Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

In a rebuke to Biden, FDA panel rejects mass booster plan

It looks like most Americans won’t be rolling up their sleeves for a third COVID-19 vaccine shot this year — at least those under the age of 65.

On Friday, a federal advisory committee of 18 people voted against the Biden administration’s mass booster plan to offer third Pfizer vaccine shots to everyone over the age of 16. Two members of the committee voted in favor of the plan to offer mass booster shots, while the remainder of the committee voted no. If a majority of the committee voted yes, boosters would have been offered to people 16 and over who received their last dose nearly eight months ago.

Then, in a rare second vote, the panel voted unanimously Friday to recommend emergency use authorization of a booster dose of Pfizer’s vaccine in people 65 and older and those at high risk of severe COVID-19 six months after full vaccination.

The first vote that rejected the Biden administration’s plan came as a surprise. The rejection of the booster plan ultimately hinged on a lack of adequate data that showed a third shot would slow transmission among people who get infected despite vaccination, and data suggesting that the antibodies from a third shot wouldn’t wane over time as well. The panel questioned the accuracy of comparing data from Israel to the situation in the U.S., and questioned whether a third dose would increase the rare risk of heart inflammation that has been seen in mostly younger men after the second dose.

“I don’t think a booster dose is going to significantly contribute to controlling the pandemic,” said panelist Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts University on Friday. “And I think it’s important that the main message we transmit is that we’ve got to get everyone two doses.”

Many members of the committee, assembled by the Food and Drug Administration, also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of a mass booster plan compared to one that would target specific groups — like people over the age of 65.

The FDA has yet to make its own decision on the recommendation, but their recommendation generally follows what’s decided among the expert panel like the one that met today. Today’s vote was the first step in the process for the FDA to officially approve boosters. A CDC advisory committee is scheduled to meet next week, as another step of the process, to debate who should get boosters and how many months after their second dose they should receive them.

In August, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced they were putting a plan together for booster shots. In the announcement, public health officials stated starting the week of September 20, 2021, people who were fully vaccinated and about eight months away from their last second shot would be eligible for a third.

“At that time, the individuals who were fully vaccinated earliest in the vaccination rollout, including many health care providers, nursing home residents, and other seniors, will likely be eligible for a booster,” the statement read. “We would also begin efforts to deliver booster shots directly to residents of long-term care facilities at that time, given the distribution of vaccines to this population early in the vaccine rollout and the continued increased risk that COVID-19 poses to them.”

As this so-called booster roll-out date neared, the initial plan appeared to be in flux. Since Moderna, maker of one of three approved COVID-19 vaccines in the US, hasn’t provided adequate data on boosters, the Pfizer vaccine was the only possibility for a third shot to get into arms this month. While the Biden administration appeared to be confidently moving forward with approving a third Pfizer shot for everyone over the age of 16, a bit of a backlash and debate in the scientific community surfaced.

In particular, there have been a series of clashing reviews and arguments among scientists on whether or not boosters are really needed. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine argued that those who received a third Pfizer shot in Israel were far less likely to get a severe case of COVID-19 than those who received two shots. However, a group of scientists wrote in The Lancet that there’s not enough evidence to suggest boosters are needed at this time.

Two of the authors of the paper are scientists at the Food and Drug Administration. According to the New York Times, Dr. Philip Krause and Dr. Marion Gruber is poised to leave this fall, in part because they were upset over the initial booster announcement.

As Salon previously reported, boosters are already controversial in part because mass distribution of them would decrease the supply of available vaccines that could be distributed in more needy nations with less vaccine access. Previously, the World Health Organization (WHO) called for a moratorium on booster shots in affluent countries throughout September. Yet Israel, Germany, and the UK had already approved COVID-19 booster shots for the elderly and those with underlying conditions.

“Even while hundreds of millions of people are still waiting for their first dose, some rich countries are moving towards booster doses,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “So far more than 4 billion vaccine doses have been administered globally. More than 80% have gone to high and upper middle income countries, even though they account for less than half of the world’s population.”

In the U.S., many have been obtaining booster shots illicitly, in many cases lying about their vaccine status to pharmacists or traveling to neighboring states where their vaccine information is not on state records.

Some feared the Biden administration’s push for boosters was politically motivated.

“Weeks ago, the administration decided that the public needs cake and deserves cake, and so shall have cake,” John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times. “Now, the public expects cake and would be very annoyed if its cake was taken away at this point.”

According to AP News, Sharon Alroy-Preis of Israel’s Ministry of Health previously said a third shot improves protection against COVID-19 by tenfold in people ages 60 and older.

“It’s like a fresh vaccine,” bringing protection back to original levels and helping Israel “dampen severe cases in the fourth wave,” she said.

Currently, in the U.S., a third vaccine dose is approved for certain immunocompromised people.

Mark Zuckerberg’s bad week: Senators demand answers after exposé reveals Instagram is toxic for kids

It’s been a rough week for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. 

Ire against the 37-year-old Harvard dropout and his social media platform has been one of the rare points of bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill this week as revelation after revelation about Facebook’s pitfalls continues to trickle out, many from a series of internal documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

Lawmakers are now calling for Zuckerberg to testify in front of Congress, in particular about a number of internal reports cited by the Journal that determined Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, had a marked negative impact on young women.

Researchers for the company reportedly found in March of 2020 that “32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.” In another study, Facebook found that more than 40% of teenage Instagram users in the U.S. and U.K. reported feeling “unattractive”, and said the feeling began on the app.

This information was allegedly shared with Zuckerberg personally last year during a presentation — though he didn’t mention any of those findings at a Congressional hearing just a few months ago on the impacts of social media on children, saying simply, “Social apps to connect with other people can have positive mental-health benefits.”

When asked point-blank whether Facebook researches the effects of social media he added, “I believe the answer is yes.”

A group of Democrats, including Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Reps. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., and Lori Trahan, D-Mass., wrote a letter to Zuckerberg asking him to scrap plans to roll out a version of Instagram specifically for children.

Another bipartisan group of Senators announced a probe into the company’s practices and told CNBC Tuesday that they are “in touch with a Facebook whistleblower and will use every resource at our disposal to investigate what Facebook knew and when they knew it — including seeking further documents and pursuing witness testimony.”


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


The head of public policy at Instagram, Karina Newton, responded to the allegations in a blog post highlighting research by Pew Internet on teens in the US that stated “81% of teens said that social media makes them feel more connected to their friends, while 26% reported social media makes them feel worse about their lives.” Newton also said the company is researching ways to shift users away from repeatedly looking at certain topics that might “contribute to negative social comparison.”

Among the other pitfalls the Journal uncovered at Facebook include reports that cartel activity on both Facebook and Instagram has gone unchecked, and that worldwide, the response to posts that are against the terms of use is “inadequate” at best and at worst, is non-existent.  Other reports found that while Zuckerberg himself wanted to use Facebook to get America vaccinated, the platform was a breeding ground for anti-vaxxers, who “swarmed” the WHO and UNICEF pages with comments against the vaccine. The MIT Technology Review also obtained an internal report that foreign troll farms were able to reach more than 140 million Americans a month with misinformation leading up to last year’s election, a development that surely had an effect on the millions of Americans who still believe, without any real evidence, that President Joe Biden’s victory was somehow illegitimate. 

The news also highlights how the ownership structure of Facebook essentially allows Zuckerberg to rule by decree — despite the protests of others both within and outside the publicly traded company. Zuckerberg holds 57.9% of the voting power at the company and is both chairman of the board and CEO, meaning there’s not much anyone else can do to promote greater transparency or big-picture changes that they believe may be better for society. 

“At Facebook, the annual general meeting is largely just theater,” Robert Bartlett, a law professor at UC Berkeley who teaches securities regulation and corporate finance, told Marketwatch this week. 

But even without voting power, shareholders of the company are still pushing the company to make changes that would benefit society as a whole — part of a trend that has seen “activist investors” take greater control over behemoth companies that have long operated with one goal and one goal only: profit. 

The most high profile example came earlier this year when an “activist” hedge fund managed to win three seats on the board of ExxonMobil  — the result of continued backlash against the company for the role it plays in climate change.

It remains unclear whether Mark Zuckerberg will make any changes at Facebook as a result of this week’s news. 

Republican who voted to impeach Trump picks retirement over reelection

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, will not run for re-election in 2022.

“While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” said Gonzalez, 36, in a statement posted to Twitter on Thursday.

While his two young children and wife, Elizabeth, were central to his decision to give up his seat after only two terms, the former president also played a large part in the congressman’s choice. 

“This is the direction that we’re going to go in for the next two years and potentially four, and it’s going to make Trump the center of fund-raising efforts and political outreach,” he said in an interview with The New York Times on Thursday. “That’s not something I’m going to be part of.”

His vote to impeach Trump put him at odds, not only with the former president, but with furious constituents and Ohio’s Republican Party leaders, who called for his resignation earlier this year. 

In the interview, Gonzalez did not shy away from his criticism of Trump, referring to him as a “cancer for the country.” The Cuban-American congressman also admitted he would rather concede his seat than run in a “brutally hard primary” against his Trump-backed opponent: Max Miller

In February, Trump gave his first “Complete and Total Endorsement” to Miller, 32, a loyalist and former White House aide. Not only did Miller serve the former president in the White House, but he worked with Trump on both the 2016 and 2020 campaign trails, earning Trump’s highest praise as a “great guy” during his first rally after leaving office. 

Miller launched his campaign for Ohio’s 16th congressional district with a statement against the incumbent, claiming in a tweet that Gonzalez “betrayed” Northeast Ohioans with his vote.

Gonzalez is now the first of the 10 Republicans who voted in favor of the impeachment to drop out of the re-election race —  and he may not be the last.

“RINO Congressman Anthony Gonzalez, who has poorly represented his district in the Great State of Ohio, has decided to quit after enduring a tremendous loss of popularity, of which he had little, since his ill-informed and otherwise very stupid impeachment vote against the sitting President of the United States, me,” Trump said in response to Gonzalez’s resignation, in a statement issued by his PAC.

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wisconsin, one of the other 10 Republicans to vote for Trump’s impeachment and a main target of his political attacks against pro-impeachment Republicans, tweeted a response to Trump’s statement: “On Constitution Day, Donald Trump’s statement about Rep. Anthony Gonzalez reminds us all, once again, that Trump is at war with the Constitution.”

Gonzalez himself also dismissed Trump’s comments against him during the interview. “I haven’t cared what he says or thinks since Jan. 6,” he said. “outside when he continues to lie about the election, which I have a problem with.”

He will continue serve out the remainder of his term in office, he explained, so long as nothing changes with his family. “I simply wish to thank the incredible people of the 16th district for allowing me the privilege of serving.”

“I was really shocked”: Mélanie Laurent on “Mad Women’s Ball” and how “problem” women are controlled

Mélanie Laurent has been skillfully directing films for a decade now (and acting in them for twice as long). She has a real talent behind the camera, as she illustrated with the drama “Galveston,” a flinty noir, and “Breathe,” about two moody French classmates. Her latest film, “The Mad Women’s Ball,” adapted from Victoria Mas’ historical novel, is equally superb. 

This new Amazon Prime drama, which is set in 1885 Paris, tells the story of female oppression and independence. Eugénie (Lou de Laâge, from Laurent’s “Breathe”) is the daughter in a wealthy family. She enjoys the privilege of a hot bath but resists the conventions women of the day must follow. Not content with making society debuts, or finding a good husband, Eugénie prefers to read, and sneaks out to attend Victor Hugo‘s funeral. Her father François (Cédric Kahn) is displeased with her behavior. Moreover, Eugénie has a gift of being able to communicate with the dead. When she has a series of haunting episodes, her family commits her to Salpêtrière Hospital, where she will be treated for madness.


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


However, Eugénie insists she does not belong in an asylum. She is aghast at how she and the other female patients are treated. Louise (Lomane de Dietrich), who befriends her, is being sexually abused by her doctor, Jules (Christophe Montenez). Eugénie and others are subjected to cruel hydrotherapy ice baths. And when Eugénie is sent into isolation and placed under the care of nurse Jeanne (Emmanuelle Bercot), the young woman is kept in darkness. The only person who seems to be sensitive to the treatment of Eugénie and the other women is Geneviève (Laurent), a nurse who bonds with Eugénie because she helps Geneviève communicate with her late sister.

Laurent’s performance is as strong as her direction, as both the character and the filmmaker guide viewers to the emotion and meaning of each scene with restraint, not excess. The characters of Eugénie and Geneviève are restricted by rules, but they find freedoms that allow them to become empowered in different ways.

The actress-filmmaker chatted with Salon about her new film. 

What drew you to this material, and what were the challenges you faced in making “The Mad Women’s Ball?”

I was looking for something like this. I had just had a baby girl, and probably because she was a baby girl, I wanted to make a movie about women. I wanted to find a strong subject, and wanted to talk about feminism, but I wanted to avoid feminism as the only theme. I was looking for something complex — a woman’s story, a thriller, a genre movie — something powerful, with space to direct and work on the mise en scène. I was looking for something more ambitious. I had in mind a story about witches. I wanted to do a period movie. I thought it was modern to talk about the past to tell everything about the present. My producer, Alain Goldman, sent me the book, and said, “You should read that, you’ll probably love it.” And I did. It was one of those times when you are waiting for something and someone brings it to you and it’s magical. 

The film emphasizes the way women are treated as second-class citizens. They must conform to rules made by men (e.g., to marry) and, as the film shows, are not allowed to have much if any independent thought. What are your thoughts about how women have been, and still are, denied a voice in society? 

I was really shocked. When you make a period film, you have to research, and dig into the historic details. Victor Hugo was a god in France and the world, and millions were in the street when he died. He was one of the first celebrities to do spiritism. He lost his daughter and he never recovered from it. He was doing the spirit sessions, and was talking with his daughter’s spirit, and felt better about things. I thought: That’s how I will open my film, the shot of a fragile silhouette in the back of a huge crowd. She will turn her face to the camera to show she feels something different from them. [Hugo] was allowed to talk about spiritism because he was a man. Eugénie had a gift, but she had to deal with her gift and the fact that she was a woman. She’s bourgeois, which is another level of entitlement. If I think about my first idea of making a film about women in another period of time, you realize the witches in the Middle Ages knew things, and they healed people, and how they were massacred. I realized I made a film about 200 years ago, and 500 years ago, there was the same problem. Women who know things and can say something about any society are going to be a “problem.” 

The film also tackles several important issues, from women being abused by their doctors, to how women are diagnosed with “hysteria” if they are simply assertive. What did you learn about the history of how women have been institutionalized and stripped of their value and dignity for behavior or conditions that are not abnormal? The film has the characters expressing emotions they cannot control.

When I researched studies, what was really shocking — and why I didn’t portray Charcot (Grégoire Bonnet) as a great man — is because his diagnostics were not about madness. Very few were mad. Camille Claudel is the most famous. I was shocked to see how the [female patients] are there to serve his research. He barely treated their problems. He wanted to have new studies about neurology, and what he left was a big work as a young neurologist. His studies helped other doctors make progress. He didn’t care about those women. There was no relation between the cause and the effect. When I read about women being raped and their hysterical crises after the rape, he worked on the crisis, and not on why. Now, with some perspective, we can take a step back and realize how psychology and history go together — especially when you treat madness. You can’t avoid the why.

Geneviève is sympathetic to Eugénie. Both have interesting relationships with their fathers. What observations do you have about these characters and their parallel lives? 

It’s a friendship story. They feel something the first time they see each other. They can read each other’s minds in a weird way. Geneviève is so rational, and close to science. It’s hard for her to accept spirituality and that other level Eugénie takes her to. But they have common points. What I loved about Geneviève’s arc is how she changes. What I love about Eugénie is how she doesn’t. Eugénie changes a lot in the first 10 minutes, actually, when she falls in love, and receives the most important book of her life. In those few minutes, suddenly everything changes. And when she is about to know love and desire and pleasure and science, and has a book that says she’s not crazy, she is taken away extremely violently, by her family, and dragged to the hospital. Like every story about a prison and prisoners that is unfair, the situation makes you sick. 

There are several moments in the asylum that are punctuated by chaos and screaming, torturous treatments, as well as the isolation scenes in darkness. Can you discuss depicting the asylum scenes?

When you have men in the shot, it’s extremely violent, and when you have the relationship with science and instruments, you have feeling of torture. And then, in the same hospital’s space and locations, you have a lot of joy and sorority. I worked on making the first part quiet and cold, and full of tracking and slow shots. For the second part, I worked on the sound to make it noisier, with the torture scenes — it’s a noisy prison, and she’s coming from a quiet place. I wanted to oppose those different worlds torture vs. warmness, bourgeois vs. popular, and how visually you can oppose them.

Do you believe that we can communicate with the dead/spirits as Eugénie does? Have you had any encounters?

I think I am more like my character. If I had to live with the loss of someone that I loved so much, I would love to meet someone like Eugénie. I don’t know if I would believe in her, but I would love to talk to her, and be happy if she would say something.

“Mad Woman’s Ball” is now streaming on Amazon Prime.

“How many terrorists are among them?”: House Republicans protest resettlement of Afghan refugees

Republican lawmakers are decrying President Biden’s effort to resettle tens of thousands of displaced Afghan refugees on U.S. soil, invoking baseless fears that migrants pose security concerns.

According to The New York Times, 64,000 evacuees from Afghanistan have arrived in the United States as of September 14, the majority of them having fled the Taliban – which in mid-August instituted its own regime in Kabul, ending the U.S.-backed Afghan resistance effort. About 49,000 of the refugees are residing on eight domestic military bases throughout the country, with 18,000 on bases overseas. The evacuees are all awaiting formal placement in the U.S. as they submit to screenings by various federal agencies for reasons of security and health.  

A smattering of Democratic- and Republican-led states – like California, Georgia, Iowa, and Maryland – have already promised to take in thousands of evacuees. However, a number of conservative lawmakers, and especially those allied with Donald Trump, have expressed opposition to the effort, employing oft-used anti-immigrant dog whistles. 

On Thursday, Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., warned that Biden was “flooding [Montana’s] communities with unvetted refugees” after learning that a mere “75 refugees from Afghanistan will be arriving in Montana.”

Rosendale baselessly suggested that the individuals will not be properly vetted.

“I have advocated that we should try and settle these individuals in other countries around Afghanistan that share their values and culture,” he added. “Especially if we can not ensure proper vetting.”


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


Donald Trump stoked this very concern in a recent statement, asking: “Who are all of the people coming into our Country? How many terrorists are among them?” 

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., an anti-immigration hawk, joined the chorus on Monday, saying, “We were lied to!”

“These aren’t translators or allies, these are just ‘refugees’ and who knows how they’ve been vetted,” she tweeted. “This won’t end well for us one bit.”

Other Republicans have suggested that Biden is privileging the refugees – now displaced partly as a result of America’s failed intervention in Afghanistan – with too many advantages. 

“Joe Biden will give Afghan refugees free health insurance,” tweeted Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Tex. “Have you had enough of America Last yet?”

“These afghan [sic] refugee women…are giving birth on American soil on military bases,” echoed Republican Virginia House candidate Jerome Bell. “[The] children should not be able to be American citizens but by law now they are. Let that sink in a little bit.”

Rep. Madison Cawthorne, R-N.C., claimed that Biden is “treating illegal immigrants and refugees better than American citizens.” 

“America Last is the Biden way,” he added. 

This week, Biden requested that $6.4 billion in funding be allotted to Afghan refugee resettlement. In a request for a continuing resolution, Biden also demanded that language be added for the tens of thousands refugees to apply for U.S. residency, allowing the evacuees to be eligible for greencards by this time next year.

Mike Lindell seems confused about the date, suggests the government tried to kill him

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has appeared to struggle with reality during media appearances over the past few days, claiming on at least one occasion that the government was seeking to kill him. 

In a subsequent interview, Lindell became distraught over his own forgetfulness as he had difficulty recalling what month and date it was. There may be a certain irony in that, as Lindell claimed for months that Donald Trump would be reinstated as president in August, and has since said that seemingly impossible task will somehow be accomplished by year’s end.

“Yeah, yeah, the ‘Absolute Proof,’ let me tell you the key part of that,” Lindell said at one point during a three-day online special broadcast with evangelical pastor Jim Bakker. “This is probably the only time where I had a little fear, and I had to pray, get on my knees, and pray to God. This was 10 days before the impeachment trial. And let me tell you. I’m 10 days before — and remember, at the time that that was like the — towards the end of January, you know, the impeachment trials were Tuesday following, like, the Feb. 8, OK?”

He then continued with a favorite theme, describing the Jan. 6 Capitol siege as the work of anti-Trump forces. This time he called it a “big fake insurgency or whatever, that you’re against the government.”

Lindell then said, apparently for the first time, that he believed that the government wanted to kill him. 

“And guess who was No. 1 on that list to come and get? Me,” he added, referring to the government. “I’m going, ‘God they’re gonna kill me.’ You know, they’re gonna put me and hang me. And basically [that] is what I’m thinking, and at that moment, he said, You know, I got to put a documentary, just put the evidence out there and make it.”


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


On Monday night, Lindell spoke to his supporters from an undisclosed location on his Frank Speech website, appearing somewhat disoriented. This was the occasion when he had to enlist the help of an assistant, seemingly confused about what the accurate date and month were. 

Lindell must soon mount a legal defense against Dominion Voting Systems and its $1.3 billion civil defamation lawsuit against him and several other defendants, but may not be helping his cause by repeatedly contradicting his legal team, which has argued he is not profiting from his attacks on the company. On Thursday night, he announced that the promo code “Dominion” will now yield deep discounts on MyPillow products. 

Lindell and his legal team didn’t return Salon’s emailed request for comment

Last week, the bedding king claimed that his antagonistic relationship with Dominion Voting Systems was good for business, saying he had recently hired an additional 200 employees. 

Occupy Wall Street set the tone: A decade later, how protests against inequality made the GOP worse

Occupy Wall Street — which started 10 years ago on Friday — has long been understood as a historical novelty, a movement that swiftly rose to national prominence and almost as swiftly sunk below the waves, destroyed by the in-fighting and mission drift that unfortunately tends to plague leftist movements. But, a decade out, it’s clearer than ever that the movement had an impact far beyond its own existence.

Inspired by the Arab Spring a year before, a group of protesters started camping in Zucotti Park, which is near Wall Street and in the heart of Manhattan’s Financial District, with the message: Americans can no longer tolerate escalating wealth inequalities. It started off with a few hundred people, but spread rapidly across the country, touching the lives of countless Americans. It came down to the simple slogan: “We are the 99%!”

The motto, like the movement, represented Americans who work, day in and day out, but can’t seem to ever get ahead. Meanwhile, the 1% — people who make at least $422,000 a year by most recent estimates — are gobbling up an ever-bigger share of the pie. And the ultra-wealthy hoard even more. Recent estimates show that the top .1% of American families has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. So a few rich people hoard all the cash while everyone else is forced to scrape by on increasingly mean resources. 

Occupy Wall Street may be gone, but these truths that it exposed cannot be unseen. 


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


After decades of conservative propaganda pitting the middle class against the working poor, here was the harsh reality: The reason middle-class people struggle to pay for homes or college tuition is not “welfare queens,” but a billionaire class sucking up all the wealth. Republicans had spent decades slashing taxes for the rich and gutting spending on everyone else while triangulating Democrats stood by and let it happen — and in many cases, actively participated. This really was a rich vs. everyone else problem. 

In a lengthy piece for the Atlantic, journalist Michael Levitin makes a persuasive case that Occupy didn’t die, but was a seed that bloomed a thousand plants: The climate change strikes, the growth in the organized labor movement, and even the disorganized wage rebellion. It also framed a “populist economic message that thrust anti-corporate lawmakers such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez into the electoral spotlight.”

It also, I would argue, had a profound effect on the mainstream of both major political parties.

Occupy Wall Street didn’t just drag the Democrats to the left but also ruptured the traditional messaging and hierarchy of the Republican Party. It made the Democrats a better party, with a more coherent economic and social message that created a coalition between the working class and middle class. But it also destabilized the multi-decade libertarian politics of the GOP — driving out figures like former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — and created an opportunity for white nationalists and other culture war authoritarians like Donald Trump to remake the party in their own image. 

Let’s start with the good news: Occupy’s impact on Democratic politics isn’t limited to the prominence of Warren, Sanders, and AOC. It moved the center of the party to the left, and far earlier than a lot of folks realize.

Barack Obama had mishandled the economic recovery of 2009 in many ways that had exacerbated the inequality problem. Within a month of Occupy, Obama was using the “we are the 99%” and he shaped his 2012 campaign around this economic message. (He also did better economically in his second term.) But the biggest piece of evidence for the shift is in the current president, Joe Biden. In the 90s, Biden was one of the worst Democrats in the Senate on the issues of class and economic inequality, earning him the moniker “Senator from MBNA.” He spent the decade fighting tirelessly to pass a bankruptcy bill that benefited banks but ruined the lives of countless ordinary Americans. He was held off for years through the efforts of then-Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren but eventually got it done during the George W. Bush administration. That Biden is currently unrecognizable to the modern Biden, who has been laser-focused on passing two massive jobs and infrastructure bills — one literally written by Sanders — which are meant to be funded by raising taxes on the 1%. His old buddies in the banking industry are now his enemies, spending lavishly on propaganda and disinformation campaigns to derail the bills. 

The shift isn’t just in Biden himself, but the whole party. Centrists like Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, as well as nine in the House, get an inordinate amount of media attention for their threats to derail Biden’s progressive economic agenda. But that shouldn’t distract from the remarkable fact that the vast majority of Democrats are fully on board with this expansive agenda that would do a great deal to shrink the wealth inequalities that plague us. That’s a huge shift from 2005 when Biden got 41% of Democratic senators to back his bankruptcy bill that severely hurt the middle class to benefit the banks. 

But what is just as remarkable is the shift that has happened in the GOP since the days of Occupy.

In the pre-Occupy days, things were simple for Republicans. The party was guided by the priorities of wealthy class warriors. The hoi polloi voters were brought along with deceitful arguments, leading them to believe their economic problems were due not to the rich taking all the money, but mythical “welfare queens” living high on the taxpayer dime. And the GOP base, who are motivated by racist and sexist bigotries, was ready to buy that myth. But by the 2012 election, the usual order of things was being threatened by this new, more truthful narrative about how the rich are screwing over everyone else.

Even before Occupy, Paul Ryan’s 2011 State of the Union rebuttal — where he called social spending a “hammock” that “lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency” — went over like a lead balloon. And when GOP nominee Mitt Romney was caught making a similar argument — claiming 47% of people are lazy government dependents instead of hard-working Americans — it was the nail in his 2012 campaign. This, even though Republican voters had swooned to similar rhetoric in the age of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Nowadays, the majority of Republican voters believe the rich need to pay more in taxes. Even in red states, minimum wage hikes and the Medicaid expansion pass when they’re put up on ballot initiatives. 

What’s happened is that the GOP base has started to decouple their priorities — which are all about culture war, white supremacy, and sexism — from this libertarian economic agenda. This is ultimately why Donald Trump has such Svengali-like powers over the base. (It certainly isn’t his personal charisma, as much he’d like to think otherwise.) He gives the base what they want, which is red meat bigotry that is unfiltered through this bow tie Republican talk about “hammocks” and the “47%.” Plus, Trump promised to protect Social Security and Medicare, broad social programs the base loves and depends on. He was lying, of course — his only real legislative “achievement” in office was cutting taxes for the rich — but his mere existence has created a path forward for this wing of the party, which outnumbers the richer wing by a whole lot. 


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


Of course, most Republican leadership is still in this for the money, and the racism is just an added bonus. And to keep the masses satisfied, they’ve been escalating the culture war antics at a dizzying pace, amping up the authoritarian conspiracy theories, gutting reproductive rights, and bringing back the racist politics of Jim Crow. It’s not that the leadership disagrees with the culture warriors on any of these issues, to be clear. But they’re putting a higher priority on them than they used to, so that they can keep up their agenda of cutting taxes and slashing social spending in peace. 

This shift of power is most evident in the politics of COVID-19. For extremely complicated but equally stupid reasons, the refusal to get vaccinated has become a sacrament of right-wing culture warriors, their way of showing their dedication to the cause of owning the liberals. In the past, this would not have flown with the GOP leadership, because the ongoing pandemic is a major threat to corporate profits. But even though Republicans have never been anti-vaccination before, all of a sudden they’ve discovered this suddenly incontrovertible “right” of right-wingers to infect whoever they wish with COVID-19. And only COVID-19. Republican support for all other vaccine mandates has not changed.

This is the first major test of what happens when culture war priorities conflict with the wealth accumulation priorities of the GOP, and, well, the culture warriors are winning. It doesn’t mean that the Republican Party is going to suddenly soften on their multiple decades of support for growing the piggy banks of the rich. But it does mean they are going to get even more baroque and hateful, as they keep trying to find some kind of culture war distractions to keep the base from abandoning them over their economic policies. 

Everything has tradeoffs, I suppose, and this is the bizarre one that we’ve faced in the decade since Occupy Wall Street: Democrats got way better, but somehow Republicans lost their goddamn minds.

That might not have been such a big deal in a better political system. The GOP is swiftly becoming a minority party, while the American population lurches left politically. In our political system, however, disproportionate representation and voter suppression gives Republicans a real shot at permanent minority rule, as long as they can keep their voters on the hook with horse paste and abortion bans. 

None of that is the fault of Occupy Wall Street, to be clear. They set out with one mission in mind: Wake people up to economic inequality and get folks to start taking action to change things. On that front, they succeeded. The Democrats have power and they are trying, most of them anyway, to pass bills that directly address the concerns Occupy raised. That’s a big shift in what was only a decade, especially with so many moneyed interests going against them. If America can survive the assault on democracy, we’re in a great position, politically, to really address the economic problems that have plagued us for decades. That, I’m sad to say, is a very big “if.”

The Supreme Court is on defense: Justices speak out to calm growing dissatisfaction

The Supreme Court appears to be on a PR blitz following a string of controversial rulings.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday cautioned against “destroying our institutions because they don’t give us what we want, when we want it,” adding that the court is not swayed by its own political biases, as many critics have recently suggested. 

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” he said during a speech at the University of Notre Dame. “So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out.”

“Sometimes, I don’t like the results of my decisions,” he added. “But it’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want. Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

Thomas, appointed in 1991 by former President George H. W. Bush, makes up part of the court’s conservative wing. Like Republican Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Samuel Alito, Thomas is a practicing Catholic, which some critics have seen as a complicating factor in his legal judgments. Asked about his religious faith, according to AP News, Thomas said: “You do your job and you go cry alone.”


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


On Sunday, Barrett made a similar speech at the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center, arguing that the bench does not consist of “a bunch of partisan hacks.”

“Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she said. “It’s not my job to decide cases based on the outcome I want.”

Then on Monday, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by Democratic president Bill Clinton, said the court’s recent abortion ruling was “very bad” but defended it against charges that it was politically driven.

“We don’t trade votes, and members of the court have different judicial philosophies,” Breyer told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

The liberal justice, who is currently on a tour to promote his new book praising the nonpartisanship and professionalism of his conservative colleagues, is trying to tamp down talk of expanding the court from frustrated Democrats. 

“They better be pretty careful about it because two can play at that game,” Breyer said Monday. “You could have Republicans appointing and Democrats appointing and vice versa.”  The “overall tendency,” he continued, would be “weakening the confidence of the average person in the decisions of the court.”

Their protestations come just following a spate of watershed conservative rulings on abortion, housing, and immigration. 

Earlier this month, the court upheld a near-total abortion ban in Texas, preventing Lone Star residents from providing or accessing an abortion six weeks or later into pregnancy. The law, which effectively sinks the 48-year precedent set by Roe v. Wade, also deputizes private citizens to sue offenders for at least $10,000. Around the same time, the court also ruled that President Biden’s eviction moratorium – a lifeline for tenants struggling to rent amid the pandemic – was illegal, effectively putting millions at risk of eviction and subsequent homelessness. Breyer dissented from the majority in both cases. Both of the decisions were delivered via “shadow docket,” an abstruse legal maneuver that allowed the court’s conservative wing to circumvent traditional judicial proceedings, earning the justices widespread scorn for their apparent partisanship. 

The Supreme Court’s public approval rating has recently dropped to a record low, with only a third of all Americans supporting the high court’s conduct in a new Quinnipiac poll. That number marks the Supreme Court’s worst job approval since Quinnipiac University began asking the question in 2004

7 best tips for water bath canning

Along with sourdoughhome gardening and other pandemic cooking projects, another time honored tradition has recently gained new excitement: food preservation. Last summer stores quickly ran out of glass jars as home cooks rushed to preserve their garden bounty, and even today many retailers continue to limit how many lids and jars can be purchased at once.

Quick pickling and refrigerator jamming are simple food preservation techniques that are often go-to methods thanks to short prep time and easy recipes. But these methods only extend the life of items for a few weeks and require refrigeration. While water bath canning homemade jams and sauces requires a little more work, we suggest you learn the method, as it’s an incredibly rewarding process that can help you enjoy the bounty of spring and summer all winter long, without taking up refrigerator shelf space.

Why preserve your food? As Master Home Preserver Shakirah Simley recently wrote on her Instagram, “Preservation is a selfless act. When you ‘put up’ food, your intention is always to feed yourself and others. I also love the act of taking a fleeting harvest and turning it into permanent abundance. It’s a heady mix of history, chemistry, tradition and culture in every batch. As a Black canner, especially, I’m honored to carry this thread of my ancestors.”

Whether you’re using up an abundance of home-grown vegetables or want to preserve your favorite seasonal foods from the farmers’ market, water bath canning provides one of the best ways to preserve your food. Here are some of the basics of water bath canning to get you started.

What is water bath canning?

Water bath canning is a method of food preservation for acidic foods that uses pressure, created by boiling water, to create an environment within glass jars which prevents harmful bacteria from growing on the food. It can be used for sweet and savory foods, from whole tomatoes or peaches to chutneys, salsas, sauces, vinegars and more. When done properly, these canned foods are shelf stable and do not rely on a fridge or freezer to maintain their freshness.

Steps for water bath canning

While you should follow approved recipes and step-by-step guides on how to safely complete the process, the main components of water bath canning include:

  • Preparing a high acidity food such as tomatoes, certain jams and jellies, pickles, and more.
  • Packing the acidic food into sterilized glass jars and sealing with the proper lid.
  • Placing the jars in a water bath canner; typically a large stockpot designed to hold a large quantity of water.
  • Processing the jars in boiling water for the required time as stated in the recipe.

7 tips for water bath canning

Start with the best produce 

One of the benefits of home canning is that you are able to preserve seasonal produce. When choosing fruit or vegetables to use, pick items that are ripe, but not overripe or bruised, to ensure the best quality finished product. “You want to be working with product that’s gorgeous, that you would want to eat yourself,” Lauren Sandler, director of preservation for Woodberry Pantry, told Eater.

Find reputable sources for recipes and guidance 

Water bath canning is as much about science as it is about cooking. The conditions must be just right to guarantee the safety of the finished product so it’s important that you follow the latest guidelines for safe canning practices and use recipes that have been thoroughly tested.

The Department of Agriculture, which publishes up-to-date guidelines for home canning through the National Center for Home Preservation (NCFHP) is a great place to start. State extension offices also offer in-depth canning resources, classes and answers to the most commonly asked questions. We also have several suggestions for great canning and preserving books below.

Follow the recipe closely 

Recipes developed for water bath canning are created and tested to ensure they maintain a certain pH level — the measure for how acidic a food is. Deviating from the recipe can cause the pH level to become too high or too low which could make your finished product unsafe and lead to spoilage.

We know it can be tempting to add an extra clove of garlic to tomato sauce but for safety purposes, hold off for now. Certain foods like garlic and other alliums can lower the pH of your food, making it unsafe to process. If you like a lot of garlic (who doesn’t), you can always add it to your sauce when you are ready to eat it. And once you’ve mastered the water bath canning process, you may want to go rogue and start canning whatever jams or pickles you’ve made off the cuff. Stick to recipes or use paper pH test strips to guarantee the proper acidity.

Gather the essential tools, but use what you already have 

While there are definitely tools that make the water bath canning process easier, most of the equipment you need may already be in your kitchen. As Sherri Brooks Vinton states in her book, “Put ‘Em Up, A Comprehensive Home Canning Guide,” “Home food preservation is an exercise in economy, not consumerism, so you shouldn’t have to invest a lot of money in new, single-use gadgets to get the job done.”

Here are a few items that will help throughout the process:

  • Large stockpot for processing the jars.
  • Enamel or non-reactive stockpot for preparing the food. If making jam, try using a copper pot as recommended by Alessandra Gordon, owner of Seattle based jam company Ayako and Family. “The copper in particular, is a really great conductor of heat,” she says.
  • Jar lifter to remove the jars from the water (or make your own with tongs and rubber bands).
  • Home canning jars, lids and bands in preferred sizes. You can reuse jars and bands so long as there are no defects (cracks, dents, etc.), but lids can only be used one-time to ensure they seal properly. Previously used lids can be used for dry storage or non-canning purposes.
  • Silicone or metal rack that fits within your canning stockpot.
  • Wide mouth funnel and a ladle to transfer prepared food into the jars.
  • Food scale for precisely measuring the weight of fruit or vegetables.

Prepare your working area 

Canning isn’t actually a difficult process, however, it does include a few components. As Vinton says in her book, “it helps to think of putting up food as having two separate components — food preparation and food preservation.” The preparation portion refers to the work that has to happen before you even start canning such as chopping fruit or vegetables, cooking jams and sauces or preparing brines for pickles.

To help keep organized, it’s best to start in a clean kitchen with all of your ingredients and equipment out and ready. Read through the recipe a few times so you understand what needs to be done before you start the canning process and so you can gather any special tools that are required (such as a food mill for tomato sauce).

Label and store your finished product properly 

Once your jars are processed and you’ve ensured the lids have sealed correctly, remove the band and place a label on each jar stating the contents and the date it was processed. The labeled jars should be stored in a cool, dry location, ideally away from direct sunlight. Jars should not be stacked on top of one another, as this can disturb the seal of the lid. When stored properly, the food should retain its quality for up to one year, however follow the recipe’s guidance.

Connect with other canners 

Even after reading tutorials and closely following canning recipes, you may still have questions or want to connect with others dedicated to food preservation. If you don’t know anyone involved in food preservation, there is a growing canning community online where fellow home canners share knowledge, answer questions and highlight recipes. Facebook groups such as Food in Jars and Punk Domestics cover a wide range of food preservation techniques and sometimes also offer virtual classes. Canning Across America is a website that aims to connect cooks, gardeners and food lovers who are committed to home food preservation and provides a space to share safe food preservation tips and community building through food.

5 water bath canning books

Looking for more information about water bath canning? Here are some of our favorite books on preservation, with great tips and recipes for water bath canning:

“Food in Jars: Preserving in Small Batches Year Round” by Marisa McClellan

Marisa McClellan’s first cookbook “Food in Jars: Preserving in Small Batches Year Round” embodies her food preservation philosophy and mission to show how home canning can be approachable and accessible for all. Her small batch recipes work well for beginners and those who may be tight on space.

“The All New Ball Book Of Canning And Preserving” by Ball Home Canning Test Kitchen  

From one of the most trusted brands in home canning, this modern canning and preservation book from the Ball Home Canning Test Kitchen contains over 350 new recipes for water bath canning, pressure canning, freezing/drying and fermentation. The “All New Ball Book of Canning and Preserving” also contains several recipes that highlight how to use your canned products so nothing goes to waste. Plus, you can rest assured knowing that all recipes have been thoroughly tested for safety by Ball’s Fresh Preserving Quality Assurance Lab.

“Put ’em Up! Preserving Answer Book: 399 Solutions to All Your Questions: Canning, Freezing, Drying, Fermenting, Making Infusions” by Sherri Brooks Vinton

A companion to Sherri Vinton’s other home preservation books, “Put ‘Em Up! A Comprehensive Home Preserving Guide for the Creative Cook” and “Put ‘Em Up! Fruit,” this book contains 399 solutions to some of the most popular home preservation questions. From how to properly set up your kitchen to learning how to keep your knives sharp, get expert answers so you can feel more confident in your canning.

“What Mrs. Fisher Knows About Old Southern Cooking: Soups, Pickles, Preserves, Etc.” by Abby Fisher

This book is believed to be one of the first cookbooks written by an African-American woman, former slave Abby Fisher. Published in 1881, “What Mrs. Fisher Knows About Southern Cooking” contains a chapter titled “Preserving and Canning Food: Jams, Jellies and Pickles” but also highlights old-style Southern recipes and serves as a historical reference for cooking during that time period. Shakirah Simley is among the many fans of this historical reference book.

The Homestead Canning Cookbook: Simple, Safe Instructions from a Certified Master Food Preserver” by Georgia Varozza

Written by Certified Master Food Preserver Georgia Varozza, “The Homestead Canning Cookbook” contains over 150 recipes organized by ingredient which makes it easy to find a recipe for whatever is in season. The book also includes practical and accessible ways to incorporate the canning process into your busy life.

Pro-Trump rally may be a dud — but that proves the power of the Big Lie

In anticipation of another gathering of Trump followers at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, the various law enforcement agencies aren’t taking any chances. The fences are back up and officials have called for back-up from local police; the National Guard has already gone out. The rallygoers are gathering to protest the prosecution and incarceration of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Organizers claim they are being held as political prisoners in cruel conditions, so one can understand why the authorities are concerned.

Most observers of extremist forums seem to think this so-called “Justice for J6” event isn’t going to be very well-attended. Law enforcement reckons maybe 700 people will show up. This is not all that surprising since the organizer Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign official, has told those who show that will not be allowed to wear their usual MAGA costumes or carry Trump regalia, which would have been like telling Deadheads they couldn’t wear tie-dye or smoke pot at a Grateful Dead concert. He took the fun right out of it for the vast majority of  Trumpers.

There is, of course, the danger that some of the more violent types could attend for their own reasons. (There doesn’t seem to be any prohibition against wearing military gear or Proud Boys t-shirts.) But according to NBC’s Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny, the word has gone forth on extremist Facebook groups and forums such as TheDonald and 4chan that the whole thing is a “false flag” or a “honeypot” by the government designed to bring more patriots to Washington so they can be arrested and thrown into the dungeons with the other “political prisoners.”

Brayand responds that those people are the real false flag and these comments are being planted to deter people from protesting the supposed stolen election and the government’s ill-treatment of the supposedly innocent protesters of January 6th. There seems to be a lack of trust among the paranoid extremists these days. Go figure. 


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


Perhaps most importantly, no big names or MAGA stars will be attending, not even attention hogs like Congressional Reps Matt Gaetz, R-Fl, or Marjorie Taylor Green, R-Ga. Trump himself was thought to be ignoring the whole thing until Thursday when he sent out a statement of support:

Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election. In addition to everything else, it has proven conclusively that we are a two-tiered system of justice. In the end, however, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!

He also told The Federalist in an agitated interview that he too believes the rally to be a “set-up.” But predictably his view is that if a big crowd shows up it will be an excuse for the media to “harass” the protesters and if only a few show up they’ll say it makes him look bad. (His direct quote was”if people don’t show up they’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s a lack of spirit.’)

Always in fear of offending his followers, Trump’s trying to have it both ways. Not that there’s anything new about that.

In the new book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, when former House Speaker Paul Ryan demanded that Trump denounce white supremacy in the wake of Charlottesville, Trump reportedly responded, “These people love me. These are my people. I can’t backstab the people who support me.” Evidently, he somehow came to believe that by saying Nazis are bad, but there were “very fine people on both sides,” that he had successfully covered his bases.

He really needn’t worry, of course. His people are still with him — now more than ever.

According to a new CNN survey, 63% of all respondents believe Biden “legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency.” That’s a shockingly low number since it’s obvious that Biden legitimately won and normally this isn’t even in question. But even more shocking is the fact that 78% of Republicans don’t believe it. That’s up from 70% a few months ago. In other words the Big Lie isn’t dissipating. It’s gaining steam.

The Public Religion Research Institute also released a poll that asked who people blame for the January 6th insurrection. 56% of those surveyed hold Trump responsible. Republicans? 15%.

The CNN poll asked if people feel democracy is under attack or is being tested and 93% agreed that it was one or the other. Of course, they are right. The problem is that Republicans believe that it’s Democrats who are doing it when the truth is the opposite. Most distressing is a fatalistic attitude among Democrats who, after seeing Republican partisans change voting rules and pass laws suppressing votes all over the country, are coming to believe that elections will not reflect the will of the people. 90% believed they would in January. It’s down to 69% today and for good reason.

Despite no evidence of fraud and two previous audits of the 2020 election, this week Pennsylvania Republicans issued subpoenas for the names, addresses, driver’s license numbers and the last four digits of Social Security numbers for millions of people who cast ballots in the primary and general election last year. What can they possibly do with that information? It’s hard to see this as anything more than another attempt to undermine confidence in democracy.

And I doubt most Democrats are even aware of the former president latest nefarious activity. As CNN’s Daniel Dale pointed out, Trump’s endorsement this week of Rep. Mark Finchem for Arizona Secretary of State is the latest in a series of moves to place Big Lie supporters into those crucial positions ahead of the 2024 election. This was the third such supporter he’s endorsed in a battleground state — the other two are Michigan and Georgia. 

This isn’t just Trump rewarding his loyal followers. This is a strategic plan. Secretaries of State run elections. No wonder Americans are losing faith in democracy. It’s being actively undermined before their very eyes.

This weekend’s rally at the Capitol may turn out to be a dud. But it would be a mistake to think that the air has gone out of the Big Lie or the MAGA movement. Trump is making sure to take care of his base and they still love him for it. And in the meantime, he and his henchmen are working overtime to ensure that elections are in the hands of those who will take care of him in return. 

Over half of states have rolled back public health powers in pandemic

Republican legislators in more than half of U.S. states, spurred on by voters angry about lockdowns and mask mandates, are taking away the powers state and local officials use to protect the public against infectious diseases.

A KHN review of hundreds of pieces of legislation found that, in all 50 states, legislators have proposed bills to curb such public health powers since the COVID-19 pandemic began. While some governors vetoed bills that passed, at least 26 states pushed through laws that permanently weaken government authority to protect public health. In three additional states, an executive order, ballot initiative or state Supreme Court ruling limited long-held public health powers. More bills are pending in a handful of states whose legislatures are still in session.

In Arkansas, legislators banned mask mandates except in private businesses or state-run health care settings, calling them “a burden on the public peace, health, and safety of the citizens of this state.” In Idaho, county commissioners, who typically have no public health expertise, can veto countywide public health orders. And in Kansas and Tennessee, school boards, rather than health officials, have the power to close schools.

President Joe Biden last Thursday announced sweeping vaccination mandates and other COVID-19 measures, saying he was forced to act partly because of such legislation: “My plan also takes on elected officials in states that are undermining you and these lifesaving actions.”

All told:

  • In at least 16 states, legislators have limited the power of public health officials to order mask mandates, or quarantines or isolation. In some cases, they gave themselves or local elected politicians the authority to prevent the spread of infectious disease.
  • At least 17 states passed laws banning COVID-19 vaccine mandates or passports, or made it easier to get around vaccine requirements.
  • At least nine states have new laws banning or limiting mask mandates. Executive orders or a court ruling limit mask requirements in five more.

Much of this legislation takes effect as COVID-19 hospitalizations in some areas are climbing to the highest numbers at any point in the pandemic, and children are back in school.

“We really could see more people sick, hurt, hospitalized or even die, depending on the extremity of the legislation and curtailing of the authority,” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, head of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

Public health academics and officials are frustrated that they, instead of the virus, have become the enemy. They argue this will have consequences that last long beyond this pandemic, diminishing their ability to fight the latest COVID-19 surge and future disease outbreaks, such as being able to quarantine people during a measles outbreak.

“It’s kind of like having your hands tied in the middle of a boxing match,” said Kelley Vollmar, executive director of the Jefferson County Health Department in Missouri.

But proponents of the new limits say they are a necessary check on executive powers and give lawmakers a voice in prolonged emergencies. Arkansas state Sen. Trent Garner, a Republican who co-sponsored his state’s successful bill to ban mask mandates, said he was trying to reflect the will of the people.

“What the people of Arkansas want is the decision to be left in their hands, to them and their family,” Garner said. “It’s time to take the power away from the so-called experts, whose ideas have been woefully inadequate.”

After initially signing the bill, Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson expressed regret, calling a special legislative session in early August to ask lawmakers to carve out an exception for schools. They declined. The law is currently blocked by an Arkansas judge who deemed it unconstitutional. Legal battles are ongoing in other states as well.

A Deluge of Bills

In Ohio, legislators gave themselves the power to overturn health orders and weakened school vaccine mandates. In Utah and Iowa, schools cannot require masks. In Alabama, state and local governments cannot issue vaccine passports and schools cannot require COVID-19 vaccinations.

Montana’s legislature passed some of the most restrictive laws of all, severely curbing public health’s quarantine and isolation powers, increasing local elected officials’ power over local health boards, preventing limits on religious gatherings and banning employers — including in health care settings — from requiring vaccinations for COVID-19, the flu or anything else.

Legislators there also passed limits on local officials: If jurisdictions add public health rules stronger than state public health measures, they could lose 20% of some grants.

Losing the ability to order quarantines has left Karen Sullivan, health officer for Montana’s Butte-Silver Bow department, terrified about what’s to come — not only during the COVID-19 pandemic but for future measles and whooping cough outbreaks.

“In the midst of delta and other variants that are out there, we’re quite frankly a nervous wreck about it,” Sullivan said. “Relying on morality and goodwill is not a good public health practice.”

While some public health officials tried to fight the national wave of legislation, the underfunded public health workforce was consumed by trying to implement the largest vaccination campaign in U.S. history and had little time for political action.

Freeman said her city and county health officials’ group has meager influence and resources, especially in comparison with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed conservative group that promoted a model bill to restrict the emergency powers of governors and other officials. The draft legislation appears to have inspired dozens of state-level bills, according to the KHN review. At least 15 states passed laws limiting emergency powers. In some states, governors can no longer institute mask mandates or close businesses, and their executive orders can be overturned by legislators.

When North Dakota’s legislative session began in January, a long slate of bills sought to rein in public health powers, including one with language similar to ALEC’s. The state didn’t have a health director to argue against the new limits because three had resigned in 2020.

Fighting the bills not only took time, but also seemed dangerous, said Renae Moch, public health director for Bismarck, who testified against a measure prohibiting mask mandates. She then received an onslaught of hate mail and demands for her to be fired.

Lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto to pass the bill into law. The North Dakota legislature also banned businesses from asking whether patrons are vaccinated against or infected with the coronavirus and curbed the governor’s emergency powers.

The new laws are meant to reduce the power of governors and restore the balance of power between states’ executive branches and legislatures, said Jonathon Hauenschild, director of the ALEC task force on communications and technology. “Governors are elected, but they were delegating a lot of authority to the public health official, often that they had appointed,” Hauenschild said.

‘Like Turning Off a Light Switch’

When the Indiana legislature overrode the governor’s veto to pass a bill that gave county commissioners the power to review public health orders, it was devastating for Dr. David Welsh, the public health officer in rural Ripley County.

People immediately stopped calling him to report COVID-19 violations, because they knew the county commissioners could overturn his authority. It was “like turning off a light switch,” Welsh said.

Another county in Indiana has already seen its health department’s mask mandate overridden by the local commissioners, Welsh said.

He’s considering stepping down after more than a quarter century in the role. If he does, he’ll join at least 303 public health leaders who have retired, resigned or been fired since the pandemic began, according to an ongoing KHN and AP analysis. That means 1 in 5 Americans have lost a local health leader during the pandemic.

“This is a deathblow,” said Brian Castrucci, CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, which advocates for public health. He called the legislative assault the last straw for many seasoned public health officials who have battled the pandemic without sufficient resources, while also being vilified.

Public health groups expect further combative legislation. ALEC’s Hauenschild said the group is looking into a Michigan law that allowed the legislature to limit the governor’s emergency powers without Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s signature. 

Curbing the authority of public health officials has also become campaign fodder, particularly among Republican candidates running further on the right. While Republican Idaho Gov. Brad Little was traveling out of state, Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin signed a surprise executive order banning mask mandates that she later promoted for her upcoming campaign against him. He later reversed the ban, tweeting, “I do not like petty politics. I do not like political stunts over the rule of law.”

At least one former lawmaker — former Oregon Democratic state Sen. Wayne Fawbush — said some of today’s politicians may come to regret these laws.

Fawbush was a sponsor of 1989 legislation during the AIDS crisis. It banned employers from requiring health care workers, as a condition of employment, to get an HIV vaccine, if one became available. 

But 32 years later, that means Oregon cannot require health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Calling lawmaking a “messy business,” Fawbush said he certainly wouldn’t have pushed the bill through if he had known then what he does now.

“Legislators need to obviously deal with immediate situations,” Fawbush said. “But we have to look over the horizon. It’s part of the job responsibility to look at consequences.”

KHN data reporter Hannah Recht, Montana correspondent Katheryn Houghton and Associated Press writer Michelle R. Smith contributed to this report.

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

Forceful vaccine messages backfire with holdouts — how can it be done better?

With the FDA approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the continued surge of the delta variant, governments across the world have renewed their push to increase the number of vaccinated individuals by persuading the holdouts. On Sept. 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced sweeping vaccine mandates, expressing frustration at the vaccine holdouts: “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

As a communication scientist who has studied the effects of media and health campaigns for the past 30 years, I worry that a fevered pitch in vaccine messaging may make the holdouts even more resistant. The direct, blunt messages to go get vaccinated that worked on three-quarters of Americans may not work for the remaining one-quarter. If anything, they might backfire.

Research has shown that some health communication techniques work more effectively than others depending on the audience. It’s a lesson that not only policymakers can apply but also members of the media, industry and even parents and relatives.

When it comes to embracing new ideas and practices, research has identified five categories of people: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. With COVID-19 vaccination, it’s come down to the last two, and they are the most resistant to change.

This group of unvaccinated people is substantial in number — there are nearly 80 million people in the U.S. who are vaccine eligible yet remain unvaccinated and they are the ones who could help the U.S. achieve herd immunity. But, research suggests that they are also the ones who will take offense at forceful exhortations to go get vaccinated.

Strong messaging can backfire

Public health messaging can and does often influence people but not always in the intended direction. Back in 1999, I testified in the U.S. Congress about how powerful anti-drug messages may be turning adolescents on to drugs rather than off of them. Likewise, the strong language of current vaccine messaging may be evoking resistance rather than compliance.

Consider this headline from a recent New York Times editorial: “Get Masked. Get Vaccinated. It’s the Only Way Out of This.” This follows 18 months of public-health messaging urging people to stay home, wash hands and maintain social distancing.

They may be well intentioned, but research in health communication shows that such directive messages can be perceived as “high threat,” meaning they threaten the free will of the message receiver by dictating what they should do. They are likely to trigger what psychologists call “reactance”. In other words, when individuals sense a threat to their freedom of action, they become motivated to restore that freedom, often by attempting to do the very thing that is prohibited or by refusing to adhere to the recommended behavior.

Recent research by my communications colleagues at Penn State shows that even advertisements that include directive slogans such as “No Mask, No Ride” from Uber — and “Socialize Responsibly to Keep Bars Open” – a Heineken message can irritate consumers and make them less likely to engage in responsible behaviors.

Reactance to COVID-19 messaging is evident in the form of widespread protests around the world. Many have gone to the streets and social media, with slogans such as “my body, my choice,” “let me call my own shots” and “coercion is not consent.”

These responses demonstrate not simply hesitation to get vaccinated, but rather active resistance to vaccine messaging, reflecting an effort to protect personal agency by asserting one’s freedom of action.

Flipping the script

Freedom is a critical concept in the anti-vaccination rhetoric. “Freedom, not force” is the battle cry of the protesters. “If we lose medical freedom, we lose all freedom,” reads a poster. “Choose freedom,” urged Sen. Rand Paul in a recent op-ed expressing his resistance to mask mandates and lockdowns. “We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport, we will not wear a mask, we will not be forced into random screening and testing.”

One way to counter such reactance is by changing the communication strategy. Health communication researchers have found that simple changes to message wording can make a big difference. In one study by my Penn State colleagues who study health persuasion, the researchers tested participants’ responses to sensible health behaviors such as flossing: “If you floss already, don’t stop even for a day. And, if you haven’t been flossing, right now is the time to start. … Flossing: It’s easy. Do it because you have to!” Study participants reacted to such messages by expressing their disagreement through anger and by defying the advocated behavior.

But then the researchers reworded the same advocacy to be less threatening, such as: “If you floss already, keep up the good work. And if you haven’t been flossing, now might be a good time to start.” And “Flossing: It’s easy. Why not give it a try?” They found that the participants’ reactance was significantly lower and their message acceptance higher.

In the same way, softening the message and using less dogmatic language could be the key to persuading some of the unvaccinated. This is because suggestive, rather than directive, messages allow room for people to exercise their own free will. Studies in health communication also suggest several other strategies for reducing reactance, ranging from providing choices to evoking empathy.

Bandwagon effects

Perhaps more important given people’s reliance on smartphones and social networking — is to make better use of the technological features of interactive media, which includes websites, social media, mobile apps and games. Clever use of digital media can help convey strong health messages without triggering reactance.

Research in our lab shows that people’s responses to media messages can be influenced by the approval of anonymous others on the internet, in the same way that consumers rely on other people’s opinions and star ratings for making purchasing decisions online. In a recent study, we discovered that freedom-threatening health messages can be made more palatable if they are accompanied by a large number of likes on social media from other people. When a lot of others were seen as supporting the advocacy message, the forceful language did not seem any more threatening to their freedom than the gentler version.

In other words, we found that the number of likes has a strong “bandwagon effect” in reducing reactance. We also discovered that providing an option to comment on the health message imbues a higher sense of personal agency and greater acceptance of the message.

In another recent experiment, we found that customization, or the ability to tailor one’s phone or online site to one’s liking, can also aid health communication. Whether it is a phone app, dating site or social media feed, customizing a digital space allows people to reflect their personality. Seeing a health advocacy message in such a personalized space does not pose as much of a threat in such venues because people feel secure in their identity. We found that customization helps reduce negative reactions to health messages by increasing one’s sense of identity.

A communication strategy that is sensitive to psychological reactance could empower the holdouts to willingly get vaccinated instead of grudgingly comply with a mandate.

S. Shyam Sundar, James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects & Co-Director, Media Effects Research Laboratory, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

So, what is ungardening anyway?

While I consider myself lucky to have a beautiful outdoor space to call my own, the entire property is absolutely riddled with Oriental bittersweet. This invasive vine manages to strangle (and often kill) every plant it comes in contact with — we’ve lost full-grown, 100-year-old trees to it — and it’s near impossible to get rid of once it has a foothold.

Given how awful this plant is, I was shocked to find out that some nurseries actually sell it as an ornamental plant. In fact, it’s fairly common to find invasive species and non-native plants in garden centers, and while they might look pretty — bittersweet gets festive red berries with orange shells in the fall — these plants aren’t great for our local ecosystems. That’s where “ungardening” comes in. We spoke to an ecologist about how this new gardening movement can help reverse ecological decline and build habitats for local wildlife, and it turns out that it’s perfect for anyone with a laissez faire gardening style (like me!)

* * *

What is ungardening, exactly?

The concept of ungardening, sometimes also called “rewilding,” encourages you to let go of your perfectly manicured flower beds and lawn, and instead, embrace native species and let things get a little wild.

“Ungardening is the concept of using the ideas and techniques of natural land management and restoration in our own yards, instead of the conventional landscape methods,” explains Aubree Keurajian, an ecologist and the owner of Ungardening Native Plants in Connecticut. “This includes planting native species, removing invasive species, and stopping the use of pesticides, but it goes further, bringing the focus to creating habitat not just for pollinators, but for lots of beneficial organisms.”

So instead of using a non-native grass for your lawn (we’re looking at you, Bermudagrass!), which will likely require weed killers and lots of water, ungardening would encourage you to let a native grass variety, clover, or another native ground cover take over. Or, instead of altering your soil to grow specific varieties of flowers, choose native blooms that will thrive without any amendments or pesticides.

The end result is a more eco-friendly habitat that’s every bit as beautiful: “When done properly, gardening can help to reverse ecological decline and create a welcoming enviornment for pollinators and wildlife,” says Keurajian. “If you find joy in any part of nature, be it plants, insects, mushrooms, birds, or anything else, ungardening an area will undoubtedly bring more of it into your life.”

Not sure you’re ready to hand your whole property over to Mother Nature? Start small! “It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing process,” Keurajian says. “You can start ungardening just a small portion of your property while maintaining more conventional flower and veggie gardens and even lawn area.”

* * *

Wait, so what are these invasive species? 

One of the key steps of ungardening is kicking invasive species to the curb — but what does that term mean, exactly? An invasive species is any plant (or animal, or insect) that’s introduced to a non-native area — aka somewhere it wouldn’t be on its own. When left unchecked, invasive species often become overpopulated, and they can negatively alter the new environment, such as the way bittersweet, a plant native to China, causes strife in North America.

“Many plant species that are invasive now were introduced intentionally for the garden industry, many horticulturally, but some culinarily and agriculturally, as well,” says Keurajian. “Three of the most common ornamental species that are actually invasive are burning bush, privet, and barberry, but there are dozens of others.” She notes that what’s considered invasive will largely depend on where you live.

Here’s how to get started ungardening 

Personally, I have a laidback gardening style and tend to let my gardens do what they want, so ungardening sounds right up my alley. If you want to try it out yourself, Keurajian breaks down the key steps of ungardening as follows:

  • Remove any invasive species
  • Stop the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and nutrient amendments
  • Allow native species that grow on their own to remain
  • Create insect habitat by leaving areas of open soil, dead wood, leaves, and stems
  • Allow for the natural pace and fluctuations of natural restoration processes.

It may seem a little overwhelming, but you don’t have to do it all at once. “The first place to start is with removing invasive species and stopping the use of broadcast pesticides and herbicides,” she recommends. “Use local resources to determine what species are invasive in your area. There are plenty of introduced species that play fairly well with others, and there’s no need to bite off more than you can chew. “

“Next, designate an area that you want to ungarden, and just let things grow! Manage invasive species and trim the edges to keep up appearances if you want, but otherwise let the plants and critters do what they want and just observe.” As new greenery springs up your ungarden, Keurajian recommends using the Seek by iNaturalist app to help with plant identification.

When you embrace this more natural way of landscaping, you’ll likely find that Mother Nature is a wonderful gardener, and local birds, insects, and other critters are sure to appreciate your efforts, too.

Rogue general vs. rogue president: GOP cultists willing to defend Trump destroying the world

Is it life imitating art imitating life, or something even more complicated than that? At this point in America’s state of malignant normality and unreality I am no longer sure. America in the Age of Trump lost the plot some time ago.

Consider this narrative: A crazed and out of control president, viewed by political rivals and military leaders as so unstable he might start a war — even a nuclear conflict — to gratify his ego and hold onto political power. He has launched a coup attempt, which remains unresolved. But a few brave and patriotic souls are willing to stop this president in order to save the country and the world from catastrophe and potential annihilation.

That comes rather too close to the plot of the 1965 thriller novel “Night of Camp David.” Unfortunately, these events are not fictional. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military and civilian leaders felt it necessary to prevent Donald Trump from acting out his most destructive impulses after losing the 2020 election, fearing the risks of a new world war. 

These details come from CNN’s report on “Peril,” the new book on the presidential transition period by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa of the Washington Post:

Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump’s top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons. …

Woodward and Costa write that Milley, deeply shaken by the assault, “was certain that Trump had gone into a serious mental decline in the aftermath of the election, with Trump now all but manic, screaming at officials and constructing his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies.”

Milley worried that Trump could “go rogue,” the authors write.

“You never know what a president’s trigger point is,” Milley told his senior staff, according to the book.

In response, Milley took extraordinary action, and called a secret meeting in his Pentagon office on January 8 to review the process for military action, including launching nuclear weapons. Speaking to senior military officials in charge of the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon’s war room, Milley instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

“No matter what you are told, you do the procedure. You do the process. And I’m part of that procedure,” Milley told the officers, according to the book. He then went around the room, looked each officer in the eye, and asked them to verbally confirm they understood.

In a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Woodward and Costa report, Milley agreed with her characterization that Trump was “crazy” and had been so “for a long time.” The authors write that after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, Milley “felt no absolute certainty that the military could control or trust Trump and believed it was his job as the senior military officer to think the unthinkable and take any and all necessary precautions,” calling it the “absolute darkest moment of theoretical possibility.”

According to Woodward and Costa, national security officials appointed by Trump agreed. Then-CIA director Gina Haspel told Milley, “We are on the way to a right-wing coup. The whole thing is insanity. He is acting out like a six-year-old with a tantrum.” Even Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who had refused to acknowledge in public that Biden had won the election, told Milley that Trump was “in a very dark place right now.”

Trump’s supporters in the Republican Party are predictably focused on a single detail: CNN’s report that Milley had “two back-channel phone calls with China’s top general, who was on high alert over the chaos in the U.S.,” in an effort to prevent a military incident between the two nuclear-armed nations. The right-wing disinformation machine is not interested in any form of accountability for Donald Trump, of course. Instead, leading Republicans and conservative pundits are demanding that Milley resign and be punished for alleged “treason.” Trump himself has publicly declared Milley to be a traitor.

That response offers more evidence — if any was needed — of how today’s Republican Party has become a fascist cult and a political crime syndicate, where loyalty to the leader matters more than anything else, including the survival of the nation or the entire world. Public opinion polls indicate that Republican voters largely feel the same way.

This is part of a larger right-wing impulse towards death and destruction, as seen with Republicans’ collective response to the pandemic, the global climate crisis, mass shootings, police violence, economic inequality and other forms of injustice, and societal harm and human suffering more generally. In total, the “revelations” in Woodward and Costa’s book are further proof that today’s Republican Party is a massive danger to the world.   

What happened? In 2015, the Republican Party made a devil’s bargain with Donald Trump. He would provide the destructive energy and cult of personality that would give Republicans and the white right an opportunity to undermine, if not destroy, the country’s democratic norms and institution. The proximate political goal was clear: Find a way to keep the Republican Party in power indefinitely, even in the face of demographic changes that threaten to render it obsolete.

As seen in Texas and many other states, the Republican Party’s new campaign against democracy is scoring important victories and gaining momentum. Whether Trump himself believes in the cause is irrelevant: He is an instinctive fascist and demagogue, with no discernible ideology. For him, the presidency was a means to an end, an unlimited source of narcissistic fuel and a way to enrich himself (and his inner circle) and accumulate more power and attention.

As he revealed on numerous occasions, Trump’s impulse was to seek out ways he could remain president into the indefinite future.

Per the account in “Peril”, Vice President Mike Pence told Trump he had no power to reverse the results of the presidential election. Trump then asked him, “But wouldn’t it be almost cool to have that power?” 

Ultimately, Trump understood the Republican Party’s voters and their darkest and most malevolent desires better than did nearly all Republican pollsters, pundits, opinion leaders and political strategists. 

Donald Trump instinctively understood that his followers — the “deplorables” that Hillary Clinton warned the American people about — did not care about being “respected.” They wanted permission to unleash their worst fantasies and desires, unrestrained by “political correctness” and other societal expectations that they respect the humanity of other people. Such a concept of “freedom” is central to Trumpism and other forms of fascism. Trump’s followers see in him a projection of their ideal selves. This is why they are willing to kill and die for him and the movement. 

In response to these new “revelations” about the latter days of the Trump regime, the mainstream news media is back on its hamster wheel of shock and surprise and outrage. This is largely political theater, not the kind of rigorous pro-democracy journalism that America’s battle against neofascism demands. In a few days, the hope peddlers and professional “smart people” will move on to the next controversy.

To protest that the Republican Party is hypocritical or lacks principles, as some commentators invariably do, is a pitiful example of missing the point.

Peter Wehner expounds on this in a recent essay for the Atlantic, observing that the “MAGA brain” has been “rewired”:

Republicans who assumed that the party would return to sanity after Trump left office never understood how deforming the effects of his presidency would be. For many, Trump’s behaviors were initially a bug; eventually, they became a feature. Republicans ignored his corruptions and reveled in his cruelty. They entered Trump’s hall of mirrors, and they rather enjoyed it.

To better understand what’s happening in the GOP, think of a person with addiction who over time develops a tolerance; as a result, they need more potent and more frequent doses of the drug to get their desired high. And sometimes even that isn’t enough. They might turn to a more potent drug, which offers a more intense experience and a longer-lasting high, but at the price of considerably more danger.

In the final analysis, today’s Republican Party and the right-wing neofascist movement have no principles beyond winning at all costs. To deny that fact is to deny reality. Unfortunately, too many Americans, including everyday people as well as members of the political class, have convinced themselves that the Age of Trump and beyond is like a Hollywood movie, sure to arrive at a requisite happy ending in which good triumphs over evil. As most Black and brown Americans already know, such an outcome is not guaranteed in the real world. Such fantasies are not exclusive to white people, but they are definitely an artifact of white privilege.

What was Rep. Juan Vargas, an LGBTQ ally at home, doing at an anti-gay Christian event in Ukraine?

One of a series about the Fellowship Foundation, the secretive religious group that runs the National Prayer Breakfast and is popularly known as The Family. This series is based on Family documents obtained by TYT, including lists of breakfast guests and who invited them.

Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., an LGBTQ ally in the United States, was a featured participant at an anti-LGBTQ event in Ukraine last week. The annual event is also a hub for opponents of reproductive rights, and this year included a side discussion on “defending … conservative values.”

A picture of Vargas attending the side panel was posted on Twitter by an analyst at Ordo Iuris, a far-right Polish think tank. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., co-chair with Vargas of the Ukraine caucus in the House, also attended the main event.

In this tweet, Rep. Juan Vargas can be seen in the left-hand picture, wearing headphones, in an apparent exchange with Pavlo Unguryan, the right-wing, anti-LGBTQ Christian activist who chaired the breakfast.

Vargas, who is pro-choice and has a 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign, did not announce the trip publicly. Neither did Fitzpatrick, and their offices did not respond to requests for comment.

The event comes amid mounting concerns about the rise of white Christian nationalist movements both in the U.S. and overseas, some of which are enabled by political reluctance to scrutinize anything seen as religious. Ukraine’s LGBTQ community has been struggling for official implementation of legally required civil rights and protection against hate crimes, and against legislative attempts to ban “homosexual propaganda.”

The event last week was Ukraine’s annual National Prayer Breakfast. It was organized by Pavlo Unguryan, a former member of Parliament with a long history of working with American evangelical organizations, including The Family, to push conservative positions, such as opposition to reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.

Vargas is one of the few Democrats still involved with The Family. He has been listed as a National Prayer Breakfast host for the past three years and co-chaired it in 2016, when the invitation list clearly discriminated against Catholics, progressive religious leaders and non-evangelicals, as TYT recently reported.

An American lobbyist who attended last week’s event in Ukraine, former Rep. Jim Slattery, D-Kan., told TYT, “I did not hear any anti-LGBTQ remarks at this event or at earlier prayer breakfasts I have attended in Kyiv.” Slattery also said, however, that he had never heard of two far-right groups with ties to the Ukraine event.

Ukrainian LGBTQ activists lamented American participation in the prayer breakfast. “It’s bad,” said Bogan Globa, co-founder of QUA — LGBTQ Ukrainians in America. Asked whether congressional participation helps organizers expand their networks, Andrii Kravchuk, an advocacy expert at Ukraine’s Nash Mir LGBT Human Rights Center, told TYT, “[A]bsolutely right — this event is a chain in the ultraconservative religious networking.”

Kravchuk said, “All major Ukrainian churches, as well as [any] religious activists or lobbyists associated with them, are strictly homophobic.”

Journalist Oleksiy Kuzmenko tweeted in advance about the participation of Vargas and Fitzpatrick, calling the prayer breakfast’s organizers “Ukraine’s leading anti-LGBT figures.”

Although the event is only 10 years old, Kuzmenko told TYT, “Prayer Breakfast events have come to be amongst Ukraine’s premier political and religious events, and their success appears to illustrate how a prominent portion of Ukraine’s political class tolerates the well-known anti-LGBT agenda of some of the event’s organizers and has strong ties to American conservative circles.”

Generally, Kravchuk said, mainstream American attitudes toward LGBTQ rights are a positive influence on Ukraine. “I believe that communication between Ukrainian politician[s] and their mainstream Western counterparts would rather improve attitudes [in Ukraine] to LGBT people,” Kravchuk said.

Slattery, who said he has “never held a formal position in the Fellowship Foundation but [has] many friends who have participated in the National Prayer Breakfast,” told TYT he helped start the Ukraine event. “I encouraged people in Ukraine to start a National Prayer breakfast as a way to help unify the country and bind up the nation’s wounds about 10 years ago,” Slattery said in an email.

“This year all factions of the Rada [Ukraine’s parliament] were on the invitation to the Ukraine Prayer Breakfast and political leaders representing all factions in the Rada were in attendance,” Slattery said. “It was a unifying event. Jewish and Moslem [sic] leaders also attended.”

Slattery was unaware, however, of remarks made at Ukraine prayer breakfasts by another Family insider, Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich. In video of a 2019 speech surfaced by the political blog Take Care, Tim, Walberg tells Ukrainian prayer breakfast attendees that if he does what God wants, “Regardless of what my constituents think of me, the God who I serve will be pleased.” In the same speech, Walberg praises then-President Trump’s support for supporting “marriage between a man and a woman for life, and … for life from conception to natural death.”

Walberg also believes the prayer breakfasts have an impact — but not in favor of LGBTQ rights. Crediting Christian influence for Trump’s policies on abortion and LGBTQ issues, Walberg told the Ukrainian gathering, “For that reason, I salute you for prayer breakfasts like this.”

Unguryan, the breakfast chair, is an evangelical Christian whose ties to American right-wing evangelicals have been well documented. Last year, Kuzmenko reported for the journalism collective Bellingcat that Unguryan, a former member of parliament, has been a key figure in American efforts to combat LGBTQ rights in Ukraine.

As Kuzmenko reported, World Congress of Families president Brian Brown counted Unguryan as a “new friend” in 2019. Unguryan’s American ties include The Family and the U.S. National Prayer Breakfast, where Unguryan has been a fixture for years.

As Unguryan himself put it in a 2019 interview:

Throughout Western Christian civilization — which includes both America [and] Europe … there is a tradition of cooperation between conservative politicians, a kind of “network.” Cooperation of people with Christian values, with the understanding that their country needs to be built based on them. Prayer breakfasts are held in almost a hundred countries around the world and are a point of attraction for like-minded people.

Although America’s prayer breakfast is billed publicly as being hosted by Congress, documents obtained by TYT show that The Family not only runs the event, but allows Family insiders from other countries to invite like-minded guests, facilitating international network-building. The documents reveal that The Family let Unguryan invite 17 guests to the Washington prayer breakfast in 2016 and at least 12 in 2018.

Unguryan, however, was only a co-submitter of guest names. His partner on all of his 2016 invitations and half his 2018 invitations was Doug Burleigh, a Family leader who is a public supporter of Trump. It was Burleigh who gave breakfast tickets to Russian operatives Maria Butina and Alex Torshin.

Unguryan’s co-submitter on six other 2018 NPB invitations was Walberg, another Family insider. A former pastor, Walberg studied at Wheaton College, a Christian school with strong ties to The Family. In 2015, Walberg appeared at a Ukraine prayer breakfast bearing greetings on Vargas’ behalf.

As TYT previously reported, groups run by Unguryan have disclosed paying for Walberg and other conservatives to travel to Ukraine for prayer breakfasts. In some of those disclosures, Unguryan wrote candidly about the reason for inviting them.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Mich., for instance, was invited because of his “conservative stance on issues such as marriage, family, and Christian values.” Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, was described as “a strong advocate of freedoms of religion and speech [and] conservative values.”

And the Ukrainian National Prayer Breakfast has been similarly transparent about its purpose in the past. The 2016 event was reportedly part of a conference called “Protecting Christian Values in Central and Eastern Europe and Beyond.”

That conference, in turn, was organized by the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM), to which Unguryan belongs. In addition to opposing LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights, the ECPM is openly theocratic.

Whether or not Democratic participation is a factor, there’s every reason to think the Ukrainian prayer breakfast is achieving its organizers’ goals. “Interest in the event is growing every year,” Unguryan told the Ukrainian National News agency.

And the event is moving the needle. As Gohmert said on the floor of Congress in 2017:

We had representatives from the Ukraine government come to our National Prayer Breakfast here, and they started one there and began to grow. Now, for the first time, Ukraine[‘s] legislature has passed a bill recognizing a celebration of Christmas, the day of Jesus’ birth. … Apparently, from what we are told, it emanates from them coming over, being part of our Prayer Breakfast, where the president comes, and then starting one.

And Gohmert’s not alone. LGBTQ advocates also see warning signs in Ukraine.

Bogdan Globa, the co-founder of QUA — LGBTQ Ukrainians in America, warned last year of a possible backslide after years of progress. Globa wrote that the new president’s Servant of the People party “has also begun to change its official ideology in ways that do not bode well for the LGBTQ community and other minorities.”

This year’s Ukrainian prayer breakfast was co-chaired by a member of the Servant of the People party, which is also involved in running a new parliamentary group to defend family values. The parliamentary group lists its main activities as including “organizing the National Prayer Breakfast [and] protection of the institution of family and marriage as the basis of society.”

As Christianity Today reported, evangelicals make up only 2% of Ukraine’s population, but their influence is both disproportionate and growing, with help from like-minded Americans.

report this summer by the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights found that prayer breakfasts are an explicit part of a strategic effort backed by American conservative money to undermine human rights in Europe. The report noted Unguryan’s connections to the ECPM but The Family is not mentioned, perhaps because the group’s penchant for secrecy until now has concealed Unguryan’s involvement.

The report found that in Ukraine and other countries, “parliamentary prayer breakfasts, while superficially apolitical and multi-confessional, include speakers who echo extremist positions.” The report specifically cites the 2016 Ukrainian prayer breakfast for featuring “anti-gender speakers” including Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein and a representative of the anti-abortion group Alliance Defending Freedom International. (Internal Family documents indicate that Prince Nikolaus was invited to but did not attend the 2016 NPB in Washington.)

Just as American politicians such as Vargas and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., have defended the U.S. prayer breakfast as an opportunity for political enemies to reconcile, so do their Ukrainian counterparts. It’s not true in either country, however, as political foes of evangelicals are in short supply at these events.

TYT previously reported that even religious leaders of the political left — let alone secular leaders for reproductive rights or LGBTQ rights — are virtually unrepresented at the U.S. breakfast. Likewise, Unguryan told the Ukrainian news agency, “It is very important that different political forces, opponents in politics … can unite [and] take a truce on all political battles.” As in America, however, that’s not what happens.

Asked whether LGBTQ advocates are invited to Ukraine’s prayer breakfasts, Kravchuk said in an email that Ukraine’s religious community and its allies “NEVER invite LGBT activists at their meetings. In fact, they rather try to evade any direct discussions or even conversations with representatives of the Ukrainian LGBT movement.”

Slattery, who is pro-choice and supports LGBTQ rights (he told TYT he backs the landmark Obergefell ruling that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide), said he didn’t know whether LGBTQ leaders were invited last week. “I have no input on the invitation list,” Slattery said. “But they should be invited.”

Slattery said he spoke briefly at last week’s breakfast, telling TYT:

I challenged those in attendance to live by the Golden Rule that Jesus gave us in the Sermon on the Mount as reported in the Gospel of Matthew. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I reminded all those in attendance that after the Golden Rule, Jesus said, “This is the sum of all the law and the prophets.” I told the audience, which included political leaders from all factions … that they can change their politics and their country by simply living by the Golden Rule.

Slattery also said he was unaware of discrimination in the invitation process for the American National Prayer Breakfast, which he has been involved with since 1983. He pointed out correctly that everyone in Congress is invited regardless of sexual orientation.

As TYT previously reported, however, The Family controls the vast majority of discretionary invitations, and LGBTQ invitees are rare. One source close to The Family told TYT that Slattery “has been deeply involved with the [U.S.] breakfast for decades [and] the idea that he would not be aware of the political or religious makeup of the attendees is not possible.”

tweet by member of Parliament Anna Purtova, a Servant of the People party member and co-chair of the Ukraine National Prayer Breakfast, shows her flanked by Rep. Juan Vargas on her immediate right and former Rep. Jim Slattery on her immediate left.

Slattery’s description of an uncontroversial breakfast gibes with Ukraine media accounts. But it’s typically at ancillary meetings of these events that the religious banalities of public rhetoric give way to the political candor that emerges behind closed doors.

As TYT reported earlier this month, the political and religious radicalization of Big Lie promoter Mike Lindell involved breakout-room discussions at the 2016 National Prayer Breakfast, which was co-chaired by Vargas.

Similarly, at an event in Kyiv the day after their prayer breakfast, participants criticized a proposed bill against hate speech, calling it persecution of Christians. Unguryan reportedly told the gathering, including American evangelical cause célèbre Andrew Brunson, “We never oppose people. However, we cannot open the door to hell. … [S]ome bills under the guise of European integration offer anti-people, anti-Christian tendencies.”

Like the previous day’s prayer breakfast, that event included representatives of Ordo Iuris, the Polish Catholic think tank that pursues legislative and legal strategies for rolling back reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. The tweet revealing Vargas’ participation in the prayer breakfast side panel was posted by Weronika Przebierała, an analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for Legislative Studies.

Ordo Iuris, or “order of law,” has been tied to a number of conservative evangelical organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere by VSquare, a journalism collective active in Poland and other European nations.

According to Politico, Ordo Iuris is “responsible for the proliferation of [Poland’s] ‘LGBT-free zones.'” The group’s work to end abortion includes pushing prison time for women who have abortions and doctors who provide them, convincing Poland’s top court to eliminate most exceptions to its abortion ban, and seeking to block European ratification of the Istanbul Conference against domestic violence.

In a February report about Democrats supporting the National Prayer Breakfast despite its leaders backing the Big Lie, a source who has been involved with the breakfast told TYT, “We used to think we were nonpartisan: Democrats were welcome. … but now that Trump stuff’s here, there’s a lot laid bare that’s typical Christian conservative. It’s a conservative Republican thing.”

Another Family insider at the Ukrainian breakfast last week was lobbyist and former Rep. Bob McEwen, R-Ohio, a vocal Trump supporter and executive director of the far-right Council for National Policy. He has advocated against LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights, and reportedly covered up sex abuse allegations made against an Ohio state representative.

Now an active promoter of the Big Lie, McEwen appeared last year along with Lindell and other Family friends in a movie suggesting that the election of Joe Biden could lead to the “end times.”

Fitzpatrick, Vargas’ Ukraine caucus co-chair in the House of Representatives, worked in Ukraine as an FBI agent before his election. He has publicly refuted Trump’s claims about Ukrainian corruption, but nevertheless voted against impeaching Trump. More recently he has been tied to a key organizer of the Jan. 6 protests, advising the organizer to lawyer up rather than cooperate with the FBI.

TYT wishes to thank Michael Colborne, who reports on the transnational far right for Bellingcat, for his contributions to this report.

Newly unredacted documents reveal litany of allegations against Mike Pompeo

Newly unredacted records from a whistleblower complaint in the State Department have shed light on more allegations against former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and members of his former staff.

According to documents obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Pompeo and others were accused of misconduct.

The publication reports: “The alleged misconduct included false or misleading statements to the agency’s legal department, misuse of government resources on personal and political activities potentially prohibited by the Hatch Act, verbal abuse of employees by Mike and Susan Pompeo and directives to staff not to communicate in writing in order to evade transparency laws.”

The unredacted documents come two years after the redacted version of the whistleblower complaint was filed with the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is said to have excluded many of the previous redactions in the version of the documents released to CREW.


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


“The complaint alleges “[s]everal senior career Foreign Service officials who held positions of responsibility within the Executive Secretariat” turned a blind eye to Pompeo’s “questionable activities” and, in some cases, “facilitat[ed]” them, according to CREW.

Employees in the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser “expressed concern that some of these activities may have violated [the] Hatch Act or other regulations,” but the whistleblower was “unaware that any resolution was reached, potentially because senior officials in the Executive Secretariat repeatedly declined to seek clarification or guidance from [the Office of the Legal Adviser] despite requests from subordinates to do so.”

The new documents also detail the aftermath of former Inspector Steve Linick’s removal from his post, which was part of a larger Trump-led effort to oust inspectors. The report also indicated that staff members were “stunned” by the directive.

“[T]his is all so surreal three days later. I’m nervous about the future,” the OIG employee wrote in a May 18, 2020 email. In a later email, the official added, “I just heard Trump say we needed to get rid of the ‘Attorney Generals’ as a whole…Oh dear.”

CREW has also received other documentation as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit aimed at uncovering information about Pompeo’s attempts to hinder the investigation into the allegations of misconduct against him.

Florida doesn’t want its own Surgeon General to testify in mask lawsuit

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is fighting subpoenas for depositions from Surgeon General Dr. Scott Rivkees in the lawsuit with school boards over mask mandates. The challenge, in this case, is that the Health Department overstepped its authority when it issued an emergency rule banning masks in schools.

According to the Miami Herald, Florida Department of Health lawyers are trying to block the deposition from the doctor, who has been mum on the mask issue as COVID-19 ravages the state.

“It matters what the surgeon general was thinking in this case,” said David Ashburn, the attorney for the school boards in Broward, Alachua and Orange counties.

The school boards think that the effort to prevent the mask requirements clashes with Dr. Rivkees’ past comments about masks being useful in stopping the spread of the coronavirus. But the Florida lawyers are blocking the effort saying it’s pointless.

“They (attorneys for the challengers) have means to ascertain the information they want,” the state lawyers said. “It’s not the surgeon general they need to start with.”


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


The hearing lasted an hour as Administrative Law Judge Brian Newman discussed the protective order to block the surgeon general. He didn’t rule on the deposition issue but noted he wants to move quickly on the case. The next hearing is scheduled for Monday to hear motions from the Florida Health Department on why the suit should be dismissed.

“Rather, the emergency rule is facilitating the spread of COVID-19 by banning masks in public schools,” the Herald cited one of the challenges by the NAACP, Florida Student Power Network and families.

“At bottom, the school boards disagree with the substance of the department’s emergency rule,” the motion said. “However, as the public officials charged with operating in accordance with state law, the school boards must presume that state laws applicable to their duties are valid. As such, the school boards lack standing to initiate litigation for the purpose of invalidating the very laws they are duty bound to follow. Put simply, the school boards do not get to pick and choose which state laws they want to follow.”

As a top official in the Florida Health Department Rivkees should have information if not advice on the topic.

“Dr. Rivkees’ personal knowledge and unique professional experience, including being a renowned pediatrician, make him singly able to answer the questions related to his statements on masks and the efficacy for, and effects on, children,” attorneys for the challengers wrote in the documents.

“Given his role, and his history of public health advisories admonishing the public to wear masks, only to reverse them following the direction in Executive Order 21-175 from the governor (at whose pleasure he serves), Dr. Rivkees is in a unique position to explain the actions of the DOH and whether, in fact, the DOH rule’s parental opt-out provisions control (as opposed to increase) the spread of communicable disease,” the court documents say.

The excuse from their opposition made it sounds as if Dr. Rivkees was more of a ceremonial position and that he doesn’t actually have any information.

They alleged that Rivkees doesn’t “possess…unique, personal knowledge about the disputed issues in this proceeding that his staff does not otherwise possess. In his position as Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Rivkees is responsible for overseeing the operations of the state health office, county health departments, and certain area and regional offices throughout the state. He is not, however, involved on a granular level with the enactment of every department rule.”

Read the full report.

“The Activist” implosion: How a reality show working for greater good became a capitalist nightmare

Only a week after CBS announced its new reality competition series “The Activist,” the network is overhauling it after massive backlash, Variety reported

In its original incarnation, the show pit six activists against each other for funding – much like a demented version of “Shark Tank.” The head-scratching trio of Usher, Priyanka Chopra Jonas and “Dancing With the Stars” alum Julianne Hough were named as the celebrity hosts.

Frankly, the show was doomed from the start. Following an onslaught of criticism directed at the show’s tone-deaf premise of making activists and their respective causes compete against each other, Variety reported on Wednesday evening that the competition show will be restructured as a documentary special instead. 

How did we get to this point? Salon unpacks the public outcry and the behind-the-scenes drama that led to a show having to rejigger its entire format a month before it premieres.

The origins of “The Activist”

The controversial concept for the series was actually originally announced in May. A press release written up by Deadline includes the details:

The Activist is a competition series that features six inspiring activists teamed with three high-profile public figures working together to bring meaningful change to one of three vitally important world causes: health, education and environment.

Activists go head-to-head in challenges to promote their causes, with their success measured via online engagement, social metrics and hosts’ input. The three teams have one ultimate goal: to create impactful movements that amplify their message, drive action, and advance them to the G20 Summit in Rome, Italy. There, they will meet with world leaders in the hope of securing funding and awareness for their causes. The team that receives the largest commitment is celebrated as the overall winner at the finale, which will also feature musical performances by some of the world’s most passionate artists.
 

At the time, no names had been attached to the series, and since many development announcements never see the light of our TV screens, the report received little to no attention.

On Sept. 9, however, CBS’ Senior Executive Vice President of Programming Thom Sherman, gave a much briefer announcement at the Television Critics Association press tour.

“I’m pleased to announce the hosts of our new competition-event series ‘The Activist,’ Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Julianne Hough and Usher,” said Sherman. “The series will feature six activists from around the world working to bring meaningful change to one of three urgent universal causes: health, education, and the environment. The activists will compete in missions, media stunts, digital campaigns, and community events, all aimed at garnering the attention of the world’s most powerful decision-makers.”

The addition of the hosts’ names – presumably experts in creating social change – along with a premiere date finally brought the series the spotlight it craved . . . and ultimately regretted. 

The backlash: “Our traumas are not games”

The show was immediately slammed on social media, primarily for its truly colossal failure to read the room. Amid a global pandemic, climate catastrophe, economic recession, total dismantling of reproductive rights, and violent racial inequities bleeding into all of these issues, “The Activist” attempted to gamify and commodify interconnected, life-or-death struggles. 

In response, more than 70 progressive groups and activists signed an open letter to CBS and Global Citizen critiqueing the premise.

“Pitting activists against one another upholds the ‘oppression Olympics’ and perpetuates the belief that justice issues must fight over ‘breadcrumbs’ supplied by those with power, resources and large platforms,” the letter states. “Ultimately, this results from the very oppressive systems which we are trying to dismantle. Our lived realities, struggles and traumas are not games, nor competitions for the consumerist gaze.”

More people chimed in on Twitter. Posts were alternately angry or brought humor to the commentary by pointing out how the reality competition format – often rife with manufactured tension and ludicrous catchphrases – would be contrasted with the more serious stakes of activism.

The problematic celebrity co-hosts

The letter to the producers also points out the co-hosts, who will almost certainly be generously compensated for their work on the show, “are in no way equipped to dissect the complexities of ‘climate, social and health’ issues.”

Not only that, but Chopra and Hough have pretty checkered pasts when it comes to social justice, to say the least. 

The Daily Beast reported that the show was internally spiraling out of control following widespread criticism. In a Tuesday Instagram post, Hough assured us she was “deeply listening” to the criticisms, whatever that means, and conceded she is “not qualified to act as a judge.” Despite this she remains on the show.

That was before critics of “The Activist” resurfaced a photo of Hough dressed for Halloween in blackface as Uzo Aduba’s character from “Orange Is the New Black.” On Wednesday the “Dancing With the Stars” star was forced to apologize.

“Wearing blackface was a poor choice based on my own white privilege and white body bias that hurt people and is something that I regret doing to this day,” Hough said in a lengthy statement in Variety.


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


Chopra Jonas, former “Quantico” star and Bollywood icon, has been widely criticized for her support for India’s nationalist prime minister Narendra Modi, and for appearing to encourage war between India and Pakistan in 2019. 

That same year, when an activist confronted her about her previous nationalist statements, She received criticism for her condescending response, telling the audience member, “I hear you, whenever you’re done venting. Got it? OK, cool.”

Of course, arguably more insulting than the selection of Chopra Jonas and Hough as co-hosts of “The Activist” is the hiring of the celebrity hosts at all, which remains problematic even without the flash and capitalistic flair of a competition element. Their undoubtedly hefty salaries could simply go toward funding support for any of the different contestants’ varying causes — and for that matter, so could all of the production costs for the show, as numerous critics have pointed out.

An activist interviewed for the show: “He said I sounded like a robot”

Given the issues with the overall concept and pushing celebrities to the forefront, it should be not surprise that even choosing the activists to feature was a fraught process. According to at least two people who were considered for the show, it appears that the selection process was treated more as an entertainment casting session than a chance to feature important and unsung work.

Clover Hogan, a youth climate activist and founder of Force of Nature, shared a chlling Twitter thread over the weekend about her experience almost being cast on “The Activist.” She recounted that the person who interviewed her about her story as an activist insisted that she give “what the producers wanted to see.”

“He said I sounded like a robot, talking from a script. He asked me to do it over, this time with more emotion . . . We repeated this several times; until I burst into tears,” Hogan wrote.

“I realized that I was totally a character they wanted to manipulate and fit into their own story arc narrative — none of it was about understanding the issues,” she told the Daily Beast. 

Alicia O’Sullivan, another activist focusing on climate change and youth action, recounted a similar experience that led her to believe the show’s creators don’t even “really understand” what activism entails. 

“I think their concept of activism is if you set up a charity, or if you’ve set up a huge organization,” O’Sullivan told the Daily Beast. “Activism is not just that, it’s not just about setting up these huge things.” She added, of the show ultimately “ghosting” her, “I dodged a bullet, as far as I’m concerned.”

Like O’Sullivan, Hogan was also critical of the show’s setup, and the harmful impact it could have on audiences. “I think we have to start a conversation about where action is needed, and why we can’t turn activism into some kind of fetishization for people to think that they’re engaging in the issues when they’re just sitting at home watching this TV show,” she told the Daily Beast.

While selecting reality show contestants ultimately comes down to whose personality or story would make for “good television,” that aspect of the process should’ve tipped off producers that the original premise was the wrong fit for the aims of activism.

A mea culpa, but is it enough?

Faced with the avalance of criticism, late Wednesday CBS and its producing partners, nonprofit Global Citizen and Live Nation, finally admitted to their wrongheaded concept and annouced switching to a documentary format. The new version is expected to “focus on the same activists but without the ‘challenges’ or evaluations” of its previous iteration.

“‘The Activist’ was designed to show a wide audience the passion, long hours, and ingenuity that activists put into changing the world, hopefully inspiring others to do the same,” the producers shared in a statement. “It has become apparent the format of the show as announced distracts from the vital work these incredible activists do in their communities every day. The push for global change is not a competition and requires a global effort.”

Unfortunately, problems faced by “The Activist” can’t be resolved by merely taking the competition out of the show.

At the center of the original iteration of “The Activist” is the reality that the capitalistic sport of forcing organizers to compete for funding from the exorbitantly wealthy isn’t new. Through NGOs, billionaire-founded charities, and the insidious rise of social justice “influencing,” activism is already being commodified for wealth and spectacle — “The Activist” simply took this to the next level.

As a documentary, it will have to address these inequities and power dynamics in how activists are often left at the mercy of rich people feeling generous. But color us doubtful; we doubt the new version will do so in a meaningful way. 

Furthermore, none of the producing partners have responded to allegations of mistreatment and exploitation from activists who say they were contacted by the show to take part in it. And there’s been no word about the continued involvement of the celebrity hosts.

As the creators of “The Activist” now work to adapt and bring forth an entirely new version of the show, it’s not yet clear whether the deeply cringe mistakes of their past will be so easily forgiven. At the very least, “The Activist” will most certainly find its place on the television screens of the same crowd who shared black squares on Instagram to protest police violence last summer, and called that enough activism for the day.

But actual activists, and most consumers with basic critical thinking abilities, will likely be skeptical of “The Activist” — until given actual reason to trust it.

“The situation is dire”: An explosion of COVID cases in Idaho prompts hospitals to ration resources

Idaho state officials announced “crisis standards of care” for hospitals on Thursday amid an unprecedented wave of new COVID-19 cases, allowing the state to start rationing healthcare resources if the need arises. 

The announcement comes just after St. Luke’s Health System, Idaho’s largest hospital network, revealed that its facilities were operating at capacity amid a shortage of resources, according to the Associated Press.

“It’s just nonstop trying to find placement for these patients and the care that they need,” Brian Whitlock, the president and CEO of the Idaho Hospital Association, told NBC News. “It really is a minute-by-minute assessment of where beds are open, and hospitals saying we don’t know where we’re going to put the next one.”

“The situation is dire,” Dave Jeppesen, the director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, echoed to The New York Times. “We don’t have enough resources to adequately treat the patients in our hospitals, whether you are there for Covid-19 or a heart attack or because of a car accident.”

Idaho, which is currently seeing 600 new cases daily, has one of the lowest vaccination rates out of any state in the country — with just 40% of its residents inoculated – right above West Virginia and Wyoming. State data on Monday showed that 678 people were hospitalized statewide with coronavirus. 


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


The state’s GOP leadership – namely Republican Gov. Brad Little – have systematically resisted state restrictions for mask-wearing and vaccination.

According to NBC News, critical standards of care allow health care providers to make tough calls about how to distribute resources between COVID-19 patients. This may mean that patients with the highest chance of survival will be given ICU beds and ventilators. 

“We have reached an unprecedented and unwanted point in the history of our state,” Little said.

Many hospitals have built make-shift ICU beds to accommodate the surge. Kootenai Health, northern Idaho’s largest hospital, turned part of its emergency room waiting area into a treatment space, according to Penn Live. Additionally, Kootenai has completely discontinued elective surgeries and is struggling to contain trauma victims. 

Primary Health Medical Group, Idaho’s largest independent primary care and urgent care system, had to shorten its operating hours last month because its staffers were so overworked, AP reported. Three of the company’s clinics had to restrict their operating hours to weekdays only. 

The average age of admitted patients has also significantly decreased since last year. “It’s a much younger population losing their lives to COVID-19 this year,” said Kathryn Turner, the state’s deputy state epidemiologist, according to the Idaho Statesman.

State officials believe that the surge has not yet peaked.

Mike Lindell is begging Fox News to start airing his ads again — but the network refuses

Mike Lindell wants his ads back on Fox News — but it appears the cable behemoth isn’t ready to take him back quite yet. 

The MyPillow CEO angrily pulled his company’s advertisements from Fox in July after it ignored the leadup to his South Dakota “cyber symposium” and declined to run an ad for the gathering. But after nearly two months away, the bedding magnate appears to finally be ready to make up with the conservative network.

In a broadcast on his website Thursday, Lindell laid out the situation, saying he’s tried unsuccessfully several times to air increasingly watered-down versions of advertisements for both MyPillow and FrankSpeech.com, his “social media” platform that has been plagued by false information about the 2020 election and COVID-19, among other things.

The whole saga started about two weeks after Lindell said he was pulling his ads from Fox back in July. That was when he submitted an ad for FrankSpeech which explicitly mentioned that viewers could watch footage from his cyber symposium.

“[Fox] said they didn’t like the mention of the cyber symposium,” Lindell said. 


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


Then, last week, a second advertisement for FrankSpeech was rejected, this time because the network “didn’t like the content on the platform, the website, the stuff that was on FrankSpeech.com,” Lindell said. 

But he wasn’t done yet, and added that this Tuesday he tried one last time to air an ad, ostensibly for MyPillow, that also included a throwaway mention of FrankSpeech.

“Basically it said ‘Thank you for all your support of FrankSpeech. To thank you, I have great MyPillow specials today over at MyPillow.com'” — including towel sets for $39.99, apparently. 

But, once again, the Rupert Murdoch-owned network said no. “Fox News came back and said you cannot run an ad that says the words Frank or Frank Speech,” Lindell said. 

Fox News confirmed to The Daily Beast, which first reported the news, that it had rejected the two most recent ads Lindell had submitted. 

The pillow maven was previously one of Fox News’ biggest sponsors, spending nearly $50 million on Fox News spots in 2020 and close to $19 million in 2021.

That money also serves to prop up Fox provocateur Tucker Carlson — with MyPillow making up at least 20% of the advertising on Carlson’s primetime show in 2020, according to market research firm iSpot. That’s more than 10 times the next largest advertiser.

Fox has not said publicly why it refuses to air Lindell’s advertisements, though both parties have been hit with expensive lawsuits over false statements relating to last year’s presidential election. In recent months the network has strayed away from claiming that Joe Biden’s victory was illegitimate, while Lindell has only doubled down on predictions that Trump will be reinstated soon. 

With the odds of a Lindell-Fox detente seemingly growing fainter by the day, he’s taken to repeating a catchphrase-of-sorts: “Shame on Fox News!” 

“[Fox] has done more damage to our country than all the left wing media combined,” he added.

Newsmax host yells, cuts off feed during interview with veteran who criticized Trump

Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield, a once-failed Republican congressional candidate-turned-television personality, lost his cool Wednesday after a guest offered mild criticism of former President Donald Trump.

Stinchfield cut off the feed of his guest, Iraq War veteran Joe Saboe, when Saboe suggested that Trump bore at least some of the responsibility for the chaotic American withdrawal from Afghanistan. He then proceeded to scream loudly that nobody was going to blame Trump for anything on his program — though Saboe’s microphone had already been cut and there was nobody else for Stinchfield to talk over. 

Saboe rose to prominence as the head of a loosely-organized group called “Team America,” a grassroots effort by hundreds of volunteers to help Americans and their allies to escape Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, according to The New York Times

He began the interview by discussing with Stinchfield the merits of calling the Afghanistan withdrawal a “hostage situation,” as well as the question of who should be held responsible. The two initially traded respectful thoughts on the matter.


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


“I can tell you, this didn’t happen under President Trump, and I know there’s a lot of people on the Left that want to try to blame President Trump. He wanted out of Afghanistan real bad,” Stinchfield said. “He was real frustrated, not being able to get out, but he didn’t pull out because he knew this would happen. In fact, we all did.”

But Saboe responded by saying that he does believe the blame falls equally on the Trump Administration.

“We do respect, Grant, that veterans, and I being one, and our friends are over there,” Saboe responded. “We follow this closely from multiple administrations, and we know that Trump administration’s efforts here were fairly weak, that they were trying to limit the number of people that would get out, and so there were coordination problems.”

Then at the flip of a switch, the right-wing Newsmax host became enraged  — not only raising his voice but also his finger.  

“Cut him off, please. Cut him off now! Cut him off now! You’re not going to blame this on President Trump on my show!” he yelled. “I appreciate the work that you’re going. God bless you for being a veteran, god bless you for trying to get Americans out, but don’t come on this program and take the talking points of the left and blame President Trump! That’s not helping anybody.” 

The Newsmax host also offered a parting blow: “The Biden administration screwed this up from the very start.” 

Newsmax didn’t return a Salon request for comment on the matter.

But this isn’t the first time Stinchfield has lost his mind on the right-wing channel while live on-air. He had a similar on-air meltdown when another guest called out his partisan support for police officers. 

“Do you have a law enforcement pin on your lapel?” he raged. “I don’t think you do, Joe!” 

How the banking industry is using social media to kill Biden’s efforts to tax the rich

One key provision of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan is causing confusion amid a sustained lobbying campaign from banks both big and small — and a big signal-boost from right-wing media personalities. 

A flurry of headlines about a proposed Internal Revenue Service reporting requirement for banks, which would require financial institutions to report net annual inflows and outflows on accounts with more than $600 — or that same amount in transactions — seem to be based on the false premise that the Biden Administration would be “snooping” or “monitoring” individuals’ finances, or otherwise tracking all transactions a person makes.

“Fury as Biden tries to let IRS SNOOP on your bank accounts,” one headline from the Daily Mail reads. 

A number of viral posts on social media, many from prominent conservative pundits, seem to hold this misconception as well. 

“The Biden Administration is attempting to empower the IRS to monitor every single withdrawal, deposit, and transaction you make from your personal banking accounts,” the right-wing commentator Candace Owens wrote on Twitter this week. 

“If you have $600 or more, the bank will have to report ALL your banking info to the IRS! #governmentcontrol #bidenadministration #communistusa” one post on TikTok reads.

Another widely-shared Facebook post shared by a community bank in Oklahoma and flagged by Snopes this week even called the provision an “unprecedented invasion of privacy.” The fact-checking service rated the claim “mixed.”


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


While it is true the proposal would beef up already-existing reporting requirements for banks, the actual policy would only require banks to report the total annual inflows and outflows on a given account, not individual transactions — information the administration says would allow the IRS to better target its audits on high earners. The White House estimates the provision would generate close to $460 billion over the next decade, a sum that officials say would help pay for an expansion of key social programs, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Advocates for the provision also point out that much of the information that banks would be required to report are already collected elsewhere.

“Only the prior year’s total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms,” Center for American Progress researchers Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks write. “No one would say that the IRS ‘monitors’ you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January.”

But the industry appears to be winning the public relations campaign in a big way.

Amid sustained pushback, House Democrats this week scrapped the measure from their wishlist of tax policy changes — not a total death blow, but a sign that the new reporting requirement will likely not survive the next round of talks between Congressional leaders and White House officials. Democrats acknowledged as much Wednesday in comments to reporters.

“There was a lot of concern expressed by members about the impact on relatively low-income people suddenly being subjected to this, and we get that,” Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., told the Journal. “I don’t think the issue is completely gone, but we were not ready to move forward on it.”

Treasury Department officials, including Secretary Janet Yellen, however, aren’t ready to give up on the provision just yet. Yellen and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig sent a series of letters to lawmakers Wednesday in an attempt to press them into keeping the new reporting requirement — and correct misconceptions that the IRS would use them to spy on individuals or target ordinary Americans with audits. 

They also added that research shows tax compliance increases when individuals are aware the government has independent information about their finances — using workplace W-2s as an example.

“A reporting regime that is broad-based will better assist the IRS in targeting enforcement priorities on the high-end who accrue income in opaque ways,” Ms. Yellen wrote in one of the letters. “Any suggestion that instead this reporting regime will be used to target enforcement efforts on ordinary Americans is wholly misguided.”

Some COVID-19 survivors are refusing vaccines — and even suing over mandates

In a historic speech last week, President Joe Biden denounced a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” and announced a series of policies intended to pressure vaccine holdouts into getting their COVID-19 shots. His proposals mirrored aspects of policies instituted by many state governors, including Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon, who has instituted a vaccination mandate in her state for specific workers including school employees and state government workers.

Yet some of those who have already been infected with COVID-19, and refuse vaccination, are crying foul at both federal and state vaccination requirements for certain workers. For instance, six workers in Oregon are suing the state in court, stating that because they have already been sick with COVID-19, they should not be forced to receive inoculations.

These workers in Oregon are seeking an exception for individuals with natural immunity, and oppose Brown’s vaccine mandates rather than Biden’s. Certainly, their complaint might seem reasonable to a layperson: in the case of many viral infections, including chicken pox, the body becomes immune after clearing an infection.

So is their objection valid? The short answer is likely not, as the prevailing view in the scientific community is that the immune system appears to be better protected from the novel coronavirus after vaccination even in those who have cleared a previous infection.

Because we lack the technology to definitively ascertain each individual’s level of immunity after being naturally infected, it is risky to assume that someone will automatically be protected from COVID-19 just because they were initially sick. Studies back this up: One report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about an observational study in Kentucky found that unvaccinated people were more than twice as likely as vaccinated ones to be reinfected with COVID-19.

Still, there is significant scientific debate over the extent to which being naturally infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus confers immunity. 

This brings us to the longer answer, as this is a subject about which respected scientists have good faith disagreements. Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, tweeted out a number of scientific papers that in various ways suggest the immune system may be able to develop natural protection from COVID-19. One paper, for instance, described how certain parts of the immune system (specifically antibodies from B cells, memory B cells and memory T cells) found that “substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory.”

Of course, even the most optimistic assessments for COVID-19 must take into account the studies which find that antibody-mediated immunity usually sharply drops for people who have recovered from the disease after a few months. Novel coronaviruses are in general the kinds of pathogens to which we are only capable of building transient, or temporary, immunity. The alternative is durable, or lasting, immunity. This means that scientists, instead of being able to offer certain judgments on whether someone who has had COVID-19 is safe from it, have to admit they often do not know.

“The most honest thing would be people who say, ‘Look, we recognize that we don’t know everything about this disease,” Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Salon. But, he noted that “from a risk perspective, that getting vaccinated — even if you’ve been infected in the past — is not going to hurt you and might help you.” 

Gandhi echoed Sommer’s emphasis on the importance of humility.

“I think that it brings trust to acknowledge something that there is still a debate in the scientific community” about some subjects related to COVID-19, Gandhi told Salon. There are points on which there is no disagreement — masks work, ivermectin does not cure COVID-19, people who are contagious need to socially distance — but there are others where robust debate exists. This is the case, to an extent, when it comes to the benefits of natural immunity. 

“The way I would present it is as a risk-benefit ratio,” Sommer explained. “What is the risk of getting the vaccination? If you already had the disease, essentially zero. What is the potential benefit? It could be huge.” Sommer added that we also know that “if you look at the immune response six months after a natural infection, it is lower than after a vaccination. If you take the people who had a natural infection and give them the vaccine, they all have a very high antibody level.”

Sommer also pointed to scientific precedent to make the case for the naturally infected to get vaccinated. “There is no question in almost every vaccine in existence, some vaccines more than others, the further away you go from the time you’ve either had the infection or the vaccine, the lower your level of immunity,” Sommer added. “Some things provide you with immunity for life, but those are very rare.”


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


One Israeli study demonstrated that point in real time. A large Israeli study found that the natural immunity one develops after being infected with the delta strain of SARS-CoV-2 is more effective than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. On the one hand, this would seemingly vindicate people who tout the benefits of natural immunity — but if natural immunity alone was sufficient, people could intentionally infect themselves like they do with chicken pox. Yet doing so risks killing themselves or someone else.

The best way to minimize that risk is to also get vaccinated. The same study found that previously infected people who had received at least one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were better protected than people who had only developed natural immunity. Scientists have long agreed that there are benefits to having both natural immunity and vaccine protection.

“It is believed that natural infection is not as protective as the vaccine,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email. “You can, however, improve on the natural infection by also getting vaccinated.” This is known as hybrid immunity, Benjamin explained, and it means that getting vaccinated will enhance the protection you receive from natural immunity. Being vaccinated is also the most effective way to prevent reinfection, severe illness and death, much more so than only having natural immunity. 

Under Biden’s new plan, all employers with more than 100 workers will need to require either vaccines or weekly tests; all federal workers and all contractors doing business with the federal government must be vaccinated; and all health-care workers whose facilities receive Medicare or Medicaid funding must be inoculated. Biden’s policies are expected to directly apply to roughly 100 million Americans (the nation has roughly 330 million people) and are also being met with plausible threats of litigation.

Correction: This article previously embedded a link to a British Medical Journal piece and incorrectly summarized its position. The links have been removed and the author apologizes for the error.

Piers Morgan will be back on TV, returning to the warm embrace of Rupert Murdoch

Piers Morgan has a platform for his nonsense again – on a TV screen near you if you want to pay for it.

The British media personality who recently hitched his brand to hounding Meghan Markle, has signed a global deal with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and News Corp, Variety reported Thursday. Under the new deal, Morgan will take on a number of highly visible roles.

Morgan will host a daily, weeknight TV show that will air in the UK, U.S., and Australia. Don’t expect to see him on Fox News, at least not right away. Instead, his new show will stream on Fox Nation in the U.S., which requires a subscription. It will also be available on talkTV in the UK and Sky News Australia.

Morgan will also put his florid writing skills to use on a weekly column in the UK-based Murdoch tabloid The Sun, and the U.S.-based New York Post. 

And as if that weren’t enough, he will host a series of true crime documentaries too. Why? Why not? 


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


In a statement shared by Variety, Morgan said he was “thrilled” to be rejoining News Corp, where he began his media career nearly 30 years ago. “Rupert Murdoch has been a constant and fearless champion of free speech and we are going to be building something new and very exciting together,” he said. 

“I want my global show to be a fearless forum for lively debate and agenda-setting interviews, and a place that celebrates the right of everyone to have an opinion, and for those opinions to be vigorously examined and challenged,” Morgan continued.

Morgan should fit right in with Fox programming, after leaving ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” in March after his incendiary comments about Markle after the Duchess of Sussex disclosed she had struggled with suicidal ideation after joining the royal family. Morgan said he “didn’t believe a word” from Markle’s claims about her mental health struggles, made during the Duchess’ bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this year.

Morgan’s comments about Markle led to more than 41,000 complaints submitted to ITV, the network claimed, and he subsequently exited from the program. Amid his departure, Morgan tweeted out that “freedom of speech is a hill I’m happy to die on,” and announced he was “off to spend more time with my opinions.”

Since the announcement that Morgan will be joining News Corp, Murdoch has called Morgan “the broadcaster every channel wants but is too afraid to hire,” in a statement shared by Variety.

“Piers is a brilliant presenter, a talented journalist and says what people are thinking and feeling,” Murdoch said. 

In addition to Morgan’s television, tabloid and documentary series roles, his deal with News Corp will also include a follow-up book to his 2020 novel “Wake Up” under HarperCollins.

After much hullabaloo about claiming to be “canceled” for his Meghan Markle remarks, Morgan will return to television screens around the world, and will surely have a lot to say about so-called “cancel culture” to his viewers.