Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Lauren Boebert latest House Republican to feature gun-toting kids in Christmas photo

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., sparked a new firestorm on Tuesday after tweeting a photo of her young children armed with rifles in front of a Christmas tree.

Boebert, who along with her husband has a history of domestic violence charges, published the photo in response to a similar Christmas-themed snapshot from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., just days after a teenage gunman killed four schoolmates and wounded seven others in Oxford High School in Michigan.

“The Boeberts have your six, @RepThomasMassie!” Boebert tweeted along with a photo showing her young children holding rifles. “No spare ammo for you, though,” she added.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., mocked Boebert for posting the photo after “all the years Republicans spent on culture hysteria of society ‘erasing Christmas and its meaning’ when they’re doing that fine all on their own.”

“Tell me again where Christ said ‘use the commemoration of my birth to flex violent weapons for personal political gain?'” she tweeted.

RELATED: Lauren Boebert allows 8-year-old to play alone, next to possibly-loaded firearm

Massie last week drew criticism after publishing a bizarre photo showing his entire family wielding rifles around a Christmas tree.

“Santa, please bring ammo,” he wrote.

Massie was roundly condemned for publishing the photo just days after the Michigan school massacre.

“I promise not everyone in Kentucky is an insensitive asshole,” wrote Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky.

Boebert’s tweet renewed criticism of Republicans seeking to score culture war points by arming their children for publicity stunts.

“This is a tragedy waiting to happen, and we should all be concerned for the Boebert kids,” tweeted Shannon Watts, the founder of the gun safety group Moms Demand Action. “There is a history of domestic violence in their home, and the Congresswoman has bragged that her guns are unsecured. This photo is exactly why we must keep fighting for stronger gun laws.”

Boebert’s husband Jayson, who was not included in the photo, was once arrested on a domestic violence charge for attacking Boebert while they were still dating and served seven days in jail. Boebert, who was 17 at the time, was charged with assault herself just months later when police said she attacked Jayson. Jayson earlier that year pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure after he allegedly exposed his penis to two young women at a bowling alley. The congresswoman has also had a long history of brush-ins with the law.


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


Boebert, one of the most far-right members of Congress, currently faces potential sanctions by the Democratic-led House over anti-Muslim comments she repeatedly made about Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

“I was getting into an elevator with one of my staffers and I see a Capitol police officer running to the elevator,” Boebert said at an event last month. “I see fret all over his face … I look to my left, and there she is: Ilhan Omar. And I said, ‘Well, she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine.'” Boebert also said Omar was part of the “jihad Squad.” 

Omar said the story was made up and said it was “sad she thinks bigotry gets her clout.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., plans to introduce a resolution backed by nearly a dozen House progressives on Wednesday to strip Boebert of her committee assignments over repeated anti-Muslim comments.

“For a Member of Congress to repeatedly use hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric and Islamophobic tropes towards a Muslim colleague is dangerous. It has no place in our society and it diminishes the honor of the institution we serve in,” Pressley said in a statement to the Washington Post. “Without meaningful accountability for that Member’s actions, we risk normalizing this behavior and endangering the lives of our Muslim colleagues, Muslim staffers and every Muslim who calls America home.”

It’s unclear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who criticized Republicans for not disciplining their own members, will put the resolution to a vote. More than 400 congressional staff members signed a letter on Tuesday calling for House leaders to “categorically reject the incendiary rhetoric” from Boebert.

“As passionate public servants, we each have chosen to pursue a career in public service to work towards a better future for our country,” the letter says. “However, the recent remarks by Rep. Boebert have heightened the climate of Islamophobia on the Hill, creating a feeling of anxiety and fear for many Muslim staff, our families, and communities, and leaving many of us to look to our congressional leaders for support.”

Read more:

Florida researchers say they felt “pressure to destroy” COVID-19 data for fear of Gov. Ron DeSantis

Researchers at the University of Florida reportedly felt pressured to erase COVID-19 data while working on behalf of an undisclosed state entity, according to a report released by the Faculty Senate committee on Monday. 

The Miami Herald reports that multiple UF staff felt “external pressure to destroy” state coronavirus data, adding that there were undue “barriers” to accessing and analyzing the data. Ultimately, the report alleged, these barriers “inhibited the ability of faculty to contribute scientific findings during a world-wide pandemic.”

Moreover, UF staff were reportedly not allowed to “criticize the Governor of Florida or UF policies related to COVID-19 in media interactions,” creating a culture of fear from within the university.  

“We knew there was more silencing and pressure coming from above. The Big Above,” Danaya Wright, a constitutional law professor and former Faculty Senate chairperson, told The Tampa Bay Times. “There was grave concern about retaliation and a sense that anyone who objected to the state of affairs might lose his or her job or be punished in some way.”

According to the Times, UF faculty have expressed concerns over funding being pulled if the university’s activities didn’t align with the administration of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his dismissive posture toward pandemic restrictions. Over the past year, DeSantis has repeatedly downplayed the severity of the pandemic by barring mask and vaccine mandates in schools and businesses, 


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


Aside from COVID-19 research, the report also details allegations of unspecified pressure within humanities departments around how to instruct students about issues of race and gender.

“Websites were required to be changed, that course syllabi had to be restructured, and that use of the terms ‘critical’ and ‘race’ could not appear together in the same sentence or document,” the report notes. 

RELATED: Ron DeSantis sues Biden administration over vaccine mandates

The report’s findings are part of a larger Faculty Senate committee inquiry into issues of academic freedom throughout Florida’s higher education system. The inquiry was first opened by the panel three weeks ago after UF prohibited three political science professors from testifying in a voting-rights lawsuit against recent state policies pushed by DeSantis. The professors shortly filed suit against the university, asking the court to ban UF from blocking their testimony. 

RELATED: Florida professors can testify in voting rights lawsuit after university backs down

“Ultimately our loyalty is to the people of Florida and to the search for knowledge,” Wright said. “If things above that are interfering with that, regardless of where that’s coming from, we can’t do our jobs. … We have one job as faculty and that is to discover, create truth, knowledge and push the boundaries of human understanding and then to promulgate that information to the public.”

Mike Lindell abruptly ends interview, storms off documentary on QAnon

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell abruptly ended an interview with a British documentary team after he was asked about the QAnon movement.

Lindell appears in Channel 4’s documentary,The Cult of Conspiracy: QAnon, which is scheduled to air on Tuesday.

A portion of the interview was revealed on Monday in a promotion for the program. During the interview, Lindell became irate when he was asked about QAnon’s support for his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“It doesn’t matter who stands behind us or doesn’t stand,” Lindell complains. “The evidence, the truth shall set you free. I think the interview is over. Waste of my time!”

“But why does it need to be offensive?” Channel 4’s host asked.

“Because that’s what you all are!” Lindell exclaimed as he ripped off his microphone. “That’s such a joke what you did. Shame on you.”

“Thank you very much,” the host replied.

“It’s people like you that have hurt our country,” Lindell snapped before walking out of the room.

The documentary team also spoke to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn about the QAnon movement.

At first, Flynn feigned ignorance.

“You know what it is at this point,” Channel 4’s interviewer pressed.

“A group of people that don’t like pedophilia?” Flynn remarked.

Watch the video clip below from Channel 4.

Trump regrets: Mark Meadows spilled the beans on COVID. What will he say about Jan. 6?

Former President Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows was terrible at his job. Nothing in his life prepared him for such a high-level assignment and the only thing he brought to the position was excessive, obsequious loyalty to the boss — which Trump always misconstrued as competence. But the problem is that he’s not the sharpest tool and even when he’s trying to be a steadfast soldier, he tends to screw the pooch. With his new book “The Chief’s Chief,” Meadows made the worst mistake of all when he unwittingly betrayed his former boss by telling the world about what is arguably the worst thing Trump did while he was president. Now Trump is reportedly hopping mad about it.

Meadows no doubt thought he was writing a great tribute to a man he clearly worships. The book is a nauseating collection of treacly anecdotes that are enough to make your teeth hurt. In Meadows’ telling, Trump is a saint who never thinks of himself and a superman who literally saved the nation from ruin. He is as delusional as the most ecstatic rallygoer and his all-consuming devotion has blinded him.

So blinded, astonishingly, that he apparently didn’t realize Trump would be livid if he revealed that at one point he was a weak and sickly man, sitting up in bed in the White House residence in his t-shirt with his hair disheveled hooked up to an IV. It didn’t occur to Meadows that revealing that Trump tested positive for COVID-19 and walked around with bloodshot eyes, sick for days, exposing massive numbers of people might upset his former boss. His descriptions of a man so weak he couldn’t lift a 10-pound briefcase (which Meadows had to pick up after dousing himself with hand sanitizer) and saying things like, “I’ve lost so much strength, the muscles are just not responding,” must have made Trump tremble with rage. Imagine what the vain, narcissistic Trump thought when he heard about this description of his first morning at Walter Reed Medical center:

Trump was up and moving, asking questions like it was any other day. But he was still sluggish, and I could tell that every movement was difficult for him. Every few minutes, he would need to sit back down and rest.

It’s obvious that Meadows doesn’t know the real Trump at all. 

RELATED: Mark Meadows and Kevin McCarthy have a long, strange history of dubious self-dealing

According to the Daily Beast, Meadows has been going around telling everyone that he was sure the president would be very pleased with his book. This is funny since Trump had already promoted it back in October, calling it a “fantastic book.” He probably should have read it first. Now he is calling it fake news, specifically the part about him having COVID and lying about it. Meadows, meanwhile, is dancing as fast as he can to deny that as well, even though the narrative in his own book clearly lays it all out.

He is asking people to believe that Trump tested positive then negative, showed symptoms for days but didn’t suspect he had COVID as he traveled all over the country and met with hundreds of people unmasked without taking any precautions. It’s obvious that he did have it. He tested positive with a rapid test, they did another test that was negative but they didn’t do a real PCR test until days later, long after he was clearly sick. The Washington Post did a deep dive into his activities during the seven days between his first and second positive tests, a period in which Meadows describes him as not being himself, clearly under the weather, looking tired, and determined that he came in contact with at least 500 people. By the end of that month, more than two dozen people in his circle would test positive. Trump was a walking superspreader.

RELATED: Trump’s COVID bombshell: He was symptomatic three days before debate with Biden

It’s a miracle that he didn’t infect Joe Biden, something I would bet crossed Trump’s mind as he was standing there on the stage for the debate. He no doubt suspected he had it. Meadows almost certainly did, as he writes:

By Tuesday, September 29, the morning of the first debate with Joe Biden, the president was looking slightly better than he had a few days earlier, emphasis on the word slightly. His face, for the most part at least, had regained its usual light bronze huge, and the gravel in his voice was gone. But the dark circles under his eyes had deepened. As we walked into the venue around five o’clock in the evening I could tell that he was moving more slowly than usual. He walked like he was carrying a little extra weight on his back.

Remember, Trump didn’t get tested before the event as he was required to do. The debate hosts said it was on the “honor system,” which Trump and his henchmen do not know the meaning of. Meadows may be too dim to know what he was saying there but Trump isn’t.

The Daily Beast is now reporting that Trump has been “volcanic” all week, telling anyone who will listen that he didn’t think Meadows would put that “garbage” about the COVID test in his book and that his appointment as Trump’s 2024 campaign manager is now in doubt. The book’s dishy inside scoops have also put Meadows on the hot seat with the January 6th Commission, which is casting a jaundiced eye on his claims of executive privilege. If he can spill the beans for profit, they reckon, he can testify before Congress. Up until Tuesday, Meadows was reportedly cooperating with the committee but his lawyer now claims that he will no longer do so due to some questioning they now feel is out of bounds.

According to committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Meadows already provided thousands of documents and records to the committee and that’s what they would like to question him about. And with hundreds of other people already cooperating with the committee, there’s a good chance they already know many of the answers which makes the plodding Meadows in danger of committing perjury should he try to cover anything up. His lawyer is wise to keep him from testifying.

But one can’t help but wonder if it really that the Big Boss has suddenly realized that his majordomo might not be up to the task of testifying to the committee and has told him to stop cooperating. As bizarre as it is to contemplate, up until now Trump apparently thought Meadows could be trusted to outsmart the sharp lawyers on the committee. After hearing about what’s in Meadows’ book, however, he’s got to be wondering what’s in all those documents he turned over. Meadows probably had no clue.  

Black and Latino neighborhoods pay more for energy despite far lower emissions

Meet 60623, the Chicago zip code containing the North Lawndale and Little Village neighborhoods, one of the country’s biggest frontlines in the battle for environmental justice. 

Tucked into the city’s Southwest Side, the once-industrial corridor is now a part of the region’s quickly growing warehouse and logistics network. What does that lead to? Air pollution. More diesel air pollution than anywhere else in the country, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. What that doesn’t lead to: well-paying jobs. Nearly 45 percent of children and 30 percent of adults live in poverty. In addition, there’s the lethal combination of over-policing and incarceration, compounded by the area’s racial makeup — 67 percent Latino and 30 percent Black. It’s also home to the Cook County Jail, the largest jail in America.

So how, you might ask, does it rate as one of the most sustainable zip codes in Chicago? 

new study authored by researchers at McGill University in Montreal and the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability has the answers. The study, which was the first national-level analysis of the energy use and carbon emissions of roughly 60 million American households, found that even though energy-efficient homes are more often found in white neighborhoods, carbon emissions from these neighborhoods are significantly higher than those in majority Latino and Black neighborhoods.

Chicago’s 60623 zip code illuminates this. The average resident in the zip code emits the least amount of greenhouse gases out of all the city’s 67 zip codes, according to the study. Households in the community are also extremely energy efficient. In comparison, the average resident in the city’s affluent, majority-white Near North Side emits 2.8 times more greenhouse gases than those in the Southwest Side community. Homes in 60623 are also 1.5 times more energy-efficient than those on the Near North Side.

The study found this disparity all across the country. Using statistical modeling to examine emissions, while also considering factors such as building age, ownership, and size by neighborhood, the study found that across the U.S., Latino neighborhoods have the lowest per capita emissions, at only 60 percent of white neighborhoods. While Black neighborhoods emissions are higher than Latino neighborhoods, they’re still just 90 percent of those in white neighborhoods. The discrepancy has far-reaching climate impacts: Residential energy use represents roughly one-fifth of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

What this study gets at, co-author Tony Reames told Grist, is the “imbalance between energy benefits and energy burden.” Black and Latino households are not only using less energy but paying more for it — financially and socially. According to a 2020 report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or the ACEEE, compared to white households, Black households spend 43 percent more of their income on energy costs, Latino households spend 20 percent more, and Native American households spend 45 percent more. 

This burden trickles down, says Reames, a senior advisor with the U.S. Department of Energy, making Black and Latino households less likely to use heat during brutal winters or fans and air conditioners during scorching summers. With less disposable income, these growing necessities become too expensive to access. “People that are struggling financially and then have high energy burdens are forced to make tough decisions that slowly impact life outcomes,” he said. 

At the core of the disparity is the country’s growing wealth gap, which relates to how both homes and entire communities are built and resourced. This has roots that go back decades, from redlining to racial covenants and racial segregation, which all worked in tandem to force Black and Latino families into deliberately under-resourced and environmentally toxic corridors, making it difficult to build wealth and ownership across generations. Today that has left Black and Latino families less likely to own their homes and subsequently less likely to have a say in energy-efficiency measures. It has also made it more likely that homes in majority-white communities are spatially larger, thus requiring more energy use, despite being better insulated and equipped with more efficient appliances.

When looking at a place like Chicago, one of the most segregated cities in America, this is felt most harshly in communities that are extremely dense, such as the 60623 zip code, or experiencing disinvestment, like the South Side neighborhood of Englewood. In Englewood, a neighborhood that is 95 percent Black, more than two-fifths of residents live in poverty and 80 percent of residents are renters — the highest rate in all of Chicago — which can all be traced back to discriminatory housing practices. Yet residents in the zip code emit the fifth-lowest amount of greenhouse gases and maintain the fifth most energy-efficient homes in the entire city, according to the study. This is all despite Black Chicago households’ energy burden — meaning the share of a household’s income that is used on energy bills — being 71 percent higher than that of white households, according to the ACEEE. 

The inequalities in household energy consumption represent bigger social, environmental, and economic inequalities, Reames says, but they can also “be used as a pathway to solve a lot of these environmental, economic, and social ills.” The study outlines several solutions, such as using federal, state, and local funds, such as the recently passed Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, to fund energy retrofitting for homes in disadvantaged communities; increasing household access to solar panels; and disincentivizing high energy consumption through fees for homes that fail to meet per capita energy use benchmarks. 

There are a few funding and implementation models across the globe to follow, the study outlines. One example is the use of National green banks — federally backed financial institutions focused on green projects and clean energy — which already exist in countries such as Malaysia and Japan. The study suggests that the formation of a national green bank in the U.S. would give the country a long-term funding plan for national energy efficiency programs focused on inequities in the energy sector, while also focusing on producing low-carbon technologies. It could help fund “green business loans” to support Black and Latino owned clean energy businesses in affected communities.

In the immediate future, as the country turns its attention to a growing housing crisis, the study suggests implementing new zoning codes that “reduce future energy needs and related carbon emissions for the tens of millions of homes that will be built in the U.S. in coming decades.”

This is how the battle over energy efficiency could be used to tackle issues around homeownership, poverty, poor health outcomes, and joblessness, Reames says. “Energy justice bridges clean vehicles to get to jobs; Clean housing energy is connected to health and wellbeing; Then, making homes cleaner equals actual jobs in the clean energy space,” he said. “We can transition away from our current energy system, make communities cleaner while improving health outcomes and building jobs.” 

Does this North Carolina candidate’s viral video have a winning lesson for Democrats?

Many of the policies advocated by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Congress are very popular — even among Republicans. Most Americans support the specific proposals on child care, parental leave, education, Medicare expansion, and strengthening the social safety net contained in Biden’s Build Back Better package as well as the recently-passed infrastructure bill.

But Democrats are consistently unable to tell a compelling story that engages public emotion or clearly communicates how their policies would directly improve people’s lives. Moreover, because the Democratic Party is a coalition rather than a hive mind, its candidates and elected officials lack message discipline and often end up fighting among themselves rather than focusing on their primary goals: advancing progressive policy changes, defending democracy against the current Republican onslaught and, last but not least, winning and holding political power.

The Democrats’ dilemma is made worse by the mainstream news media, which has consistently buoyed up the Republican Party by normalizing its lies, failed policies and generally sociopathic behavior. Even with the country teetering on the edge of a full-on collapse into authoritarianism, the media remains addicted to “both-sides-ism” and related false equivalencies, Beltway horserace journalism and other practices that served to aid the Republican assault on American democracy.

In a recent column for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank summarizes these failures:

In 2020, Trump presided over a worst-in-world pandemic response that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths; held a superspreader event at the White House and got covid-19 himself; praised QAnon adherents; embraced violent white supremacists; waged a racist campaign against Black Lives Matter demonstrators; attempted to discredit mail-in voting; and refused to accept his defeat in a free and fair election, leading eventually to the violence of Jan. 6 and causing tens of millions to accept the “big lie,” the worst of more than 30,000 he told in office.

And yet Trump got press coverage as favorable as, or better than, Biden is getting today. Sure, Biden has had his troubles, with the delta variant, Afghanistan and inflation. But the economy is rebounding impressively, he has signed major legislation, and he has restored some measure of decency, calm and respect for democratic institutions.

We need a skeptical, independent press. But how about being partisans for democracy?

The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative. And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians. …

Too many journalists are caught in a mindless neutrality between democracy and its saboteurs, between fact and fiction. It’s time to take a stand.

In total and for a variety of reasons, the Democrats have failed to develop a brand they can use to rally their own supporters and win new ones. By comparison, for decades the Republicans have shown themselves to be masters of storytelling and branding. While Republican policies are widely unpopular, generally speaking, this success in creating a brand and narrative around “conservative” ideology has made their party the dominant force in American politics since the 1980s.

RELATED: Can the real lessons of Virginia rescue the Democrats in 2022? It’s definitely worth trying

Charles Graham is a six-term Democratic state representative who has served since 2011 in the North Carolina General Assembly. He is now challenging Rep. Dan Bishop, the Republican incumbent in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district. Graham is a member of the Lumbee tribe, and the only Native American member of the North Carolina legislature.

In early October, Graham announced his candidacy for Congress with a remarkable campaign video focused on the Battle of Hayes Pond in Robeson County, North Carolina, in 1958, where an alliance of Native Americans, Black people and white people united to defeat an attempted raid by the Ku Klux Klan.

Graham’s campaign video offers a powerful example of exactly the kind of storytelling Democrats should deploy. It is personality-driven, sincere and emotional. It emphasizes the human struggle for dignity and a better life, the importance of unity to solve shared problems, and offers a straightforward narrative of heroes and villains. Without being overly didactic, it also foregrounds the importance of interracial alliances in the struggle for social justice. 

Graham’s campaign video has been viewed at least 5 million times since its debut in early October. It features Graham’s narration: “Hundreds of normal folks deciding to stand together against ignorance and hate. A piece of forgotten history worth remembering, especially today. In Washington, lies turn to violence. And the biggest lie is that America is at war with itself — that you can’t trust your neighbor, that they want something that’s yours, that you must live in fear of them. But the people who stood up at Hayes Pond refused to be afraid.”

That section of the video is interspersed with images of Trump supporters attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6. Graham then continues: “Sometimes we’re called upon to put things right, like Hayes Pond in 1958 and America today….These folks didn’t set out to make history. They just answered a neighbor’s call.”

Charles Graham’s campaign video echoes the findings of author and legal scholar Ian Haney López, who argues that creating “race-class narratives” is the most effective way for Democrats to defeat Republicans and the fascist movement.

In a new essay for Medium, López writes that his argument is supported by the empirical evidence:

In focus groups and poll testing I and others have done over the last three years, we’ve probed the power of race-class narratives like this one: “we need to pull together no matter our race or ethnicity. We have done this before and can do it again. But instead of uniting us, certain politicians make divisions worse, insulting and blaming different groups. When they divide us, they can more easily rig our government and the economy for their wealthy campaign donors. When we come together by rejecting racism against anyone, we can elect new leaders who support proven solutions that help all working families.”

López reports that message “was more convincing to all respondents — white eligible voters included — than the right’s dog whistle fear message,” and also performed better than messages that focused primarily on racial justice or that delivered a “colorblind” progressive message. “In other words, research suggests that a fusion race-class message is the most persuasive political message available today, right or left.”

RELATED: Democrats and the dark road ahead: There’s hope — if we look past 2022 (and maybe 2024 too)

I recently spoke with Charles Graham about the genesis of his viral campaign video, why he thinks it resonates so widely and how it reflects his core values and upbringing. He also discussed his worries that America is being torn apart by hyper-partisanship, a lack of shared values and widespread loss of faith in the electoral system and democracy.

Toward the end of this conversation, Graham explained how his values about the importance of community, public service and human dignity are reflected in his policies, and especially in his call to better support home health care workers, educators and others who work to build and strengthen communities.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

How are you feeling? How are you making sense of what’s going on in this country?

I have been blessed throughout my life. I’ve got children who are successful and I have a successful business. I have been able to serve the state of North Carolina for six terms in the North Carolina General Assembly. There are some things that really bother me, and that’s the state of our country and aspects of where the country is at in terms of some of the social and political challenges. It is really depressing.

I try to figure out how can I make a difference. I am trying to do the right thing by making my community a better, safer and more prosperous place. That’s where I get my sense of being and making sense of how I fit into this world.


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


How do you reconcile the good things you’ve seen and experienced with all the suffering so many people are experiencing right now? 

I’m a man of faith. I put a lot of energy into things that are right. Seeing the people out there who are suffering, who are confused and can’t make ends meet, it just seems like our world is being pulled in so many directions. For the most part it seems like we’re in a trajectory of hopelessness. Personally, I put a lot of confidence in my creator, asking him to give me the strength every day to do the right thing, to keep me focused and grounded. I have a feeling of comfort that allows me to do some outreach and help and encourage others. 

What was your calling to be in public service?

Me and my brothers and sisters were taught to be responsible. And of course that carried over to my high school career where I had some great male role model teachers, men who were genuine and were respected in the community. I wanted to be a professional baseball player, and I had a lot of support from those individuals and that carried me through college.

After I left college, I wanted to be like those folks who encouraged me. I wanted to be someone who could encourage others, someone who could be a role model for other youth. I wanted to be in the teaching profession. And the only way I could enter into the teaching profession was to work with the disadvantaged.

That’s how I got my start. I worked with children who were physically and intellectually disabled. I really was empowered by that work. These kids looked up to me. They wanted me to protect them. They wanted me to be a teacher that respected them. I really got a lot of inspiration from those kids.

I went into education administration after that. I used my experiences and my relationships with teachers, educational professionals and administrators to try to develop a better life for people who are disabled. I continued that throughout my career. My passion has been to help those who are hopeless.

When I went into the General Assembly in 2011, I had that same attitude. I wanted to be there as a voice for the people. I don’t look at myself as a politician, so to speak. I see myself as a human services individual who can help and bring goodwill to the community. That’s the way I’ve always operated.

How can we make America a more humane and better society?

We’re looking at people now through such a hyper-partisan lens. As I look at the community I live in, it has in some ways drifted away from those values that I was raised with and the close relationships that tied the community together.

People are just drifting away from “We the people” in the community. I believe they are more focused on ideology and that is really, I think, tearing our country apart. It is a sad situation.

We’ve moved away from how to love each other, how to take care of those folks in our communities, regardless of who they are, their color, their gender. We’re just moving so far away from those ideas and it’s tearing our country apart, our communities apart, our states apart. Now we talk about red state, blue state, purple state. It’s not the way I was raised.

What did you learn from your parents and other family by working on a farm?

I grew up during the era of segregation. In the community I was raised up in, we had a restroom for the whites, we had a restroom for Black people and we had a restroom for the Indians. So we had three separate restrooms.

We were taught to have lots of respect for our neighbors, law enforcement, the ministry and our family. I was primarily raised in an indigenous community. We didn’t go outside the boundaries of the indigenous community too much. But within that community, it was nothing but respect, generosity, love and caring for each other.

Our school community was the same way. Teachers communicated with parents, parents communicated with teachers. If there was a discipline problem in school, there was a consequence for that when you came home. Our community had a sense of value and trust and respect. Many of those things we’ve lost along the way.

What was the genesis of your campaign video about the poor people in North Carolina, Native American and African American and white, who stood up to the KKK in 1958 when they wanted to burn a cross and attack Robeson County? That video has been watched millions of times — why is it resonating with so many people?

I was interviewed by the producer of the video. We talked about my community and how I was raised, how the Lumbee people survived through tough times, through wars and attempts to not have us federally recognized. But during that period of time, I keep going back to this of sense of community. Our people, the Lumbee people and the African-American people in my community during the time when I was growing up, we had a mutual respect and trust for each other.

As shown during that campaign video, it was really neighbors helping neighbors, neighbors answering calls for help from their neighbors. That’s basically what happened during that time. African-Americans and the Lumbee people realized there was a problem in the community. There was trouble coming, and those neighbors saw that. They did not flinch in terms of the need for us to protect our human dignity. We have to protect our community. We have to protect our property.

If the Lumbee community and the African-American community did not stand together on that night in January of 1958, I can’t imagine what the consequences would have been. Potential lives being lost; property damaged and destroyed.

Those guys who went out on that night to stand up against the Klan, we’re talking about men who had fought in the world war. They had fought in the Korean War. These were strong and determined men who said, “No, that won’t happen in our community.” It was really a story of determination and people having a strong urge and will to fight another war on that night if they had to — and they did.

For you, what were the real strengths of that video? I see it as something other Democrats can learn from.

I was not acting, I was speaking from the heart. I was a young boy at the time. I remember growing up years after that, listening to those folks who knew what was at stake, and having a lot of pride as they talked about turning back the Klan.

What I want the viewers of my new video to feel is a sense of community. A feeling of neighbors helping neighbors and not turning their backs on each other. During difficult times we stand united, and we work together. We are having some of those difficult times right now, when neighbors don’t trust neighbors. This is a sad time we’re living in.

RELATED: Election guru Rachel Bitecofer: Democrats face “10-alarm fire” after Virginia debacle

It was really not a political ad, to be honest with you. It was not a political announcement. That’s what the producer wanted. He said, “I want something unique. I don’t want just a typical campaign ad.” I want to help our country heal and be united. That was the message.

When did you realize that you had something special in the campaign ad, that it was hitting folks emotionally?

When I read the first draft of the script, I wasn’t sure if I wanted it to be that strong and that powerful. I felt that considering the state of the country right now, it might be too divisive to a certain degree. We did some minor edits, not a whole lot. But I keep looking at that video and it still moves me. I felt like this is the right thing to do. This is the right thing to say.

As we look at the state of our social issues, at the state of politics in this country, at the divisions that we have, I think the video said exactly what I wanted it to say about me as a person — and about the people who defended the community against the KKK.

I am a member of the black working-class. Where I grew up, we would ask folks, “Who made you? Where’d you come from?” In that spirit, where did your values come from?

Yeah, well, down here we say, “Who’s your people?” And that says a lot. It speaks volumes. I would say it was many things. Many people throughout my life have influenced me, but I have to go back to my roots and my family. The late 1960s to the 1970s, when I was in my formative years, I was trying to figure out, “What do I want to be? What do I want to accomplish in life?” It just brings me back to how I was raised.

My father left me when he was 47 years old. He left me when I had just turned 20. He taught me so much during the years that he was in good health. He worked a public job and we as a family worked on the farm and sharecropped. This was not just my immediate family, but my extended family as well, that worked together on those farms during some very difficult times.

We knew that in order to have the things that we were lucky enough to have, such as clothes to go to school, food on the table, we had to work hard to have those things in life.

It just brings me back to my father. It brings me back to my mother. It brings me back to my grandparents, very respected people. I didn’t want to do anything to hurt my family’s reputation. I had a good family, and they were very respected people in the community. Those years back during those tough times is what made me. It’s what I am today, a hard-working man.

How are your values reflected in the policies you support?

I look at a given policy and my first thought is, will this make our community more whole? Is this going to make our community coalesce around something that is going to be good and valued? Would this be good for educators? Is this good for our health care workers? Would this bring value to their lives? Is this policy going to be good for people?

My mother was a home health care worker for many years. For many folks, especially for the indigent, the elderly, the homebound and others in dire need, home health care workers are like family. My mother has told me stories about how you form relationships with people, and how she and her colleagues will maintain those relationships even if the state stops paying, or the person’s money runs out. They’ll still stop by and see those folks and sit with them. They’re their friends, in some cases almost their family. What are we going to do for those brothers and sisters, those home health care heroes? What are your ideas, in terms of public policy?

They are special human beings. They’re making a sacrifice. The pandemic has really highlighted that. Those folks are heroes. Health care workers, whether they are public or private, need to be rewarded with a living wage, an income they can be proud of. At this point in our lives, home health care workers need to be making no less than $15 an hour. They need to have benefits. They need to be encouraged in many ways to continue doing the level of work they do because they are unsung heroes.

I always say that our teachers are nation-builders. They are inspiring children every day. As a matter of fact, during this term in our legislature, I insisted that we pay our custodial workers, our cafeteria workers, our bus drivers a minimum of $15 an hour. They make sure those children get to school. They make sure the children are fed and nourished.

The same thing is true of our health care workers. They are a companion to that individual that they’re working with and they’re doing it because of one reason: They love what they do. They know they’re touching someone’s life in a way that’s going to make that person’s day meaningful and enjoyable in a special way.

When people reach out to you and they say, “I’m tired. I don’t feel like anything matters anymore. My vote doesn’t matter. I’m feeling hopeless,” what do you tell them? How would you get them back into the fight?

We have a lot of that. Yes, we do. How would I get them back? I have talked to people with that same mindset, that same attitude. “It’s not going to do any good. Why should I even go out and vote?”

I say to them, “Well, just look around you. If you see individuals in your community that are going without, that are feeling hopeless, that are actually not supported within their community. If you see crime, if you see all kinds of things that have an adverse effect on how we live every day,” I say to that individual, “go out and express your desires by using the vote.”

The vote is the most powerful thing you have at your disposal. You should use that and encourage your community to use their power. I try to encourage people, “Start looking at how you personally can make a difference. If we get everyone looking at how they can make a difference, then we have a movement, and that’s what it’s going to take.”

Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial is a sideshow — powerful, abusive men will not be held accountable

The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which began this week in Manhattan, will not hold to account the powerful and wealthy men who are also complicit in the sexual assaults of girls as young as 12 whom Maxwell allegedly procured for billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, hedge-fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard Larry Summers, Stephen Pinker, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner, JP Morgan banker Jes Staley, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barack, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, former Maine senator George Mitchell, Harvey Weinstein and many others who were at least present and most likely participated in Epstein’s perpetual bacchanalia are not in court. The law firms and high-priced attorneys, federal and state prosecutors, private investigators, personal assistants, publicists, servants, drivers and numerous other procurers, sometimes women, who made Epstein’s crimes possible are not being investigated. Those in the media, the political arena and the entertainment industry who aggressively and often viciously shut down and discredited the few voices, including those of a handful of intrepid reporters, who sought to shine a light on the crimes committed by Epstein and his circle of accomplices are not on trial. The videos that Epstein apparently collected of his guests engaged in their sexual escapades with teenage and underage girls from the cameras he had installed in his opulent residences and on his private island have mysteriously disappeared, most probably into the black hole of the FBI, along with other crucial evidence. Epstein’s death in a New York jail cell, while officially ruled a suicide, was in the eyes of many credible investigators a murder. With Epstein dead and Maxwell sacrificed, the ruling oligarchs will once again escape justice.

The Epstein case is important because, however much is being covered up, it is a window into the scourge of male violence that explodes in decayed cultures, fueled by widening income disparities, the collapse of the social contract and the grotesque entitlement that comes with celebrity, political power and wealth. When a ruling elite perverts all institutions, including the courts, into instruments that serve the exclusive interests of the entitled, when it willfully neglects and abandons larger and larger segments of the population, girls and women always suffer disproportionately. The struggle for equal pay, equal distribution of wealth and resources, access to welfare, legal aid that offers adequate protection under the law, social services, job training, health care and education services, have been so degraded they barely exist for the poor, especially poor girls and women.

Women, traditionally burdened with the care of children, the elderly and the sick, stripped of control over their own bodies in states that seek to deny reproductive rights, are cornered, unable to make a living and secure legal protection. This is always the goal of patriarchy. And in this degraded world girls and women are easy prey for pimps, pedophiles and rapists such as Epstein and his accomplices. These men look at their victims not as children or young women in distress but as human trash, no more worthy of consideration than a slave, which in fact many of these girls and women become.

RELATED: Steve Bannon reportedly “coached” Jeffrey Epstein on responses to sex abuse allegations

A licentious, money-drenched, morally bankrupt and intellectually vacuous ruling class, accountable to no one and free to plunder and prey on the weak like human vultures, rise to power in societies in terminal decline. This class of parasites was savagely parodied in the first-century satirical novel “Satyricon” by Gaius Petronius, written during the reign of Nero. Epstein and his cohorts for years engaged in sexual perversions of Petronian proportions, as Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie Brown, whose dogged reporting was largely responsible for reopening the federal investigation into Epstein and Maxwell, documents in her book “Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story.”

As Brown writes, in 2016 an anonymous woman, using the pseudonym “Kate Johnson,” filed a civil complaint in federal court in California alleging she was raped by Trump and Epstein when she was 13, over a four-month period from June to September 1994. “I loudly pleaded with Trump to stop,” she said in the lawsuit about being raped by Trump. “Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he could do whatever he wanted.” Brown writes:

Johnson said that Epstein invited her to a series of “underage sex parties” at his New York mansion where she met Trump. Enticed by promises of money and modeling opportunities, Johnson said she was forced to have sex with Trump several times, including once with another girl, twelve years old, whom she labeled “Marie Doe.”

Trump demanded oral sex, the lawsuit said, and afterward he “pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the ‘poor’ quality of the sexual performance,” according to the lawsuit, filed April 26 in U.S. District Court in Central California.

Afterward, when Epstein learned that Trump had taken Johnson’s virginity, Epstein allegedly “attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists,” angry he had not been the one to take her virginity. Johnson claimed that both men threatened to harm her, and her family if she ever revealed what had happened.

The lawsuit states that Trump did not take part in Epstein’s orgies but liked to watch, often while the 13-year-old “Kate Johnson” gave him a hand job. It appears Trump was able to quash the lawsuit by buying this woman’s silence. She has since disappeared.

RELATED: Bill Gates’ association with Jeffrey Epstein may have been a factor in Melinda seeking divorce

These mediocrities, drunk with their own self-importance, equate celebrity, power and wealth with wisdom. Petronius’ Trimalchio, the archetypal self-made millionaire whose vulgarity and stupidity make him one of the great comic buffoons of literature, was more than matched by Epstein, who organized pretentious dinners for those in his secret billionaires’ club, which included Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Salar Kamangar and Jeff Bezos. Epstein and his guests, as in Petronius’ chapter “Dinner with Trimalchio,” dreamed up bizarre schemes of social engineering, including Epstein’s plan to seed the human species with his own DNA by creating a baby compound at his sprawling estate in New Mexico. “Epstein was also obsessed with cryonics, the transhumanist philosophy whose followers believe that people can be replicated or brought back to life after they are frozen,” Brown writes. “Epstein apparently told some of the members of his scientific circle that he wanted to inseminate women with his sperm for them to give birth to his babies, and that he wanted his head and his penis frozen.”

Epstein, who regularly entertained and funded the work of Harvard faculty, was made a visiting fellow in Harvard’s Department of Psychology, although he had no academic qualifications that made him eligible for the position. He was given a key card and pass code, as well as an office, in the building that housed Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. He referred to himself in his press releases as “Science Philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein,” “Education activist Jeffrey Epstein,” “Evolutionary Jeffrey Epstein,” “Science patron Jeffrey Epstein” and “Maverick hedge funder Jeffrey Epstein.”


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


The judicial system, for years, worked to protect Epstein. The legal anomalies, including the disappearance of massive amounts of evidence incriminating him, saw Epstein avoid federal sex-trafficking charges in 2007 when his attorneys negotiated a secret deal with Alex Acosta in the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami to plead guilty to lesser state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution.  

The prominent men accused of also engaging in Epstein’s carnival of pedophilia, including the attorney and former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, brazenly lie and threaten anyone daring to call them out. Dershowitz, for example, claims that an investigation, which he has refused to make public, by the former FBI director Louis Freeh proves he had never had sex with one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre. He has sent repeated threats to Brown and her editors at the Miami Herald. Brown continues:

[Dershowitz] kept referring to information that was contained in sealed documents. He accused the newspaper of not reporting “facts” that he said were in those sealed documents. The truth is, I tried to explain, newspapers just can’t write about things because Alan Dershowitz says they exist. We need to see them. We need to verify them. Then, because I said “show me the material,” he publicly accused me of committing a criminal act by asking him to produce documents that were under court seal.

This is the way Dershowitz operates.

What disturbs me the most about Dershowitz is the way that the media, with few exceptions, fails to critically challenge him. Journalists fact-checked Donald Trump and others in his administration almost every day, yet, for the most part, the media seems to give Dershowitz a pass on the Epstein story.

In 2015, when Giuffre’s allegations first became public, Dershowitz went on every television program imaginable swearing, among other things, that Epstein’s plane logs would exonerate him. “How do you know that?” he was asked.

He replied that he was never on Epstein’s plane during the time that Virginia was involved with Epstein.

But if the media had checked, they could have learned that he was indeed a passenger on the plane during that time period, according to the logs.

Then he testified, in a sworn deposition, that he never went on any plane trips without his wife. But he was listed on those passage manifests as traveling multiple times without his wife. During at least one trip, he was on the plane with a model named Tatiana.

The ability of the powerful to ignore the law raises important and different questions for girls and women about the role of government, police and the law. Defunding the police is not a solution. Demilitarizing the police is. Women need legal protection and need police that function as police, as a sanction with severe consequences against male violence. They need social support. They need robust institutions, including the courts, which prevent them from being blackmailed, bullied and abused. To challenge sexual violence, to challenge objectification, to challenge the cultural hyper-sexualization of women, is to be subject to vicious character assassination, threatened, including the threat of rape, and at times killed. To stand up to protect water, to assist a truth-teller, if you are a woman, is to face potential economic destitution. To stand up and name your abuser, as many of the courageous women who have come forward in the Epstein case have done, is to have high-priced teams of attorneys and private investigators pursue every avenue to demonize, discredit and destroy you financially and psychologically. The resources available to the powerful, and the dearth of resources available to the powerless, skews this fight in favor of the predators. This is by design.

RELATED: It’s time for Ghislaine Maxwell’s reckoning in the “Surviving Jeffrey Epstein” docuseries

The struggle for liberation and justice by women is central to the struggle for liberation and justice for everyone. We will not resist the radical evil before us without women, if we are denied access to the ideas and leadership of women, and in particular women of color. So while we must decry violence and exploitation against all of the oppressed, we must also recognize that male violence against women — including prostitution and its promoter, pornography — is an especially insidious form of violence. It is a tool of corporate domination and capitalism. It is engrained in the racism and exploitation of imperialism and colonialism. But it also exists outside the structures of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism. More women have been killed by their domestic partners since 2001 than all the Americans killed on 9/11, and in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Predatory male power infects the left as well as the right, the anti-capitalists as well as the capitalists, the anti-imperialists as well as the imperialists and the anti-racists as well as the racists. It is its own evil. And if it is not defeated there will be no justice for women or for anyone else.

The predators know that desperation forces girls and women, with no alternatives left, to trade sex for the most basic staples of life, including food and shelter. In every conflict I covered as a war correspondent there was an explosion of prostituted girls and women. And as we are burdened with greater and greater numbers of environmental migrants — over a billion by 2050, by one prediction — fleeing droughts, rising sea levels, flooding, wildfires and declining crop yields, these exchanges of sex for the most basic elements needed to survive will become more common. The scourge of male violence is growing, not decreasing.

 George Bernard Shaw got it right. Poverty is

… the worst of crimes. All the other crimes are virtues beside it; all the other dishonors are chivalry itself by comparison. Poverty blights whole cities, spreads horrible pestilences, strikes dead the very souls of all who come within sight, sound, or smell of it. What you call crime is nothing: a murder here and a theft there, a blow now and a curse then. What do they matter? They are only the accidents and illnesses of life; there are not fifty genuine professional criminals in London. But there are millions of poor people, abject people, dirty people, ill-fed, ill-clothed people. They poison us morally and physically; they kill the happiness of society; they force us to do away with our own liberties and to organize unnatural cruelties for fear they should rise against us and drag us down into their abyss. Only fools fear crime; we all fear poverty.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said of society that “some are guilty, but all are responsible.” The crime of poverty is a communal crime. Our failure, as the richest nation on earth, to provide safe and healthy communities, ones where all children have enough to eat and a future, is a communal crime. Our failure to provide everyone, and especially the poor, with a good education and housing is a communal crime. Our failure to make health care a human right, forcing parents, burdened with astronomical medical bills, to bankrupt themselves to save their sick sons or daughters, is a communal crime. Our failure to provide meaningful work — in short, the possibility of hope — is a communal crime. Our decision to militarize police forces and build prisons, rather than invest in people, is a communal crime. Our failure to protect girls and women is a communal crime. The misguided belief in charity and philanthropy rather than justice is a communal crime. “You Christians have a vested interest in unjust structures which produce victims to whom you then can pour out your hearts in charity,” Karl Marx said, chastising a group of church leaders.

If we do not work to eliminate the causes of poverty, the greatest of all crimes, the institutional structures that keep the poor poor, then we are responsible. There are issues of personal morality, and they are important, but they mean nothing without a commitment to social morality. Only those who have been there truly understand. Only those with integrity and courage speak the truth. And at the forefront of this fight are women.

RELATED: Beyond “touchy-feely”: Andrew Cuomo, Donald Trump and the politics of sexual abuse

Sexual sadism is fed by the entitlement of the powerful and a pornography industry that eroticizes images of girls and women being physically abused. It is not accidental that many of the Abu Ghraib images resemble stills from porn films. There is a shot of a naked man kneeling in front of another man as if performing oral sex. There is a photo of a naked man on a leash held by a female American soldier. There are photos of naked men in chains. There are photos of naked men stacked one on top of the other in a pile on the floor. And there are hundreds more classified photos that purportedly show forced masturbation by Iraqi prisoners and the rape of prisoners, including young boys, by U.S. soldiers, many of whom were schooled in these torture techniques in our vast system of mass incarceration.

The list of suspected abusers around Epstein was not segregated by the left or the right. It included Republicans, like Trump, and Democrats such as Clinton. It included philanthropists such as Gates, the former prime minister of Israel and Harvard academics. It included celebrities, such as David Copperfield, and the titans of finance and business. The common denominator was not politics or ideology, but that they were powerful and wealthy men.

The feminist Andrea Dworkin understood. She excoriated the left, who railed against the excesses of capitalism, while ignoring the capitalist exploitation of girls and women. She wrote:

Capitalism is not wicked or cruel when the commodity is the whore; profit is not wicked or cruel when the alienated worker is a female piece of meat; corporate bloodsucking is not wicked or cruel when the corporations in question, organized crime syndicates, sell cunt; racism is not wicked or cruel when the black cunt or yellow cunt or red cunt or Hispanic cunt or Jewish cunt has her legs splayed for any man’s pleasure; poverty is not wicked or cruel when it is the poverty of dispossessed women who have only themselves to sell; violence by the powerful against the powerless is not wicked or cruel when it is called sex; slavery is not wicked or cruel when it is sexual slavery; torture is not wicked or cruel when the tormented are women, whores, cunts. The new pornography is left-wing; and the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.

The Earth, and all forms of life on this planet, must be revered, and protected if we are to endure as a species. This means inculcating a different vision of human society. It means building a world where domination and ceaseless exploitation, in all its forms, are condemned, where empathy, especially for the weak and for the vulnerable, is held up as the highest virtue. It means recovering the capacity for awe and reverence for the sacred sources that sustain life. It means that girls and women must be empowered to control their own fates. Once we stand up for this ethic of life, once we include all people, including girls and women, as an integral part of this ethic, we can build a successful resistance movement that can challenge the radical evil before us. But we can’t do it unless half of the human population, girls and women, are at our side. Their fight is our fight. Their justice is our justice. Once they are free, we can all be free.

Small lab study shows omicron partially evades vaccine-based immunity

The Pfizer-BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine partially protects against the omicron variant, according to the preprint of a study published by researchers in South Africa on Tuesday.

The study is the first of its kind to provide any insight into how current vaccines will protect against the omicron variant, which is believed to be more transmissible than the delta variant. However, omicron appears to cause less severe disease.

The study was a small, in-vitro study, in which researchers looked at samples from 12 people who had been fully vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine to see how their antibodies would respond to the omicron variant. The results showed that these antibodies were less successful at keeping the Omicron variant from infecting cells, about one-fortieth as effective as what researchers saw with previous variants of the coronavirus. This number is likely to change as more samples are tested, and studies are conducted.

“There is a very large drop in neutralization of omicron by BNT162b2 [Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine] immunity relative to ancestral virus,” Alex Sigal of the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban, who led the study team, said on Twitter. “Omicron escape from BNT162b2 neutralization is incomplete.

Notably, there appeared to be a stronger immune response from those who were infected with COVID-19 before getting vaccinated.

“Previous infection [plus] vaccination still neutralizes,” Sigal added. “This is not a variant that has completely escaped; it certainly escapes. It is certainly bad. But it looks to me like there are ways of dealing with it.”

While research is still pending, it is likely boosters will help. 

“My impression is if you get a booster you are protected, especially against severe disease,” Sigal said. “It took a hit — a bigger hit than we have seen before — but it didn’t take it down to levels that are insubstantial.”

The good news is that omicron still infects human cells via the ACE2 receptor. This means that existing vaccines are still effective against the variant to some extent.

“Imagine if this virus had found a different receptor to bind to,” Sigal asked. “Then all of our vaccines would have been trash.”

As Salon previously reported, across the entire genome of the variant, there are 50 mutations; 32 are in the spike protein, which is implicated in the virus’ ability to attach and gain entry into human cells. Most of the current vaccines train the human body’s immune system to recognize a specific spike protein on the coronavirus, which is how we build protection against the virus overall. However, many modifications to the spike protein could result in the body no longer being able to recognize the spike protein vis-a-vis the current vaccine — hence, the potential for re-infection among the vaccinated.

The news has led to some scientists suggesting that omicron-specific vaccines will be needed.

“Given the very large drop in neutralizing antibody titers that are seen here with omicron,” Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, told the New York Times, “certainly in my view it would merit pushing forward as fast as possible with making omicron-specific vaccines, as long as it seems like there’s a possibility it could spread widely.”


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


N.J. Republicans bum-rush the state house, endangering cops, state workers

On Dec. 2, a group of Republican New Jersey state legislators barged onto the floor of the Assembly chamber in Trenton, in open violation of the requirement that lawmakers show proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test. Now they’re eager to present their second-rate publicity stunt as a courageous blow for individual liberty.

In reality it’s nothing of the kind. It’s more like an illustration of their wanton disregard for the health and well-being of the “essential workers” they claim to care so much about, including the New Jersey state troopers they confronted in the chamber. In this and so many other ways, they’re following the example of Donald Trump, who repeatedly endangered his Secret Service detail and any number of other people, even when he was personally contagious.

In October, the New York Times reported that the Officer Down Memorial webpage then accounted for close to 500 police officers who had died over the arc of the pandemic from workplace exposure to the deadly virus.

“More than four times as many officers have died from Covid-19 as from gunfire in that period,” the Times reported. “There is no comprehensive accounting of how many American police officers have been sickened by the virus, but departments across the country have reported large outbreaks in the ranks.”

The reckless actions of these Republican legislators were strongly reminiscent of Trump’s wanton disregard for the health and safety of the hundreds of Secret Service agents and uniformed officers who protected him, and whom he put at risk on many occasions by pressing ahead with campaign rallies and other large public gatherings in the midst of a deadly pandemic.

RELATED: Republicans’ war on vaccines: GOP pushes strategy to prolong the pandemic

According to Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog group, “nearly 900 Secret Service employees tested positive for COVID 19” with most of those having served in “protection jobs,” either as special agents or in uniform.

“Throughout the pandemic, then-President and Vice President Trump and Pence held large-scale rallies against public health guidelines, and Trump and his family made repeated protected trips to Trump-branded properties which the then-president was making millions of dollars a year from,” CREW reported. “Trump even put on a photo-op in a car with Secret Service agents while being treated for COVID, further putting agents in danger. While there have been reports of Trump’s Secret Service struggling with coronavirus cases, the number is far greater than had previously been known.”

“Never before has the Secret Service run up against a president so intent on putting himself first regardless of the costs, including to those around him,” Ned Price, a national security expert and former CIA analyst, told the Washington Post.  “And by maintaining a rigorous travel schedule and otherwise flouting public health guidance, he is demanding that agents add to their already considerable professional risk in ways that are qualitatively different than what they signed up for.”

Throughout the pandemic, millions of essential workers put themselves and their families at risk by leaving their homes to work in our communities. They were not in service to just the vainglorious megalomaniac who happened to be president. They were in service to all of us, yet as a nation we failed to protect them from a pandemic, one we had been warned was likely coming for years.

Consider the fate of 45-year-old Officer Charles Roberts of Glen Ridge, New Jersey, who died in May 2020 as a result of his occupational exposure to the virus. He left behind his wife, Alice, and three children.

At that point we had lost just over 80,000 Americans, with roughly 1.4 million cases. Today, almost two years into the pandemic, we are approaching 800,000 deaths, and 50 million infections. More than 1,000 people a day are dying in the U.S., with the number once again beginning to climb.


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


In truth, we have no idea how many essential workers died after occupational exposure to the deadly virus, and public health authorities don’t seem highly motivated to find out.

Throughout the pandemic, before Joe Biden took office, unions representing essential workers and workplace safety advocates sounded the alarm about America’s meat processing sector, where hundreds upon hundreds of workers died in plants that Trump ordered to stay open while the body count soared and the virus spread.

Even before New York was in lockdown mode, in mid-March of 2020, the New York State Nurses Association warned that the CDC’s emergency guidance that nurses should reuse N95 masks, rather than dispose of them after each clinical encounter, would result in their members becoming infected and dying. In the process, the hospitals where they worked would become vectors for the deadly disease.

Both things happened. According to a joint reporting project produced by the Guardian and Kaiser Health News, more than 3,600 health care professionals have died after COVID exposure on the job, as of April 2021.

Last May, the CDC once again ignored the advice of frontline unions and lifted the universal mask mandate for all vaccinated individuals in indoor settings. After the ensuing surge of the delta variant, the CDC was forced to reset mask guidance yet again, advising Americans to be guided by local conditions.

Initially, the delta variant tore through states like Alabama, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and Wyoming, where vaccination rates were lowest. Texas and Florida’s hospitals were sorely tested even as their Republican governors did all they could to prevent local school districts from mandating masking, even though public health officials warned that delta was hitting children harder than previous variants.

On Aug. 12, the Washington Post reported that “two-thirds of Americans in highly vaccinated counties now live in coronavirus hotspots … as outbreaks of the highly transmissible delta variant — once concentrated in poorly vaccinated pockets — ignite in more populated and immunized areas.”

“How rapidly the state of the pandemic changed in July from a problem for the unvaccinated to a nationwide concern,” the Post wrote. “Hospitalization rates in states with less than 40 percent of their population fully vaccinated are four times higher than states that are at least 54 percent vaccinated.” 

The Post’s analysis found that breakthrough infections — meaning infections among vaccinated people — did “not appear to be as extremely rare as hoped,” accounting for more than a fifth of new recent infections in Southern California, Oregon and Connecticut.

While policy-makers and the media focus on the death toll and hospital admissions “dashboard,” what often goes underreported is the “long COVID” phenomenon, in which a significant percentage of those infected, even with very mild initial symptoms, will suffer long-term health consequences of varying severity.

Even patients who have tested positive for COVID but remained asymptomatic, have reported lingering health effects.

Multiple medical studies suggest that anywhere from one-quarter to one third of COVID-19 survivors become so-called “long-haul patients,” reporting a range of symptoms including shortness of breath, chest pains, shortness of breath, fatigue and “brain fog.”

An analysis of four studies published this year confirms that, reports UC Davis Health’s Post-COVID-19 Clinic, showing that “27 percent to nearly 33 percent of patients who had COVID-19 but did not need to be hospitalized later developed some form of long-haul COVID.”

It does not seem to matter “whether non-hospitalized patients had more severe cases of COVID-19, mild cases or even cases that caused no symptoms at all,” according to the UC Davis website. “Just as consistently, age or prior health — whether people were active and fit or had some previous health issues like diabetes or respiratory problems — made only a very small difference, if any, among non-hospitalized patients.”

One through-line of this pandemic have been repeated attempts to leverage this once-in-a-century public health crisis for partisan political advantage, as with what we saw in Trenton last week.

After a catastrophic failure to protect America’s essential workforce, which has cost so many families so dearly, Republicans across the country and inside the Beltway are fighting the Biden administration’s OSHA mandate for large employers to require that their workers either be vaccinated or tested on a regular basis.

In this context, the “great resignation” should be no mystery. Why should Americans eagerly rush back to work when, thanks to Republican obstructionism, their government remains incapable of taking firm steps to protect them and their families from a deadly virus?

More on “essential workers” and the COVID pandemic:

The shaming of Brooke Shields: Actress addresses backlash after her sexualized ’80s Calvin Klein ad

During an appearance on the Dax Shepard podcast “Armchair Expert” on Monday, Brooke Shields reflected on her Calvin Klein jeans modeling campaign from the 1980s — and the subsequent media backlash the then-teen was subjected to. She didn’t have many positive things to say.

Shields was 15 in a 1981 television interview when Barbara Walters asked Shields about the measurements of her body, if she kept any secrets from her mother (sitting right next to her), and if she felt she had “had no childhood” as critics of the girl claimed.

RELATED: Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Epstein victim testifies she was taken to Trump at 14 years old

In the most well-known ad image, Shields wears a barely buttoned shirt and is clad in the jeans, kicking one leg out in an uncomfortable-looking, unnatural position, balancing on her arms. At the time, she didn’t understand the tagline for the ads, used in both print and television — “You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing” — that it was a wink to the underage model not wearing underwear.

“I didn’t think it had to do with underwear, I didn’t think it was sexual in nature,” Shields said. “I would say it about my sister, ‘Nobody can come between me and my sister.’ “

No one on set explained the line to her. And Walters — like other media appearances Shields did as a teenager, and like similar, invasive interviews conducted in the ’80s, ’90s, and early 2000s with female child stars like Britney Spears — didn’t offer Shields any sympathy. Shepard described the shaming Walters interview as “maddening.” 

Shields was subject to vitriol for the ads, as if she — and not the adults who created the campaign — were responsible for the sexualized message. “I think the assumption is that I was much more savvy than I ever really was,” Shields said in “Vogue.”


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


The ads were a huge success for the brand, but maybe too much of a success. Shields was dropped from her contract before the planned second year of the campaign, allegedly because consumers were associating the model’s name and not Calvin Klein with the jeans. 

Shields, now 56, went on to to a career that has included two Golden Globes nominations. Her holiday movie “A Castle for Christmas” is streaming on Netflix.

More stories like this:

Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” banned in multiple Middle Eastern countries

Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” has been banned in several Middle Eastern countries, according to reports by The Hollywood Reporter and others. The Disney and 20th Century Studios adaptation of the 1957 Broadway musical with music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, and book by Arthur Laurents, has a screenplay by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and author Tony Kushner.

The countries who have allegedly banned the film are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait denied “West Side Story” a release certificate, which means the film cannot be publicly distributed, while the remaining countries asked for parts to be censored, which Disney refused.

RELATED: “The Simpsons” episode mysteriously censored in Hong Kong

As reported in THR, the countries allegedly asked for scenes to be cut that feature the character of Anybodys, who is openly transgender in the film and is played by nonbinary actor Iris Menas, who appeared on Broadway in “Jagged Little Pill.” “With homosexuality officially illegal across the Gulf, films that feature any LGBTQ references or issues often fall foul of the censors,” according to the trade.

In the first film version of “West Side Story” in 1961, directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, who conceived of the story, actress Susan Oakes played Anybody, a minor character listed in the cast as a “tomboy” and as one of the Jet girls. Kushner, author of “Angels in America,” reimagines the character, given more scenes in the Disney version, as openly trans, based on original notes from Laurents about what the writer had always hoped to do with the character, and with the full approval of Laurents’ estate.


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


Based on Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” “West Side Story” tells the story of forbidden love, violence, and racial tension in 1950s New York City, as the leader of one street gang, the white Jets, falls in love with the sister of the leader of a rival gang, the Puerto Rican Sharks.

Spielberg’s “West Side Story” will be released in theaters in the U.S. on Dec. 10. Watch a trailer for the movie below, via YouTube.

More stories to check out:

23 and Not Me: As an adoptee, I’m not even remotely tempted to take a DNA test

“In the estuarine plains of crisscrossing information, history, society, and culture collide and intersect with genetics, like tides. Some waves cancel each other, while others reinforce each other. No force is particularly strong — but their combined effect produces the unique and rippled landscape that we call an individual’s identity.”

– Siddhartha Mukherjee

“Is who we are the same as who we believe ourselves to be?”

– Dani Shapiro

As one of the 135,000 children adopted in the United States in 1964, I was possibly — let’s say probably — conceived in error and birthed in shame, then taken away to become another couple’s dream come true. But I don’t know for sure. For decades, thousands of adopted individuals seeking to fill in the blanks of their beginnings have started by requesting their original birth record from the vital statistics office where they were born. Today, if I wanted to know how I came into the world, any of the consumer DNA test kits that have emerged on the market would seem to offer a shortcut to hunting down not only my birth mother, but other relatives as well. Yet I couldn’t be less tempted. 

Apparently I’m in the minority. Back in early 2019, MIT Technology Review estimated that more than 26 million people had added their hereditary material to commercial health and ancestry databases, and the market is expected to be worth almost $1.1 trillion by 2026. For a while those kits seemed to be what everyone was giving or receiving as a gift, or simply ordering for fun. If the Internet headlines were to be believed — “I took 9 different DNA tests and here’s what I found” — some folks were leaving no chromosome unturned. 

Indeed, so many people seemed to be swabbing and spitting that I began to wonder if I were missing something. Maybe there were rewards to becoming acquainted with one’s genome that I had failed to imagine. I’d never given the ratio of the length of my index finger to that of my ring finger a second thought, but maybe discovering it would unlock some life-altering insight. And if that happened, what might learning the genetic type of my earwax tell me about my place in the human family?

To try to understand the appeal of genomic self-knowledge, I polled friends, colleagues, and acquaintances who had taken a DNA test about their motivations. They were all generous and open with their answers. A few offered straightforward, even practical reasons: a coworker, who’s adopted, wanted insight into her potential medical risks. A Black friend wanted to counter the longstanding unknowability of her ancestry due to the lack of vital records for generations of African Americans. A former colleague wanted to test the truth of the rumor that her grandfather was part Native American. (He wasn’t.

RELATED: “Dear Father” letters and DNA tests

But mostly people said they were simply curious; a lot of that curiosity was “what’s my background” general, while some was “why am I the only one in my family with brown eyes” specific. The husband of a friend said — only half-joking, I think — that traveling to the British Isles to research the forebears he’d learned about through his test results was a good excuse to drink great beer and whisky.

One woman offered deliciously, “Being a melted version of a lot of others made me want to know my ingredients.”

Apart from some misgivings about privacy, no one I asked reported being especially worried as they shipped off their saliva, and except for being startled when they found out just how Neanderthal they are, no one related any bad surprises — except for one friend. This woman is a force of nature — smart and sassy, with a long and successful career in communications at Ivy League medical schools. She also has two daughters, both adopted and in their 50s, like me. A couple of years ago, she got DNA kits for her family on a whim, and got more than she’d bargained for.

Not only did her husband discover he had a niece he’d never heard of (someone his brother swore he knew nothing about — hmm!), her daughters each “found” their respective (and very different) birth families and are now in contact with them; one daughter has even met some family members in person. Even as she admitted that her daughters’ meeting their biological relatives was an understandable next step, did that step make my normally fearless friend feel insecure? Yes, yes it did. While fully supporting her daughters’ choices, she found herself fighting off the question, “Will they like their birth families more than our family?” 

* * *

These DIY DNA companies now possess billions of records and have generated millions of family trees. Their success might partially lie in their marketing, which is undeniably alluring. A pretty array of rainbow-colored chromosomal pairs parades across the 23andMe saliva collection kit, whose seductive tagline murmurs “Welcome to you.” AncestryDNA beckons with the slightly more ominous “Every family has a story” and the sort-of-clever “Know your story from the inside.” Its website features tales of men and women who, seeming to have solved the mystery of themselves, went on to radically change their lives. After learning that her adventurous spirit was “in her bloodline,” we’re told, Heidi left her job and found her “rightful place” leading eco tours through the Florida swamps. That’s great for her, but still I wondered why she thought her adventurous spirit had to come from someone else. Why wasn’t it enough that it was hers? 

I understand groups for whom kinship derives from lineage. And I get that the burgeoning genetic databases enrich the work of genealogists. Genealogy surely has its pleasures: it’s historical, microfiche-y detective work that can reward patience and perseverance with entertaining or astonishing discoveries. It imposes order on the chaos of the past, bringing blurry individuals into focus — individuals whose coming together eventually led to one’s own here-and-now. And it can simply be beautiful. Those branching, cascading genealogical charts have a fractal elegance to them that is part military parade and part ballet, like the grand finale of an Ice Capades show.

But even taking into consideration the inspiring anecdotes of self-discovery or the fact that the databases are being used to solve decades-old murder mysteries, such as that of the Golden State Killer and several other cold cases, I still didn’t care what my deoxyribonucleic acid had to say. I mean, I’m adopted, not orphaned: I have not only a family but also a family tree, and a place on a branch of that tree. For me, blood and belonging are as unrelated as apples and rocks. I’ve tried, I really have, to conceive of feeling connected to my parents not because they brought me home but because of something in the blood running through our veins. But that’s like imagining sex as a man: I can sort of guess at what it’s like, but I’ll never really know in any embodied way. In her book, “The Girls Who Went Away,” the visual artist, filmmaker, and author Ann Fessler writes that “for adoptees the adoptive family is their family.” And it’s true: though they’re both dead now, my parents were always my real parents, my grandparents uncomplicatedly my real grandparents, my cousins, real my cousins. To flip this question, would I feel less connected to my children if I had not carried them in my body? The idea is absurd. I love who they became in the world, outside of me. 

* * *

A bunny stuffed animalA bunny stuffed animal (Getty stock photos/Catherine Falls Commercial)

Of course, adoption stories are not always happy ones. To the poet and visual artist Mary-Kim Arnold, a Korean-American adoptee, adoption has felt very different than it has to me. In her fiercely intelligent and lyrical book “Litany for the Long Moment,” Arnold probes her sense of loss and longing — what academics might call “ambiguous loss” — for the missing details of her beginnings and the mother she never knew, and for the country, culture, and language that might have been hers but were not. In “Litany” she is “writing into the rupture,” trying to fill the void of her first two years — the “possible selves” she might have become — drawing on words, photographs, letters, and government documents, on records from the Orphans’ Home of Korea, where she lived as a baby, and on works by other artists, writers, and scholars. In the end, though, these are not enough to provide what she so badly wants to know. “Holding fragments,” she writes, “is not the same as making a broken thing whole.”

I’ve read “Litany” several times. I understand Arnold’s longing – and I recognize that a transracial, transnational adoption entails complications that I, as a white American-born baby adopted by white American parents, never had to contend with. But it was a longing I still didn’t feel. And to help you understand that, I have to tell you this: I have always cherished being a question mark, a cipher, a butterfly who can’t be pinned. As Fessler, who was also adopted, writes, “I loved . . .  having a mysterious past . . . being my own person.” (Fessler went on to find and meet her biological mother, but only after the death of her adoptive mother — a protective urge I no doubt shared.) 

That is why my way and Arnold’s way of processing adoption feel like that optical illusion of the duck and the rabbit: as we contemplate the blankness of our respective pasts, where she sees rupture and void, I find mystery and comfort. Whereas she wants “more of a story than there is,” I press my hands to my ears. 

* * *

It’s worth pointing out, I think, that there can be bliss in ignorance. The ability to identify inheritable diseases aside, tying your identity to a double strand of chemical bases seems like risky business to me. What if your genetic signature tells you something you aren’t prepared to know? Just look at what’s happening to the offspring of donor sperm. As Pam Belluck wrote in her review of “The Lost Family: How DNA Testing Is Upending Who We Are,” “reality as revealed by DNA may not match reality as actually experienced in families.” Lots of people are discovering that they are the issue of one of dozens of transactional, shall we say, gestures. According to a 2020 article in the New York Times Magazine, a young man named Eli Baden-Lasar (who had always known his “father” was an anonymous donor) learned that he had no fewer than 32 half-siblings strewn across the country, from Florida to Hawaii. The donor, he wrote, “represented this absence we all had in common.” But after meeting and photographing all of them, he noted that he and his half-siblings shared little or no sense of connection; they eventually fell out of touch with each other. In the end, Baden-Lasar felt like they had been “mass-produced” and found it was more interesting that his father “remain the missing and invisible figure he has always been.” 

These “gift-wrapped bombshells,” as one journalist has called the kits, are also wreaking havoc with people’s sense of privacy — donors who thought they were anonymous are now being tracked down — as well as people’s sense of self, as in the case of fertility doctor Donald Cline. Unbeknownst to many of his patients, Cline used his own sperm to impregnate them, fathering nearly 50 children that way. One, Jacoba Ballard, became haunted by the possibility that some dark stain in the character of this man — a doctor who grotesquely abused his position — might exist in her. Other people conceived with donor sperm have come undone the moment they learned that they were always a family secret, or that “my father is not my father.” A recent headline puts it succinctly: “First came the DNA kits. Now come the support groups.”

* * *

For the writer Dani Shapiro, too, casually shipping off her spit led to a traumatic discovery. In “Inheritance,” one of her many memoirs, Shapiro describes her utter dislocation upon learning from her DNA analysis what both of her parents had always concealed from her: the fact that the father she loved so dearly was not, in fact, her father. Or rather that this beloved man was her “social father,” while a different man, a complete stranger, was her biological father. 

On paper, Shapiro and I have several things in common, so I thought her book might help me at last grasp the importance of genetic connection. We’re the same age. Her Myers-Briggs Type is INFJ; mine is INFP. We’re both writers, we both practice yoga, and we both love going to Provincetown and stopping at Arnold’s for fried seafood on the way home. As children, we both stared at our faces in the mirror for long dramatic minutes. We both snooped around our parents’ bedroom. We both grew up adoring our dads. (She writes — a lot — about her blond hair; my dad used to call mine “corn silk.”) And we both sought out, more or less unconsciously, replacement families when we felt disenchanted with our own. For Shapiro, the staring and snooping and seeking, the yellow hair and blue eyes, and a keen yet ill-defined longing were the signs hiding in plain sight that she was somehow not of her family. 

RELATED: Paternity tests are big because women aren’t trusted

But don’t a lot of children feel like aliens in their own family? Don’t most kids at some point fantasize about being claimed by parents cooler, kinder, richer than their own? My mother often noted (wryly but lovingly) that I “feel deeply,” but I never ascribed my hyper-sensitivity or adolescent disenchantment with my parents to my status as an adoptee. They were stoic Yankee WASPs; I was a moody mystery girl. So what? In truth, the fact that my parents had chosen me only made me feel more intensely theirs. 


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


The “seismic news” that Shapiro didn’t share any genes with her father plunged her into an existential crisis. “My entire history,” she writes, “crumbled beneath me.” The august ancestors she had always revered, prominent Orthodox American and Israeli Jews who could be traced back to a pogrom in Poland, suddenly felt no longer hers. Who was she without this history, she wondered, and more essentially, “If my father wasn’t my father, who was my father? If my father wasn’t my father, who was I?” Yet having read hundreds of pages about her intense love and veneration for the man who raised her, I couldn’t understand why a lack of shared genetic material would suddenly stop him from being her dad. I remained stubbornly puzzled as to why it mattered. 

It’s like someone suddenly telling me I’m not adopted, I thought glibly. Big deal.

And that’s when it hit me. It would be a big deal. A very big deal.

In the end, I am no different from Shapiro, or from Arnold, or from Heidi and Jacoba, or from anyone wishing to know what their DNA might tell them. We are all avid for story. It’s just that they sought theirs through knowledge, while I protect mine through not-knowing. 

Because the other thing I haven’t said is that I do have a story. Or rather, stories. The first one is that I came from nowhere. The second involves sitting in a living room full of babies and being hand-picked by my parents. The third is much more deeply stored in the folds of my brain — so deeply, in fact, that I didn’t know it was there it until a few years ago, when my therapist asked me if I ever thought about the people who came before my parents and I heard myself say, “You mean the king and queen?” Without realizing it until then, my mind held a memory, like a movie scene. Maybe I should call it a memory-scene. The point of view is that of someone lying in the bottom of a small rough-hewn boat, like a pirogue, looking up at a king and queen. Clothed in wind-whipped shimmering blue robes, they stand together on a rock in a black sea while waves boil and froth at their feet. They bend down and gently push the boat away from them. They wave and wave to the boat as it recedes. I am the baby in the bottom of that boat. 

This might seem fanciful, but I think it makes sense. By making such stories, what is my brain trying to do if not subvert my initial rejection? I see now that my myths — that I was spontaneously generated, or carefully selected, or launched like a girl-Moses of the North Sea — are nothing more than layers of nacre that my mind has applied to create a pearl out of the sharp-edged fact of my abandonment. I am not brave: unlike Arnold, I do not want to know why I was not kept. So while the truth about Shapiro’s conception is her Kryptonite, the well-preserved mystery of mine is my magic power. 

Robin, one of the friends I polled, told me that she had traveled to Ireland with high hopes of feeling connected to the people there, and was disappointed when she didn’t. Then she decided it was OK. “Just like interpreting dreams, perhaps one’s adopted or inherited ancestry can be tapped into equally as places to search for what resonates, and what does not,” she wrote me. “A lot of it is a kind of magical thinking.” 

Magical thinking, meaning making, storytelling. Claiming “These are my people” helps folks make sense to themselves. I simply polish the other side of the same coin. 

As long as I don’t know where I come from, it can’t be anywhere, and I can be anyone.

More stories about stories, adoption and DNA testing:

Your mix-and-match guide for making the best mulled wine ever

We’ve reached the point of year where nothing sounds better than curling up in front of a fire (or the Yule Log channel) with a mug of hot, spiced mulled wine. Historians attribute the first mulled wine recipe to the ancient Greeks and Romans, who took less-than-palatable leftover wine and boiled it with spices to make it shine again. Since then, the drink has become a seasonal staple in many parts of the world.

But how do you go about making mulled wine? Or, if you have an age-old recipe, how do you spice it up for the holidays? Here’s a simple mix-and-match guide for making a warming brew that will keep you content all winter long. 

The wine 

I typically go into the wine store either knowing the exact bottle I want to purchase or ready to go wherever the stylish labels lead me. However, this holiday season, check out those little cards below the red wine bottles that describe the flavor profile of the wine. Look for words like “bold,” “fruit-forward” (or describe specific fruits like blackberries, black currant and stone fruit), “full-bodied” and “jammy.” Bonus points go to bottles with notes of traditional baking spices and vanilla, though try to steer clear of varieties that are overwhelmingly sweet, such as dessert wines. 

Great options include:

  • Merlot
  • Syrah
  • Shiraz
  • Zinfandel
  • Malbec
  • Grenache 
  • Beaujolais

These wines are “big” enough to stand up to the added spices, without overwhelming the final result. 

RELATED: Chillable red wines may be synonymous with poolsides, but they’re equally great in long sleeves

The spices 

There’s a really fun mix-and-match element to choosing the spices for your mulled wine. Ultimately, the ideal combination is whatever tastes the best to you. However, to achieve the classic mulled wine flavor, there are three base spices that you need to include:

Base spices

For 1 bottle of wine 

  • 4 whole cloves
  • 3 star anise
  • 2 cinnamon sticks

After that, have fun with some additional spices to really make the drink your own. Here are some suggestions: 

Add-ins 

For 1 bottle of wine 

  • 1 whole nutmeg, smashed
  • 2 teaspoons of pink or black peppercorns 
  • 2 vanilla bean pods
  • 1/2 tablespoon fresh thyme 
  • 1/2 tablespoon fresh rosemary 
  • 1/2 tablespoon dried lavender 

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


The citrus

I’ve tried mulled wine variations with limes and lemons — and they’re just fine! But you really can’t beat orange for a classic flavor. The citrus peel (you only need about two 2-inch strips!) is sturdy enough to hold up to a gentle simmer without souring, though it adds a nice floral note to the drink.

Tip: The peel contains really flavorful oils. Before adding it to the mixture, fold the peel in half and gently rub the halves together to release those oils. 

The sweetener

Now, for a little sweetness! Many traditional mulled wine varieties use tablespoons of straight white or brown sugar, but why not add a little more nuance to your drink? Here are some options:

  • 1 tablespoon of honey (perhaps try a flavored honey, like buckwheat, wildflower or yuzu) 
  • 1 tablespoon of maple syrup 
  • 1 tablespoon of molasses

The liquor, liqueur and juices

Many mulled wines call for brandy, but other spirits and liqueurs work quite well, too. These include: 

  • 2 to 4 tablespoons of apple brandy 
  • 2 to 4 tablespoons of Aperol 
  • 2 to 4 tablespoons of Cointreau 
  • 2 to 4 tablespoons of tawny port 
  • 2 to 4 tablespoons of bourbon 
  • A splash of bitters 

If, for whatever reason, you don’t want to add additional alcohol to the mixture, perhaps try a seasonal juice for added flavor. Try one of these options: 

  • 1/4 cup of cranberry juice
  • 1/4 cup apple juice or apple cider
  • 1/4 cup of fresh orange juice
  • 1/4 cup of pomegranate juice

The process 

The easiest way to make mulled wine is undoubtedly in a large Dutch oven, letting it either cook on the stovetop or covered inside the oven at 300 degrees. Either way, allow the wine, spices and additional juices to simmer for 10 to 30 minutes, depending on how “spiced” you want the final result to be. Be sure to fully remove the spices and citrus peel from the final product (no one wants to choke on a clove while taking a gump!). Popular garnishes include: 

  • Fresh cinnamon sticks 
  • Orange wheels or curled citrus peels 
  • Rosemary stems 
  • Fresh cranberries 
  • Pomegranate seeds 

More spirited stories from Salon: 

How to make charcuterie actually look cute on a cheese board

That Cheese Plate is a column by Marissa Mullen — cookbook author, photographer, and Food52’s Resident Cheese Plater. With Marissa’s expertise in all things cheddar, Comté, and crudité — plus tips for how to make it all look extra special, using stuff you probably have on hand — we’ll be crafting our own cheesy masterpieces without a hitch. This month, Marissa is letting us in on some tricks of the trade when it comes to styling charcuterie.


Charcuterie is an essential element of any cheese board, adding robust flavors ranging from cured salt and red wine to fennel and cracked black pepper. The word “charcuterie” is derived from the French words “chair” (flesh) and “cuit” (cooked). The term was first spotted on the scene in the 15th century in signage on storefronts specializing in the preparation of cooked pig.

Today, the term charcuterie has evolved and shifted, covering a wide range of cured and aged meats from many regions in and outside of France. Elias Cairo, founder and charcutier of Oregon’s Olympia Provisions, says, “Charcuterie is value-added meat — where something is added, be it salt or heat, to enhance flavor and prolong shelf life.” Some examples include saucisson sec, salami, mortadella, prosciutto, coppa, and soppressata. Cheesemongers, chefs, and butchers alike will argue that the term charcuterie should only be used when referring to these types of meats, yet with the aesthetic cheese board trend booming, “charcuterie” has become synonymous with “food on a board.”

I’m a bit of a cheese board traditionalist, and although the boards with candy corn and chocolate-covered cherries are fun, they should not be considered charcuterie. It just doesn’t make sense: It’s like calling a hot dog a hamburger.

All that being said, charcuterie boards should be flowing with meats galore — but how does one go about styling a slice of salami? Although these meats are delicious, they can look a bit lackluster just plopped on a board directly out of the package. I’m here to help with a comprehensive guide to charcuterie styling.

Shape and size

The first thing to consider is the texture and size of the meat; diameter, thickness, and shape determine how you should fold or style each piece. For example, some slices of salami would be too small to fold into quarters, and slices of prosciutto might be too delicate to fold into a flower. Take note of the physical attributes before committing to a style.

The quarter-fold

One of my favorite styling techniques is the quarter-fold. This works for many different types of meats of various sizes. Take a slice, fold it directly in half, then in half again to make a rough equilateral triangle with one rounded edge. With these quarters you can create a variety of textures on the cheese board.

Clockwise from top: Cooked capicola; Genoa salami; soppressata salami.
Clockwise from top: Cooked capicola; Genoa salami; soppressata salami. (Photo by Marissa Mullen)

I coined the term “salami river,” which refers to a layer of salami snaking down the center of a cheese board. To do this, create multiple quarter folds and stack them in your hand. Add some pressure so they stick together, then lay them on the board in a line, stretching from one end to the other. Once the line is complete, gently create an S-curve in the line to make the river shape. You can create rivers with all types of charcuterie, but 3-inch-wide, ⅛-inch-thick sliced Genoa salami tends to work best for this. With larger slices of charcuterie, you can layer each quarter on the board, creating a river, or spread the slices throughout.

The half-fold (and ribbon)

The half-fold works great for smaller slices of meat that can’t fully be folded into quarters. I like to fold these directly in half and layer them into a fan shape. Ribbons are great for longer slices of meat, like prosciutto. To make a ribbon, fold the prosciutto directly in half lengthwise, then gently layer it back and forth on the board with the fat side facing up.

Clockwise from top: Salami di Parma; prosciutto di Parma; spicy coppa.
Clockwise from top: Salami di Parma; prosciutto di Parma; spicy coppa. (Photo by Marissa Mullen)

The meat rose

Charcuterie roses are a great way to add a captivating detail to your board. To do this, layer 3 or 4 slices of a thinly sliced meat in a row, overlapping halfway across. Fold the row in half lengthwise. Starting on the right side, roll the fold to the left until completely wrapped.

Clockwise from top: Salami di Parma; spicy coppa; Genoa salami; prosciutto di Parma.
Clockwise from top: Salami di Parma; spicy coppa; Genoa salami; prosciutto di Parma. (Photo by Marissa Mullen)

Other styling tips

Don’t put your guests to work! I always like to slice hard salami before serving. Slicing the stick into 1/4-inch rounds makes for easy grazing. You can arrange this on the board in a river down the center, layered on the outer edges, or in sections throughout the board.

Another way to style meat is to wrap it. Below we have a roll-up with pepperoni-wrapped mozzarella. You can also wrap melon with prosciutto for a sweet-and-salty pairing. Knowing how to style charcuterie will help you step up your cheese board designs, and provide your guests with an easy way to mingle and graze.

From left: Pepperoni-wrapped mozzarella; black pepper hard salami.
From left: Pepperoni-wrapped mozzarella; black pepper hard salami. (Photo by Marissa Mullen)

Can you actually substitute margarine for butter in baking?

We have Napoleon to thank for the invention of margarine. If you’re a fan of our podcast, Burnt Toast, you probably knew that already. (Oh, since you mentioned it, Burnt Toast is back in action tomorrow, yay!) And then in the mid-1900s, about a century after its invention, margarine became particularly popular when it was championed for its low cholesterol. Which means, we now have a whole generation of wrinkled and ripped, stained and yellowing family recipe cards for baked goods — you know, the best ones — that call for margarine instead of butter. But what exactly is margarine, and can you use it in place of recipes that call for butter?

Our contributing writer and editor Lindsay-Jean Hard couldn’t help but wonder: Can you just use butter instead? While margarine is still alive and kicking — especially for vegan, plant-based recipes — most contemporary bakers prefer using unsalted butter.

What is margarine?

Without getting into a bunch of legal jargon, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines margarine as a combination of oils made from either vegetable or animal fat that are then combined with either water or milk, optional added vitamins, salt, preservatives, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and whole bunch of other additives. On paper, margarine contains far more ingredients than butter, which generally just contains cream and sometimes added salt. Brands like I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter and Country Crock popularized butter-like creamy spreads that aren’t quite margarine or butter; these buttery spreads do generally contain dairy (though you can find dairy-free butter and margarine sold in the form of tubs or stick). For baking, stick margarine sold by brands like Land O’Lakes became popular for its firmer texture, which acted more like real butter than whipped butter spreads that you’d want to smear on King’s Hawaiian Sweet Rolls (at least, that’s what I do on Thanksgiving at my Grandma’s house).

In 2015, the FDA put a ban on partially hydrogenated oils in food products, such as margarine, after determining that they posed a significant health risk to humans. Many home cooks believed margarine was the healthier product because butter supposedly contained higher levels of saturated fats, which were seen as a possible cause of heart disease.

I asked my grandmother if she used margarine back in the day: “Oh, yeah!” she replied. But when I flipped through her recipe box, there weren’t that many margarine recipes. A brownie here, another brownie there. Most of the time, when margarine appeared, it was marked as optional: butter or margarine, as if the two are interchangeable. Are they, though?

This question of whether margarine can be substituted for butter is as old as, well, margarine. Our community chatted about it on our hotline years ago. Erikal replied as such:

Yes, there’s a significant diff — I use margarine when making baked goods for a friend who cannot have whey or casein, so have to use vegan margarine, to boot. Cookies are softer — I haven’t figured out how to get chewiness with margarine batters. They also don’t develop a crispy top/crust, and they don’t brown as well. Brownies and other bar cookies suffer, too, though less noticeably. Again, it’s a textural diff. And all baked goods taste “flat” when compared to those made with butter, because margarine itself has a very flat and not a “rounded” flavor. I would never choose to use margarine for anything but sometimes, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

To test how well margarine works in place of butter in baked goods, I made one cake recipe — once with butter, again with margarine — and a cookie recipe — once with butter, again with margarine. In both cases, I did a one-to-one substitution, as most sources recommend.

Pound Cake

This particular recipe, created by the Imperial margarine brand, was a hit in the 1960s and ’70s. A few years back, one reader requested it in The St. Louis Dispatch and 15 readers shared the same recipe. The link has since died, but I found a doppelgänger over at Genius Kitchen. It’s an old-school pound cake in that there’s no commercial leavener, just eggs. Also, the sugar is all powdered, which includes cornstarch, which helps create a tender crumb. Were the two cakes identical twins? Not quite.

  • The original, with margarine, was pale on top, with a dense, moist crumb. “I can see how pound cake traditionalists might prefer marg!” one taste tester noted. Several also commented that this cake was slightly saltier. (Margarine contains salt whereas unsalted butter contains, well, none.)
  • The butter-fied version was more colorful on top, with a slightly lighter, fluffier, drier interior. “I like the crust!” one person said. “Better texture, more springy, nice buttery flavor,” another said. Indeed, if you’re going for a buttery pound cake, you probably should use butter!

Chocolate Chip Cookies

Betty Crocker’s original chocolate chip cookies from 1969 call for margarine and shortening. Today, her Ultimate Chocolate Chip Cookies call for “butter or margarine.” Same difference, Betty says? Well, sort of.

  • The butter-based cookies are crispier, with sturdy edges and a distinct chew. “Somehow this tastes fruitier and almost floral to me? Like blueberry!” one taste tester said. “Deciding now that it’s probably the cream/milk fat of the butter.” Another was also wooed: “Lovely crispness — if you’re into that — and superior flavor. Nice caramelization and brown sugar shines.” Butter in the bag, right? Well . . .
  • Meanwhile, some editors were all about the tender chewiness of the margarine batch. We agreed that they reminded us of a childhood bakery, though we couldn’t place where or when. If you’ve ever been in a supermarket and scored a free cookie, these will bring you back there. “I’m really down with this chewy texture!” one said. “But flavor lacks compared with butter.”

These somewhat unexpected results from our test kitchen reveal that yes, you can use certain types of margarine in place of butter when cooking and baking, but the final product may not taste exactly as intended. Though speaking from experience, it will still be quite tasty.

GOP civil war heats up: Dan Crenshaw calls out GOP “grifters” and “performance artists” in Congress

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Tex., slammed the House Freedom Caucus on Sunday, calling lawmakers like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., “grifters” and “performance artists” who tell “lie after lie after lie.”

“We have grifters in our midst,” Crenshaw said during a campaign event later shared online. “I mean in the conservative movement. Lie after lie after lie because they know something psychologically about the conservative heart — we’re worried about what people are going to do to us, what they’re going to infringe upon us.”

Crenshaw’s comments were directed at “everybody in the Freedom Caucus,” which, aside from Greene and Gosar, includes Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C. – all of whom have become notorious for their ability to draw headlines with inflammatory remarks.  

RELATED: Impeachment fever: The Freedom Caucus reaps what it has sown

“There are two types of members of Congress: there is performance artists and there is legislators,” Crenshaw claimed. “Performance artists are the ones who get all of the attention, the ones you think are more conservative because they know how to say slogans real well. They know how to recite the lines that they know our voters want to hear.”


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


Crenshaw also defended the likes of his fellow GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois who has been alienated from his most party’s more extremist elements as a “RINO” (i.e., Republican only in name). 

The Texas lawmaker noted that GOP voters would likely “cringe” to learn that Kinzinger – one of the few House Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment – actually voted with Trump almost 99 percent [of the time]” when it came to legislation. In fact, it’s lawmakers in the Freedom Caucus, he added, who rank among the lowest when it comes to their votes aligning with the former president’s. 

RELATED: Republicans’ war on vaccines: GOP pushes strategy to prolong the pandemic

Crenshaw’s Sunday comments have drawn a wave of expected scorn from far Republicans. 

Alex Bruesewitz, CEO of X Strategies, a political consulting firm for right-wing politicians, took to Twitter to express his grievances. 

“@DanCrenshawTX defends RINO @AdamKinzinger while TRASHING the @freedomcaucus,” Bruesewitz tweeted. “What is going on with Dan?”

“Crenshaw on his radio show today. I [sic] new this guy was a phony a long time ago,” echoed pro-Trump user Vince Langman. “Dan Crenshaw is the Liz Cheney of Adam Kinzingers.”

Ryan James Girdusky, a political correspondent at One America News Network, also joined the chorus tweeting: “Make Texas Republicans great again.. and primary Dan Crenshaw.” 

It isn’t the first time Crenshaw has come under fire from his own party. 

Earlier this year, Crenshaw tore into the conservatives who helped organize the January 6 Capitol riot, saying that “all of the members who called for everyone to come and fight … were scattered like cowards while the Capitol Police had to do the fighting.”

More recently, Crenshaw was lampooned by his followers for voting in support of a bill that allocated more state funding to update state immunization records – legislation that Republicans decried as creating a “vaccine database.”

My 65-year-old husband is putting his love of clubbing over my health

Dear Pandemic Problems,

My husband and I are 65 and both doubly-vaccinated. My husband likes going to nightclubs, raves and festivals, but so far has only attended outdoor events. He is soon going to a very large, indoor club event which I am very concerned about. There are no vaccine checks at the event and face coverings are not mandatory. Although we have been vaccinated I feel we need to be more cautious than younger people, because the risks of being hospitalized with Covid are higher for older people — even if they have been vaccinated.

My husband tells me I am over-anxious and accuses me of trying to control him. I have asked him to stay with his family afterwards, so that if he is infected he won’t pass it on to me. He has refused. He is going with his brother who is younger than him and his nephew who is in his 20s. It is causing a lot of conflict in our relationship. It comes up regularly as this is something he enjoys doing and nothing I say will stop him.

Am I being overly cautious and controlling? I feel my husband doesn’t care about my wellbeing.

Sincerely,

Dancing on My Own

Dear Dancing on My Own,

I can see how you feel like you’re dancing alone in this struggle. As I’ve told Pandemic Problem readers before, the pandemic has created new obstacles in our relationships— from unvaccinated roommates hosting parties to totally rational fears of nonfunctional masks. In some cases, it has exacerbated long-standing, thorny issues.

But perhaps what I see people struggle with most often is navigating relationships with their partners in this new era. When you married your husband, I’m sure you knew about his love for clubbing— and while it maybe wasn’t your cup of tea, you accepted it. Now that clubbing is an activity that could lead to him bringing home a deadly virus, it has understandably become a point of tension.

I can assure you that you’re not the only one in this club. Usually, I tell people in similar situations — like the woman whose husband refused to get vaccinated — to go to therapy together, if that’s an option. But I know many people, like yourself, want answers now. Plus, this very large, indoor gathering (where there will be no vaccine card checks!) is coming up. So I reached out to clinical psychologist Dr. Carla Marie Manly to help, and I found her sound advice helpful for anyone in a marriage, even if there aren’t any immediately pressing issues like yours.

First, Dr. Manly reminds us that one key to having a healthy and loving relationship is “the ongoing ability to empathically collaborate with a partner to find mutually satisfactory solutions to issues that arise.”

Marriage is about compromise, after all. (Or so they say!)

“If a partner insists on ‘having it my way’ to the detriment of the other partner, the lack of empathy and consideration can be very damaging to the relationship in the long term,” Dr. Manly said. “Unfortunately, partners who have this tendency often deflect by calling the other partner ‘controlling’ when, in fact, the insistent partner is exerting control through inflexibility.”

Dr. Manly says you’re engaging in a “reasonable couple-oriented behavior,” as it pertains to your concern and suggested compromise.

“She is accepting her husband’s participation in a variety of outdoor social events during the pandemic despite the possible risks, and when her husband wants to attend a large indoor event where masks and vaccination proof are not required, she offers a healthy, win-win alternative of him staying with family after the event in order to protect her health,” Dr. Manly says. “Unfortunately, the husband refuses to compromise and appears more concerned with his personal enjoyment than his wife’s overall well-being; as a result, the husband is ultimately controlling his wife through his rigid unwillingness to collaborate.”

But don’t worry, Dr. Manly says — there’s a way to rectify this.

“In such cases, the lack of consideration for a partner’s feelings and overall health often indicates deeper problems that are manifesting in self-focused behavior,” Dr. Manly says. “The fix? When couples find themselves in situations such as this, it’s important to stick to a few communication basics.”

These communication basics go as follows, per Dr. Manly:

1. Mindfully agree to adopt collaborative, empathic mindsets; take great care to avoid “I want it my way” attitudes. 

2. State your needs using “I” messages such as “I feel unseen and disregarded when you don’t consider the impact of your actions on my health.”

3. Use “mirroring” or “reflective listening” to give each partner a chance to speak without interruption, and then repeat back (mirror) what the partner said. This strategy, when used mindfully, increases empathy for the other partner.

4. Work together to find a solution that feels like a win-win to both people.

5. If the relationship has a history of being lopsided (e.g., one partner being more self-interested than the other partner), fair collaboration may be difficult until the self-focused partner begins to shift. That said, don’t give up. When partners are truly concerned for each other’s well-being fair solutions can be found.

And I’d like to add something else. If possible, try to see the small silver lining with your husband’s love for clubbing. At age 65, that fact that he still has a zest for life is certainly a good sign for your future together! I hope you can both come to an agreement, and that you no longer find yourself dancing on your own.

Sincerely,

Pandemic Problems


“Pandemic Problems” is an advice column that answers readers’ pandemic questions — often with help from public health data, philosophy professors and therapists — who weigh in on how to “do the right thing.” Do you have a pandemic problem? Email Nicole Karlis at nkarlis@salon.com. Peace of mind and collective commiseration awaits.


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


Politico blasted for article claiming Kamala Harris is “paranoid” and “Bluetooth-phobic”

Politico came under fire Monday after publishing a piece devoted to Vice President Kamala Harris‘ preference for wired headphones over Bluetooth earbuds because of security risks.

Harris has made relatively little news in her first year as President Joe Biden’s veep but that has not stopped Politico from pumping out a torrent of mostly negative news stories about reported discord among her staff and pitting her against Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in the purported internal horse race to be Biden’s eventual successor. The insidery outlet has in recent months published reports calling her office “not a healthy environment” amid disagreements among aides, knocking her “lackluster reception” on overseas trips and suggesting that her vice presidency already needs a “reset.” It has increasingly focused on stoking a would-be rivalry between Harris and Buttigieg, suggesting the Transportation chief has emerged in a more prominent role in the administration, which some staffers of color see as “disrespectful” to Harris, before wondering, “What if Kamala and Pete actually like each other?”

Monday’s edition of Politico Playbook, the publication’s widely read Beltway insider newsletter, led with a new investigation into another important issue facing Americans, dubbing Harris “Bluetooth-phobic.”

“She has long felt that Bluetooth headphones are a security risk,” the newsletter says. “As a result, Harris insists on using wired headphones.”

RELATED: Politico reporter backs down after facing Twitter storm for sexist Kamala Harris post

The article dredges up various images where Harris can be seen using wired headphones, contrasting her choice with her husband, Doug Emhoff, who has been photographed wearing Apple AirPods.

“Former aides say that the vice president has long been careful about security and technology — with some describing it as prudent and others suggesting it’s a bit paranoid,” the report continued, noting that Harris also prefers texting over email for security reasons and did not allow guests to wait alone in her office when she served as California’s attorney general.

“The vice president’s office did not respond when asked if there was a ‘fun origin story’ to Harris’ Bluetooth wariness, or for any background on the particular security risks Harris believes Bluetooth technology represents,” the report concluded.

White House staffers ultimately did respond after the article was published, knocking Politico for focusing on trivialities.

“The intrepid, substantive reporting on @VP continues,” deputy White House press secretary Chris Meagher sarcastically tweeted. “@politico had three rock solid sources for this #scoop.”

“This is what people all over the country really care about and want to know,” quipped Symone Sanders, a senior adviser to Harris.

While some Twitter users mocked the report by labeling it #BluetoothGate, tech experts quickly pointed out that Harris is absolutely right to avoid discussing sensitive matters over Bluetooth.

“Bluetooth peripherals are a security risk,” noted Byron Tau, a national security reporter at The Wall Street Journal. “If they don’t rotate their unique identifier, they can easily be sniffed and tracked. If there are flaws in the security, they can be compromised. Most people don’t have to worry about these things but high level federal officials should.”


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


Dr. Zeynep Tufekci, a New York Times columnist, called out Politico reporters for labeling Harris’ security measures a “phobia” and “paranoid.”

“Bluetooth is a well-known security risk — including the possibility of escalating and executing code — well, malware — on the phone. Strongly suggest talking to cybersecurity experts — or even a Dr. Google consultation — before running such stories,” she tweeted. “Seriously, being mindful of well-known cybersecurity risks and not letting people be alone in your office are very very reasonable, even minimal precautions for high office. Don’t we have anything real going on?”

The Politico report comes on the heels of other outlets stoking outrage over Harris spending $500 on cookware during a recent trip to Paris and suggesting that she had faked a “French accent” during the trip. Other outlets have focused on Harris aides’ complaints about working in the Biden administration and whether Harris should be doing more in her role.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki argued last month that the unflattering coverage of Harris, the first female, first Black and first Asian vice president, has fueled by sexism and racism.

“I think there’s no question that the type of attacks — the attacks on her that certainly, being the first she is many times over, is part of that,” Psaki said during a recent Politico “Women Rule Exchange” event. “She is somebody who, at a much higher level than the rest of us, but who wants to be seen as the talented, experienced, you know, expert, substantive policy person, partner to the president, that she is. But I do think there have been some attacks that are beyond because of her identity.”

Read more:

Destroying democracy can make you very rich

In any time before, leaving Congress to work for Donald Trump would be a huge financial step down in the world, like trading a job as a corporate lawyer for selling handmade Christmas ornaments in the park. Trump is, after all, one of the most spectacularly incompetent businessmen of all time. He is a man who was gifted a real estate empire and a billion dollars by his father and producer Mark Burnett, yet somehow managed not only to burn through all that money but also to go another one billion dollars into debt. Leaving your cush job as a congressman on the verge of chairing a prominent House committee to work for the guy who somehow lost $2 billion seems like a bad bet. But it’s a bet that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is taking.

On Monday, the Trump loyalist announced that he’s leaving the House to take a job as the CEO of the newly-formed Trump Media & Technology Group, even though, as Jon Skolnik reports for Salon, “Trump’s new social media platform is reportedly under investigation by federal regulators.” While it’s tempting to snicker at Nunes and hope this business venture fails as badly as every other Trump business, the depressing truth is that Nunes is probably right that this is a cash cow. Due to the huge right-wing base that can be endlessly milked for profit, being a fascist stooge these days is like printing money. 

RELATED: GOP Rep. Devin Nunes to retire from Congress to head Trump’s media group now under SEC investigation

For proof, look no further than this new report from the Washington Post, exposing how lucrative it was for Trump lawyer Sidney Powell to spread lies about President Joe Biden “stealing” the 2020 election. In the months after the November election, Powell raised an eye-popping $14 million “from donors inspired by her fight to reverse the outcome of the vote,” the Post reports. Unsurprisingly, “questions about where the money was going” have led to “acrimony between Powell and her top lieutenants,” as they scuffle over these ill-gotten gains. 


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


Or take the example of former White House advisor Steve Bannon, who seems to be doing just fine, grifting-wise, even though he literally got arrested in 2020 on charges of defrauding donors for his phony “border wall” project. Bannon was pardoned in the hours before Trump was finally forced to leave the White House, but got right back to shaking down gullible MAGAheads for money. As a report by ProPublica published last month shows, Bannon has set up an elaborate scheme to make money off Google Ads, despite the company’s policies against funding violently fascist propaganda. Bannon’s front page on his website tricks the ad algorithim with “innocuous stock content, such as tips on how to protect your phone in winter weather.” Right below, however, is a video player that “routinely portrays participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as patriots and airs false claims about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic.” All funded, inadvertently, by “prominent brands as Land Rover, Volvo, DoorDash, Staples and even Harvard University.”

RELATED: Sidney Powell, Trump’s former “Kraken” lawyer, filed false papers for non-profit: grand jury

Right-wing politics have always been deeply intertwined with sleazy and even illegal grifting schemes meant to separate elderly racists from their kids’ inheritance. Nearly every right-wing figurehead has an email newsletter that directs readers to dish out money for fake cancer cures, gold bug scams, and useless “survivalist” goods. But after the failed January 6 insurrection, there’s expanded opportunity for pumping the right-wing base for money, with promises that democracy will be overturned and power restored to a shrinking conservative minority.

To be certain, Trumpists like Powell and Bannon are entirely sincere about their hopes that they can gut electoral systems and install Trump as an illegitimate authoritarian president. But they also recognize how the millions of Americans who share those hopes are only too happy to turn over their retirement accounts for the fascist cause. 

Of course, there is no bigger fraudster than Trump himself.

Trump’s supposed media company, the one Nunes is joining, is looking very much like an elaborate scam. Trump has raised hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds, even though, as Matt Levine of Bloomberg writes, there “absolutely no financial or technical or business information” available publicly about the company and almost no sign that the company is “actually building a social network or a streaming platform or anything else.” The supposed valuation of the project is $1.6 billion, but that is literally based on nothing but the fact that Trump is attached to it. You know, the guy who took a billion cash and managed to turn it into a billion dollars of debt before running for president.


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


As Judd Legum of Popular Info reports, the people involved in this scheme seem less interested in building a company than “than fleecing retail traders for a quick buck,” by artificially driving up the price of stocks and flipping “these stocks immediately.” No wonder the whole shady deal is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission

RELATED: Forget “The Apprentice” — Trump’s taxes show he was really “The Biggest Loser”

Still, Nunes is running towards this scheme and not away, and it’s no wonder.

Even if, as it seems likely, the whole thing is a scam, there’s no reason to think that it will backfire on the scammers. Trump and most of his buddies haven’t paid a single legal penalty for trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Of course, they feel confident that they’ll get away with shaking down a bunch of gullible investors who mistakenly think Trump, who couldn’t manage his own checking account if he had to do so himself, is somehow going to create a major media company. Yes, some of the low-level fraudsters in Trumpworld do face legal penalties, but Trump’s ability to skirt justice seems bulletproof, especially when Attorney General Merrick Garland seems afraid to actually deal with the former president

On one hand, it’s hard not to laugh. Who cares if Trump and his buddies separate MAGA fools from their money? On the other hand, the problem is these frauds aren’t merely frauds. They really are financing what is so far an extremely successful effort to lay the groundwork for stealing the 2024 election.

The fascist movement is very real, even if there’s a lot of fraud wound into it by leaders hoping to get their beaks wet while they end democracy. Our legal system’s inability to deal with the fraud aspect is just a symptom of a larger problem, which is a failure to deal with these arsonists of democracy at all. If that doesn’t change, this country will have a lot more to worry about than idiot retirees emptying out their bank accounts for the latest “stop the steal” scam. 

Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, suddenly backs out of cooperating with Jan. 6 probe

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows will no longer comply with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, his lawyer told Fox News on Tuesday, despite having previously agreed to cooperate.

Meadows, a top ally to former president Donald Trump, and his attorney George Terwilliger, plan to notify the special committee on Tuesday morning that they will discontinue their assistance. Terwilliger told Fox that his client could not reach a final agreement with the committee due to their intent to look into Meadows’ phone records and pursue topics which Terwilliger claims fall under executive privilege. CNN, which broke the initial story of Meadows’ tentative cooperation with the investigation only a week ago, referred to the move as a “critical shift” in the relationship between Meadows and the panel. At the time, they also noted just how precarious the agreement would be, until the two sides agreed on a definition of “privileged information.”


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


“We have made efforts over many weeks to reach an accommodation with the committee,” Terwilliger told Fox.

Other top Trump aides have fallen in hot water for their lack of cooperation, including former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. In mid-November, Bannon was charged with criminal contempt of Congress for defying two subpoenas issued by the committee. The Justice Department’s decision to issue the orders, which demanded that he testify and turn over pertinent documents as part of the investigation into the insurrection, has now left Bannon susceptible to over a year in jail. Prosecutors have since said they only need one day to present their case against the former adviser to the jury, pushing for a mid-April date. Meanwhile, Bannon and his legal team are scrambling to push the trial back until October.

​​”This case raises complex constitutional issues of first impression,” wrote Bannon in a recent court filing submitted by both parties on Monday night. “Some of these issues involve inter-branch relationships and on the operations of the U.S. government at its highest levels. There is no basis for having these issues adjudicated on a rushed basis.”


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


When asked how Meadows would handle a similar indictment if it were brought against him, Terwilliger told Fox they will “cross that bridge when we come to it.”

And while Meadows has backed away from the investigation, another top aide from the former administration has agreed to cooperate with the committee: former vice president Mike Pence’s ex-chief of staff, Marc Short.

Short, one of the highest-ranking Trump officials and a close adviser to Pence, is set to provide extremely valuable insight into the inner workings of the White House on the day of the insurrection. Having been with Pence for the majority of Jan. 6, Short will serve as a firsthand account of several key moments from the day, including Trump’s attempts to coerce the former vice president not to certify the results of the election.

And it appears that going to Pence aides has been a more fruitful route for the panel.

A source told CNN that the committee is getting “significant cooperation from Team Pence.” Another claimed that Short’s cooperation is an indication of the “momentum” the investigation is gaining behind closed doors, particularly from the Pence camp. Several sources familiar with the matter have told CNN that individuals close to Pence could be willing to provide critical information about Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, either voluntarily or under the pretense of a “friendly subpoena.”

Jen Psaki slammed after White House press secretary dismisses idea of mailing out free COVID tests

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Monday rejected the idea of having the federal government mail free Covid-19 tests to households across the United States, a solution that has long been part of other nations’ efforts to combat the pandemic.

During a press briefing, a reporter asked Psaki why the U.S. continues to lag behind the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, and other countries in making rapid Covid-19 tests easily affordable and accessible to all who want or need one—an objective that has gained importance amid fears of another winter surge fueled by the Omicron variant, which has been detected in at least 15 U.S. states.

Psaki responded by outlining a new White House plan under which Americans will be able to seek reimbursement from their private health insurers to cover the costs of rapid, over-the-counter coronavirus tests.

The plan—which likely won’t take effect until mid-January—sparked immediate criticism when it was released last week, given that it will force people to navigate the byzantine private insurance system to get a refund on tests that remain expensive in the U.S. more than a year and a half into the pandemic.

“That’s kind of complicated though,” the reporter told Psaki on Tuesday. “Why not just make them free and give them out to—and have them available everywhere?”

To which Psaki replied, “Should we just send one to every American?”—seeming to dismiss the idea as ludicrous.

“Then what happens if you, if every American, has one test?” Psaki added. “How much does that cost, and then what happens after that?… I think we share the same objective, which is to make them less expensive and more accessible. Right? Every country is going to do that differently.”

Watch:

The exchange angered public health experts who have long argued that the U.S. approach to testing is badly inadequate, hindering the nation’s ability to detect and limit outbreaks of the virus. It is unconscionable, experts say, for a country as rich as the U.S. not to make rapid Covid-19 testing free and universally available.

“This answer was terrible, flippant, wrong,” Yale epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves wrote in a tweet directed at Psaki. “Rapid tests are hard to get, expensive, and could be a key intervention in fighting Covid-19. Other countries have figured out better ways to get these tools into the hands of their citizens. Do better.”

Natalie Shure, a healthcare writer and columnist for The New RepubliccalledPsaki’s comments “maddening.”

“Of course the tests should be free, and all over the place!” Shure argued. “This is already happening elsewhere! It’s gobsmacking how ill-prepared she was for this question, which suggests this isn’t the urgent and overarching concern it ought to be in Bidenland right now.”

In a report published last month, the Kaiser Family Foundation noted that several peer countries of the U.S. “have made rapid home tests widely available and at little or no cost.”

“The U.K. government, for example, provides up to seven tests per day to those who cannot get tests from work or school and recommends each individual screen themselves twice weekly,” KFF observed. “Providing up to seven tests per person allow one individual to collect tests for a whole household. Germany, until recently, made rapid antigen tests freely available as well (and tests can still be purchased for a few dollars in grocery stores).”

Last month, Germany moved to reintroduce free testing as coronavirus infections surged across the nation.

In the U.S., by contrast, “tests range from $9 each to $24 for a box of two (which are more commonly available),” Annalisa Merelli of Quartz reported last week.

“They are only sold in pharmacies,” she added, “and hardly an everyday tool at the level of a mask, or hand sanitizer.”

Demystifying the idea of consciousness

If you could upload your consciousness to the cloud and live forever as a mind in the metaverse, would you do it?

Think carefully before answering. In “Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious,” neuroscientist Antonio Damasio argues that consciousness is far more than an algorithmic process. Uploading your consciousness to the cloud, he says, would be like experiencing a meal by reading a recipe rather than by eating.

So then what is consciousness? That’s the question at the heart of this book. Damasio is a professor of neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology and the director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as the author of the 2018 book “The Strange Order of Things,” in which he extols the power of homeostasis, the force that keeps all living beings in equilibrium and therefore alive.

Consciousness is such a slippery and ephemeral concept that it doesn’t even have its own word in many Romance languages, but nevertheless it’s a hot topic these days. “Feeling & Knowing” is the result of Damasio’s editor’s request to weigh in on the subject by writing a very short, very focused book. Over 200 pages, Damasio ponders profound questions: How did we get here? How did we develop minds with mental maps, a constant stream of images, and memories — mechanisms that exist symbiotically with the feelings and sensations in our bodies that we then, crucially, relate back to ourselves and associate with a sense of personhood?

Damasio argues that the answers are not simple (not so simple as an algorithm, anyway) but it’s also not as complex as some theorists and scientists believe. Proponents of the so-called hard problem of consciousness argue that even once we’ve unlocked all the physiological components of the brain, we will still not be able to define or explain consciousness. For many of these theorists, there is something mysterious and even magical about it.

But Damasio disagrees, and this book attempts to show why. His major argument is that when studying consciousness, hard problem theorists fail to account for processes that take place outside the brain. Consciousness is not just about what happens in our minds; it’s about what happens in our bodies, and what happens when our minds interpret our bodies and feelings and reflect their processes back to us. In order to understand consciousness, Damasio maintains, one must understand it from the ground up: from the sensing experienced by plants to the social cooperation observed in bacteria, through the advent of the animal mind and the dawn of feelings, and finally the evolution of consciousness.

In the course of four brief sections and an epilogue, Damasio walks us through each of these concepts, exploring what consciousness is and is not. He distinguishes between non-explicit intelligence (which hums along in the background, keeping us alive) versus explicit intelligence (the kind of which we’re aware). He writes about the transformative nature of the nervous system. And he explains that while plants are not conscious in a traditional sense, they are nonetheless able to sense and communicate with each other “blindly — by which I mean that they do not know why or how they do what they do.”

The latter half of the book is devoted to “On Feelings” and “On Consciousness and Knowing,” and it is here where Damasio’s arguments start to coalesce. In “On Feelings,” he delves into the remarkable mechanisms that allow us to feel, whether base feelings like pain and hunger or socially driven feelings like shame or joy. He marvels at how feelings probably began as a “timid conversation” between the chemistry and nervous system of a being, then evolved to shepherd us in the right direction during the “uphill battle” of staying alive.

In the final section, he explores what exactly consciousness is and what it’s not, and what it’s good for — chiefly, keeping us alive more efficiently by identifying and processing a particular organism’s experiences and advocating for that organism’s needs. Here, he also emphasizes the importance of the body — the substrate, as he calls it — to the experience of consciousness. Artificial intelligence as it’s currently constructed is limited in its ultimate level of creativity and intelligence, he writes, because AI removes the body — an essential component in the evolution of human intelligence.

In style, Damasio’s book has more in common with experimental memoirs like Maggie Nelson’s “Bluets” (2009) or Carmen Maria Machado’s “In the Dream House: A Memoir” (2019) than with a conventional science text. The writing is spare and his argument accrues mainly by searching and building on developments in brain research, including his own work. A playful tone often helps leaven the science. (“One has to have a soft spot for a person who talks to plants, as Prince Charles is supposed to do.”) But the spareness occasionally renders the book frustrating or inaccessible to those who aren’t already well-versed in conversations around consciousness. After all, this is a topic that asks us to grapple with abstract, brain-twisting paradoxes: The power of feelings comes from the presence of a conscious mind, for instance, but we are also able to be conscious because we have feelings. Damasio might have done well to include more real-life examples to ground some of the more nebulous concepts in his book.

But at the same time, there is something seductive about the succinct, almost literary, chapters and Damasio’s unabashed wonder at and reverence for the concept of consciousness — although he believes it can be explained using the disciplines known to us, he is no less in awe of its mechanisms. It is clear, for example, that Damasio holds in reverence the fact that our bodies can both experience feelings and modify those feelings within the same vessel. And often, this awe shines through in charming, allusive, whimsical sentences. On the subject of feelings, Damasio writes, “the alignment of homeostasis, efficiency, and varieties of well-being was signed in heaven, in the language of feeling, and it was made popular by natural selection. Nervous systems officiated.”

At the end of the day, why should any of this matter? Besides the fact that consciousness allows us to read and write articles, to live in complex societies, to solve complex problems, to appreciate great art, and to, well, do everything that makes us human, Damasio includes another argument for why we should trust his view of consciousness: its universality. Rather than viewing it as some mystical process bestowed on humanity alone, we should acknowledge that consciousness is the sum of feelings, nervous systems, social cooperation, homeostasis, and other biological processes that have their root in other life forms like bacteria, plants, and nonhuman animals.

When seeking to understand consciousness, Damasio writes, we should not see ourselves as singular. Rather, we should position ourselves as one part of the “big biological stage” of life.

And in positioning ourselves where we belong, perhaps we can help judiciously undo some of the damage that the human conscious mind has wrought. “Recognizing interdependence may come in handy,” he concludes, “as we cope with the ravages that we humans have inflicted on the earth and on its life, ravages that are likely responsible for some of the catastrophes we currently face, climate changes and pandemics being two prominent examples.”


Emily Cataneo is a writer and journalist from New England whose work has appeared in Slate, NPR, the Baffler, and Atlas Obscura, among other publications.

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

Hillary Clinton was right about the “deplorables” — and about the end of Roe v. Wade

During her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton warned us that Donald Trump and his “basket of deplorables” were a threat to American democracy. She wasn’t a prophet. She was simply offering a reasonable analysis based on the available evidence — and she paid an enormous political price for daring to tell that truth in public.

Two things can be true at the same time. Russian interference may well have played a role in Donald Trump’s unlikely electoral victory in 2016. But it is also true that Clinton’s truthful but politically unwise comment about the “deplorables” helped to swing the momentum — with the help of an eager and compliant mainstream news media — in Trump’s direction.

Clinton’s description was in fact about much more than the disreputable people who flocked to Trump’s banner. It was also a warning about the regressive politics and antisocial values that Trump’s followers represented (and still do), including cruelty, racism and white supremacy, sexism and misogyny, collective narcissism, anti-intellectualism, an infatuation with violence, proud ignorance and support for fascism and authoritarianism.

Whatever you think of her as a person and a public figure, Clinton clearly perceived that Trumpism would be a disaster for American democracy and the world, pushing the United States towards the brink of full-on fascism including an attempted coup. Clinton’s campaign strategy against Trump had numerous evident flaws, but her diagnosis of Trump and his movement’ was overwhelmingly correct.

RELATED: Still hate Hillary? Get over it: She was right about Trump then — and she’s right now

One thing Hillary Clinton clearly perceived, even if she didn’t put it this way, was that Trump’s authoritarian politics would involve a campaign to limit human freedom, in accordance with the needs and goals of the Trump movement. Specifically, limiting and controlling the bodily autonomy of those groups and individuals deemed to be Other, the enemy or otherwise subordinate to the dominant group.

Such an exercise of power is central and foundational to American fascism in its various forms, as the history of slavery and Jim Crow ought to make clear. In America now, the fascist movement longs for the subordination, control, and domination of women’s and girls’ bodies to the sexual, emotional, financial, physical and psychological needs of men — especially, of course, white conservative “Christian” men. Restricting women’s reproductive rights and freedoms, especially by attempting to force women to conceive and bear children, are recurring features of fascist-authoritarian political projects and societies.

Hillary Clinton warned us about this as well, as Colbert King noted several months ago in the Washington Post:

I’m also sick at heart because five years ago, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put the country on notice that this day could come.

While celebrating the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2016, decision rejecting two restrictive provisions in a Texas House bill regulating abortion, Clinton warned in a campaign release that the fight for the right to access health care, and for women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their futures, was “far from over.”

She stated, presciently, “The fact that our next president could appoint as many as three or four justices in the next four years” is a striking reminder “that we can’t take rulings like today’s for granted.”

Clinton left no room for speculation. “Just consider Donald Trump, the Republicans’ presumptive nominee. The man who could be president has said there should be some form of ‘punishment’ for women seeking abortions. He pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. And last year, he said he’d shut down the government rather than fund Planned Parenthood.”

And Clinton made clear the consequences. “If we send Trump to the White House and a Republican majority to Congress, he could achieve any — or all — of these things. And that’s why this election is so important.”

“The outcome of November’s contests,” she declared, “is going to be a deciding factor in whether our elected officials and our courts defend or attack a woman’s right to health care for generations to come.”

Transforming a democracy into a fascist-authoritarian state is usually a process, not a singular spontaneous event. In the United States in this decade, this has taken the form of one of our two institutional political parties becoming increasingly and openly hostile toward the very idea of multiracial and pluralistic democracy.


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


More specifically, the Trump-controlled Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement it represents is the symptom of deeper societal problems, rather than their cause. This moment must also be understood as the result of long-term planning by right-wing elites.

Once again, Hillary Clinton was eerily prescient. During an interview in 1998 with NBC’s “Today,” she famously warned of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that sought to destroy her husband’s presidency. Less noticed at the time, she also spoke larger truths about American society and the forces working to undermine its most fundamental rights and freedoms.

In 2016, Clinton revisited that warning during a televised town hall meeting in New Hampshire. Here’s how CBS News reported that event:

“At this point it’s probably not correct to say it’s a conspiracy because it’s out in the open,” Clinton said. “There is no doubt about who the players are, what they’re trying to achieve. … It’s real, and we’re going to beat it.” … [R]eferencing GOP financiers like Charles and David Koch, Clinton said the right wing is now “even better funded.”

“They’ve brought in some new multibillionaires,” she said. “They want to control our country. They want to rig the economy so they can get richer and richer.

“They salve their consciences by giving money to philanthropy,” Clinton continued, “but make no mistake, they want to destroy unions, they want to go after any economic interest they don’t believe they can control.”

The Supreme Court is now signaling, in bright lights, that it intends to follow through on the decades-long plan by the Republican Party, its Christian fascist elements and other “movement conservatives” to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and otherwise sharply restrict women’s reproductive rights and freedoms. Taking away women’s bodily autonomy to this extent is another step in the Republican-fascist assault on the human and civil rights of all Americans.

In a new essay, author and talk-show host Thom Hartmann warns that this is “just the first of a series of ideas Republicans have to regulate women’s behavior and roll back the clock to the early 1960s when women couldn’t get a credit card without their father’s or husband’s permission, had no legal right to birth control in some states, and faced fully legal discrimination in housing, education and employment.” He continues:

In the 1960s, employers could fire women for getting pregnant, women had no legal right to a harassment-free workplace, were charged extra for health insurance, and could be legally raped by their husbands, among other indignities.

And this is just the start. Today the Court is hearing a case out of Maine that could require states to pay for the tuition of all students attending religious schools, using taxpayer money that normally funds public schools. This would include forcing states to pay for religious schools that openly discriminate against LGBTQ+ students and staff, and teach children that being gay is a sin.

Once Republicans are done with birth control they’ll be coming for gay marriage and, ultimately, broader civil rights laws themselves including, like in Hungary (their new role model), ending the rights to assembly, free-speech, and due process.

And if you think that’s an over-the-top concern, consider: Just a few months ago, Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that provides immunity to drivers who plow their cars into protesters, if those protesters are on a public street. They’re already going after our right of public assembly.

Winter is coming: next stop, Gilead.

Last week, Hillary Clinton spoke to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about America’s democracy crisis and the Republican threats to human and civil rights. She was describing the plot of the fictional thriller she co-wrote with Louise Penny, “State of Terror,” but also America at present: “[T]here is a plot against the country by people who truly want to turn the clock back. They believe that the progress we’ve made on all kinds of civil rights and human rights, the cultural changes that have taken place, are so deeply threatening that they want to stage a coup.”

America’s crisis of democracy is in a wild and dangerous moment, where unpredictable and horrible new realities are being born and where hope is diminishing. The choice between democracy and fascism may have narrowed so far that the real choice at this moment is more about how bad the emerging American fascist regime will be and what possibilities for effective resistance will remain. That may sound hyperbolic, but matters are rapidly becoming that dire.

Defending American democracy in the time that remains requires setting aside factional differences within the Democratic Party — and within the political “left” and “center” more generally — and uniting around the common goal of defeating the Republican-fascist movement. “Hillary derangement syndrome,” in the form of the extreme hostility and rage some leftists and progressives still feel toward Clinton, is only a distraction.

Hillary Clinton tried to warn the American people what would happen if Trump and his regime took power — she was proven to be correct. She continues to warn the America and the world about the all-too-real “vast right-wing conspiracy” that continues to push forward, winning victory after victory in its war against human rights, human dignity, social democracy and freedom.

In various ways, Hillary Clinton’s unexpected “defeat” by Donald Trump in 2016 offered an important preview of what was to come, with American democracy increasingly under siege. Many people perceived it as a fluke or an anomaly at the time, but it was nothing of the kind. It was a sign. Love her or hate her, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton understood the danger clearly.

More on reproductive rights and Hillary vs. the “deplorables”:

Congress loots the Treasury for U.S. war machine — while bickering over Build Back Better

Despite a disagreement over some amendments in the Senate, the U.S. Congress is poised to pass a $778 billion military budget bill for 2022. As they have been doing year after year, our elected officials are preparing to hand the lion’s share — more than 65% — of federal discretionary spending to the U.S. war machine, even as they wring their hands over spending a mere quarter of that amount on the Build Back Better Act.

The U.S. military’s incredible record of systematic failure — most recently its final trouncing by the Taliban after 20 years of death, destruction and lies in Afghanistan — cries out for a top-to-bottom review of its dominant role in U.S. foreign policy and a radical reassessment of its proper place in Congress’ budget priorities.

Instead, year after year, members of Congress hand over the largest share of our nation’s resources to this corrupt institution, with minimal scrutiny and no apparent fear of accountability when it comes to their own reelection. Members of Congress still see it as a “safe” political call to carelessly whip out their rubber stamps and vote for however many hundreds of billions in funding Pentagon and arms industry lobbyists have persuaded the Armed Services Committees they should cough up. 

Let’s make no mistake about this: Congress’ choice to keep investing in a massive, ineffective and absurdly expensive war machine has nothing to do with “national security” as most people understand it, or “defense” as the dictionary defines it. 

U.S. society does face critical threats to our security, including the climate crisis, systemic racism, erosion of voting rights, gun violence, grave inequalities and the corporate hijacking of political power. But one problem we fortunately do not have is the threat of attack or invasion by a rampant global aggressor or, in fact, by any other country at all. 

Maintaining a war machine that outspends the 12 or 13 next largest militaries in the world combined actually makes us less safe, as each new administration inherits the delusion that the United States’ overwhelmingly destructive military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to U.S. interests anywhere in the world — even when there is clearly no military solution and when many of the underlying problems were caused by past misapplications of U.S. military power in the first place.

While the international challenges we face in this century require a genuine commitment to international cooperation and diplomacy, Congress allocates only $58 billion, less than 10 percent of the Pentagon budget, to the diplomatic corps of our government: the State Department. Even worse, both Democratic and Republican administrations keep filling top diplomatic posts with officials indoctrinated and steeped in policies of war and coercion, with scant experience and meager skills in the peaceful diplomacy we so desperately need. 

RELATED: Can we stop calling our humongous military spending the “defense” budget?

This only perpetuates a failed foreign policy based on false choices between economic sanctions that UN officials have compared to medieval sieges, coups that destabilize countries and regions for decades, and wars and bombing campaigns that kill millions of people and leave cities in rubble, like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.

The end of the Cold War was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its forces and military budget to match its legitimate defense needs. The American public naturally expected and hoped for a “peace dividend,” and even veteran Pentagon officials told the Senate Budget Committee in 1991 that military spending could safely be cut by 50% over the next 10 years.    

But no such cut happened. U.S. officials instead set out to exploit the post-Cold War “power dividend,” a huge military imbalance in favor of the United States, by developing rationales for using military force more freely and widely around the world. During the transition to the new Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright famously asked Gen. Colin Powell, then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

In 1999, as secretary of state under Bill Clinton, Albright got her wish, running roughshod over the UN Charter with an illegal war to carve out an independent Kosovo from the ruins of Yugoslavia. 


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


The UN Charter clearly prohibits the threat or use of military force except in cases of self-defense or when the UN Security Council takes military action “to maintain or restore international peace and security.” This was neither. When U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Albright his government was “having trouble with our lawyers” over NATO’s illegal war plan, Albright crassly told him to “get new lawyers.” 

Twenty-two years later, Kosovo is the third-poorest country in Europe (after Moldova and post-coup Ukraine) and its independence is still not recognized by 96 countries. Hashim Thaçi, Albright’s hand-picked main ally in Kosovo and later its president, is awaiting trial in an international court at the Hague, charged with murdering at least 300 civilians under cover of NATO bombing in 1999 to extract and sell their internal organs on the international transplant market.

Clinton and Albright’s gruesome and illegal war set the precedent for more illegal U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, with equally devastating and horrific results. But America’s failed wars have not led Congress or successive administrations to seriously rethink the U.S. decision to rely on illegal threats and uses of military force to project U.S. power all over the world, nor have they reined in the trillions of dollars invested in these imperial ambitions. 

Instead, in the upside-down world of institutionally corrupt U.S. politics, a generation of failed and pointlessly destructive wars have had the perverse effect of normalizing even more expensive military budgets than during the Cold War, and reducing congressional debate to questions of how many more of each useless weapons system they should force U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for.       

It seems that no amount of killing, torture, mass destruction or lives ruined in the real world can shake the militaristic delusions of America’s political class, as long as the “military-industrial-congressional complex” (President Dwight Eisenhower’s original wording) is reaping the benefits. 

Today, most political and media references to the military-cndustrial Complex refer only to the arms industry as a self-serving corporate interest group on a par with Wall Street, Big Pharma or the fossil fuel industry. But in his Farewell Address, Eisenhower explicitly pointed not just to the arms industry but the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”

Eisenhower was just as worried about the anti-democratic impact of the military as the arms industry. Weeks before his Farewell Address, he told his senior advisers, “God help this country when somebody sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do.” His fears have been realized in every subsequent presidency.

According to Milton Eisenhower, the president’s brother, who helped him draft his Farewell Address, Ike also wanted to talk about the “revolving door.” Early drafts of his speech referred to “a permanent, war-based industry,” with “flag and general officers retiring at an early age to take positions in the war-based industrial complex, shaping its decisions and guiding the direction of its tremendous thrust.” He wanted to warn that steps must be taken to “insure that the ‘merchants of death’ do not come to dictate national policy.” 

As Eisenhower feared, the careers of figures like retired generals Lloyd Austin and Jim Mattis now span all branches of the corrupt MIC conglomerate: commanding invasion and occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; then donning suits and ties to sell weapons to new generals who served under them as majors and colonels; and finally re-emerging from the same revolving door as Cabinet members at the apex of American politics and government.

So why does the Pentagon brass get a free pass, even as Americans feel increasingly conflicted about the arms industry? After all, it is the military that actually uses all these weapons to kill people and wreak havoc in other countries. 

Even as it loses war after war overseas, the U.S. military has waged a far more successful one to burnish its image in the hearts and minds of Americans and win every budget battle in Washington. 

The complicity of Congress, the third leg of the stool in Eisenhower’s original formulation, turns the annual battle of the budget into the “cakewalk” that the war in Iraq was supposed to be, with no accountability for lost wars, war crimes, civilian massacres, cost overruns or the dysfunctional military leadership that presides over it all. 

There is no congressional debate over the economic impact on America or the geopolitical consequences for the world of uncritically rubber-stamping huge investments in powerful weapons that will sooner or later be used to kill our neighbors and smash their countries, as they have for the past 22 years and far too often throughout our history.

If the public is ever to have any impact on this dysfunctional and deadly money-go-round, we must learn to see through the fog of propaganda that masks self-serving corruption behind red, white and blue bunting, and allows the military brass to cynically exploit the public’s natural respect for brave young men and women who are ready to risk their lives to defend our country. In the Crimean War, the Russians called British troops “lions led by donkeys.” That is an accurate description of today’s U.S. military.  

Sixty years after Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, exactly as he predicted, the “weight of this combination” of corrupt generals and admirals, the profitable “merchants of death” whose goods they peddle, and the senators and representatives who blindly entrust them with trillions of dollars of the public’s money constitute the full flowering of his greatest fears for our country.

Eisenhower concluded, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals.” That clarion call echoes through the decades and should unite Americans in every form of democratic organizing and movement building, from elections to education and advocacy to mass protests, to finally reject and dispel the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

More on the military-industrial complex — and why Congress keeps funding it without asking questions: