Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Co-opting the message: How anti-trans activists hijacked a tool meant to help trans people

As early as thirteen years old, Erin Reed knew about transitioning. “The whole process just seemed really daunting,” she explained to Rewire News. To access hormone replacement therapy (HRT), Reed would have had to present as a girl for several months in order to prove her gender to specialists. Those specialists would then track her apparent progress, effectively gatekeeping access to treatment until she presented “adequately.” So Reed chose not to go down that road.

Seventeen years later, still researching the subject in late 2019, Reed found an easier way.

“Informed consent clinics” are specialized health centers that apprise trans patients of the risks associated with HRT without posing the barriers often imposed upon teens like Reed. Through word of mouth, Reed landed on a Planned Parenthood in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, roughly three hours from where she lived in Washington, D.C. But still, she told Salon, the process of finding the right clinic felt like grasping at straws, mostly because there was no centralized source of information for people in her position.

“It doesn’t live consolidated in a single place,” Reed, now a trans rights activist, explained in an interview. Each clinic, she said, has its own quirks that can throw patients for a loop. “There was one in Wyoming where they tended to turn people away if they didn’t show up dressed up in a skirt.”

Though Reed eventually found the treatment she needed, she learned from the arduous process that there’s a need for such a resource for people seeking gender-affirming care — so she took it upon herself to build one. With the help of countless Reddit threads and testimonials from dozens of people nationwide, Reed created a comprehensive Google Map cataloging 786 informed consent clinics throughout the country. Her inbox was soon flooded with thank-you notes.

“It just blew up,” Reed said. “It got 1.5 million views.” 

Then in February, Reed learned of The Gender Mapping Project (or “The Gender Mapper”), an anti-trans website that claims to serve as an “educational resource for anyone who has been affected by the gender industry.” The organization, which works toward “abolishing pediatric gender transition,” had put together a Google Map similarly cataloging clinics for trans youths and informed consent clinics. And it didn’t take much digging to realize that The Gender Mapper had replicated her own data, Reed said. 

“I instantly recognized it. I’m like, Wait a second. All of these spots that are pointed on here are all the spots that I researched,” Reed said, pointing out that even her own notes and typos had been copied verbatim.  

Reed shortly sent Google a notice of potential copyright infringement, and The Gender Mapper was shortly taken down over a “violation of [Google’s] Terms of Services and/or Policies,” according to screenshots shared with Salon. But since then, a newer iteration The Gender Mapper has emerged, still hosting a map that ostensibly draws locations straight from Reed’s

Founder Alix Aharon has called any suggestion of plagiarism “ridiculous,” telling Salon that she’s only concerned with clinics that serve transgender youths – not informed consent clinics. 

When I was compiling the child gender map, I included the informed consent clinics for interest only, which I found on a public Reddit page,” Aharon told Salon in an email exchange. “My map is subject to interpretation, I don’t express an opinion on the actual map, if someone thinks that child gender clinics are a wonderful thing then my map is simply a resource for treatment.”

Though its origin remains somewhat dubious, The Gender Mapper has proven a very useful resource for anti-trans activists, Reed said. In fact, over the past several years, many trans-exclusionary groups have used it to stage public demonstrations against clinics and doctors who administer HRT and perform gender-affirming surgeries for teens struggling with their gender identities – an area of evergreen contention that has in recent years become politically supercharged. 

Earlier this month, three clinics were targeted in New York City, Seattle, and Los Angeles, with protesters specifically calling out the work of plastic surgeon Dr. Rachel Bluebond-Langer of NYU Langone and pediatrician Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, as reported by trans journalist Ky Schevers. In New York City, the demonstrations were organized by activist K. Yang, who uses the online moniker “The Deprogrammer.” Yang runs social media pages “advocating for an end to worldwide experimental intervention of children’s healthy and normal puberty with so-called ‘puberty blockers,'” she told Salon over email. “Transgender ideology,” she said, conflates notions of sex and gender, and teaches dysphoric children that “there is something wrong with their sexed bodies instead of helping them to identify that we live in a patriarchal world.”

Also in attendance was the TERF Collective, a 405-member “syndicate of [gender-critical] and [radical feminists] working to end the international campaign of female erasure.” TERFS – a term first coined in 2008 – are widely known for espousing the notion that trans women should not be conferred women’s privileges because they are not “real” women. 

Asked about the group’s moral impetus, TERF Collective founder Jesika Gonzalez echoed Yang’s concerns over email, stating plainly that the group “does not believe in the concept of ‘trans'”.

“We seek to draw the public’s attention to the fact that despite the prevailing legal fiction, children actually cannot consent,” Gonzalez said. “They genuinely do not have the mental faculties or life experience to appreciate all they are taking on.”

When it comes to demonstrating, trans-exclusionary groups have been known to employ protest tactics similar to the anti-abortion movement, noted Easther Wang in The New Republic. Trans activist Julia Serano told Salon over email that the protests seemed “reminiscent of past anti-abortion activist tactics centered on targeting doctors and clinics, with the intent of intimidating both providers and clients alike.”

In New York, protesters held up signs that featured post-op pictures of patients, imagery ostensibly designed to accost the average passerby, harkening back to the oft-used images of both live and dead fetuses weaponized by anti-abortion demonstrators.

Over email, Yang said it was “inaccurate” to claim any similarity between the TERF Collective’s protest tactics and those of anti-abortion activists, largely because her group “advocate[s] on behalf of female reproductive control and autonomy” by protecting young girls against practices like “female genital mutilation.”

In recent years, the debate around trans youth identity has grown particularly acrimonious, as an increasing number of public figures – like British author J. K. Rowling, Wall Street Journal writer Abigail Shrier, and comedian Dave Chapell – have come forward to criticize the transgender rights movement. Many have broadly argued that the movement preys on young people by creating a social environment where they feel pressured to make permanent changes to their bodies that they might regret later on in life. 

RELATED: Dave Chappelle and the warped self-victimhood of transphobes

The debate rose to an international level last year when British 23-year-old Keira Bell filed a lawsuit against the NHS Gender Identity Development Service over the agency’s apparent failure to provide enough guidance on her female-to-male transition. Bell, who was prescribed puberty blockers at sixteen, argued that the NHS should have done more to “challenge” her desire for treatment, which she later came to regret. Though a high court for England and Wales ruled in December that children sixteen and older can consent to receive puberty blockers, the case has since been held up by trans-exclusionary activists as a cautionary tale for dysphoric children and their parents. 

As of late, there has been a sudden uptick in coverage of people who choose to “detransition” (i.e., stop or reverse their transition). But trans activists say that the disproportionate coverage has fueled a media narrative that bears little resemblance to reality, according to NBC News. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people who underwent a transition, the National Center for Transgender Equality found that just 8% of the study’s respondents reported detransitioning, with 62% of that group having detransitioned temporarily. A number of other studies have found that this number to be lower than 8%. 

“We have a lot of evidence that shows that for people who are transgender or gender diverse, starting a hormone that causes physical changes that aligns with their gender identity can improve their mental health,” Dr. Juanita Kay Hodax, Interim Clinical Director at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told Salon in an interview. “And so by forcing them to wait…they can have worsening mental health effects.”

Hodax, a pediatric endocrinologist who helps children navigate their transitions, said that there is “a lot of misinformation” surrounding her line of work. For instance, puberty blockers are often erroneously claimed by critics to have irreversible effects on children, when the science strongly suggests otherwise. In fact, it’s pubertal bodily changes that are permanent, generally making it far more difficult to transition if one chooses to do after finishing puberty.

There is also a lot of misinformation concerning how transition decisions are made in the first place, Hodax said. Trans-exclusionary activists tend to paint child transitions as “experimentations” carried out through medical coercion – a misconception that has this year fueled a tidal wave of GOP-backed legislation targeting trans youth in southern states. In April and May, Texas and Arkansas respectively banned the use of HRT and puberty blockers for children. Dozens of other states have floated similar measures casting minors as the hapless victims of an abusive medical system taken captive by the radical left.   

RELATED: Republicans are waging war against US children: Anti-trans bills part of longstanding GOP campaign

But most of the time, “the patient has been talking to family members about gender for at least several months, if not, a year,” Hodax said. “During the clinic appointments, we spend a lot of time discussing the benefits and risks of the medications that we’re using. We talk a lot with patients about their goals.”

Ultimately, transition regret is very real in some cases, Hodax said, and like many elective procedures, mistakes are made. 

“Some of them do legitimately feel like they’re not trans after they decide to transition,” echoed Reed. “But a lot of people detransition not because they’re not trans, but because they’ve gotten no support – and because the fear of continuing to exist as a trans person in a country that doesn’t value us is more than the fear of trying to fit in while denying yourself.”

Anti-capitalist think tank ‘Meta’ says Facebook stole its new name

As Facebook faces a firestorm for changing its corporate name to Meta amid heightened scrutiny over how the tech titan harms humanity, Greek economist and Progressive International co-founder Yanis Varoufakis on Friday called out the company for stealing the moniker of a global anti-capitalist think tank.

Varoufakis, in a tweet, took aim at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who announced the new name at a conference Thursday, as the social media company contends with widespread criticism of its practices thanks to revelations from former-employees-turned-whistleblowers.

“Hands off our mέta, Our Center for Postcapitalist Civilization, Mr. Zuckerberg,” tweeted the former Greek finance minister, who is on the think tank’s advisory board. “You, and your minions, wouldn’t recognize civilization even if it hit you with a bargepole.”

The mission page of mέta’s website explains that “we are already in the early stages of an era that can only be described by that which it succeeds: we live in postcapitalist times. They may turn out dystopic, utopic, or anything in between.”

“Through art and research, argument, and poetry,” the site says, “mέta (the abbreviation of our Our Center for Postcapitalist Civilization) works to break with a dystopic present to imagine the world anew—to grasp our present historical moment so as to help radical progressive movements find a path from the emergent dismal postcapitalism to one worth fighting, and living, for.”

Along with Varoufakis, other advisory board members include scholar Noam Chomsky, musician Brian Eno, filmmaker Ken Loach, economist James K. Galbraith, and philosopher Slavoj Žižek.


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


In addition to the social network Facebook, Meta also owns the photo- and video-sharing platform Instagram as well as the messaging application WhatsApp.

As Common Dreams reported Thursday, while Zuckerberg celebrated the new corporate name for the company, tech ethicists and branding professionals warned the world not to be “fooled” by the move.

“It’s tempting to view Facebook’s rebranding as nothing more than a cynical attempt by the company to distance itself from endless scandals and the real-world harm caused by its surveillance capitalist business model. But it’s actually much more sinister than that,” said Evan Greer, director of the digital rights group Fight for the Future, in a statement Friday.

RELATED: Meta and the Facebook Papers: Why Mark Zuckerberg has nothing to fear

“With this announcement Mark Zuckerberg revealed his end game: He’s making a play to control the future of the Internet,” she asserted, accusing the CEO of “co-opting the terminology of decentralization and attempting to solidify his stranglehold on the future of human attention and interaction.”

Emphasizing the the importance of recognizing that “the Internet is changing,” Greer argued that “we need to fight tooth and nail to ensure that the policies governing this next generation of the Internet are carefully crafted to protect vulnerable communities, free expression, and human rights––and that they don’t undermine the potential of truly decentralized technologies, which could help finally end the era of Big Tech surveillance capitalism.”

“We are at a crossroads,” she said. “It’s time to decide what we want the future of the Internet to look like. And then it’s time to fight for that vision. Before it’s too late.”

New timeline shows a revealing pattern in Steve Bannon’s rhetoric leading up to Jan. 6

On October 21, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s select committee on the January 6 insurrection. Many far-right MAGA Republicans view Bannon as a martyr, but critics view him as an insurrectionist. And an article by Media Matters’ Madeline Peltz this week takes a damning and in-depth look at what Bannon had to say on his “War Room” podcast in the days leading up to January 6.

“In the days before the January 6 insurrection, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon bragged on his podcast about his behind-the-scenes efforts to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Peltz explains. “These claims include calls and meetings he joined with conservative lawyer John Eastman and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who were then running the Trump legal team’s ‘war room’ out of the Willard Hotel in Downtown Washington, D.C., where allies conspired to advance crackpot legal theories and misinformation campaigns aimed at stealing the 2020 presidential election from Joe Biden.”

RELATED: House Republican admits “wacko birds” in GOP forced vote to protect Bannon

According to Peltz, “A Media Matters review has found that in addition to repeatedly boasting about his involvement with and insider knowledge of the Trump legal team’s strategy to overturn the election results in Congress on January 6, Bannon previewed the events in dramatic and violent historical context and singled out then-Vice President Mike Pence as the figure who could steal the election for Trump. He also used the language of war to describe how Trump supporters should view the events of January 6 and encouraged them to travel to Washington, D.C. to participate in the rallies taking place that day.”

Media Matters’ timeline of things Bannon said on his “War Room” podcast spans December 28, 2020-January 5, 2021. In late December on his podcast, Bannon claimed that then-Vice President Mike Pence had “many alternatives” to certifying the Electoral College results on January 6. And on his January 2 show, Bannon featured Giuliani and Eastman and said that Giuliani was “working in the Senate” to stop the election’s certification.

On January 4, Bannon told listeners, “We’re hurtling towards a constitutional crisis…. (that is) going to be complicated, and it’s going to be nasty.” And he predicted that Trump’s “first term is ending with action, and his second term is going to start with a bang.”

Then, on January 5, Bannon had a lot to say about what he thought would be happening the following day. Bannon told listeners, “It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen, OK. It’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. And all I can say is: Strap in, the ‘War Room’ posse. You have made this happen, and tomorrow, it’s game day.”

Bannon predicted that a constitutional crisis was “about to go up, I think, five orders of magnitude tomorrow” and said, “We’re going to go through a couple of three very turbulent 24-hour periods.”

It was also on January 5 that Bannon, according to Peltz, said that Trump’s allies had “put calls out last night trying to put bail up” for the Proud Boys’ Enrique Tarrio, who had been arrested after tearing a Black Lives Matter banner down from an African-American church and burning it.


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


“At least two dozen members of Proud Boys, a violent neo-fascist street gang, face federal charges in connection with the attack on the Capitol, including four who were charged with conspiracy,” Peltz notes. “Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola was among the first of the insurrectionists to break into the Capitol by smashing a window with a riot shield he stole from a police officer.”

Trump’s SPAC deal may have skirted securities law in “shadowy corner of Wall Street”: NYT

Former President Donald Trump’s financial deal to create a new social-media company appears to have skirted securities laws.

“To get his deal done, Mr. Trump ventured into an unregulated and sometimes shadowy corner of Wall Street, working with an unlikely cast of characters: (two) former ‘Apprentice’ contestants, a small Chinese investment firm and a little-known Miami banker named Patrick Orlando,” the New York Times reported Friday, adding that the deal allowed Trump to access $300 million in funding for Truth Social despite being shut out of the mainstream financial industry due to his history of bankruptcies and loan defaults.

“Mr. Orlando had been discussing a deal with Mr. Trump since at least March, according to people familiar with the talks and a confidential investor presentation reviewed by The New York Times,” the newspaper reports. “That was well before his SPAC, Digital World Acquisition, made its debut on the Nasdaq stock exchange last month. In doing so, Mr. Orlando’s SPAC may have skirted securities laws and stock exchange rules, lawyers said.”


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


SPACs, or Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, aren’t supposed to have a merger planned at the time of their initial public stock offering, according to the Times.

“Lawyers and industry officials said that talks between Mr. Orlando and Mr. Trump or their associates consequently could draw scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission,” according to the report. “Another issue is that Digital World’s securities filings repeatedly stated that the company and its executives had not engaged in any ‘substantive discussions, directly or indirectly,’ with a target company — even though Mr. Orlando had been in discussions with Mr. Trump. Given the politically fraught nature of a deal with Mr. Trump, securities lawyers said that Digital World’s lack of disclosure about those conversations could be considered an omission of ‘material information.'”

Read the full story.

More stories like this:

Mein Kampf, racial slurs and Antifa conspiracies lead wild first week at Charlottesville trial

It didn’t take long for a landmark civil trial over the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to take a bizarre turn. 

Just hours into proceedings — which are expected to last for months — neo-Nazi Christopher Cantwell dropped racial slurs, made a passing reference to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, floated a conspiracy theory involving Antifa and plugged his own radio show, managing to fit it all in his opening statement, according to BuzzFeed News.

Later, Richard Spencer, a self-identified white nationalist who coined the term “alt-right,” was cut off multiple times by a judge, who at one point pleaded with him to “stick to the facts.”

The now-infamous rally, which was held Aug. 11-12, 2017, was sparked by the planned removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee. One woman, Heather Heyer, lost her life after a man drove his car into a counter-protest against the white nationalist gathering. Those involved in the incident, as well as a separate beating of another counter-protester, are now facing prison time.

The civil case that began this week, however, is meant to bankrupt Cantwell, as well as several white supremacist organizations. The case was filed under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which is credited with hobbling the organization just as it began to take root following the Civil War. 


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


At the trial a legal team for Integrity First for America, the non-profit civil rights group spearheading the case, played video footage of the rally, including the torch-wielding mob chanting, “Jews will not replace us!” and “Blood and soil!”

Representatives for the organization also spoke about the scars, both physical and mental, that the victims of the violence have carried with them since 2017. 

The case hinges on whether or not Cantwell, Spencer and others involved with planning the rally anticipated the violence their event ultimately brought to Charlottesville. Cantwell, who says he is representing himself due to the cost of hiring an attorney, brushed off the idea during his opening statement.

“[The jury will] hear us making a couple racist jokes. We’re sort of notorious for those things,” Cantwell said. “But what you won’t hear is a conspiracy to commit any crime, much less a violent one.”

Richard Spencer, who is also representing himself, argued that because he didn’t know the other defendants before 2017, there could not have been a conspiracy. He also went on a wild rant about last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests, which he said “eventuated in vandalism, looting, violence, and riots.” 

RELATED: The Charlottesville model: Trump’s “fine people” praise of white nationalists is now GOP mainstream

Others also mentioned BLM, floating another false-flag conspiracy that the “Unite the Right” violence in 2017 was really perpetuated by antifascists and BLM activists.

The prosecution’s opening statement, meanwhile, addressed a trove of social media posts, private chats, emails and texts that show neo-Nazis and white supremacists “discussing weaponry they would bring to Charlottesville and how they would use them to attack their enemies.” 

Prosecutor Karen Dunn said, “This case is a case about violence and intimidation that was planned for months and culminated in a tragic and violent weekend on Aug. 11 and 12 of 2017, right here in Charlottesville, Virginia.”

Timothée Chalamet and the return of the Cool Jew

In 2006, David Marchese, Salon’s then-associate music editor, wrote an impassioned lamentation on the decline of the Cool Jew. Gone were the days of James Caan heading up a powerful crime family, Richard Dreyfuss taking on a killer shark, and Dustin Hoffman seducing a mother-daughter duo. In their places stood Jerry Seinfeld, Seth Rogen, and Adam Sandler, who were deep trenches of playing schmucks and schlubs. Jews in the zeitgeist had regressed, as Marchese put it, from badasses to jackasses. 

“The Godfather,” “Jaws” and “The Graduate” were in the rearview, and cultural stereotypes of neurotic, emasculated men overtook the narrative. Following the abundance of Jewish sex appeal of the ’60s and ’70s came a period of decline, when Jewish men were no longer innately associated with mob bosses, seducers and action heroes. With “Seinfeld,” “Knocked Up” and “Grown Ups” modeling Jewish men onscreen, there existed several decades in which the only available role in popular culture was that of a jester. 

But then came the Messiah.

The 2017 and 2018 releases of “Lady Bird” and “Call Me by Your Name” launched a young, dark-haired Jewish actor with cheekbones to spare named Timothée Chalamet into instant celebrity. Chalamet had fans swooning over two particular words in “Lady Bird”: “Good girl.” Director Greta Gerwig called him “a young Christian Bale crossed with a young Daniel Day-Lewis with a sprinkle of young Leonardo DiCaprio.” He secured an Academy Award nomination for “Call Me by Your Name,” one of the youngest to ever do so. Rumors swirled of him mingling with actresses and models. He handed out bagels at the premiere of “The King” — on Rosh Hashanah, no less. It became obvious: the Cool Jew was back. 

RELATED: “Dune” is the masterful adaptation of Frank Herbert’s epic we’ve been waiting for

It was Chalamet’s leading role of Elio Perlman in “Call Me by Your Name” that cemented his wunderkind status in Hollywood. The role is one of particular importance to modern Jewry. Running parallel to his revelation of queerness, Elio struggles to find a comfortable existence within his Jewish identity, telling his lover Oliver that the Perlmans were self-described “Jews of discretion.” Throughout the film, Elio’s relationship with his Jewish heritage intertwines with his relationship with Oliver. Elio himself soon begins to rep a Star of David pendant, just as Oliver had since the film’s beginning.

Chalamet’s Jewish heritage (his mother is Jewish-American, with Russian and Austrian roots) was critical to his portrayal of Elio. The actor has noted the integral thread of Judaism that runs through “Call Me by Your Name,” calling it “a driving force in the film,” in a 2017 interview

Such an accessible, yet unabashedly Jewish film earning momentous fanfare undoubtedly helped legitimize the restoration of the Cool Jew. (Though the film is undeniably Jewish, it isn’t one that requires a working knowledge of Jewish traditions, which non-members could find confusing.) Thanks to Chalamet’s rising star, the unflattering narrative of the Jewish man began to dissipate overnight. 

Not even four years after the release of “Call Me by Your Name,” Chalamet has racked up career accomplishments that rival actors twice his age. He has proven that he is no one-trick pony, snapping up everything from the period dramas “Little Women” and “The King,” to sci-fi blockbusters, each gaining him a gaggle of new admirers. This year, Oct. 22 marked yet another watershed moment in the young actor’s career, as he celebrated the dual release of Wes Anderson’s “The French Dispatch” and Denis Villneuve’s adaptation of “Dune,” underscoring his versatility as both an indie darling and action hero. 

Jewish action heroes have existed in recent times — with notable portrayals in “Inglourious Basterds” and “Hunters” — but rarely outside the context of the Holocaust. A Jewish action hero, no matter how badass, always had to be connected to Judaism in his mission. It is the role of Paul Atreides in “Dune” that elevates Chalamet to the kind of Jewish action hero that hasn’t been seen outside of the confines of Jewish culture in decades. 

Times have changed since Dustin Hoffman’s Benjamin Braddock seduced both of the Robinson women. The 21st century offers a more subjective take on mainstream attractiveness that favors lankiness and femininity. Chalamet, with his long, pale limbs and shock of dark hair, is the proprietor of an aesthetic that many have compared to a sickly Victorian child, or a bewitched porcelain doll. But for every person who thinks he is better suited to be haunting a mansion than occupying the silver screen, there are many more who consider him a sex symbol.  

The subversive sex appeal of unmasculine approachability fits tightly into a niche that Jewish men have long occupied. Inverting the stereotype of nebbishy Jewish men (an ethnic stereotype of a timid, submissive man, for any curious goys), actors like Chalamet are making it sexy again. Other public-facing Jews are getting the same treatment, many for the first time in their careers. 

Seth Rogen is widely known for his roles in “Knocked Up,” “Pineapple Express,” and “Freaks and Geeks,” which have him playing some sort of bumbling buffoon in one capacity or another. But he, too, has started to gain a new reputation for his sex appeal. His starring role opposite Charlize Theron in 2019’s “Long Shot” portrayed a relationship between the two actors that many questioned at the time. (“As much as I would like to think we were the first to put a f**king Jewish dude and a shiksa in a movie together, we were not,” Rogen told David Marchese in an interview with Vulture.) But recently, something changed. Suddenly, articles and tweets from major media outlets and regular folks alike had reached a consensus: Seth Rogen is hot. The same public revelation engulfed Adam Sandler following his groundbreaking role in “Uncut Gems.” 

The Cool Jew is in his Renaissance. Chalamet has at least one more “Dune” sequel on the horizon. He is also currently tackling another iteration of notorious antisemite Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” with the prequel “Wonka.” Seth Rogen has teamed up with Sarah Silverman to voice Santa Claus in the forthcoming “Santa Inc.,” in what will surely be the most Jewish Christmas media of all time. Adam Sandler’s success in “Uncut Gems” has begotten another dramatic role in the adaptation of “Spaceman” – about the intergalactic travels and philosophical musings of a Czech astronaut – and co-starring heavy hitters Carey Mulligan, Paul Dano and Isabella Rossellini

With Chalamet, Rogen, Sandler, and other members of the community helping to expand the narrative of Jewish men, the Cool Jew seems to have a new place in media. As Zendaya’s Chani tells Chalamet’s Paul Atreides at the close of “Dune”: “This is only the beginning.” 

More stories you might like: 

Netflix’s new Colin Kaepernick series is as ambitious but not quite as successful as its subject

"What you start out as isn't always what you become." This is lesson Colin Kaepernick sees in the story of Romare Bearden, one of the 20th century's more influential Black artists. Bearden could have become the first Black baseball player in the major leagues, but the catch was that nobody would know that. Allegedly the Philadelphia Athletics' offer stipulated that he would have to pass for white, so Bearden declined, abandoning baseball to focus on art, his true passion.

Kaepernick draws many such parallels in "Colin in Black and White," the limited series he co-created with Ava DuVernay that is a collage of Black history moments and citations pasted onto an anti-racism brief folded around the story of Kaepernick's adolescence. Bearden, one of America's pre-eminent collagists, would have appreciated the effort. But even he may have been left wanting by the final product.

The fieriest filament in this show's blazing spectacle is its subject's confidence and how that translates in Jaden Michael's portrayal of the teenage Colin, the top athlete at his small-town California high school who nevertheless feels like an outsider. But this also overwhelms the piece in its opening episode and gets in the way of its ability to become a cohesive story that makes its point.

RELATED: Colin Kaepernick is making America great

The ambition of "Colin in Black and White" is similar to that of young Colin Kaepernick, in that it is attempting to pull off several storytelling approaches in six episodes. It would have been far more effective if it had focused on one of those avenues and laid it out for us, brick by brick. Instead we're presented a pile of narrative that doesn't neatly cohere.

One of the few Black kids in his school and a biracial adoptee, Colin thrives at football, baseball and basketball while still maintaining a high-enough grade point average for Harvard to come knocking with a baseball scholarship offer. His fans know that part of his legend – that he could have gone pro straight out of high school if he had only chosen baseball, but he held firm to his love of football.

Throughout the limited series adolescent Colin is pushed by coaches and his adoptive white parents to Teresa (Mary-Louise Parker) and Rick (Nick Offerman) to choose the path of baseball, but Colin is insistent. He also knows he's destined to achieve the rarer feat of becoming one of the few Black quarterbacks in the NFL – which he eventually does. But not without struggle, body-breaking effort and putting up with indignities beyond counting.

Out the many sports superstars whose lives epitomize America's fraught relationship with race and racism, Kaepernick's is extraordinary.

At nearly 34 years old he's a symbol of civil rights activism and resistance. Bookending segments and interstitials feature the former professional football star contemplating how turning points in his high school sports career and social life relate to struggles Black Americans have always faced, including its luminaries. Through these segues it is clear to see that Kaepernick understands history and his place in it.

Despite how that may read, the show's inspiration, star and narrator never comes off as arrogant, but rather as self-aware. In his segments he acknowledges that the indignities he's faced aren't unique, that Black bodies have always been judged and policed – even famous ones. Especially the famous ones.

Sometimes the historic parallels made here relate directly to episodes from his teenage years, particularly in the opening installment where he clashes with his mother over his desire to get cornrows inspired by NBA superstar Allen Iverson, an All-Star and MVP when Kaepernick was still in high school. As his adolescent self moves between dominating high school football, basketball and baseball teams, adult Kaepernick considers how that era in his life relates to broader issues like colorism or racial inequity in the justice system and social spheres.


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


In an early scene he acknowledges the benefit that his light skin affords him in white spaces, and how his parents' whiteness gains him privileges other Black peers didn't receive. His father pulls strings to get Colin trained by one the best football coaches, for example, which eventually nets him a starting position on the varsity squad. To provide contrast he cites the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar, an Ohio single mother who served 10 days in jail for improperly using her father's home address on school applications to gain access to a better education for her children. 

All of this tracks . . . after a point. Getting there requires a willingness to navigate a mishmash of storytelling styles and a heavy layer of didacticism, along with accepting the odd choice to set present-day Kaepernick inside a spare gray box resembling a room at a modern art museum. From there he considers scenes from his youth as analyzing an immersive theatrical experience or a movie. The problem is that the show's depiction of yesteryear feels like an earnest melding of "The Wonder Years" with "Everybody Hates Chris."  

This also happens to be the part of the "Colin in Black and White" that works best, especially once Kaepernick pulls back on his insistent narration of his teenage version's inner thoughts. Its success makes one realize that Kaepernick's story could have worked as a half-hour drama that its young star could carry quite easily.

Michael's ample expressiveness does not require Kaepernick's background noise to let us know what Colin is thinking. This is particularly apparent when he's contending with microaggressions hurled his way by the adults in his life or stewing whenever his parents, the paragon of white Midwestern, go-along-to-get-along niceness, fail to defend him.

In comparison Parker and Offerman play Teresa and Rick as borderline comedy figures – supportive, loving but willfully clueless when it comes to some very obvious instances where their son, the only Black kid in the room, is coming under attack. Maybe they really were that oblivious; if that's so, this is a part of the story that could have benefit from a bit of narration instead of leaving us to make assumptions about their ignorance.

This is also one of many choices that make a person wonder who this show's intended audience is. Its tone lurches between passion, provocation and sweetness frequently enough to make a person wonder: Does it mean to relate to viewers who understand Kaepernick's point of view or educate those who don't? Either way, the throw misses the receiver. That's bound to be disappointing to anyone anticipating that this project would live up to the greatness of the man who inspired and co-created it.

"Colin in Black and White" debuts Friday, Oct. 29 on Netflix. Watch a trailer for the series via YouTube.

More stories like this:

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough slams the Wall Street Journal for running Trump letter: “Wow! This is bull”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough ripped the Wall Street Journal for running a lie-filled letter from Donald Trump and then attempting to clean up the mess with a fact check one day later.

The right-leaning newspaper refuted some of the twice-impeached one-term president’s claims Thursday after facing fierce criticism for running the letter in the first place, and both “Morning Joe” hosts bashed the Journal for taking shots in its fact-check at “media clerics” who pushed allegedly “false Russia collusion claims.”

“Wow, this is bull,” said co-host Mika Brzezinski.

Scarborough hooted with laughter at the newspaper’s tone after publishing Trump’s conspiracy theories.

“If you can ignore the gratuitous sort of virtue signaling to the most hardcore Trump readers on the quote, ‘Russia hoax collusion thin,’ and if you can ignore the media bashing up top, what you find in the heart of that editorial is the deep-boning of Donald Trump’s conspiracy claims,” Scarborough said. “They go state by state, and they point out the fact that, yes, and I agree what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did, I had questions with it at the time. I said that here but they bring up at the Supreme Court and put those votes to the side, it does not have any impact, and it went through one claim after another and another and showed that the conspiracy theories were just lies.”

The fact-check pointed out that Trump lies so often that it’s impossible for the media to keep up, and Scarborough said those lies distort reality for the ex-president’s followers.

“You just can’t keep up with the lies, so you either let the lie stand as fact or you spend all your time trying to rebut his outrageous lies,” Scarborough said. “I find this with my friends who chase conspiracy theories, you rebut one claim and then they go, ‘Yeah, what about the Italian guy?’ You rebut the Italian guy, they go, ‘But what about in Georgia when they picked up, they picked up that thing from underneath,’ and you rebut that lie, and then they come up with another. It’s a never-ending whack-a-mole of lies and conspiracy theories.”

Ron DeSantis sues Biden administration over vaccine mandates

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has emerged as one of the most conspicuous anti-science politicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, officially sued President Joe Biden’s administration on Thursday in response to its vaccine mandate for federal contractors.

“Because the government’s unlawful vaccine requirements seek to interfere with Florida’s employment policies and threaten Florida with economic harm and the loss of federal contracts, the State seeks relief from this Court,” read the 28-page lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Tampa. The document singled out Biden’s Sept. 9 address announcing vaccine mandates, implying that the administration also believes the government should not mandate vaccines but is ignoring the law because the president’s “patience” has been “wearing thin” and he is angry “at those who haven’t gotten vaccinated.” It also argued that complying with Biden’s mandates would cause economic harm to the state.

“Because Florida’s employees are generally not required to be vaccinated, the challenged actions threaten Florida with the loss of millions of dollars in future contracting opportunities and put undue pressure on Florida to create new policies and change existing ones, each of which threatens Florida with imminent irreparable harm,” the lawsuit contends. It seeks an immediate injunction to the rule, which will otherwise take effect on Dec. 8.

DeSantis himself insisted the mandates were illegal, telling journalists in a statement that “the federal government is exceeding [its] power and it is important for us to take a stand because in Florida we believe these are choices based on individual circumstances.”

Salon spoke with a legal scholar who was unimpressed with the legal arguments in the lawsuit.

“I would say this DeSantis lawsuit is between manifestly groundless and utterly frivolous,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe told Salon by email. “The executive actions DeSantis has sought to depict as lawless are well within the president’s statutorily delegated authority.”


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


Although DeSantis has sought and garnered headlines for opposing Biden’s policies, banning business from requiring proof of vaccination and prohibiting mask mandates, he is hardly the only Republican governor to politicize COVID-19. From Kay Ivey in Alabama to Greg Abbott in Texas, governors are finding various ways to reverse restrictions and make accusations against the Biden administration. Public health experts expressed concern that these measures were premature as early as spring 2021. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told reporters in March that she has a “recurring feeling I have of impending doom. We have so much to look forward to. So much promise and potential of where we are and so much reason for hope. But right now I’m scared.”

Her views were echoed by experts who spoke to Salon around that same time. Dr. William Haseltine, a biologist and chair of Access Health International, told Salon in March that at that time “the decision to reduce mask wearing and reopen business anywhere in the US in extremely unwise and in fact dangerous.”

The science is unambiguous about the effectiveness of masks and vaccines. Wearing a facemask, like covering your mouth and nose while sneezing, helps limit the spread of infectious respiratory diseases like COVID-19. The COVID-19 vaccines are also both safe and effective, both those that use conventional vaccine platforms (e.g., Johnson & Johnson) and those known as mRNA vaccines, which utilized a revolutionary new technology. Opposition to vaccines, wearing masks and other mundane public health measures has been inextricably linked with right-wing politics, although some individuals also belong to marginalized groups with historically valid reasons to be skeptical of the government and medical institutions. While the race gap in terms of vaccination is closing, the politics gap is not.

“Unfortunately, due to the political dynamics in this country, pushing back against vaccines or vaccine mandates, etc. has become important to a lot of people’s sense of themselves,” Dr. Saad B. Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told Salon earlier this month. “It’s become part of their identity.”

Han who? Sung Kang on his new “Snakehead” bad boy: “Even his hairstyle – he’s overcompensating”

Sung Kang, Han from the “Fast and Furious” franchise, plays a real bad boy in “Snakehead,” writer/director Evan Jackson Leong’s gritty drama about illegal migration. The actor, who also served as an executive producer on the film, plays Rambo, the hothead son of Dai Mah (a flinty Jade Wu), the figurehead in an international human smuggling operation. 

Rambo, who is recently out of jail — he killed his father — now helps Dai Mah. He is fiercely loyal, but wary of his mother’s interest in giving outsider Sister Tse (Shuya Chang), some authority. Sister Tse owes a $57,000 debt to Dai Mah for smuggling her into New York; she is hoping to reunite with the daughter who was adopted by an American family.

RELATED: “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” review

As “Snakehead” uncoils, issues of love and trust, fear and respect, loyalty, and betrayal all come into play. Leong’s film shows the extremes Rambo, Dai Mah, and Sister Tse, among others, will go to survive while also depicting the insidious horrors of immigrant enslavement and exploitation.

Kang spoke with Salon about making “Snakehead” and breaking the model minority myth.

Rambo is described as the Black Sheep of the family. Yet, I see him as protective. He kills his abusive father and is loyal to his mother. How did you view the character? 

In need of validation. There are so many insecurities this guy carries on his shoulder. It was fun to play a flawed character. With everything he does — even his hairstyle — he’s overcompensating. Everything is, “Look at me!” But at the end of the day, he really doesn’t have two feet to stand on. He walks in the shadow of his mother. There are people who are born leaders, and people who are not. He, unfortunately, I think, is not. It was nice for me as an actor to explore: What happens to a man who isn’t capable of doing that? He is overshadowed by [Sister Tse] whose “why” and purpose was stronger than Rambo’s.


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


Likewise, whereas Han from the “Fast and Furious” films is a cool dude, Rambo is a real badass. He curses at everyone, and always being quick to anger. He is often feared, but he really just wants respect. How did you lean into the role? I’m sure you identify with him on every level!

Of course! I would not say otherwise. So many insecurities! That’s why I’m an actor, Gary! [Laughs]. Well, I looked in mirror, put on costume, and walked out and started talking! [Laughs gets serious again] It was great to be in New York City. The location is a character in the film. You can smell the Chinatown garbage with all the produce on the streets! But that allowed me the access to meet people who were in this lifestyle. New York is full of extremes and you get to see people who are overcompensating. Why do you not leave this borough? They live in five-block areas and don’t leave their kingdom. They are so boisterous, and loud and take so many risks.

Within a few blocks, I was able to meet different version of Rambos. Guys who are flashing $200,000 cars and yet live in government-subsidized housing. What’s that about? Guys who are rocking guns and selling drugs. What are all the gold teeth and rings about? As an actor it was great to explore all that. Most of it is simply human. These men didn’t have father figures. They are overcompensating for an older brother who is a straight-A student and a perfect version of what an Asian male is supposed to be. They live in the shadow and put on this bravado. It was cool because I’m a little older now, and I was able to come in and have access to people who saw me as Han, and I was a fly on the wall, and there was a trust, a brotherly understanding that I was going to protect their story as opposed to exploiting it.

Do you want to expand on the Asian American myth, and how you fit to that or not?

This model minority myth that keeps perpetuating. I’ve had every opportunity as an American to dream and tell my parents that you didn’t have opportunity back home to explore what it is to be an artist. Because back then, it was postwar and a matter of survival. Conversations about being an artist, painter, actor, musician — c’mon, you gotta eat. After a while, getting older, I realized it is basic parental guidance. You don’t want your kid to suffer. But now my parents see the world is global and there are great opportunities as an actor/storyteller. For the most part, I’ve been blessed that the model minority thing has never been placed on me. I was horrible at math. I was a clown in the classroom, getting into fights and trouble in the classroom. I was asking stupid question. I was not the model minority. I broke that really quick. [Laughs!]

I like that Rambo is wary of Sister Tse. Yet he does mock her with a racist slur. It is important to tell these stories, but do you think the film also perpetuates stereotypes? What observations do you have about depicting Asians in a negative light?

I think that is up to the artist himself. At the end of the day, it’s Hollywood and this fantastical carrot you need. It’s unfortunate but fortunate that you have films like “Parasite” and “Blue Bayou.” You have more grounded everyday drama opposed to this fantastical world of “Snakehead.” But it exists. There are different stories that will break preconceived notions and stereotypes that are touched on within “Snakehead” but is it a stereotype if it is real?  

What did you learn about the illegal migration operations and enslavement practices of snakeheads from making this film?

It’s sad. People die and there is tragedy, and it is unfortunate that it exists. But is it a necessary evil? That was the education — that was the window that we were surprised about. When you learn who Dai Mah or Sister Tse represents, they are these leaders in the community that have a dark side but holds the community together in this weird way. It’s almost needed. They have old country ways and old cowboy principles that still exist in New York within a few blocks. And this world is balanced by this middle-aged woman.

In “Snakehead,” Rambo cares for fish, managing the tanks. Do you have any pets or hobbies?

I am a big dog guy. I have a Golden Doodle, and I like to restore old cars. 

You serve as an executive producer on “Snakehead.” Are you looking to create more opportunities and have more control in your career? 

Absolutely. I just finished my first feature as a director. It was the most challenging and rewarding experience. I’m at an age now to have opportunity to work with great filmmakers who have taught me so many wonderful things that I put in my toolbox. I’d love to give that back. As a director, producer and a creator I can dictate when I get to do it and the people I’m working with and the stories that I tell. I’m ready! 

You are often cast in action films. You are Korean, but your character here is Chinese. I rarely see you in comedy or play a romantic leading man. What are your thoughts about the opportunities you’ve had in your career? 

That’s why the whole producing and directing thing has to be for me. It’s great to be part of these big action films, the “Fast and Furious” universe, but I want more opportunities to play three dimensional characters. That’s the plan. I’m hungry. I feel my career hasn’t even begun.

“Snakehead” is available in theaters and on VOD and digital Friday, Oct. 29. Watch a trailer for it below via YouTube.

More stories you might like: 

Democrats seize on historic hearing with Big Oil executives

Congressional hearings often produce iconic quotes.

In the 1950s, when an Army lawyer felt compelled to stand up to the popular far-right demagogue Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wisc., he famously asked “Have you no sense of decency?” Four decades later, as seven executives from Big Tobacco were grilled on how their industry lied to consumers about their products’ health risks, their various lies and scientific errors cost them their jobs as they battled federal investigators over perjury accusations. While the Big Oil executives did not receive the same headlines as the McCarthy or tobacco events, their testimony before Congress on Thursday was just as historically significant.

For the first time ever, four chief executives from some of the world’s largest Big Oil companies had to speak publicly and under oath about whether they have deliberately deceived the public about climate change.

In terms of memorable quotes, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., summed up the prevailing sentiment among Democrats from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform when she told the executives that people will “live the future that you all are setting on fire.” The “you” in Ocasio-Cortez’s statement included CEOs David Lawler of BP, Darren Woods of Exxon Mobil, Michael K. Wirth of Chevron and Gretchen Watkins of Shell. They were joined by Mike Sommers from the industry group American Petroleum Institute and Suzanne Clark from the United States Chamber of Commerce.

One prominent question was whether the petroleum industry is protected by the First Amendment if, through their speech, they create conditions that pose an existential threat to humanity’s survival.

Rep. Jamie B. Raskin, D-Md., asked the gathered Big Oil titans if they “accept that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent commercial speech.” The executives in various ways deferred to their respective legal experts instead of answering the question, even as Rankin reserved his strongest language for Woods. After ExxonMobil was sued by the Massachusetts attorney general for lying to customers about climate change, the company had countersued arguing that peddling climate pseudoscience is a First Amendment right.

“I am not opposed to litigation against particular corporations – take Exxon, just for illustration – based on clear and convincing proof (to the satisfaction of a judicially supervised jury) that those corporations (or the individuals who direct their activities) deliberately falsified research results or other data in order to cover up their own knowledge about how and to what degree their own products or services and those who purchase them contribute to anthropogenic climate change,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe told Salon in 2018. “Such litigation would be predicated on classic principles of economically motivated fraud and would avoid the pitfalls and perils of establishing an official scheme for determining what is true and what is false in the world of scientific claims.”


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


As they tried to avoid the tobacco executives’ strategic error of outright lying, and thereby risking perjury charges, the oil executives often found themselves trying to strike a delicate balance. When asked if they would pledge to stop funding lobbyists who aim to eliminate carbon emissions, and instruct their various trade groups to stop opposing electric vehicles, they refused. Their strategy was instead to acknowledge that burning fossil fuels drives climate change, claim that they support transitioning to clean energy and denying ever engaging in campaigns to deceive people about fossil fuels and climate change. They also emphasized that they are not willing to let the fossil fuel industry disappear any time soon.

This middle ground between stridence and deference was necessitated, in part, by a leaked video which showed ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy (then Exxon’s senior director for federal relations) describing the company’s support for a carbon tax as nothing more than an “easy talking point.” Acknowledging that this clip helped prompt the hearing, Ranking Member Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., claimed the video was “deceptively reported and edited” and as such “the American people must question the legitimacy of the Democrats’ actions.” House Democrats, on the other hand, used that video as a jumping off point for calling out what they claimed were other examples of Big Oil’s disingenuousness.

Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., called Big Oil for “green-washing,” or misleading people into mistakenly believing they are environmentally friendly. To illustrate how they do this, Porter held up two jars with M&M candies. One of the jars, which was nearly empty, symbolized Shell Oil president Gretchen Watkins’ plan to spend between $2 billion and $3 billion this year on renewable energy. The other jar, which was full nearly to the point of overflowing, symbolized the $19 billion to $22 billion that Shell plans on spending in the near future to explore for new fossil fuels. 

“To me, this does not look like an adequate response to one of the defining challenges of our time,” Porter argued. “This is green-washing. Shell is trying to fool people into thinking it’s addressing the climate crisis when what it’s actually doing is to continue to put money into fossil fuels.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., made a similar point when he noted that the executives could easily tell trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute to stop funding marketing campaigns to thwart climate change mitigation policies like manufacturing electric vehicles. He added that Sommers, the executive of the American Petroleum Institute, was literally “sitting right next to you on the virtual screen.” The executives refused to directly comment on Khanna’s question.

Ocasio-Cortez had a pointed observation of her own for Sommers. “It’s not lost on me that we are having a hearing today surrounding fossil fuel misinformation and disinformation campaigns on the same day that we are scheduled to vote on legislation that has been deeply influenced by the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry,” she told the executive, referring to the ongoing negotiations over President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda.

Republicans attacked the hearing by claiming that it was un-American. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a staunch supporter of former President Donald Trump who faces of accusations of ignoring reports of sexual abuse when he worked for Ohio State, attacked the hearing as unethical.

“I’ll tell you what’s frustrating, is a member of Congress telling American oil and gas companies to reduce production,” Jordan proclaimed He later added, “God bless Chevron!”

Republicans also brought a former worker on the Keystone XL pipeline, Neal Crabtree, to testify that Biden had cost him his job by canceling the construction project shortly after being inaugurated to the presidency. “There seems to be no thought given to the hundreds of thousands of workers in this industry,” Crabtree explained, adding that he had worked in the industry for 25 years and “I’m too far in life to be starting over.”

If climate change goes unchecked, human beings will in the near future experience an increased number of extreme weather events like hurricanes and wildfires; prolonged periods of drought; rising sea levels that flood coastal areas, displacing hundreds of millions of people; and the breakdown of essential supply chains providing everything from food to microchips.

Why sugar may be the scariest part of Halloween

Appropriately for a Halloween tradition, urban legend holds that children who go trick-or-treating do so at their peril.

There are a number of debunked or exaggerated tales: Sadistic neighbors embedding razor blades or sewing needles in apples, or tainting their candy with poison. Social scientists have traced these stories back to the 1950s and explained them as reactions to the increasingly dangerous world facing our children. Simply put, the chances are astronomically low that you or your children will be intentionally harmed by trick-or-treating.

But what if the dangerous part of trick-or-treating isn’t maliciously modified candy, but simply the candy itself? If scientists are correct that sugar is addictive, is trick-or-treating getting our kids hooked on substances that will ultimately destroy their bodies?

Sugar addiction “is absolutely real” says Dr. Nicole Avena, author of “Why Diets Fail: Because You’re Addicted to Sugar,” assistant professor of neuroscience at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and visiting professor of health psychology at Princeton University.

“There have been many studies that have confirmed that sugar can cause changes in the brain and behaviors that are associated with addiction,” Avena told Salon by email. “Some people who overeat sugar meet the diagnostic criteria for substance-abuse disorder, when the substance of abuse is actually sugar.”

RELATED: How Big Tobacco made menthol racial

Avena explained that, like other addictive substances, sugar alters the brain’s reward system in ways that can make a person feel compelled to consume sugary products. A person so altered starts to crave sugar if they go too long without eating it. In its absence, they might even experience withdrawal and other addiction symptoms.

“It is clear that people experience all the core indicators of addiction in their relationship with high-sugar foods, such as a loss of control over consumption, an inability to cut down even when facing stark health consequences, intense cravings, and withdrawal,” Dr. Ashley Gearhardt, associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, wrote to Salon. “We find sugar powerfully rewarding right out of the womb. It activates reward centers of the brain and it is so powerful that we even use it medically to replace opioids for small surgeries in babies.”

Gearhardt added that our brains embrace sugar because we are wired to associate the carbohydrate with calories, and in turn with being less likely to starve. Not starving is undeniably quite sweet, but when you feel that desire to consume excessive sugar, your brain is taking it too far.

“Now we get unnaturally high doses of sugar (often combined with other refined carbohydrates, fats, and salts) in such streamlined junk food packages that our brain just does not quite know what to do with it,”  Gearhardt pointed out. “For some people, this can trigger compulsive patterns of intake that parallel what we see with addictive substances, like tobacco.”

This is not the only way that sugar addiction is similar to other addictions. Just ask anyone who has had to calm down a hyperactive child jazzing on candy: Sugar highs are a very real thing.

“Sugar is effective at releasing dopamine and endogenous opioids in the brain,” Gearhardt explained. “Those neurochemicals are associated both with excitement and a feeling of bliss. The more you develop an addictive relationship with sugar, the more cues themselves also become capable of triggering that same ‘high’ feeling. When you see your favorite sweet treat and anticipate eating it, you may start to feel more pleasure than when you actually consume.”


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


Unfortunately, when you aren’t eating those sugars, your brain notices that those chemicals aren’t being produced in the same way. It notices, and you suffer as a result.

“Chronically overconsuming refined sugar can lead to dependence on the endogenous opioids that are released upon its consumption,” Dr. James DiNicolantonio, the Associate Editor of British Medical Journal’s (BMJ) Open Heart and a cardiovascular research scientist and doctor of pharmacy at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, told Salon by email. “Additionally, the very large spikes in dopamine that occur when overconsuming refined sugar leads to dopamine deficiency in the brain which can create ‘withdrawal’ type symptoms.”

Moving on to “physiological dependence,” DiNicolantonio added that it is dangerous “as this leads to a vicious cycle of sugar highs and lows. The overconsumption of refined sugar is a major contributor to Type 2 diabetes, Fatty Liver Disease, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease.”

Avena made a similar point, listing sugar-related health conditions including metabolic syndrome and cancers. She also noted the mental health toll of struggling to lose weight and having it stubbornly stick to your body.

“Psychologically, many people struggle with the loss of control that can come with eating too much sugar,” Avena said. “Sometimes this can lead to excess body weight that people want to lose, but can’t, because of the addictive nature of sugar.”

Which brings us back to trick-or-treating. Should children be steered away from trick-or-treating — not because of compromised treats, but because of the nature of the treats themselves?

“I would say each person has to make the decision for themselves based on their own relationship with these foods,” Gearhardt told Salon. “One day a year is certainly not going to trigger an addiction or a major health problem. But, if these foods get ‘under your skin’ and you find that one day a year of snacking on Halloween goodies starts to turn into a week, a month, a year and you struggle to get your control back, you might want to proceed with a bit more caution.”

DiNicolantonio echoed Gearhardt’s insight, although he took it a little further.

“Overeating candy for just one night wouldn’t be an issue,” DiNicolantonio wrote to Salon. “However, it’s those occasional treats that end up leading to chronic overconsumption. In other words, for most people it’s best to not consume refined sugar at all. That way you don’t miss it.”

Avena also urged restraint during trick-or-treating, noting that it says something about our culture that we associate with having fun with doing something dangerous to our bodies.

“I love Halloween and think it is a fun holiday, but I don’t love that we have twinned having fun and celebrating with gorging on candy,” Avena suggested. “I think having 1 or 2 pieces of candy is fine, but don’t use Halloween as an excuse to overdo it. You will regret it in the morning, and there are much healthier ways to have a good time.”

Halloween countdown: The best vampire horror movies

It’s almost Halloween! Do you have your costume ready? If not, you really should start preparing, the big day will be here before you know it and everything will be sold out.

“Halloween Kills” is now streaming on Peacock and playing in theaters. It’s a movie franchise that is one of the best slashers to date! But we’re not focusing on slasher movies in this Halloween Countdown edition. We will let Michael Myers have his moment and instead focus on vampires!

There’s a lot that can be done with vampires and as a result, they’re a popular theme used in entertainment. What are your favorite vampire horror movies?

The symbolism around vampires is a mixed bag of sorts, but most of the time they just stand for sin or all things forbidden. My personal favorite thing about vampires is their history. There are rare “documented” cases that are usually the kind of wacky thing you’d see on “American Horror Story.

The best vampire horror movies to watch this Halloween

5. “The Lost Boys”

“The Lost Boys” is about a family of three who relocates to the fictional town of Santa Carla and runs into a vampire-motorcycle gang. Kind of violent, kind of sexy, kind of silly and kind of creepy, “The Lost Boys” has it all as well as a campy atmosphere brought on by serious characters in an otherwise farcical setting.

4. “Thirst”

Based on the French novel “Thérèse Raquin” by Émile Zola, “Thirst” follows Sang-hyun (Song Kang-ho) a Catholic priest that volunteers himself as a test subject for the Emmanuel Virus. As his health quickly declines, he’s given an unknown blood transfusion and becomes the only survivor of the 500 who took part in the study, but it comes with a price. The virus will return and kill him unless he keeps it at bay using human blood.

That’s just the backdrop though, the story really starts once Sang-hyun returns home and falls in love with the wife of his childhood friend Kang-woo (Shin Ha-kyun). The wife, Tae-ju (Kim Ok-bin) lives an unhappy life caring for her dim-witted husband and finds an escape through Sang-hyun’s passion.

3. “What We Do in the Shadows”

A New Zealand horror-comedy written and directed by Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi about three vampire roommates struggling to live in the 21st Century where killing your neighbor is frowned upon. The same way “Shaun of the Dead” put a humorous spin on a zombie apocalypse, “What We Do in the Shadows” just plainly makes fun of “vampire problems.”

If you love it, watch the spinoff “What We Do in the Shadows” on FX (and Hulu).

2. “Let the Right One In”

A Swedish film about the darker side of humanity shown through the loneliness of a young child that displays the effects of extreme anxiety and social isolation, but also the unconditional love between two friendless individuals.

Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) is an odd little boy with homicidal urges, too meek to stand up to the bullies at school, who seeks comfort in his new neighbor Eli (Lina Leandersson), an equally lonely little girl.

1. “Dracula”

“Dracula” is about a young man named Jonathon Harker who has to save his fiance Mina from the Count when he desires for her to become his female companion. It’s up to Harker and Professor Van Helsing to save her.

Widely considered an indomitable classic, it formed the modern vampire stereotypes we still use today and is one of the reasons the Universal Monster franchise exists. Although Lugosi didn’t play the character again until 1948, “Dracula” was given two sequels, “Dracula’s Daughter” and “Son of Dracula,” and had multiple cameos in several other Universal Monster movies; 1944’s “House of Frankenstein,” 1945’s “House of Dracula” and 1948’s comedy “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.”

FDA authorizes Pfizer vaccine for young children

Many elementary school kids could soon have the opportunity to be vaccinated.

On Friday the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 5 to 11. The action is a turning point in the pandemic, and could finally bring some relief to parents of young kids across the country before the holidays.

“It’s an incredibly important tool in the return to normalcy,” Dr. Larry Corey, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, told the New York Times. “To be able to know that your child is protected and not going to get severely ill by going to school is an incredible psychological relief.”

RELATED: How worried should we be about the “delta plus” variant?

The vaccine advisers for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are scheduled to meet next Tuesday and vote in favor of the emergency use authorization (EUA). If all goes as planned, children between the ages of 5 and 11 can start rolling up their sleeves next week. Nearly 28 million children will be eligible, but much of the success of the rollout will hinge on overcoming vaccine hesitancy. A Kaiser survey released this week found about three in 10 parents of 5- to 11-year-olds were eager to vaccinate their children right away. However, one-third said they will take a wait-and-see approach. An additional third said they will definitely not get their 5-11 year-olds vaccinated.


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


The authorization comes after Pfizer submitted its trial data to the FDA, which was reviewed by multiple advisory panels. Last week, the independent vaccine advisory committee to the FDA voted unanimously, with one abstention, in favor of emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The data reviewed came from 2,268 participants ages 5 to 11 who used a two-dose regimen of the vaccine administered 21 days apart, similar to the process for people who are 12 and older. Researchers measured the childrens’ immune response by looking at neutralizing antibody levels in their blood and comparing those levels to a control group of 16- to 25-year-olds who were given a two-dose regimen with a larger dose.

As Salon has previously reported, there is one big difference between the vaccine for people over the age of 11, and those between five and 11: the amount of vaccine administered. Pfizer used a 10-microgram dose for 5- to 11-year-olds, which is far smaller than the 30-microgram dose that has been used for those 12 and older. Pfizer said this smaller dosage demonstrated a “strong immune response in this cohort of children one month after the second dose.”

Why the smaller dosage? It is standard practice to test vaccines on older children first, because children of different ages can have a different response to the vaccine. The goal of clinical trials with children is to find a balance between age and dosage of the vaccine in which a strong immune response is triggered without too many side effects. The variables in a clinical trial with children are different.

“Children’s immune systems are different — they’ve had prior exposures, their immune systems may not be as experienced, and children also weigh less than older individuals,” Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, previously told Salon. “Getting the dose right is important, and we know that with some vaccines, what you need to do is give a higher dose of the vaccine in younger children because they haven’t been exposed to the antigen — the active component of the vaccine previously. In other cases you give a lower dose, because it’s more weight-based.”

As far as reported side effects go, they were similar to those experienced by the 12 and older set: soreness at the site of injection, fever, headache, and fatigue, all of which lasted between 24 and 48 hours. Notably, there were no cases of myocarditis in the trial of young children.

More stories you might like:

Two dozen ex-Republican lawmakers rip Trump for “likely central” role in Capitol insurrection

Two dozen Republicans are among 66 former members of Congress who’ve signed a brief urging a federal judge to reject Donald Trump’s efforts to block a House committee from accessing the former president’s White House records.

Politico reported Thursday night that the brief “contends that no possible argument about executive privilege could overcome Congress’ need for documents to probe the violent attack on the Capitol — one fueled by Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.”

“From what is publicly known, it is clear that Donald Trump played an outsized — and likely central — role in orchestrating the events that gave rise to the January 6th attack,” states the brief, which was expected to be filed Friday. “And many, and perhaps most, of the various means he used or contemplated are documented in the records the Committee seeks and are still not known.”


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


The brief, filed under the umbrella of Protect Democracy, further alleges that “Trump’s ability to assert executive privilege is limited to acts he took in his official capacity as president — not in service of his reelection or private campaign-related business,” according to Politico.

“Senate Minority Leader McConnell explained, the efforts to overturn the election were not the official acts of a President; they were ‘a disgraceful dereliction of duty,'” the brief states. “The executive privilege does not apply, thus ending the inquiry and dooming the motion presently before the Court.”

Read more here.

RELATED STORIES:

How Big Tobacco made menthol racial

Keith Wailoo opens his engrossing new book with a vintage Dave Chapelle sketch, and a line from an imagined quiz show called “I Know Black People.” A contestant just has to answer a question, “Why do Black people love Menthols so much?” She gets it right with her response — “I don’t know.”

It’s a clever setup for the author’s social — and often and personal — answer to that question, a history of the evolution of targeted tobacco marketing, and how the industry strategically created a demand and then peddled their product to Black America. Its a story with roots that stretch back a century, through the political movements of the sixties through the death of Eric Garner and right up to the present day — just this year, the Biden administration sparked controversy by announcing a proposed ban on the flavoring in cigarettes.

Salon spoke recently to Wailoo,a Henry Putnam University Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, about his new book “Pushing Cool: Big Tobacco, Racial Marketing, and the Untold Story of the Menthol Cigarette.”

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You write about and explore from a public health perspective and from a race perspective. But what was it that made you want to draw on what you saw and observed growing up and expand it into this really unique investigation?

The things that you encounter when you’re a young person, they’re very informative, and they stay with you. It’s really sometimes only with the passage of time that you can think back, maybe sometimes with nostalgia and longing. For me, it was the difference between going to elementary and middle school in the Bronx and Queens, and then in high school, moving out to a suburban town in New Jersey. It’s reflecting on what that experience was like as an academic who is interested in issues how health is shaped by one’s environment. It’s that reflecting on your childhood and realizing that the messaging was starkly different in terms of the environment that one navigated every day.


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


Now as a person who works on the history of race and health, I’ve long studied this through the lens of things like how cancer trends change over the course of the 20th century. Those changes in cancer trends are the byproduct of those issues, like where you live and smoking trends. There’s a hidden history there.

I didn’t know the way that the menthol cigarette was developed first as a kind of healthy and soothing alternative. Can you talk a little bit about that and about the early genesis of the menthol cigarette in America?

If you are familiar with today’s menthol discussion, you think it’s a cigarette brand that has been racially marked and the targeted racial marketing has defined its market. But if you’re really trying to figure out the full history, you realize that it has its origins in this experience that is woven into lots of different products early in the 20th century — lozenges, ointments. The public comes to an awareness of menthol as therapy, as a product that purports — it doesn’t really do this — to break up congestion and open the airways. The industry realizes the growth of the smoking market in the 1920s after World War I has produced a huge growth in smokers, but it’s also produced something called smokers’ throat, the almost omnipresent cough. And a small company and then another larger company discovered that by taking this substance, menthol, and weaving it into a tobacco product, you can actually sell the idea that a menthol smoke is a way of calming smokers’ throat.

It has this therapeutic promise. The idea that the menthol market starts with a kind of deceitful idea, that it’s therapy, really helps to explain how this niche market emerges as a kind of a solution to the problem of smoking itself.

So even before you get to the kind of racialization of menthol smoking, the industry understood the the social psychology of brand choice, And that menthol had this health promise that even then they knew really it didn’t deliver on. Because very early on, the scientists could tell you that menthol is not a decongestant, it doesn’t open your airways. What it has is this deceptive sensation. If you’ve ever eaten a York Peppermint Pattie or sucked on a menthol lozenge, you feel that rush of what seems like cool air sweeping down your nose and your throat. People associate that with the expanding of the airways. It turns out that it’s just a trick of how menthol works on the brain, but it was enough to sell these products as therapeutic.

Menthol cigarettes are really a textbook example in the way that you can create a taste for something. You can create a desirability for something that is, I’m going to say, objectively disgusting, to cultivate an addiction.

It speaks to the way in which psychology and psychologists were very, very involved in the idea of acquired tastes or cultivated tastes or manufactured tastes. The advertising industry, which was coming into its own in the 1920s and 1930s, understands that what you’re selling is something that needs to intersect with people’s identity. You’re selling a sense of security. You are taking something, as you say, that’s objectively odd. Why would you want this experience? What’s interesting about the early Spud cigarette ads is how they decide, rather than sell people on something that you would like them to love at first smoke, teach them how to learn to love it.

RELATED: Here comes trouble: an anti-tobacco hero’s complicated legacy

There’s a Pavlovian psychology at work here. Dogs don’t salivate at the ringing of the bell the first time. You have to teach dogs that the ringing of the bell is associated with food coming. This is very much the kind of Pavlovian psychology that’s at work in thinking about markets in this time period, which is that you have to teach people how to associate positive experiences with something that is objectively off putting. That’s where the health promise comes in. The idea that you’re getting something of value from this experience, and this is what the industry does extraordinarily well.

Then a couple of decades pass. As the generation of smokers starts to age, you have an identity problem for a brand, which is that then it is seen as older and uncool. This is part of where this new targeting comes in, and it becomes something very, very different.

It goes through a couple of really curious shifts. First there is Kool, having been on the market one of the longest times, and has this old, medication association for an earlier generation. Then Salem comes out from RJR in the mid 1950s and goes straight at promising something new to a new generation in an era when people are looking for something “safe.” Because it’s really not safe.

Into the early 1960s, there’s this new tension over the fact that menthols are on the rise, and which of these brands is going to succeed. The really curious thing happens with the makers of Kool in the context of the second Surgeon General’s report in early 1964, which creates another, what’s called the cancer scare.

On the one hand, the cancer scare creates a lot of pressure from government to reduce youth smoking and to press the industry to not court young smokers as aggressively. It’s really at this moment that the makers of Kool make the calculated decision to compensate for those lost markets. You can’t do what had been really central in building youthful menthol markets in the early 1960s. That’s where they make the decision to aggressively advertise, in the summer of 1964, in Black newspapers around the country. They take the same motifs of upward mobility that had been part of their regular advertising, but they really push it aggressively in the context of the civil rights movement. They make and transform Kool into a product that speaks in many ways to broader ideas about coolness, but also African American consumer trends. It’s a calculated risk on their part that works out, and with the endorsement and support of Black periodicals like Ebony magazine, who need the advertising dollars, periodicals.

Kool really recasts itself in this way, very aggressively through Black media. Then as they succeed, and I’m talking about modestly succeeding, what happens in the ’60s that’s particularly dramatic is other companies move aggressively into the urban inner city marketing of menthol brands along lines of race. In some ways , one company that leads the way, and it becomes a pretty intensive rush at a time when menthol brands are themselves proliferating.

In 1960, you had less than ten menthol brands, and by 1970 you had upwards of thirty menthol brands. So a number of companies are getting into the menthol race and pitching menthols to Black Americans, and pitching that in cities, which are demographically changing with urban migration, white flight, et cetera, et cetera. It’s a complicated game that the industry starts playing in the menthol space that leads to the racialization.

Then there’s exploitation of that, where then it becomes, we want the “lower income” smokers. And there then becomes a very calculated association with, menthol cigarettes are going to be about drugs, they’re going to be about all of these other peripherals that the tobacco industry associates with a particular place and a particular community.

One of the most shocking findings in this book, but also one of the most shocking themes in the history of menthol is the explicitness with which what we call exploitation today is understood in really negative terms. They use the word “exploitation” to talk about exactly this use of Black pride to find markets in cities. One of the shocking documents that I have from St. Louis is from 1967, where a company is explaining to the makers of Camel how you create markets in urban St. Louis by appealing to Black pride, yes, but also appealing to generational pride as in, young people don’t want what their parents want.

Then they go deeper and they explain that young Black consumers don’t get information from television, don’t get information from the president of the board of education. They get information from what are called centers of influence, and that could be barbers or bellhops or bartenders. So you have to identify what are called cell groups, or particular influencers, in the language that we use today and give them free product and have them distribute your product. That way you are cultivating prestige and insider information. These documents, they read like, well, this is what pushing looks like, which is why the book is called “Pushing Cool.” They’re looking at not just images on billboards, but the structure of communities and how you influence behavior. Company after company is doing this in the 1960s through the 1970s.

On the one hand, if they were studying Black communities in an effort to influence behavior that was health promoting, then you’d admire the detailed analysis of how you shape behaviors. But this was all in service of really selling products that were already still carrying this deceitful health message. They study things like drug use to understand what is the connection between the increasing use of marijuana or harder drugs and menthol use, and maybe that’s also our market.

There is a moment where things begin to shift and there becomes a self-awareness and really questioning about what these cigarettes mean to Black American consumers. What happened with Uptown?

Uptown is fascinating story. I should say there’s a little bit of a precursor to it because, one of the continuing ironies of the story is whenever there’s regulation against the industry to limit its market more broadly, that is often followed by this intensive effort to cultivate even more directly Black inner city smokers. The reason why the Uptown story needs a little bit of a setup is that the banning of cigarette advertising on the television and radio led the industry to redouble its efforts with things like urban billboards and posters on public transportation to move even more aggressively than it ever had into the urban space.At the same time, the industry is continuing to lose a broad market.

Cigarette consumption is declining nationwide, partly because of the things like the limiting of advertising, the limiting of things like indoor smoking. The public health infrastructure is growing to limit smoking. And what Uptown represents is an effort to say, well, look, rather than doing this under the radar signaling to Black smokers, let’s just come right out and say, we are making a Black themed menthol cigarette. They really do believe that this is going to be a winning argument. The analogy they make is with Nike. They say, well, if Nike can advertise sneakers directly for Black youths, why can’t we advertise a cigarette for Blacks? And it really runs into a buzzsaw of criticism.

Most surprisingly to them is from Louis Sullivan, an African-American physician, who is then the secretary of Health and Human Services under George Herbert Walker Bush. From a Republican administration, but a physician, and a Black man, he’s dedicated his life to kind of improving the health of African Americans, he goes right at the industry in a scathing fashion. In some ways, that plus the reaction of pastors and activists, turns the tables on the industry. Already there was a kind of increasing dismay and anger about the prevalence of billboards in cities, that cities had become a kind of a place that was dominated by ad for liquor and cigarettes.

You might say that the Uptown story became a catalyst for a public health activism that took aim at targeted marketing, that took aim at billboards and their prevalence in Black communities, and really did end up reshaping the landscape both physically, but also reshaping the landscape of public health activism to take on this targeted marketing. Uptown started off as this RJR thinking that they were just going to be frank, and it turns out that that frank honesty ended up being revealing in a way that ultimately helped to energize the forces of public health.

This takes us right to the near present, and how when you have something that is identified culturally so strongly, things get really sticky and complicated. That brings us to when Bill de Blasio and Al Sharpton wind up on two very different sides of the aisle about what to do about menthol cigarettes. I want to ask about that debate, and what that says about how do we move forward with being sensitive, being advocates for public health, but also understanding those cultural implications?

In some ways we’re living today with the consequences of a decision that Congress did not make in 2008-2009, when in this really dramatic moment in the history of tobacco, the US Congress passed a law that finally gave the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco regulation. It’s amazing that we had practically an entire century where a leading substance, a leading drug, was not under the jurisdiction of FDA. What Congress did at that moment was also ban flavored cigarettes, or what were called characterizing flavors. That is, things that were obviously used as deceitful enticements, particularly to young people to start smoking. But because of the shrewdness of the industry in supporting African American legislators, the Congressional Black Caucus, and therefore the Democrats, split on the question of whether menthol should be exempted.

Menthol has been existing in this different terrain than other flavored cigarettes. It was exempted, but the FDA was told that it had the jurisdiction to decide. Congress basically punted the question rather than deciding on a ban. The de Blasio-Sharpton discussion is a carryover from this discussion that happened in 2009 and has been riding along for the last decade or so.

Most Black people don’t smoke, but of the African Americans who smoke, they overwhelmingly prefer menthol products compared to white people who smoke. The industry has been successful at cultivating the idea that that’s not a byproduct of exploitation or targeted marketing or illegitimate shaping of preferences; it’s an authentic preference that expresses a Black consumer desire. They have been really successful at selling that message in order to protect their market. It has been a successful argument for many, many years. But it is losing its power. Whereas the NAACP was really on the side of the industry ten or fifteen years ago, they have since flipped and said, no, menthols are just generally bad and ought to be banned. What you have with Al Sharpton is, he’s maybe one of the last holdouts among prominent leading African American political figures who is willing to argue for the industry.

The irony is that the argument that he found that carried the day in New York when they were contemplating a ban was not the argument that Black people prefer menthols. It was the argument that was tailored to a Black lives matter moment, which is that Eric Garner was strangled by a police officer for selling loose cigarettes on the corner in Staten island. And that if menthols were banned, it would produce a Black market that would put more young African American men at risk for engaging in illicit illegal activity. That’s the kind of the last gasp, to use a smoking metaphor, of the opponents of menthol ban.  

More Salon public health stories: 

Former Fox News reporter slams Tucker Carlson’s Jan. 6 special: A “betrayal to the public”

An ex-Fox News reporter has slammed his former network and accused it of betraying its viewers by airing Tucker Carlson’s upcoming segment on the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Speaking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Carl Cameron weighed in on the highly controversial trailer for the “Patriot Purge” which highlights a number of baseless conspiracy theories suggesting the Capitol riots were part of a “false flag operation,” according to The HuffPost.

Following the insurrection, the U.S. Department of Justice charged hundreds of individuals for their participation in the deadly riots that followed former President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally. In the aftermath, Trump was also impeached for a second time in connection with the incitement of a riot.

According to Cameron, Carlson’s trailer may also lead to the same outcome: incitement of anger. “There’s whole a bunch of extraordinary madness involved in this,” Cameron told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. “Tucker’s trailer is meant to incite, it’s meant to make people angry.”

https://youtu.be/oyvk74X6Q3Y

Cameron’s latest remarks only add to his concerns about the misinformation being circulated by members of the far-right. While Cameron and Anderson surmised that they are unsure of how deep Carlson’s segment will dive in the world of conspiracy, he did insist it is “really frightening and, frankly, it’s a betrayal to the audience, it’s a betrayal to the public.”

“Some of what is espoused or is meant to espouse just in that trailer suggests that there is more violence to come,” Cameron said. “And that’s a big, big rock around the author’s neck if that trailer and this upcoming thing actually does that. There are clearly huge divides in this country, the media shouldn’t be putting more gas on the fire.”

Carlson’s “Patriot Purge” is scheduled to air on Monday, November 1.

 

Twitter’s algorithm amplifies conservatives. It might be the mockery they inspire

Twitter acknowledges publicly that its algorithm tends to disproportionately amplify right-wing politicians — and social media experts are quick to blame human nature for engaging more with right-wing populism than dry news coverage for the disparity.

But what if that’s not the whole truth, either?

A new study into the phenomenon suggests that something else may be at play, with conservative politicians’ content being amplified largely by good, old fashioned mockery.

Researchers at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics already collect a 10 percent random sample of Twitter every day. For this study, which they discussed in The Washington Post, the scientists used that sample to study retweets from members of Congress that have been published since the start of 2021.

From there, they used a metric familiar to most Twitter users: the ratio. 

For those blissfully unaware of the Twitter slang at play, a “ratio” refers to the disparity between replies (quote tweets or replies) and straight engagement (likes and retweets). Conventional wisdom on the platform holds that a high “ratio” indicates that people are generally reacting poorly to the content in question — though the platform counts all of it as an indication of users’ interest, and boosts its reach regardless of the type of response a piece of content garners.

Perhaps the most notable finding from the report is that the most ratioed politicians have been the ones most disliked by liberals. At the top are the two Democrats accused of disloyalty to President Joe Biden’s agenda, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. They are followed on the list by 18 Republican legislators, from Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California.

The only Republican in that group who is arguably more disliked by the right than the left is Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who has stood out as being among the few high-ranking Republican officials to publicly oppose former President Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election and foment a coup.

The study also found that, in a statistically significant way, tweets with conservative ideas generally had higher ratios than those with liberal ones. The authors are quick to emphasize that this does not mean:

  1. Being conservative on Twitter will cause you to get ratioed 
  2. Conservative politicians get disproportionately amplified because their tweets are more likely to be ratioed

Which brings us to the point: If Twitter’s algorithm is designed to amplify content that is receiving tremendous engagement, it may do so even when the attention is unflattering.


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


“What our study contributes to the conversation is that, when platforms design algorithms that show individuals content using some sort of ranking or engagement, it’s not just what the people publishing the content are actually posting, but also how people choose to interact with the content,” Megan A. Brown, a research scientist at the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University and a co-author of the study, told Salon. “Even if the content is drawing a lot of negative reactions, it can be amplified.”

Jonathan Nagler, a professor of politics and the co-director for the Center for Social and Politics at New York University and a co-author of the study, addressed the question of whether Twitter users should worry that they are helping spread ideas they dislike by interacting with the posts. Does the mere act of making something more visible also give it credibility?

“That’s not something we’re directly addressing here, and we don’t try to measure that, but I think it’s important to realize what literally is being amplified here,” Nagler told Salon. “We think, since the whole point here was to look at tweets that were ratios, is that we’re looking at things that are essentially dunking on the tweet. It may be that someone who sees a tweet that says the earth is flat thinks the person is foolish. We don’t think that [seeing them] necessarily adds to the credibility of the person who tweeted it.”

Twitter’s content moderation policies have become a political lightning rod since Trump’s ascent to power. In May last year, after Twitter added fact-checks to a pair of Trump tweets that used misinformation to try to undermine the 2020 election, Trump publicly attacked the platform and threatened to shut them down. (Legal scholars told Salon at the time that doing so would violate the First Amendment, and even his threat would be “likely to chill freedom of expression.”)

After the attempted Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Twitter banned him altogether, and has also reduced the influence of far right extremist voices through similar crackdowns.

Meta and the Facebook Papers: Why Mark Zuckerberg has nothing to fear

With great fanfare on Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced his company’s much-anticipated name change. While he sidestepped some of the more obvious possibilities — “The Borg” or “The Matrix” come to mind — the name that was eventually settled on, Meta, proved to be no less ominous. That was doubly so because Zuckerberg’s vision for the company’s future was to create a “metaverse,” which he has described as an “embodied internet” and “a persistent, synchronous environment.” Casey Newton at The Verge described it as “a more maximalist version of Facebook, spanning social presence, office work, and entertainment.” One does get the strong impression that Zuckerberg envisions a future where people never unplug from his metaverse, putting them under very non-stop corporate surveillance for profit

It’s an especially sinister move at the current moment, as the company is under international scrutiny for its already overpowering presence in people’s lives. A former Facebook employee named Frances Haugen has been releasing a steady stream of leaked documents showing that Facebook knew its social media networks were being used to spread misinformation, stoke often genocidal levels of conflict, and undermine people’s mental health — but did little to nothing about it.


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


All of that negativity keeps people engaged in the site, making the company more money. In one particularly telling example, the site weighted “angry” emoji responses five times more than “like” emoji responses in the algorithm. The company also allowed troll farms trying to tilt the 2020 campaign to reach 140 million users on the eve of the election. 

In light of all of this, it’s tempting to imagine the company’s name change is a clean-up effort, even as company spokespeople deny that’s the case.

Certainly, the word in the media coverage is that Facebook (do we have to call it Meta?) is facing what CNN describes as “the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company’s 17-year history.” Politico even reports that “congressional aides involved in efforts to regulate the tech companies say they are fed up with Facebook’s government relations strategy,” and that doors “across Capitol Hill are shutting on Facebook’s army of lobbyists.” And stock prices have taken a minor hit, though there are conflicting reports suggesting that it might be more a reaction to Facebook’s declining reach in the youth population than any real worry that these scandals will affect the company’s bottom line. 

RELATED: Facebook whistleblower exposes a dark reality: Right wing disinformation is popular — and profitable

After all, as Felix Salmon of Axios wrote on Tuesday, taking a look over the past five years, “Facebook’s revenues — and its stock — have been soaring” in response to non-stop scandals. Indeed, he argues, the moral outrage is likely making Facebook more attractive to investors, because the scandals prove that, “[g]iven the choice between commercial and moral imperatives,” Zuckerberg will go with the latter nearly every time. 

It will not surprise readers to learn that this is a chronic problem in capitalist economies: Doing the wrong thing is often doing the profitable thing. When making money is the priority, other values — like preserving democracy or preventing genocides — typically fly out of the window. But this is why “We the People” have vested in our government the power to regulate commerce. It’s the only way basic human decency has a fighting chance against the imperative to line Zuckerberg’s flush pockets with more ill-gotten gains. 

But let’s face it: Investors aren’t foolish if they continue to act as if there’s no chance in hell that the behemoth social network will face serious consequences for anti-social behavior. On the contrary, anyone taking a look at Capitol Hill right now would be surprised if that American leadership could reliably regulate a dodgeball game, much less an international company that is eroding our collective faith in humanity. 

RELATED: Facebook stonewalls Biden on stopping vaccine disinformation — because right-wing lies are enriching

For one thing, Republicans control both the federal judiciary and half the seats in the Senate — and due to the filibuster, they can block all major legislation of the sort that would likely be necessary to truly tackle the Facebook problem. They have no interest in stopping Facebook from being evil. They are the major beneficiaries of Facebook’s evil. Facebook bests even Fox News in being a conduit for the right-wing misinformation that helps the GOP undermine our democracy and install themselves permanently in power. 

Democrats are technically supposed to be in charge, holding a slim Senate majority, a less slim majority in the House, and the White House. But even with all this power, it’s becoming quite clear that Democrats have a serious “getting stuff done” problem. They can’t pass basic voting rights protections, so it’s hard to imagine them tackling the more novel problem of regulating the chaos on the internet. 


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


The problem comes back to corruption.

Corporate interests don’t need to buy up all of Capitol Hill. Just capturing a few key Democratic senators — as Big Pharma has done with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and fossil fuel interests have done with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — will do the trick. Sinema has successfully stripped out what is probably the most popular provision in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, a mechanism by which to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Manchin has done similar damage to popular provisions to force electric companies to embrace green energy. It clearly doesn’t matter what the public wants when Democrats are so helpless to overcome their own bad actors. Facebook investors have eyes, and they can see that. 

To be fair, the situation is not utterly hopeless. Former Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer, in his Wednesday Message Box newsletter, outlined steps that Democrats can take to rein Facebook in. While he does hold out a faint hope of legislation, Pfeiffer also suggests more realistic alternatives. The “Securities and Exchange Commission can undertake an investigation to see whether Facebook misled investors,” he argued. And the Federal Trade Commission can break up Facebook under existing anti-trust laws. 

There is also the possibility of governments in other countries — or the European Union — taking stricter actions against Facebook. Haugen has already thought of this and is currently touring Europe with her whistleblower show, clearly hoping regulators there won’t be as impotent as the U.S. government.

There’s also the possibility of states trying to pass regulations. California’s recently passed privacy law is affecting how internet companies track users across the country, and more changes are expected. 

Still, the situation is grim. Facebook is an American company and there are limits on how much international law can affect how it’s organized and run. But Zuckerberg has proved, time and again, that he cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it conflicts with his profit motive. Yet politicians at a federal level look like they’re powerless against a company they supposedly have a legal right to regulate. So, as much fun as it is to imagine Facebook will be toppled by this deluge of scandals, right now, the smart bet is that they’ll come out on the other end of this doing just fine. The rest of the world, however, won’t be so lucky. 

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, vocal Trump critic, says he won’t run for re-election

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of former President Donald Trump’s most outspoken critics, announced Friday that he will not be seeking reelection in 2022.

This past year, Kinzinger received particular attention for being one of 10 House Republicans to vote in favor of impeaching Trump for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and as one of two Republicans to sit on the committee to investigate the Capitol attacks, alongside fellow GOP rep. Liz Cheney. 

Now, he joins Ohio’s Anthony Gonzalez in stepping away from Congress, choosing not to battle it out in the 2022 elections. In a five-minute video statement posted to Twitter, Kinzinger explained his decision not to seek reelection, recalling a time during his first campaign where he made a promise to himself: “I also remember during that campaign saying that if I ever thought it was time to move on from Congress, I would,” he said. “And that time is now.”

But the redistribution of congressional maps likely also played a large part in his decision.

Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois, has served in Congress since 2010 – initially as the representative for the state’s 11th congressional district, and later its 16th congressional district following a merger between the two. But a similar electoral rezoning on Thursday night essentially quashed Kinzinger’s chances of a seventh term, with Illinois Democrats adopting a new congressional map that eliminated the Republican-majority district he has represented for a decade.

And while Kinzinger said he stands “tall and proud” for sticking to his convictions throughout his political career, he also shared criticisms of his party.

Kinzinger has been vocal about misinformation spread by his colleagues – in particular, those who continue to tout QAnon conspiracy theories – and echoed his discontentment with fellow party members in his statement.

“My disappointment in the leaders that don’t lead is huge,” he said. “The battlefield must be broader and the truth needs to reach the American people across the whole country.” 


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


And he is not the first to point out the divisions amongst the Republican party. In Gonzalez’s statement last month explaining why he will not be seeking reelection, he cited the “toxic dynamics” within the party. Kinzinger largely reiterated his sentiments, explaining that to “prevail or survive” in the current political environment, “you must belong to a tribe.” Something he has evidently not been willing to do. 

He did, however, express admiration for his fellow GOP members who voted to “impeach a President of their own party, knowing it could be detrimental to their political career.” But it doesn’t seem that this departure marks the end of Kinzinger’s own, hinting at the possibility of seeking higher office.

“It has also become increasingly obvious to me that in order to break the narrative, I cannot focus on both a reelection to Congress and a broader fight nationwide,” he said. “I want to make it clear, this isn’t the end of my political future, but the beginning.”

 

TV dinner: 5 of our best stories about the intersection between what we eat and what we watch

Throughout my career, I’ve always been fascinated by how what we consume — food, television, books, music — says so much about us. It’s probably why I’ve worked as both a culture writer and a food writer, and why I remain unfalteringly interested in the depiction of food on television. 

Through the lens of television, food can be so many things. It can be an aesthetic choice, a metaphor, a character-building device or even a character itself. The intersection between what we watch and what we eat is deeper than most people think, though it has become more obvious in recent years as the number of food television programs has skyrocketed. 

Here are five of our best stories about that intersection, from investigating the culinary capacity of the “Star Trek” replicator to the enduring legacy of pop culture’s meat and potatoes man. 

In the world of Star Trek, would people still cook even though they have access to a replicator?

If people didn’t have to cook, would they still find themselves experimenting in the kitchen? That’s the question that Amanda Marcotte — as well as copious writers for the various iterations of “Star Trek” — pondered as she dove into the use of the replicator on the series.

“So long as it’s programmed into their nearly-infinite memory databanks, the characters on Star Trek can have whatever food or drink they want at the push of a button,” Marcotte wrote. “No one has a kitchen, and no characters need even basic kitchen skills, like toasting bread or chopping vegetables.” 

Should humans find themselves in a future that resembles “Star Trek,” would they engage in cooking as a creative endeavor? Would they lapse into push-of-a-button meal preparation? It’s fascinating to consider. 


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


How did Chemex, the coffee-making darling of the 60s, earn a recurring spot on “Friends”?

On the very first episode of “Friends,” Rachel pours Joey and Chandler coffee from a coffee brewer known as a Chemex — and from that moment on, the coffeemaker was a recurring character on the series which ran from 1994 to 2004. However, as Ashley Rodriguez writes, the Chemex wasn’t a product of the 90s; it was invented in the 40s and was a standby in homes throughout the 50s and 60s. 

So, how did it secure a longstanding place on Monica and Rachel’s countertop? Rodriguez speaks with a barista, stylist and production designer to get to the bottom of that question. 

Hoagies, Wawa and that funeral spread: The stories told by the food in “Mare of Easttown” 

When “Mare of Easttown” first debuted, one of the first things people noticed — beyond the fantastic storytelling, of course — was the accent. The next thing was definitely the food. For a gray-scale show about a murder mystery that consumes an entire town, there sure is a lot of attention paid to the items on the characters’ countertops and dinner plates. 

Sometimes the food serves as a geographic indicator, as in the case of the hoagies. Sometimes they say something about the characters themselves, like Mare drinking Rolling Rock while everyone else grabbed Yuengling. Regardless, as I wrote, there’s more to the innumerable cups of Wawa coffee than initially meets the eye.

Not just Paris: How did the “celebrity who can’t cook” become food TV’s fastest growing genre?

Like basically everyone amid the pandemic, it seems that Paris Hilton decided to spend more time in the kitchen. She made her culinary attempts public, initially, through a YouTube series called “Cooking with Paris” in which she made her now-infamous “Sliving Lasagna.” (For the uninitiated, “sliving” is Hilton’s portmanteau for “slaying” and “living.”) 

She provided tips like the “towel trick” — in which cooks can wipe excess salt out of a bowl using a dampened paper towel — and wearing oversized sunglasses while cutting onions to prevent running mascara. The final product looks pretty appealing, honestly, but over the course of the 15-minute video, Hilton mostly just demonstrated her lack of cooking proficiency. 

Several months later, she expanded the concept to a full fledged Netflix series of the same name that leans both into camp and into Hilton’s overwhelming inability to complete a meal with snags. 

But Hilton isn’t the only celebrity who is inexperienced in the kitchen whom the streaming gods have graced with their own cooking series.

From country music to “Kevin Can F**k Himself,” the politics of pop culture’s meat and potatoes man

The “meat and potatoes” man is a trope that has been woven throughout television and pop culture history — from “The Andy Griffith Show” to Tig Notaro’s “One Mississippi” to the AMC hit “Kevin Can F**k Himself” It ties into the longstanding conflation of meat and masculinity, as well as cultural and societal beliefs about pretension, nostalgic Americana and what folks consider to be “real food.” 

 

Fighting to preserve Trump’s legacy: Manchin and Sinema cement his only legislative achievement

Joe Biden was scheduled to fly off to the United Nations Climate Change conference on Thursday morning but delayed the trip long enough to go up to Capitol Hill to tell the House Democrats that an agreement had been reached on a “framework” for his big Build Back Better bill. He told Democrats on the Hill, “I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that the House and Senate majorities and my Presidency will be determined by what happens in the next week.” No pressure there. But he’s right. You would think they already know that, but apparently, it had to be said.

Biden reportedly got a standing ovation from the caucus and he no doubt got on Air Force One feeling very optimistic that his pitch of a 1.75 trillion dollar “framework” had been accepted and the legislation would be waiting on his desk when he returned. The deal was immediately hailed as a major achievement with people such as Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen saying, “any one of the proposals contained in this framework — childcare, climate change investments, universal pre-K — would be a remarkable achievement, but together, they represent something truly historic: a new period of investment in economic growth for all Americans across the country.” Former President Barack Obama weighed in with some sage words about the process, tweeting, “in a country as large and diverse as ours, progress can often feel frustrating and slow, with small victories accompanied by frequent setbacks. But once in a while, it’s still possible to take a giant leap forward. That’s what the Build Back Better framework represents.”

Climate journalist David Roberts tweeted:

Unfortunately, it appears that the president should have also made a stopover at the Senate to ensure that the two Senate prima donnas, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both Democrats, were still on board.

Air Force One hadn’t even left the tarmac before both Sinema and Manchin issued vague, non-committal statements implying they hadn’t signed on to the framework at all. As usual, they didn’t really spell out any objections, just imperiously threw their weight around. If one didn’t know better one might think they are just obstructing for the sheer joy of driving everyone crazy.

That is not to say they aren’t highly regarded among their peers for what they are doing:

No doubt Mitch McConnell toasted both Sinema and Manchin with a fine Kentucky bourbon as well. The more this continues, the greater his chances of being back in the chief obstructionist office come 2023.

After it became clear that the Diva twins were still preening, the House progressives naturally felt a little bit stung. The “framework” is obviously still up in the air and until those two say they agree, progressives in the House are not going to vote for the infrastructure bill that’s already passed the Senate. It’s all they’ve got to ensure Manchin or Sinema don’t wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to blow up the whole thing. And even with that, it’s unclear whether either of them care about passing anything (Manchin was reported to have told Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders that he would be “comfortable” with zero spending so …)

Pelosi asked House progressives not to embarrass the president by refusing to vote for the infrastructure bill while he is overseas on an important trip and his credibility with foreign leaders is on the line. It’s hard, however, for him to claim that America is operating normally and he will deliver on his promises when two recalcitrant members of his own party are destroying his domestic agenda. The progressives weren’t moved, and Pelosi had to delay the vote until next week.

It’s not the end of the world, however.

There does seem to have been substantial progress and they are all going to spend the next few days looking at the details of the framework that is finally being presented. No doubt there will be many questions and complaints but there will at least be something concrete to argue about. Basically, what we are seeing are which remnants of the original proposal are left after the two high-handed senators cut out whatever they didn’t like for reasons that we may never fully understand.

The two senators nixed the tax increases on the wealthy, for instance. Manchin couldn’t even go along with taxing billionaires because it’s not fair to demonize such wonderful “job creators.” Biden’s proposed capital gains tax and end to stepped-up basis are gone as well and they won’t even be allowed to bolster the IRS so that it can crackdown on tax cheats. I guess they’re job creators too. In fact, Donald Trump’s only legislative achievement will have been secured by the Democrats — his massive tax cuts for the rich will pretty much remain intact. No doubt McConnell raised a glass of that sweet Kentucky bourbon over that as well.

The saddest and most foolish of all, from both a policy and a political standpoint, is the jettisoning of paid family leave, Medicare benefits expansion and negotiating prescription drug prices, a promise the Democrats have failed to deliver since they ran and won the majority on that issue back in 2006. These are programs with constituencies that will fight to retain those benefits when the Republicans try to repeal them in the future. What a missed political opportunity. And what a shame that the American people will be denied such vital necessities in order to salve the egos of two Senators.

There are some very good things in what’s left in the bill, however:

  • The largest expansion of public education in a hundred years with universal Pre-K
  • Extension of the child tax credit, a massive anti-poverty measure
  • $555 Billion for climate change, which represents barely any reduction from the original proposal.
  • A major expansion of health care coverage to people who live in states that refused to expand Medicaid and lower premiums through the ACA exchanges.
  • Subsidized child care, home care for seniors, free school meals, affordable housing funding and more.
  • Higher taxes on billion-dollar corporations

When you add that on to the 1.9 trillion in the American Rescue Plan and the big infrastructure plan, you are looking at a successful progressive agenda under quite difficult circumstances. That’s if they manage to pass it.

The good news is that the players seem to be more upbeat about the possibility than I’ve seen for some time. Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz tweeted this at the end of the day on Thursday:

When asked why he felt that, he said he couldn’t reveal it. Let’s hope that optimism isn’t misplaced. It’s time to get it done. 

Pro-pharma Democrats kill bill to lower drug costs — advocates ask: “What did they get for that?”

It was the “ugliest night” the late Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, said he had witnessed in two decades in politics. That came when members of his party allied with Big Pharma orchestrated a daring late-night coup in 2003, ramming through a bill written by industry lobbyists that would shower hundreds of billions on drug companies. Health care advocates experienced flashbacks this week when Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and a group of House Democrats aligned with pharmaceutical lobbyists effectively torpedoed their own party’s efforts to claw back more than $400 billion in prescription-drug costs for consumers and taxpayers.

The White House on Thursday dropped a plan to at least partially reverse the 2003 Republican-backed law banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices after progressives balked at a last-minute bid by Sinema and other pharma-allied Democrats to add industry-friendly protections and massive restrictions on any potential negotiations.

“I am not going to sell out my district,” vowed Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., for a bill championed by lawmakers “who bow down to Big Pharma.”

Leslie Dach, chair of the health care advocacy group Protect Our Care, accused the group of “moderate” Democrats who killed the bill this week of “basically doing the handiwork of pharma and standing against patients.” 

The new White House framework marks a massive setback to years of Democratic efforts to undo the damage from an 18-year-old provision championed by pharmaceutical industry ally Rep. Billy Tauzin, a Louisiana Democrat-turned-Republican who then wielded immense power as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The legislation extended prescription drug coverage to tens of millions of Medicare recipients — but required them to buy drugs from private insurers and banned Medicare from negotiating bulk price discounts. After months of negotiations, Tauzin and Republican leaders backed by the drug companies dropped the 1,000-page bill in the middle of the night and gave members just hours to vote on it.

“The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill,” Jones told “60 Minutes” in 2007. “The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning.” (Jones died in 2019.)

Republican leaders even allowed hundreds of lobbyists onto the House floor to whisper promises or threats in members’ ears, after realizing there were not enough votes to pass the legislation. Lobbyists made their way around the chamber, allegedly promising retribution against lawmakers who opposed the vote. One member broke down in tears, Jones recalled. The vote, which was supposed to take 15 minutes, stretched to nearly three hours as industry forces tried to cajole enough members into backing the bill.

Republican leaders ordered the C-SPAN cameras in the chamber to be shut off during the stunning session. “A lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn’t want on national television in primetime,” former Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., told “60 Minutes.”

The episode underscored the immense power of the pharmaceutical industry, which had contributed nearly $1 million to Tauzin, and the lengths the industry was willing to go. The Medicare non-negotiation rule was a enormous boon to the industry, allowing it to charge Medicare recipients far more than it charges other government agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs, which, like all other agencies, is allowed to bargain with its contractors and vendors. The cost of the program also ended up being far higher than the price tag sold to lawmakers after Bush administration Medicare chief Tom Scully, himself a former lobbyist, ordered his agency to conceal an analysis that projected the true cost of the bill from lawmakers. Several members of Congress said later they would not have supported the legislation if they knew the real price tag — but what was done was done.

RELATED: Big Pharma, medical firms donated $750K to Kyrsten Sinema — then she opposed drug bill

Just 10 days after the bill was signed, Scully landed a job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist, a position he had negotiated while working on the bill. Weeks after that, Tauzin negotiated a new job as the chief lobbyist for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s leading lobbying arm. After finishing his current term in Congress, he went to work for PhRMA with an annual salary of $2 million. At least 15 fellow Republican lawmakers and congressional staffers who worked on the bill also landed lucrative industry lobbying jobs not long after the bill was signed.

When Sinema and pro-pharma allies like Reps. Scott Peters, D-Calif., Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. and Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., staged a last-minute push to undermine the party’s plans to reverse the 2003 law — amid another all-out lobbying blitz — some patient advocates said they couldn’t help experiencing déjà vu.

The lawmakers are “taking orders from pharma,” David Mitchell, the founder of the patient advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in an interview with Salon. “What did they get for that? We know that pharma will do anything unethical, immoral.”

Sinema, Schrader and Rice did not respond to questions from Salon. A spokesperson for Peters, whose Southern California district contains a significant number of pharmaceutical corporate facilities, pushed back on Mitchell’s characterization.

“Rep. Peters is committed to reducing the cost of drugs for seniors and all consumers; his plan does that and still preserves the incentives needed to fund American science and future cures,” Allie Polaski, a spokesperson for Peters, said in a statement to Salon. “Rep. Peters represents one of the three leading biotechnology clusters in the country, with 68,000+ jobs supported by it in San Diego County. It should be no surprise to anyone that his campaign supporters include the researchers, scientists and administrators that work in those fields.”

RELATED: Scott Peters got big money from Big Pharma — and turned against lower drug prices

PhRMA responded by attacking Mitchell and noting that his group has received a majority of its funding from hedge fund billionaire John Arnold, a longtime critic of the industry who has tried to counter Big Pharma’s financial influence in Congress.

“While his organization is supposedly committed to ‘patient affordability,’ he refuses to hold insurance companies and middlemen accountable for discriminating against sick patients who need life-saving medicines,” Debra DeShong, PhRMA’s head of public affairs, said in an email to Salon.

“Our organization works every day fighting for policies to help make sure patients have access to life-saving treatments with out-of-pocket costs they can afford. And our researchers and scientists work tirelessly on behalf of patients, and in fact, are the reason why Congress can even meet in person because of their life saving vaccines and therapies. People who throw around hateful rhetoric like this have no place in serious policy debates.”

PhRMA has led a massive lobbying blitz to kill President Biden’s proposal to scrap the non-negotiation rule, a change that could raise more than $460 billion over the next decade to pay for health care priorities in his Build Back Better plan that now also appear to be on the chopping block. The group has already spent more than $22 million on lobbying on drug pricing and other issues this year, while the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has spent an unprecedented $171 million on lobbying so far in 2021, according to data from OpenSecrets.

PhRMA has particularly focused on lobbying Democratic holdouts on Biden’s proposal, including Sinema, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. The industry has also showered cash on lawmakers looking to block Medicare negotiation from making it into the Democrats’ reconciliation bill, donating $1 million to Sinema, Menendez and Peters through September, according to OpenSecrets data. Sinema reached a deal with the White House on a plan aligned with Peters’ proposal, according to Politico, but progressives rejected the deal, leading the Biden administration to drop it from a framework released on Thursday.

“It’s been eviscerated,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, who chairs the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, told Politico last week. “At some point you have to ask: Is it worth it to pass it at all if it’s going to be some meaningless thing?”

House Democrats said Thursday that they were cut out of Sinema’s deal-making with the White House but vowed to press forward to include Medicare negotiation in the final bill. “If we don’t, it’s only because [the pharmaceutical industry]’s really trying to kill everything and try to convince their lackeys, as they call them in Congress, not to do anything,” House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who sponsored a House version of the original legislation, told the outlet.

Nearly all the lawmakers opposed to the legislation are from areas with a large pharmaceutical presence and have received eye-popping contributions from the industry. Sinema has collected more than $500,000 from the industry throughout her career. Peters has received more than $850,000. Menendez has taken more than $1.1 million, no doubt reflecting the numerous pharmaceutical companies headquartered in New Jersey.

Mitchell drew a distinction between Menendez and Carper, on the one hand, and Sinema and her House allies on the other. Menendez and Carper, he said, were “trying to slim it down,” while Sinema and the group of House Democrats were “trying to wreck it, they’re trying to defeat it completely.”

“They are the handmaidens of the industry,” he said. “At this moment, they are working for the drug companies. They’re not working for their constituents.”

Mitchell cited Tauzin’s intervention on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, raising the specter that history could be repeating itself.

“What the hell do you think might be going on if they were willing to do that then? Now prices are much bigger, the program is more expensive, the market for drugs has grown,” he said. “What is pharma doing now? This is an amoral industry.”


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


Although members of Congress and staff are now required to disclose when they interview for jobs with lobbying firms, the Congress-to-lobbyist pipeline is still extremely active, Sarah Bryner, the research director at OpenSecrets, said in an interview with Salon. Lawmakers who have chaired important committees or subcommittees, she said, are often sought out by K Street firms for their experience on key issues. “That kind of thing does happen fairly regularly, that’s just a very straight line,” Bryner said.

But some cases of apparent or real corruption are much less obvious.

“It’s tricky” to identify when members of Congress may be crossing the line, Bryner said, “because any activity that they do is going to be observed by people who might ultimately want to hire them as a lobbyist. The execution of your duties as a member of Congress is in and of itself something that lobbying firms are looking at almost like a job interview. … So it’s kind of a difficult relationship to call out explicitly.”

At least 448 former members of Congress now work as federal lobbyists, according to OpenSecrets. Former Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., a longtime critic of Obamacare who collected more than $500,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical industry throughout his career and once backed an effort to privatize Medicare, registered as a lobbyist and has at least three clients in the health care field, including the major insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Former Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., who once chaired the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy and power, resigned in 2016 before his term ended and soon signed on as a lobbyist for top pharmaceutical companies.

“There is a common type of member of Congress who expects that they will become a lobbyist when their days in elected office come to an end,” said Jeff Hauser, the founder of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank. “Their incentives are not necessarily to sell out thoroughly on all matters, because a low-credibility ex-politician is not necessarily the most effective mercenary lobbyist. But these aspiring lobbyists do have an incentive to appear ‘reasonable’ to business interests, rather than ardently populist.”

That trend is hardly limited to the pharmaceutical industry. Former House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., who received more than $800,000 from the defense industry during his political career, now works as a lobbyist for the defense contractor Lockheed Martin. Hauser also pointed to former Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., “a business-friendly member with tremendous interpersonal skills who has gone from being a ‘reasonable Democrat’ opposing higher taxes on the financial services industry on the Ways and Means Committee to … a lobbyist protecting the financial services industry from higher taxes.” (If Crowley’s name sounds familiar, it might be because he lost his seat in a 2018 Democratic primary — to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.)

Lawmakers are subject to a one-year “cooling off” period before they can lobby on behalf of an industry they oversaw in Congress. But former lawmakers often get around this rule by joining lobbying firms without “technically lobbying,” Bryner said.

“To be a lobbyist, you need to meet certain criteria, including actually meeting with members of Congress or staff,” she explained. “But if you don’t do that — if you just sort of engage in creating the campaign and coming up with material — you may not necessarily disclose as a lobbyist and you’re allowed to do whatever you want.”

Returning to the prescription drug issue, patient advocates argued that the supposed compromise proposal pushed by Sinema and Peters would be a gift to the industry, and might even be worse than the status quo. The Peters bill would limit Medicare negotiations to Part B drugs, which are typically only administered by health care providers, and would also prohibit Medicare negotiations on drugs still in their period of exclusivity.

“Their bill isn’t an alternative,” Mitchell said. “It is a bill to defeat negotiation the way it’s written. It pretends to be a Medicare negotiation bill that excludes all the drugs that need to be negotiated.” He called the central proposal of the bill a “fraud” because competition from generics is likely to reduce the price of drugs by 85% to 95% once the period of exclusivity ends anyway. “You don’t need to negotiate over the drugs that are no longer in exclusivity,” he said. “We have a process that lowers the price and it works pretty well.”

The Biden administration seemed to agree. White House officials told The New York Times that limiting negotiation to drugs that are not exclusive “would make negotiating power pointless.”

In fact, it may be worse than that. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., a member of Democratic leadership, told reporters in a press call this week that Peters’ bill would allow drug companies to seek additional patent protection after their drug is approved by the FDA, potentially extending the period when negotiations are banned to as long as 21 years.

“The cure here is worse than the disease” because of those potential extensions, Welch said. “Pharma once again is trying to leverage this into not only avoiding fair pricing but advancing price gouging.”

RELATED: Moderate Democrats are about to sell out Americans to drug companies

Without negotiation, taxpayers and employers would continue to be at the “mercy of the monopoly pricing power,” Welch said, citing the example of the recently approved Alzheimer’s drug Adulhelm. Though there is little evidence the drug actually works, Adulhelm maker Biogen set the price at around $60,000 for a year’s supply in in-patient settings, far higher than the $10,000 to $25,000 cost Wall Street analysts had projected. If that drug were administered to one-third of the 6 million Americans with Alzheimer’s eligible to receive it under Medicare, it would cost taxpayers $110 billion per year, Welch said — which would exceed spending on all other medication through Medicare part B.

Lawmakers allied with the industry claim that cutting into drug companies’ profits will hurt innovation. Mitchell, who suffers from multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer that he treats with a combination of drugs that carry a list price of $900,000 a year, calls that argument “bullshit.”

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the reduced profits under Medicare negotiation would result in two fewer drugs entering the market per year over the next 30 years. But in that possible cumulative total of about 900 drugs, only 10% to 15% would represent true therapeutic advancement. Mitchell argues even that can be mitigated by increasing funding to the National Institutes of Health, whose research contributed to all 365 drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019.

“You have an industry that gets taxpayer support for research, gets governmental protection — giving it monopoly pricing power — and the government sets up the market,” Welch said. “No other industry enjoys that amount of special privilege.”

A recent survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 83% of adults support allowing Medicare to negotiate lower costs. Only 6% of respondents said they believe that drug companies need to charge high prices to fund innovative research, while 93% said they believed drug companies would “still make enough money to invest in the research” needed to develop new drugs.

“The fear in the country among voters is not that Congress is going to go too far in regulating the price of drugs, but that it won’t go far enough,” veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin told reporters on Monday. That view crosses party lines, he added, and has persisted for years, .

Welch, a leading proponent of Medicare negotiation, said it was “political malpractice” to keep the Medicare non-negotiation rule on the books to appease a handful of Democrats backed by Big Pharma’s money.

“Pharma is powerful,” Welch said, but “it’s totally, completely, utterly irresponsible for us not to do it.”

Read more on Big Pharma’s not-so-stealthy campaign to kill the prescription drug bill:

Why the Julian Assange case is the most important battle for press freedom of our time

WASHINGTON — For the past two days, I have been watching the extradition hearing for Julian Assange via video link from London. The United States government is appealing a lower court ruling that denied the U.S. request to extradite Assange — not denied, unfortunately, because in the eyes of the court he is innocent of a crime, but because, as Judge Vanessa Baraitser in January concluded, Assange’s precarious psychological state would likely deteriorate given the “harsh conditions” of the inhumane U.S. prison system, potentially “causing him to commit suicide.” The U.S. has charged Assange with 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of trying to hack into a government computer, charges that could see him imprisoned for 175 years. 

Assange, with long white hair, appeared on screen the first day from the video conference room in HM Prison Belmarsh. He was wearing a white shirt with an untied tie around his neck. He looked gaunt and tired. He did not appear in court, the judges explained, because he was receiving a “high dose of medication.” On the second day he was apparently not present in the prison’s video conference room.

Assange is being extradited because his organization, WikiLeaks, released the “Iraq War Logs” in October 2010, which documented numerous US war crimes — including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the “collateral murder” video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians who had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints. He is also being targeted by U.S. authorities for other leaks, especially those that exposed the hacking tools used by the CIA known as Vault 7, which enables the spy agency to compromise cars, smart TVs, web browsers and the operating systems of most smartphones, as well as operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS and Linux.  

If Assange is extradited and found guilty of publishing classified material, it will set a legal precedent that will effectively end national security reporting, allowing the government to use the Espionage Act to charge any reporter who possesses classified documents, and any whistleblower who leaks classified information.

If the appeal by the U.S. is accepted, Assange will be retried in London. The ruling on the appeal is not expected until at least January.

Assange’s September 2020 trial painfully exposed how vulnerable he has become after 12 years of detention, including seven in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He has in the past attempted suicide by slashing his wrists. He suffers from hallucinations and depression, takes antidepressant medication and the antipsychotic quetiapine. After he was observed pacing his cell until he collapsed, punching himself in the face and banging his head against the wall, he was transferred for several months to the medical wing of the Belmarsh prison. Prison authorities found “half of a razor blade” hidden under his socks. He has repeatedly called the suicide hotline run by the Samaritans because he thought about killing himself “hundreds of times a day.”

James Lewis, the lawyer for the U.S. government, attempted to discredit the detailed and disturbing medical and psychological reports on Assange presented to the court in September 2020, painting him instead as a liar and malingerer. He excoriated the decision of Judge Baraitser to bar extradition, questioned her competence and breezily dismissed the mountains of evidence that high-security prisoners in the U.S., like Assange, are subjected to Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), and held in virtual isolation in supermax prisons, suffering psychological distress. He charged Dr. Michael Kopelman, emeritus professor of neuropsychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, who examined Assange and testified for the defense, with deception for “concealing” that Assange fathered two children with his fiancée Stella Morris while in refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. He said that, should the Australian government request Assange, he could serve his prison time in Australia, his home country, after his appeals had been exhausted, but stopped short of promising that Assange would not be held in isolation or subject to SAMs.

The authority repeatedly cited by Lewis to describe the conditions under which Assange will be held and tried in the United States was Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Kromberg is the government’s grand inquisitor in cases of terrorism and national security. He has expressed open contempt for Muslims and Islam and decried what he calls “the Islamization of the American justice system.” He oversaw the nine-year persecution of the Palestinian activist and academic Dr. Sami al-Arian, and at one point refused his request to postpone a court date during the religious holiday of Ramadan. “They can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury. All they can’t do is eat before sunset,” Kromberg said in a 2006 conversation, according to an affidavit filed by one of Arian’s attorneys, Jack Fernandez. 

Kromberg criticized Daniel Hale, the former Air Force analyst who was recently sentenced to 45 months in a supermax prison for leaking information about the indiscriminate killings of civilians by drones, saying Hale had not contributed to public debate, but had “endanger[ed] the people doing the fight.” He ordered Chelsea Manning jailed after she refused to testify in front of a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks. Manning attempted to commit suicide in March 2020 while being held in the Virginia jail.

Having covered the case of Syed Fahad Hashmi, who was arrested in London in 2006, I have a good idea of what awaits Assange if he is extradited. Hashmi was also held in Belmarsh and then extradited in 2007 to the U.S. where he spent three years in solitary confinement under SAMs. His “crime” was that an acquaintance who stayed in his apartment with him while he was a graduate student in London had raincoats, ponchos and waterproof socks in his luggage at the apartment. The acquaintance planned to deliver the items to al-Qaida. But I doubt the government was concerned with waterproof socks being shipped to Pakistan. The reason, I suspect, Hashmi was targeted was because, like al-Arian and like Assange, he was fearless and zealous in his defense of those being bombed, shot, terrorized and killed throughout the Muslim world while he was a student at Brooklyn College. 

Hashmi was deeply religious, and some of his views, including his praise of the Afghan resistance, were controversial, but he had a right to express these sentiments. More important, he had a right to expect freedom from persecution and imprisonment because of his opinions, just as Assange should have the freedom, like any publisher, to inform the public about the inner workings of power. Facing the possibility of a 70-year sentence in prison and having already spent four years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement, Hashmi accepted a plea bargain on one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism. Judge Loretta Preska, who also sentenced the hacker Jeremy Hammond and human rights attorney Steven Donziger, gave him the maximum 15-year sentence. Hashmi was held for nine years in Guantánamo-like conditions in the supermax ADX [Administrative Maximum] facility in Florence, Colorado, where Assange, if found guilty in an American court, would almost certainly be imprisoned. Hashmi was released in 2019.

The pre-trial detention conditions Hashmi endured were designed to break him. He was electronically monitored 24 hours a day. He could only receive or send mail with his immediate family. He was prohibited from speaking with other prisoners through the walls. He was forbidden from taking part in group prayer. He was permitted one hour of exercise a day, in a solitary cage without fresh air. He has unable to see most of the evidence used to indict him, which was classified under the Classified Information Procedures Act, enacted to prevent U.S. intelligence officers under prosecution from threatening to reveal state secrets to manipulate the legal proceedings. The harsh conditions eroded his physical and psychological health. When he appeared in the final court proceeding to accept a guilty plea he was in a near-catatonic state, clearly unable to follow the proceedings around him.

If the government will go to this length to persecute someone who was alleged to have been involved in sending waterproof socks to al-Qaida, what can we expect the government to do to Assange?

A society that prohibits the capacity to speak in truth extinguishes the capacity to live in justice. The battle for Assange’s liberty has always been much more than the persecution of a publisher. It is the most important battle for press freedom of our era. And if we lose this battle, it will be devastating, not only for Assange and his family, but for us.

Tyrannies invert the rule of law. They turn the law into an instrument of injustice. They cloak their crimes in a faux legality. They use the decorum of the courts and trials to mask their criminality. Those, such as Assange, who expose that criminality to the public are dangerous, for without the pretext of legitimacy the tyranny loses credibility and has nothing left in its arsenal but fear, coercion and violence. The long campaign against Assange and WikiLeaks is a window into the collapse of the rule of law, the rise of what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of inverted totalitarianism, a form of totalitarianism that maintains the fictions of the old capitalist democracy, including its institutions, iconography, patriotic symbols and rhetoric, but internally has surrendered total control to the dictates of global corporations and the security and surveillance state.

There is no legal basis to hold Assange in prison. There is no legal basis to try him, an Australian citizen, under the U.S. Espionage Act. The CIA spied on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy through a Spanish company, UC Global, contracted to provide embassy security. This spying included recording the privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers as they discussed his defense. This fact alone invalidated the trial. Assange is being held in a high-security prison so the state can, as Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture, has testified, continue the degrading abuse and torture it hopes will lead to his psychological if not physical disintegration.The architects of imperialism, the masters of war, the corporate-controlled legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and their obsequious courtiers in the media are guilty of egregious crimes. Say this simple truth and you are banished, as many of us have been, to the margins of the media landscape. Prove this truth, as Assange, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Hammond and Edward Snowden have by allowing us to peer into the inner workings of power, and you are hunted down and persecuted.

Assange’s “crime” is that he exposed more than 15,000 unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians. He exposed the torture and abuse of some 800 men and boys, aged between 14 and 89, at Guantánamo. He exposed that Hillary Clinton in 2009 ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other UN representatives from China, France, Russia and the U.K., spying that included obtaining DNA, iris scans, fingerprints and personal passwords, part of the long pattern of illegal surveillance that included the eavesdropping on an earlier UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. He exposed that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the CIA orchestrated the June 2009 military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, replacing it with a murderous and corrupt military regime. He exposed that George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Gen. David Petraeus prosecuted a war in Iraq that under post-Nuremberg laws is defined as a criminal war of aggression, a war crime, which authorized hundreds of targeted assassinations, including those of U.S. citizens in Yemen. He exposed that the United States secretly launched missile, bomb and drone attacks on Yemen, killing scores of civilians. He exposed that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $657,000 to give talks, a sum so large it can only be considered a bribe, and that she privately assured corporate leaders she would do their bidding while promising the public financial regulation and reform. He exposed the internal campaign to discredit and destroy British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by members of his own party. He exposed how the hacking tools used by the CIA and the NSA permit the wholesale government surveillance of our televisions, computers, smartphones and anti-virus software, allowing the government to record and store our conversations, images and private text messages, even from encrypted apps.

He exposed the truth. He exposed it over and over and over until there was no question of the endemic illegality, corruption and mendacity that defines the global ruling elite. And for these truths alone he is guilty.