating the Capitol riot. During a House floor speech on Monday, Cheney read aloud text messages sent by Meadows with various Trump allies, including high-profile Fox News personalities, revealing Meadows’ apparent unwillingness to neutralize the insurrection. 

https://twitter.com/Sites4Congress/status/1470896991039279104

On Tuesday, the House voted 222-208 to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with their subpoena. But Jordan, a longtime Trump supporter, took to the podium to defend the Trump aide – his “friend” – saying that the committee’s decision to hold Meadows in contempt was “as wrong as it gets.” Jordan further attributed the decision to the Democrats’ “lust for power.”

“Your lust to get your opponent is so intense you don’t care,” he added. 

RELATED: Liz Cheney blasts GOP cowardice on Jan. 6 commission: “The courage of my party’s leaders has faded”


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


Cheney resumed the hearing by addressing “some of the charges [Jordan] just made,” calling them “flat false.” For one, she said, Meadows refused to appear in any deposition with the January 6 committee, despite previously agreeing to do so. Meadows “refused to show up to address non-privileged questions,” Cheney added, a reference to his unwillingness to answer questions unprotected by executive privilege. 

“This committee is engaged in critical investigative and legislative activity for which there is no greater purpose in terms of Congress’ responsibility no matter what my colleague on the other side may claim in terms of Meadows,” Cheney added. 

It isn’t the first time Meadows, a chief congressional backer of Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement, has been subject to Cheney’s ire. 

RELATED: Cheney’s Jan. 6 plea to GOP falls on deaf ears as Trump derides her as “smug fool”

Shortly after the Capitol riot, Cheney allegedly referred to Jordan as “​​that f**ing guy” and a “son of a b**ch” in a meeting with Joint Chief of Staff Chair Mark Milley, according to Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker.

“While these maniacs are going through the place,” said Cheney, speaking of her experience during the riot, “I’m standing in the aisle and he said, ‘We need to get the ladies away from the aisle. Let me help you.’ I smacked his hand away and told him, ‘Get away from me. You f**king did this.'”

Back in May, Cheney, one of the few House Republicans to support Trump’s impeachment over inciting the Capitol riot, was removed from her position as chair of the House Republican Conference for failing to show enough fealty to Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud.