Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Chadwick Boseman’s posthumous Marvel performance packs an emotional wallop befitting his legacy

How strange it is to consider the second episode of Marvel’s “What If…?” in the context of what we know instead of losing ourselves entirely in its musings about infinite possibility. The difference in consideration is subtle but changes much; it’s the shift over from what could be to what might have been.

“What If . . . T’Challa Became a Star-Lord?” gives its audience a bit of both, sending off Chadwick Boseman’s hero with a tale establishing the Wakandan crown prince as something more than simply the Black Panther. If T’Challa’s reach had not been limited to Earth, posits the episode’s writer Matthew Chauncey, he could have become one of the most consequential figures in the galaxy.  

Boseman’s voice work on “What If…?” represents his final performance and knowing that hangs a mournful weight upon it despite the boisterousness sparkle in the actor’s voice. It’s only the second episode of this season, so it’s unclear whether or when this T’Challa might reappear.

But this proper tribute becomes even more emotionally resonant when you remember that the actor recorded the lines for this episode while contending with late-stage colon cancer, a bleak secret he kept from everyone except for those closest to him.

This episode premieres 10 days prior to the one-year anniversary of his passing, the shock of which took much of the world by surprise. His final film performance in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” would be released after his death and earn him a Golden Globe and an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor.

His work in “What If…?” is distinguished by the joy he took in participating, however – which is not to imply anything negative about his film work. Instead, it ensures that his fans will be left smiling at the care he took in rendering T’Challa and appreciating the actor’s awareness of the legacy he’s left behind through the character.

In the same way the series premiere inserts Peggy Carter into Captain America’s uniform because of the most benign tweak to her actions in the main timeline, the second episode wonders what would change if the space pirates known as the Ravagers had swiped T’Challa before he became the Black Panther instead of “Guardians of the Galaxy” hero Peter Quill.

The Watcher, voiced by Jeffrey Wright, frames the larger question posed by this scenario thusly: “Is your destiny determined by your nature, or the nature of your world?” Based on the way the story plays out, however, what it’s really wondering is how much better off our corner of the universe would have been if Yondu Udonta had picked up a kid blessed with an unshakable sense of rectitude as opposed to one whose moral compass had barely begin baking.

No offense to Peter Quill, but the way Chauncey establishes the young T’Challa’s personality (voiced by Maddix Robinson) makes a strong argument that our timeline’s Yondu grabbed the wrong guy back in 1988. Then again, this animated version of Michael Rooker’s Yondu, the adoptive father to both Star-Lords, is a gentler being.  

Since he outsourced the kidnapping to his top goons Taserface and Kraglin, neither of them geniuses, he acts like a man who realizes he has nobody to blame but himself. And he’s more taken by T’Challa’s curiosity than anything else. The Wakandan King T’Chaka (John Kani, also reprising his film role) knows his kingdom’s boundaries can’t hold his son.

“While the blood of a king runs through your veins, it is pumped by the heart of an explorer,” he admits to the boy before he’s abducted.

As an adult, he’s a famous Robin Hood-style outlaw whose sole superpowers are persuasiveness and a considerate champion’s soul. Chauncey and series director Bryan Andrews open the episode with a version of the scene where Peter Quill steals an Infinity Stone from a desolate planet.

But instead of being treated like a nobody when he drops his mercenary moniker, Djimon Hounsou’s Korath the Pursuer gushes like a fanboy. T’Challa’s Star-Lord is famous, having convinced the Ravagers to change their criminal ways and steal from the rich to give to the poor.

After Korath bests this famous Star-Lord in a duel, T’Challa fulfills his wish and brings him into the fold. And the Infinity Stone? It goes to a proper place as opposed to the highest bidder. “You know as well as I no treasure is worth as much as the good that can be done with it,” T’Challa said.

Besides, thanks to T’Challa’s influence, there’s no mad titan trying to wipe out half of all sentient life in existence. The episode’s gigantic surprise is that T’Challa halted Thanos (Josh Brolin) from carrying out his insane genocidal plans simply by talking him out of it.

“Sometimes the best weapon in your arsenal is just a good argument,” Star-Lord says, before Thanos admits for the first of several times that he still thinks it’s a good idea.

Meanwhile, the last image we see of Peter Quill shows him mopping the floor in a Dairy Queen before his Celestial father Ego (Kurt Russell) drops by to pick him up . . . which could be an issue needing to be dealt with at some point down the road.

“What If…?” is an action series above all, making all these optimistic vibes are accessories to a larger mission brought to him, Yondu and their crew by Nebula (Karen Gillan). Apparently T’Challa didn’t get to Thanos and Nebula before whatever Thanos did drove a wedge between father and daughter; she still harbors anger towards him (talk therapy isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem, even in a Marvel fantasy!) but affectionally refers our hero as “Cha-Cha.”

Together they stage an “Oceans 11”-style heist requiring them to pay a visit to The Collector (Benicio del Toro), this version of the galaxy’s most formidable kingpin since Thanos went straight.  Their quarry is a treasure called the Embers of Genesis, a few flakes of which can terraform an entire planet. If they succeed, they can use it to restore countless dying planets, saving a staggering number of beings from starvation. They do, of course, although there are a few nail-biter moments along the way.

Sweetening the take is T’Challa’s discovery of a Wakanda galactic vessel among The Collector’s horde, which he uses to reunite with his family of birth and introduce them to his space-traveling family of choice.

Over the years a number of shows and movies have included scenes of a character insisting their family and friends deliver their funerary testimonials while they’re alive, usually so they can provide notes. Such turns are usually played for laughs and serve to prove the character’s narcissism. But not always; the “Better Things” episode “Eulogy” shows how such exercises can be incredibly loving and genuine.

The spirit behind this episode comes from a different place, mainly because the people making it weren’t aware that its star knew it could be one of his final acts. That sorrowful surprise lends it an affectionate shine some might interpret as overly sentimental. That estimation isn’t entirely off, given the unapologetic idealism dominating this episode, along with its near lack of crisis or any sense of a real threat to its protagonists.

My response to all that is, indeed, those are valid criticisms. But the charm of “What If . . . T’Challa Became a Star-Lord” renders all of that beside the point. Of higher importance is the way the actor and the episode’s creators caters to the fondness Boseman’s fans still carry in their hearts for him by sending him off with a fantasy proving his power to bend wills not through vibranium enhancements or mystical endowments, but principled debate and reason.  

“On any planet, among any people, there ain’t no place in this galaxy where you don’t belong,” Yondu tells T’Challa. Quite a legacy for man to leave in his wake.

New episodes of “What If…?” premiere Wednesday on Disney+.

Rep. Mo Brooks says he “understands” man who allegedly threatened to bomb library of Congress

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Al. — who is currently steeped in litigation over his alleged role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — expressed sympathy on Thursday for a man who threatened to bomb the Library of Congress. 

“Sadly, threats of violence targeting America’s political institutions are far too common,” Brooks said in a statement following the man’s arrest. “Although this terrorist’s motivation is not yet publicly known, and generally speaking, I understand citizenry anger directed at dictatorial Socialism and its threat to liberty, freedom and the very fabric of the very fabric of American society. The way to stop Socialism’s march is for patriotic Americans to fight back in the 2022 and 2024 election.”

On Thursday, Floyd Roy Roseberry, 49, surrendered to authorities following hours-long negotiations after he allegedly threatened to detonate a bomb in his pickup truck next to the Library of Congress. 

The incident began at about 9:15 in the morning, when Roseberry pulled up next to the Library of Congress with his pickup truck, which had no license plates. When officers responded at the scene, they were told by Roseberry, who was holding what appeared to be a detonator, that he had a bomb hidden in his vehicle. Though Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger has said that it was unclear at the time whether the man was actually in possession of a bomb.

Rep. Brooks’ comments drew widespread scorn online, especially in light of his past rhetoric ahead of the Capitol riot. 

“When it happens again,” political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen responded, referencing the Jan. 6 insurrection, “people like you — and statements like this — will be why.”


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


“Member of Congress and 1/6 Seditionist @RepMoBrooks ‘understands’ domestic terrorism. These are his people. Mark my words. Americans are going to get killed by these insurrectionists,” echoed Fed Wellman, the executive director of Republican political action committee The Lincoln Project.

In response to the threat, police quickly evacuated several government buildings and cordoned off surrounding street intersections, according to AP News. Authorities also coordinated a five-hour-long negotiation process, urging Roseberry to stand down. 

As the standoff unfolded, a live Facebook video surfaced of the 49-year-old spewing a litany of anti-government rhetoric. In the video, Roseberry described himself as a “patriot” intent on speaking with President Joe Biden, and expressed a series of grievances with the Democratic Party and the country’s position on the War in Afghanistan. “I’m waiting on your phone call,” he told the president.

“You can shoot me and kill me right here, and blow up two and a half city blocks and let all the patriots out in the country know,” Roseberry also told the police, emphasizing that he did not intend to put anyone in harm’s way.

Facebook videos posted to his profile indicated that Roseberry attended Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, before the insurrection. Roseberry’s wife confirmed that her husband collected guns, but did not know whether he was in possession of a bomb.

Feds “deliberately targeted” BLM protesters on orders from Trump, Barr: report

The Justice Department “deliberately targeted” supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement with harsh prosecutions at the “express direction” of former President Donald Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr, according to a new report from the advocacy group Movement for Black Lives.

The report detailed 326 criminal cases brought by federal prosecutors related to last year’s protests following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville. Federal prosecutors aggressively sought jurisdiction over the cases even though in more than 92% of the cases there were equivalent state-level charges that could have been brought instead, according to a data analysis by the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) clinic at the City University of New York School of Law. Federal prosecutions result in conviction at much higher rates than state charges and nearly 90% of federal charges filed against protesters carried stiffer penalties than equivalent state charges.

Federal prosecutors “exploited the expansive federal criminal code” to assert jurisdiction over cases that “bore no federal interest,” the report said. Prosecutors often cited federal jurisdiction in alleged offenses that happened near federal property, affected property that receives federal funding, or had some tenuous connection to interstate commerce. “The government greatly exaggerated the threat of violence” from protesters, the report said, noting that the “vast majority” of charges were for nonviolent offenses or restricted to property destruction.

Prosecutors in more than 25% of cases also “stacked” charges against defendants with multiple redundant charges stemming from the same act to increase potential sentences or coerce guilty pleas, the report said. The only two violent charges related to murder were brought against counter-protesters who were reportedly members of the far-right Boogaloo Bois.


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


“The empirical data and findings in this report largely corroborate what Black organizers have long known intellectually, intuitively, and from lived experience about the federal government’s disparate policing and prosecution of racial justice protests and related activity,” the report said, drawing comparisons between last year’s federal crackdown to how the federal government historically used Counterintelligence Program techniques to “disrupt the work of the Black Panther Party and other organizations fighting for Black liberation.”

“We want to really show how the U.S. government has continued to persecute the Black movement by surveillance, by criminalizing protests, and by using the criminal legal system to prevent people from protesting and punishing them for being engaged in protests by attempting to curtail their First Amendment rights,” Amara Enyia, the policy research coordinator for The Movement for Black Lives, told the Associated Press, which first reported the findings. “It is undeniable that racism plays a role. It is structurally built into the fabric of this country and its institutions, which is why it’s been so difficult to eradicate. It’s based on institutions that were designed around racism and around the devaluing of Black people and the devaluing of Black lives.”

The federal push came after directives from Trump and Barr to target protesters, which the report argued was intended to “disrupt the movement.” The largest number of federal prosecutions took place in Portland, where the Trump administration deployed a heavy-handed federal force that snatched up protesters who were in the vicinity of federal buildings, followed by Chicago, Las Vegas, Washington D.C., and Minneapolis. More than 80% of federal charges were brought in states led by Democrats and were disproportionately brought in that Trump designated “anarchist cities,” including Portland, New York, and D.C.

Barr in May of last year claimed that “anarchistic and far-left extremists” and “outside radicals and agitators” were hijacking the protests and vowed to enforce laws against crossing states lines using interstate facilities to “incite or participate in violent rioting.” He directed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force to go after what he described as “domestic terrorism.”

Trump in June of 2020 said he was “mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting.” He vowed to intervene “if a city or a state refuses to take actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents.” Shortly after, he signed an executive order urging the Justice Department to crack down on protests in Democratic-led cities and states.

Barr in a leaked memo in September 2020 urged prosecutors to aggressively target protesters that “cause violence,” even suggesting sedition charges.

Research has found that 93% of protests last summer did not see any violence or property destruction but prosecutors “weaponized” their discretion to go after protesters in Democratic-led cities, the report said, and the vast majority of charges were not related to violence against people. And despite the administration’s cries about “anarchists,” only one criminal defendant was a self-identified member of the anti-fascist collective antifa. The most common charge was arson, which accounted for 32% of the arrests analyzed, because prosecutors used the expansive law to also charge people accused of “conspiring” to commit arson and other acts “not limited to the setting of a fire.” More than 22% of charges involved mandatory minimums and more than 20% of cases involved “inchoate offenses, “where a defendant is accused of having attempted, conspired, or aided a crime without actually having committed that crime.

“We saw U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr overnight go from expressing some level of sympathy for racial justice protesters to labeling them as radical and violent agitators with absolutely no basis for that sort of characterization,” Ramzi Kassem, the founding director of CLEAR and a law professor at CUNY, told the AP. “All of this was very transparently aimed at disrupting a Black-led movement for social justice that was happening both spontaneously and in an organized fashion nationwide.”

The report also drew a contrast between Trump’s rhetoric related to the Black Lives Matter protests, where a disproportionate number of arrests were Black men, and his statements about protests against Covid restrictions going on around the same time.

“These are very good people, but they are angry,” Trump tweeted last summer. “They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”

The Movement for Black Lives in the report called for amnesty for all protesters involved in the demonstrations and ending the use of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in local communities. The group also called for the passage of the BREATHE ACT, which would shift funding from policing to community-based public safety programs, and reparations from the government that includes “acknowledgment of and an apology for the long history of targeting movements in support of Black life and Black liberation.”

Makia Green, a longtime Black Lives Matter organizer and co-founder of the advocacy group Harriet’s Wildest Dreams, told the AP they support the group’s findings and recommendations.

“Regardless of how we are often painted, activists are people who have the audacity to believe that we can live in a better world, where people are safe, where people are not afraid of being murdered by the police,” Green said. “There are attempts to stifle our movement but it is truly a reflection to our supporters, to our allies, and to the folks who showed up in the streets last year, of how beautiful and powerful this movement is.”

Unvaccinated terror: Proud Boys push the anti-vaccination movement into a violent threat

After the January 6 insurrection at the U.S Capitol, domestic terrorism experts were worried about the potential for more violence. And for good reason. The violence that day and the night before was instigated by Donald Trump and his allies were still continuing to not just push the Big Lie, but float prophetic claims about a miraculous Trump reinstatement in August. Failed prophecies can often trigger anger and more eagerness towards violence. I doubt that hope was far from Trump’s mind as he continued to hype his conspiracy theories. 

But as the summer wears on, it seems that at least some of the violent, fascist anger that Trump has been stoking for years is now being aimed in a new direction: people who are trying to limit the spread of COVID-19.

The anti-vaccine movement (or, as it really should be known, the pro-COVID movement ) appears to be getting increasingly nasty and violent. Worse yet, the same groups of people, specifically the Proud Boys, a right-wing group who fueled the violence in D.C., are now turning their attentions towards undermining any effort to mitigate people’s risks of getting sick 


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


The news was eclipsed by the end of the war in Afghanistan over the weekend, but on Saturday, an anti-vaccination protest in Los Angeles turned violent as anti-vaxxers physically assaulted journalists and got into brawls with the pro-vaccine demonstrators. One man was stabbed and his assailant has not yet been apprehended. Tina Desiree Berg, a left-wing journalist, was attacked by anti-maskers in a violent outburst that was captured in a photograph for the Los Angeles Times. Video footage and photographs captured the attacks on journalists: 

KPCC reporter Frank Stolze later confirmed that “I was shoved, kicked and my eyeglasses were ripped off of my face” while covering the protest. “That’s never happened in 30 yrs of reporting.”

The Proud Boys are clearly focusing more of their energies on fighting any and all efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19. Since the group prides itself on a bloodthirsty affect that thrives off targeting ordinary citizens for their political beliefs — you know, classic fascist street gang stuff — that necessarily means injecting the threat of violence into the already fraught debate over measures like vaccine and mask mandates. 

As Kelly Weill of The Daily Beast reported last week, before the violent clash in Los Angeles, “members of the far-right paramilitary group the Proud Boys have attended contentious school board meetings about masking in Florida and New Hampshire.” It’s a real-life example of outside agitators, as Weill explained on the “Fever Dreams” podcast. “I do understand the value of public meetings,” but Weill added, “there should be some sort of ‘I have a child in this district’ threshold before you show up in a paramilitary group uniform.”

The result, unsurprisingly, is things are getting uglier and violence is in the air. Across the country, school board members and people who stand up for COVID mitigation measures are being heckled, surrounded, screamed at, and threatened. On Tuesday, the superintendent of a school district in a suburb outside of Austin, TX released a statement indicating that a “parent physically assaulted a teacher by ripping a mask off her face” and another teacher had to endure being screamed at for wearing a mask by a group of parents. In Springfield, Missouri, employees at a Walmart pharmacy were targeted by a man screaming threats that they would be “executed” for vaccinating people — and the man live-streamed his own violent and disturbing behavior on Facebook. Late last month, a breast cancer patient reported being attacked with bear spray by far-right protesters who opposed COVID mitigation strategies at the local hospital. 


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


Although he was the one who turned the refusal to take COVID-19 seriously into a culture war flashpoint, it’s hard to imagine that Trump is particularly pleased with this turn of events. Trump spent the summer ginning up his supporters to focus their energies on the Big Lie by holding rallies, hyping the fake Arizona “audit,” and supporting the efforts of people like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to keep the Trump base energized around hopes that they could “prove” Biden didn’t win the election and that Trump should be “reinstated.” It’s classic stochastic terrorism, whereby leaders drop public hints about how someone should “do something” with hopes that their followers will pick up what they’ve put down. 

But that violent, fascist energy that’s being stoked doesn’t seem to be going generally — yet anyway — towards any actions meant to reinstate Trump. Instead, people who want to stop the pandemic are getting the brunt of it, from public school officials to pharmacists to pro-vaccine demonstrators. And the situation seems to be getting angrier, with more potential for violence. 

Part of the reason for this mission drift of Trump’s homegrown fascist movement is a simple target selection problem. On January 6, Trump gave his base a concrete target to attack, the U.S. Capitol Building. And while there certainly is still boiling anger among the hardcore Trump base over losing the election, and a desire to lash out at the people who “stole” it from them by legally voting, the problem is a dearth of current targets to aim their ire at. Election bureaucracy is diffuse and largely invisible when there’s not an election going on. Lindell can stir up fury that Trump didn’t get reinstated, but his people have no idea where to target their rage.

The struggle over COVID-19, however, creates concrete targets: school boards that want to institute mask mandates, government entities requiring vaccination, people who distribute vaccines. Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., for instance, has explicitly singled out vaccine volunteers as eligible targets for violent recrimination. Since “willingness to believe that COVID-19 is a real threat” has become such a reliable partisan marker, it makes a rough sense that authoritarians who want to violently lash out at their political opponents have landed on this as the proximate justification. 

Indeed, there’s a long history they can draw on, as the anti-abortion movement has been doing this sort of thing forever, targeting reproductive health clinics for intimidation, threats, and terrorism. What anti-choice agitators are angry about is more generalized than abortion, of course. They’re angry about liberalizing sexual mores, women’s liberation, rising secularism, sexual rejection, and the fact that it’s increasingly hard to police your neighbors with nosiness about their sex lives. But abortion clinics give them visible targets and even a B.S. set of justifications — faux concerns about “life” — that make them feel righteous even though they are, in fact, the bad guys. Unsurprisingly, the Proud Boys are now getting into the anti-abortion racket.

The pro-COVID/anti-vaccine movement is tapping that same energy. There’s something viscerally exciting, as the anti-choice movement shows, for authoritarians about using political power to rain personal ruin and ill health on your political opponents. With anti-choicers, the thrill is punishing women who have sex with forced childbirth. With anti-vaxxers, it’s about continuing to stoke a pandemic, which is objectively making life miserable for liberals following safety precautions for public and personal health. Sure, it comes at the high price of making life miserable for everybody, including anti-vaccination people, but when it comes to “owning the libs,” well, sacrifices must be made. 

The irony of all this is that the best way to make this problem go away is to do the very thing that the anti-vaxxers hate most: Impose as many vaccine mandates as possible, in every way possible.

As long as the pandemic is raging, potentially violent fascists have easily identifiable targets. Only vaccine mandates can really get those COVID-19 numbers down and get the U.S. back to normal so the tensions can be defused. Reasoning people into the shots is not working, so the only solution is mandating them. If that doesn’t happen, we can expect the violence and rage to keep rising along with COVID-19 case rates.  

A salmon and pesto pasta to fall in love to

There’s a lot of food in the final episode of the new season of Amazon Prime’s “Modern Love.” That checks out, because it’s based on a New York Times essay I wrote. While a great deal of the story deviates wildly from my true experience, I can’t say that its depiction of a woman who casually squirts ketchup on buttered bagels is entirely unrecognizable. And it was, I suppose, inevitable that the episode, with its thermoses of soups and its banana breads and its peppery fajitas, would remind me of how inexorably food is entwined with love. So let me tell you a little story.

The young woman has just recently started dating the young man when he makes her an outrageous offer — he wants her to come over and he’ll cook her dinner. Because it is the nineties, she is subsisting mostly on cigarettes and whatever she can grift at parties. Cooking, to her, is not something that young, single people do, but sure, whatever. He makes her Cornish hens with little boiled, buttered red potatoes, nothing fancy. She is thinking, this guy’s a magician.

She realizes she must reciprocate. At the time, her refrigerator contains three items: food for the cat, beer and an enormous tub of margarine that her mother gave her after a two-for-one sale at the Stop & Shop. She has never turned on her oven, nor, for that matter, the stovetop.

So on the evening of her big date, she goes to the bodega on her corner and grabs a few things that she thinks might be edible. A box of spaghetti. A jar of pesto. A jar of roasted peppers. A can of salmon. She picks up a pint of ice cream for dessert. She goes home and figures out how to boil water.

In time, she learns how to cook, and even to bake. But she keeps making that one meal, that first meal, again and again, for him. She makes it in different apartments, in different cities. She makes it for their children. She still makes it, to this day.

This is a dinner that a person with absolutely zero cooking experience can make, and I know that because I was that person. It comes together with ingredients you can easily find at your supermarket or the store where you get your scratchers and gum. It’s easy enough for a rushed weeknight, but it’s special enough, it turns out, to make somebody fall in love with you.

***

Salmon Pesto Pasta

Serves 2

Ingredients:

  • 4 ounces of spaghetti (half the box)
  • 1 3-ounce can of salmon (I like Wild Planet.)
  • 3 tablespoons of jarred pesto
  • 1 small jar of roasted peppers

Directions:

  1. Bring a big pot of salted water to a boil.
  2. Cook pasta according to directions.
  3. While the pasta cooks, drain and roughly chop the peppers. You may not want to use them all.
  4. Drain the salmon, removing any skin and bones if you like. (It’s fine to leave them in, too.)
  5. Drain the pasta, reserving a little of the cooking water. Pour the pasta into a big bowl.
  6. Stir in the pesto, then add some cooking water to loosen the pasta and make it silky.
  7. Stir in the salmon and peppers.

If you’re advanced, serve with a nice green salad. Beginners can just open up some wine.

More Quick & Dirty: 

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

 

Our massively unfair tax system: How do the ultra-rich get away with it?

As a class, America’s billionaires and millionaires are social parasites. They benefit from American society and its resources, whether human, material, political or legal, while contributing far less than their fair share of taxes. One central aspect of this parasitic behavior is that the very rich are highly adept at translating the American people’s tax dollars and public resources into private wealth and income. In that way the plutocrats and kleptocrats — both wealthy individuals and families adn the largest corporations — are free riders, protected by the government and other elites as being “too big to fail.” This group also generally rejects any sense of social democracy and responsibility.

Unfortunately, too many ordinary Americans have internalized the country’s myth of individualism, its moral judgments about the poor and poverty, and the fanciful belief that through hard work anyone can pull themselves up by the bootstraps and become enormously successful. The hallucinatory ideology of American capitalism — especially under neoliberalism, the ideological mask for “gangster capitalism” — is almost never openly challenged by Americans. As has often been observed, for many it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

For example, documents recently obtained by ProPublica show that America’s richest individuals and families pay almost nothing in federal taxes. When the richest Americans do choose to pay taxes, they generally do so at a much lower rate than taxes on “normal income” paid by poor, working-class and middle-class people.

An entire “wealth defense industry” is dedicated to preventing the richest Americans from paying taxes through legal and quasi-legal means, including offshore bank accounts, family trusts and other exotic financial schemes. 

America’s tax system also embodies a form of moral hazard, in which the rich and powerful are able to influence the design of the tax code in ways that benefit them and punish others. 


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


A recent analysis by the government watchdog group Accountable.us found, as Jake Johnson writes at Common Dreams, “that two-thirds of GOP senators — and more than 40% of House Republicans — are millionaires who stand to personally benefit from obstructing tax hikes on the wealthy proposed under Senate Democrats’ reconciliation package, which aims to invest in climate action and the tattered social safety net.” The Accountable.us report identifies 125 legislators dubbed the “Republican Millionaires Caucus,” devoted to “preserving Trump-era tax cuts that ‘overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest individuals, including themselves.'”

“Under the Trump tax cuts for the rich, big corporations raked in massive profits as the middle class continued to disappear,” said Kyle Herrig of Accountable.us. “Now that new leaders are trying to level the playing field for everyday workers and their families, corporations are spending millions of dollars to stop it — and many in Congress are carrying their water.”

Republican social Darwinism and hostility to the poor and working class knows few limits. In another recent example, Republicans are urging the IRS to target “fraud” among unemployed people during the pandemic, rather than investigating widespread tax evasion and other financial crimes among the very rich. A Huffington Post report explains that the IRS estimates “that it missed out on an average of $441 billion per year from 2011 through 2013 due to taxpayers not complying with the law,” while the Congressional Budget Office “has estimated that another $40 billion of IRS funding would yield $103 billion in revenue”:

But Republican senators put their foot down and said they would oppose legislation with stepped-up IRS enforcement.

Instead, the bipartisan legislation will go after fraud in the unemployment insurance program, which benefits struggling Americans who are out of work. Unemployment insurance fraud exploded during the pandemic, much of it geared toward exploiting obsolete state insurance systems. Democrats say they have no problem rooting out waste and fraud in the unemployment program, but they take issue with going after only that pot of money ― long a target of Republicans ― and not after people who are evading their taxes as well…. 

Nonpartisan analysts told The Washington Post that savings from cutting waste and fraud in the unemployment insurance program will likely amount to just $35 billion over the next decade ― far less than going after tax cheats.

As throughout all other areas of American life, the color line looms large over these questions of money and justice. For example, the IRS is more likely to audit poor and working class people in Black communities than they are other groups.

Tax law expert Dorothy Brown explains this in a new essay for the Atlantic: “As my research shows, rich white Americans tend to get tax rules designed for their benefit. Quashing the funding that could have helped the IRS more aggressively pursue elite tax fraud is yet another example…. The dollar amount of low-income Americans’ tax liability is negligible when compared with those making millions.” While nearly half of all people who filed for the earned-income tax credit (available to lower-income taxpayers) were white, ProPublica “found that the counties with the highest audit rates were “poor, rural, mostly African American and in the South.”

As a whole, this reflects a larger power dynamic that threatens American democracy: Social scientists have repeatedly shown that America’s elected officials are highly responsive to the demands of plutocrats and kleptocrats, while being largely indifferent to the political needs and desires of the middle class, working class and the poor.

Ultimately, the super-rich live in a world free of accountability, protected from negative consequences for their behavior, their worst impulses and their antisocial behavior, which is often celebrated as something to be admired and emulated. Most Americans cannot even imagine the day-to-day lives of millionaires and billionaires, which is largely why they are able to operate with such impunity and exert such disproportionate control and influence.

What would American society be like if the rich paid their fair share of taxes? How would the lives of average Americans be improved by such basic justice? In an attempt to answer those questions, I recently spoke with Frank Clemente, the executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. Clemente previously served as director of the watchdog organization Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, and was issues director for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign.

In this conversation, Clemente explains what it truly means to be wealthy in America and how the rich think about money in ways that are very different than most Americans.  He offers a powerful if familiar answer to the question of how and why the richest Americans and largest corporations were able to make even more money during the coronavirus pandemic and the economic devastation it inflicted on the American people: “Wealth begets wealth.” Clemente also discusses what the American people can do to push back against such an unjust and anti-democratic system.

What does it mean to be wealthy in this country? For most Americans, having that much money is such an abstract idea that they cannot even begin to conceptualize it.

I think it feels like tremendous freedom. So much of our lives is constrained by such concerns as, “Can I afford this? Or can I do this? Do I have the money to do it?” Such is a life of scarcity and fear.

“Am I going to have enough for retirement? How am I going to pay the medical bills?” Or, for some people, something even more basic: “How am I even going to afford to go to a doctor?” It’s just such an intellectual freedom I think. Great wealth is really the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. In some ways it’s limitless. How do you spend a billion dollars? It’s not very easy. In the end, having great wealth means being unburdened by the worries and restrictions caused by not having enough money.

What has the coronavirus crisis further revealed about American society and social inequality?

It is an awakening for many people. It always seemed odd to me there has not been a revolution in this country because of wealth inequality. It surprises me that so many Americans do not feel that such extreme income and wealth inequality is wrong. To that point, we just conducted a new poll which shows that wealth inequality does not resonate with the public as a reason to reform the tax system. What our new poll did show, however, is that creating a fair share tax system does in fact resonate with the public.

Billionaires are going to outer space while there is rampant wealth and income inequality here on Earth — and especially in the United States. What does such excess and vainglorious behavior reveal about the country, especially given how the super-rich and the mega-corporations largely do not pay taxes?

Their money and political power already separates the billionaires and other super-wealthy from the concerns of the rest of society — what better symbol of that than blasting into space and leaving the rest of us behind? Americans wouldn’t mind billionaires like Jeff Bezos paying to send himself to space so much if he and his company also paid their fair share of taxes — or any taxes at all. Several times in recent years, Bezos, despite his billions in wealth, and his company, despite its billions in profits, have paid zero federal income taxes.

How did the wealthy and super-rich become even wealthier during and because of the coronavirus crisis?

Wealth begets wealth.

How does the tax code and tax evasion by the very rich (who are almost all white) perpetuate the racial wealth gap and other forms of structural inequality?

Even when they follow the law, the white and wealthy benefit from a tax system set up to help them at the expense of lower income folks and people of color. As excellently explained by Prof. Dorothy Brown, supposedly “race-neutral” components of the tax code, ranging from joint filing status to retirement arrangements, all have the effect of privileging white people over others and widening the racial wealth gap created by institutionalized racism over the centuries.

When rich white people break the law and cheat on their taxes, it only compounds the injustice. By closing tax loopholes and requiring the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share, we can raise trillions of dollars that can be invested in making peoples’ lives so much better and open up opportunities that are currently far out of reach.

How do you explain the difference between wealth and income? What do the very rich know about money that other people do not?

Income is simply what you get in your paycheck every week. Most people get their income through their paycheck, salary or wage income. Wealth is how much you’re able to put away in your bank account, in your stock investments, in your retirement accounts, in the real estate you own, or a business that you own. That is what allows you to accumulate a lot more wealth. These assets generate wealth because they are becoming more valuable as time goes on.

Most people in America have no real relationship to wealth. The only relationship they have to wealth is their house. Perhaps their stocks and a 401k fund. But the value of most 401k’s is not enough to sustain a person in retirement. Homes are a source of wealth as well, but they may have a large mortgage attached, which means that the net value is much less. Wealth on that scale is very different than what the truly rich have access to.

Their assets are exponential. The word exponential just defines the difference between us and them. Moreover, accumulating wealth also creates opportunities. Who do you know? Who wants your money for a startup business opportunity, which in turn can create even more wealth? Yes, there are risks. Sometimes you may lose money by investing early. But there are those great opportunities for the wealthy where there is exponential growth. The number of people who have access to those opportunities is very small.

Why is there not a more sustained public discussion of wealth inequality in this country?

Part of the explanation is that the vast majority of Americans have no direct experience with wealth. They really have no sense of what it is. When a person understands the whole system that helps the rich to become richer, they would then have a better comprehension of the differences between the haves and the have-nots.  

What type of impact do the very rich have on public policy in America, and on democracy more broadly?

Ten percent of all political contributions come from an extremely small number of people. This translates into an inordinate amount of access and influence, in terms of speaking to the news media and a megaphone to say what is important in the world and what is not. The very rich can use that influence and power to shape public opinion and to influence economic policy in ways that benefit them.

The very wealthy also employ a lot of people. Looking at Amazon, for example, they are located all over the country, which gives them influence over Congress.

There are the political contributions as well. This includes “soft money” donations and also “dark money,” which includes giving donations to the chamber of commerce, for example. In total, the very rich have huge assets to deploy to influence political outcomes at all levels of the United States government.

An infrastructure bill, however much pared down, seems like it may pass Congress. But the Republican Party continues not to want the IRS to enforce the law by taxing the rich and corporations, especially those who are hiding wealth. What are the next steps? What can the American people do to apply pressure on this issue?

Republicans are for law and order — except when obeying the law inconveniences their wealthy political donors. They complain about Democrats wanting to defund law enforcement, yet the only place that has happened is at the IRS, thanks to relentless GOP budget cuts. Beefing up IRS enforcement should be part of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill — not as a replacement for reform that ensures the rich and corporations pay their fair share, but as a complement to it.

The American people should make clear to their representatives in Congress that they want real tax reform and effective tax enforcement against rich tax cheats and tax-dodging corporations.

What would American society look like if the rich were taxed at the same effective rate as the working class and the middle class?

It would cost $2 trillion to fix all the roads and bridges and create a world-class infrastructure. Most people could afford to go to work and have affordable child care for their kids. It would mean universal pre-K for all 3- and 4-year-old children.

A fair tax system would be a down payment on clean energy, a new electric grid and more electrical vehicles on the road, because we could provide tax subsidies to buy them. There would be a national weatherization program, and money to help create more affordable housing. Millions more people would be able to afford health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. It is estimated that 40% of children could be lifted out of poverty. Huge positive intergenerational changes could be achieved with the revenue from a fair tax system.

“Tainted” blood: Covid skeptics request blood transfusions from unvaccinated donors

The nation’s roiling tensions over vaccination against covid-19 have spilled into an unexpected arena: lifesaving blood transfusions.

With nearly 60% of the eligible U.S. population fully vaccinated, most of the nation’s blood supply is now coming from donors who have been inoculated, experts said. That’s led some patients who are skeptical of the shots to demand transfusions only from the unvaccinated, an option blood centers insist is neither medically sound nor operationally feasible.

“We are definitely aware of patients who have refused blood products from vaccinated donors,” said Dr. Julie Katz Karp, who directs the blood bank and transfusion medicine program at Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals in Philadelphia.

Emily Osment, an American Red Cross spokesperson, said her organization has fielded questions from clients worried that vaccinated blood would be “tainted,” capable of transmitting components from the covid vaccines. Red Cross officials said they’ve had to reassure clients that a covid vaccine, which is injected into muscle or the layer of skin below, doesn’t circulate in the blood.

“While the antibodies that are produced by the stimulated immune system in response to vaccination are found throughout the bloodstream, the actual vaccine components are not,” Jessa Merrill, the Red Cross director of biomedical communications, said in an email.

So far, such demands have been rare, industry officials said. Dr. Louis Katz, chief medical officer for ImpactLife, an Iowa-based blood center, said he’s heard from “a small handful” of patients asking for blood from unvaccinated donors. And the resounding answer from centers and hospitals, he added, has been “no.”

“I know of no one who has acceded to such a request, which would be an operational can of worms for a medically unjustifiable request,” Katz wrote in an email.

In practical terms, blood centers have only limited access to donated blood that has not in some way been affected by covid. Based on samples, Katz estimated that as much as 60% to 70% of the blood currently being donated is coming from vaccinated donors. Overall, more than 90% of current donors have either been infected with covid or vaccinated against it, said Dr. Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute, who is monitoring antibody levels in samples from the U.S. blood supply.

“Less than 10% of the blood we collect does not have antibodies,” Busch noted.

In addition, outside of research studies, blood centers in the U.S. don’t retain data noting whether donors have been infected with or vaccinated against covid, and there’s no federal requirement that collected blood products be identified in that manner.

“The Food and Drug Administration has determined there’s no safety risk, so there’s no reason to label the units,” said Dr. Claudia Cohn, chief medical officer for AABB, a nonprofit focused on transfusion medicine and cellular therapies.

Indeed, the FDA does not recommend routine screening of blood donors for covid. Respiratory viruses, in general, aren’t known to spread by blood transfusion and, worldwide, there have been no reported cases of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the disease, being transmitted via blood. One study identified the risk as “negligible.”

All donors are supposed to be healthy when they give blood and answer basic questions about potential risks. Collected units of blood are tested for transmissible infectious diseases before they’re distributed to hospitals.

But that hasn’t quelled concerns for some people skeptical of covid vaccines.

In Bedford, Texas, the father of a boy scheduled for surgery recently asked that his son get blood exclusively from unvaccinated donors, said Dr. Geeta Paranjape, medical director at Carter BloodCare. Separately, a young mother fretted about transfusions from vaccinated donors to her newborn.

Many patients expressing concerns have been influenced by rampant misinformation about vaccines and the blood supply, said Paranjape. “A lot of people think there’s some kind of microchip or they’re going to be cloned,” she said.

Other patients have balked at getting blood from people previously infected with covid, even though federal guidance greenlights donations two weeks after a positive test or the last symptom fades.

Last month, a woman facing a cesarean section for a high-risk pregnancy said she didn’t want blood from a donor who had had covid, recalled Cohn with AABB. “I said, ‘Listen, the alternative is you don’t get the blood and that’s what will affect you,'” Cohn said.

Some industry experts were hesitant to discuss the vaccine-free blood requests, for fear it would fuel more such demands. But Cohn and others said correcting widely spread misinformation outweighed the risk.

Patients are free to refuse transfusions for any reason, industry officials said. But in dire situations — trauma, emergency surgery — saving lives often requires using the available blood. For patients with chronic conditions requiring transfusion, alternative treatments such as medication or certain equipment may not be as efficient or effective.

People who require transfusions also may donate their own blood in advance or request donations from designated friends and family members. But there’s no evidence that the blood is safer when patients select donors than that provided by the volunteer blood system, according to the Red Cross.

Earlier in the pandemic, many blood donations were tested to see whether they contained antibodies to the covid virus. The hope was that blood from previously infected people who had recovered from covid could be used to treat those who were very sick with the disease. Tens of thousands of patients were treated with so-called convalescent plasma under a Mayo Clinic-led program and through authorization from the FDA.

But the much-hyped use of convalescent plasma largely fell flat after studies showed no clear-cut benefits for the broad swath of covid patients. (Research continues into the potential benefits of treating narrowly targeted patient groups with high-potency plasma.) Most hospitals stopped testing blood and labeling units with high levels of antibodies this spring, said Busch. “It’s really no longer a germane issue because we’re not testing anymore,” he said. “There’s no way we can inform recipients.”

Busch stressed that the studies also have shown no harm associated with infusing antibody-containing blood plasma into covid patients.

Past health crises have raised similar concerns about sources of donor blood. In the mid-1980s, recipients scared by the AIDS epidemic didn’t want blood donated from cities such as San Francisco with large gay populations, Busch recalled. Even now, some recipients demand not to receive blood from people of certain races or ethnicities.

Such requests, like those for vaccine-free blood, have no medical or scientific basis and are soundly refused, blood center officials said.

The most pressing issue for blood centers remains the ongoing shortage of willing donors. As of the second week of August, the national blood supply was down to two days‘ worth or less at a third of sites affiliated with America’s Blood Centers. That can limit the blood available for trauma victims, surgery patients and others who rely on transfusions to survive.

“If for some reason we didn’t want vaccinated people to donate blood, we’d be in a real problem, wouldn’t we?” Karp said. “Please believe us when we tell you it’s fine.”

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.

Correctional officers are driving the pandemic in prisons

Prisons and jails have hosted some of the largest COVID-19 outbreaks in the U.S., with some facilities approaching 4,000 cases. In the U.S., which has some of the highest COVID-19 infection rates in the world, 9 in 100 people have had the virus; in U.S. prisons, the rate is 34 out of 100.

I study public health issues around prisons. My colleagues and I set out to understand why COVID-19 infection rates were so highamong incarcerated individuals. 

Using data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, we discovered the infection rate among correctional officers drove the infection rate among incarcerated individuals. We also found a three-way relationship between the infection rate of officers, incarcerated individuals and the communities around prisons.

No stranger to outbreaks

Prisons, jails and other correctional facilities routinely deal with infectious diseases. Hepatitis B and C as well as tuberculosis are all incredibly common in prison populations.

Because of that, prisons have established policies and procedures for handling infectious diseases. Many of those policies are the same as those for preventing the spread of COVID-19 – such as medical isolation of individuals with active infections, increased cleaning and surveillance of the disease. 

Public health experts have encouraged prisons to think about the role of correctional officers in infection spread for years and more recently have warned that correctional officers are a weak link for COVID-19 infections in prisons.

Even though prisons have policies for disease control, many of which include guidelines for correctional officers, prisons are at a disadvantage in stopping the spread of COVID-19. Current prison conditions – including poor ventilationovercrowding and a lack of space for social distancing and isolation – make respiratory diseases like COVID-19 very difficult to control.

For instance, before the start of the pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, along with nine state prison systems, has been operating at over 100% capacity. During the pandemic, even with massive early release and home confinement programs, many states remain at 100% prisoner capacity – or more

Additionally, U.S. prisons have been facing chronic staffing shortages. In the federal system, the issue is so severe that staff not trained as prison guards – including nurses – are being reassigned to guard the prison population. Short staffing makes the daily business of running a prison difficult during the best of times, not to mention during a pandemic. 

As early as March 2020, many prisons attempted to mitigate these conditions by granting early release and home confinement. Some also blocked all visitors and outside contractors. While helpful in some cases, ultimately these actions did little to stop outbreaks. 

Responding to COVID-19

Initially, public health organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention went back and forth on the need for masks. Then mask mandates became a partisan issue. By midsummer 2020, 30 states mandated masking for correctional officers, prisoners or both. The Bureau of Prisons adopted a masking policy in late August, requiring correctional officers to mask when social distancing was not possible.

As the second and third waves of COVID-19 swept through the nation and the federal prison system, the mask mandate made only a small dent in slowing the uptick of infections among prisoners. 

Additionally, vaccine adoption rates among correctional officers and incarcerated people are low, weakening this line of defense. Across all states, incarcerated people have not been prioritized for the vaccine. Even when the vaccines are available, many incarcerated people are skeptical about receiving them due to mistrust of prison officials. 

Two-way vectors

We found the relationship between COVID-19 infections among correctional staff and incarcerated individuals is also shaped by the incidence of COVID-19 in the community surrounding the prison. Because correctional officers move between the prison and the community at the beginning and end of each shift, they can carry COVID-19 between these two spaces. 

Even when correctional officers test negative for COVID-19, they can still drive COVID-19 rates both inside and outside the prison via asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread. Our data shows that when COVID-19 rates in the outside community get worse, so too do rates among the incarcerated population.

Prison policies aimed at stopping the spread of COVID-19 should be designed with an eye toward controlling the disease in the prison population, among correctional officers and in the community around the prison. 

For example, prison systems should be just as concerned with vaccination rates in the communities around prisons as they are with vaccination rates among correctional officers. Both rates will have an impact on the spread of COVID-19 within a prison.

Danielle Wallace, Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

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

Lauren Boebert fails to file 2019 financial disclosure; sale of cargo plane remains a mystery

Last Friday was the deadline for members of the House of Representatives to file their 2020 financial disclosure reports to the Clerk of House. It passed without Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., the firebrand pro-gun conservative, filling on time. On Tuesday of this week, the congresswoman filed her 2020 disclosure, but a Salon investigation revealed that she has failed to file the mandated reports for previous years, including 2019. 

With Boebert’s financial dealings from both 2019 and 2020, for the most part, remaining unclear, one fascinating question has emerged: What happened to the plane? Specifically, to the red Aviat Husky, a two-seat light aircraft that Boebert either did or did not own at one point.  

On Tuesday, Boebert filed her “new filer” disclosure form, a few days late, which detailed financial dealings for the 2020 calendar year. To begin with, the lawmaker’s salary last year from Shooter’s Grill, the gun-themed restaurant she owns with her husband, Jayson, in Rifle, Colorado, is listed as exactly $1. Jayson Boebert, however, brought home nearly half a million dollars working for the energy firm Terra Energy Productions in 2020 and is on track to earn $768,000 in 2021. 

With Boebert earning an additional $174,000 as a member of Congress, the couple is on track to earn almost $1 million in 2021, placing them within the top 1% of earners in the United States, as well as in the upper echelon of the wealthy Colorado mountains, where they live. Tuesday’s filing outlined that Boebert currently owns no stocks, bonds or income property and that her personal assets in a checking account were valued at less than $15,000 with Shooter’s Grill valued between $50,000 and $100,000.


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


Boebert’s congressional boss, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy earns $193,400 a year, and his wife has earned roughly $47,000 annually in a “work from home” position with the California Republican Party for the past seven years. Back-of-the-envelope math suggests the Boeberts will earn nearly four times as much as the McCarthys this year. 

It’s unclear why Boebert disclosed her husband’s salary since she was not required to do so under House Ethics rules. In fact, doing so revealed that while Boebert has presented herself as a working-class entrepreneur who spent her childhood on welfare, she is now in one of America’s highest-income brackets.

The only previous disclosure Boebert has filed with the House Ethics Committee covered the 2018 calendar year 2018 and showed that Shooters Grill, had a net operating loss of $242,347. Since then, the Boeberts’ second restaurant, Smokehouse 1776, went out of business following a 2017 food poisoning incident at a local fair. Jayson Boebert’s consulting company also became delinquent with the state of Colorado after failing to file a periodic report.

And then there’s the plane

Boebert’s 2018 filing did not include the sale that October of the single-engine Aviat Husky A-1 cargo plane (see photos here) owned by Shooter’s Grill since June of 2016, when the restaurant was a limited liability entity. Both Boebert and her husband received student pilot licenses through the FAA in 2015, although neither was ever licensed to carry passengers. 

It remains unclear whether the plane was used to avoid taxes by depreciating the aircraft as a business asset, and why its apparent sale was not mentioned in her disclosure filing. Boebert did not return a Salon request for comment on this story. 

Missing 2019 financial disclosure report

On Dec. 10, 2019, Boebert — then a Republican primary candidate in Colorado — crossed the threshold of $5,000 in contributions threshold and had 30 days to file a financial disclosure form with the House Ethics Committee, which she did on Jan. 9, 2020. In that disclosure, however, Boebert only addressed questions stemming from the 2018 calendar year only, leaving blank the requested information pertaining to 2019. Additionally, because Boebert became a mandatory filer in 2019, once she was elected to Congress ethics rules required her to file a second financial disclosure by May 15, 2020, covering all of 2019 and 2020 up to that date. No such form was ever filed.

Shooter’s Grill did not take a PPP loan or receive a Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) grant during the pandemic. Boebert, however, did pay off $20,000 in liens against the restaurant just before winning election to Congress last November. Why she didn’t take advantage of pandemic relief options signed into law by former President Trump remains unclear.

On Wednesday afternoon, news broke that federal officials are questioning Boebert regarding the alleged use of “thousands of dollars in campaign funds” for personal expenses.

 “A letter from the Federal Election Commission to the treasurer of Boebert’s 2022 reelection campaign inquired about four Venmo payments totaling more than $6,000,” CNBC reported. “FEC filings show the payments came between May and June for what’s described on the forms as ‘personal expense of Lauren Boebert billed to campaign account in error.’ The filings then note that the ‘expense has been reimbursed.'”

Salon’s previous coverage of Boebert

Lauren Boebert’s midnight run: Capitol tour happened after she attended “Stop the Steal” rally

Rep. Lauren Boebert lost a family member to COVID — but she’s still a vaccine foe

Lauren Boebert says her late-night Capitol mystery tour was “totally legit.” Except it wasn’t

Why did Lauren Boebert lead a late-night Capitol tour three weeks before Jan. 6? 

“No time for amateur hour”: Pelosi dismisses threat from House moderates over Biden budget bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., dismissed a threat from a group of House moderates, who said they plan to oppose the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget bill unless the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill gets an immediate vote.

“This is no time for amateur hour,” Pelosi told her leadership team on a private call Monday, according to Politico. “For the first time, America’s children have leverage. I will not surrender that leverage,” she said.

Pelosi and Democratic leaders have said for weeks that they plan to advance the $1 trillion Senate-passed infrastructure package at the same time as the budget bill, which is expected to include many of President Joe Biden’s American Family Plan proposals to expand health care, child care and public education, as well as combat climate change, among other measures. The dual-track strategy came about after progressive lawmakers called for a bill that invests far more heavily in the social safety net and climate than the bipartisan bill, which was largely limited to physical infrastructure like roads, bridges and railways.

A group of nine House moderates last week threatened to block the budget bill unless the House votes on the bipartisan bill first. “We will not consider voting for a budget resolution until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes the House and is signed into law,” the group led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., said in a letter to Pelosi.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., sent out his own letter pushing back on calls to immediately pass the Senate bill.

“Unfortunately, the Senate’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act… falls short on many priorities of the House,” he told colleagues. “The Senate has had unilateral control over the infrastructure bill. If we want House priorities to be considered, we cannot let the same thing happen in reconciliation.”

With just a three-seat majority in the House, the group of nine Democrats has more than enough members to block the budget bill if they go through with their threat. But a larger group of House progressives has warned that they would torpedo any attempt to pass the bipartisan bill unless it advances at the same time as the budget package.

A “majority” of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus “would commit to withholding a yes vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal… until the Senate has passed budget reconciliation legislation deemed acceptable” by the group, caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., said in a letter to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Pelosi acknowledged the progressive opposition to the moderates’ plan, telling her leadership team that “there is no way we can pass those bills unless we do so in the order that we originally planned.”

Pelosi on the call reaffirmed her plan to pass a rule next week that would include the infrastructure bill, the budget resolution, and voting rights legislation, according to Politico. The speaker told members last week that the House would vote on the budget and voting rights bills, but only to advance rather than pass, the infrastructure package. Votes to proceed may come as early as Monday.

One Democrat described the plan to Politico as daring the moderates to vote no. The budget resolution is expected to include numerous provisions called for by moderate lawmakers, including a State and Local Tax break that Gottheimer has repeatedly demanded — even though research suggests that more than two-thirds of the benefit would go to the top 7% of earners and could exacerbate racial inequities.

“It is essential that we show results,” Pelosi told her team on Monday. “Biden’s agenda needs to show the results that we know it can produce.”

Fellow Democratic leaders have urged unity among the caucus amid the strife from both sides.

“Remember the psychology of consensus. We are in this together, we have the leader of our party and we are pursuing the attainment” of our agenda, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told members on a private call Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

“I would hope that none of us would do or say anything that would jeopardize passing these bills,” added House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., according to NBC News. “A lot of us need to hold hands. We need to be protecting each other and march together.”

The Biden administration has also backed Pelosi’s plan to advance both bills and the voting rights legislation.

“The President strongly supports the Rule,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates told NBC. “All three are critical elements of the President’s agenda, and we hope that every Democratic member supports this effort to advance these important legislative actions.”

Gottheimer in a statement this week reiterated his view that Congress “cannot afford to wait months” to pass the infrastructure bill but insisted that he is “confident we can sit down together and work this out.”

But even if Pelosi is able to hold her caucus together, Democrats still have a lot of work to do to pass the budget bill. Schumer gave Senate committees until Sept. 15 to write the actual bill after the chamber advanced a blueprint that calls for about $3.5 trillion in spending. But moderate Sens. Joe Manchin D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have already balked at the price tag and may attempt to cut the size of the bill further after progressive lawmakers, who called for a $6 trillion bill, agreed to compromise on the scope of the package.

Republicans have lobbied both senators behind the scenes in hopes that they will derail the Democrats’ agenda.

“I know, from talking to both of them, there are concerns about the size and about the various tax increases,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., told Politico. “Their vote is the whole enchilada. If they want to stop this thing, they can. And I hope they will use that power.”

California recall looks like a disaster — and the state’s top Democrats paved the way

Four weeks from now, a right-wing Republican could win the governor’s office in California. Some polling indicates that Democrat Gavin Newsom is likely to lose his job via the recall election set for Sept. 14. When CBS News released a poll on Sunday, Gov. Newsom’s razor-thin edge among likely voters was within the margin of error. How this could be happening in a state where Republicans are only 24 percent of registered voters is largely a tale of corporate-friendly elitism and tone-deaf egotism at the top of the California Democratic Party.

Newsom has always been enmeshed with the power of big money. “Gavin Newsom wasn’t born to wealth and privilege but as a youngster he was enveloped in it as the surrogate son of billionaire Gordon Getty,” longtime conservative California journalist Dan Walters has pointed out. “Later, Getty’s personal trust fund — managed by Newsom’s father — provided initial financing for business ventures that made Newsom wealthy enough to segue into a political career as a protégé of San Francisco’s fabled political mastermind, Willie Brown.” In 1996, as mayor, Brown appointed Newsom to the city’s Parking and Traffic Committee. Twenty-five years later, Newsom is chief executive of a state with the world’s fifth-largest economy.

Last November, Newsom dramatized his upper-crust arrogance of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Photos emerged that showed him having dinner with a corporate lobbyist friend among people from several households, all without masks, in a mostly enclosed dining room — at an extremely expensive Napa Valley restaurant, the French Laundry — at a time when Newsom was urging Californians to stay away from public gatherings and to wear masks. The governor’s self-inflicted political wound for hypocrisy badly damaged his image.

After deep-pocketed funders teamed up with the state’s Republican Party to circulate petitions forcing a recall election, initial liberal optimism assumed that the GOP was overplaying its hand. But the recall effort kept gaining momentum. Now there’s every indication that Republicans will vote at a significantly higher rate than Democrats, a fact that speaks not only to conservative fervor but also to the chronic detachment of the state’s Democratic Party from its base. 

Newsom’s most fervent boosters include corporate interests, mainline labor unions and the California Democratic Party. Just about every leader of the CDP, along with the vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature, is pleased to call themselves “progressive.” But the label is often a thin veneer for corporate business as usual. 


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


For instance, the CDP’s platform has long been on record calling for a single-payer health care system in California. Such measures passed the legislature during the time when Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor from 2003 to 2011, and he surprised no one by vetoing the bills. But the heavily Democratic legislature has obliged the latest two Democratic governors, Jerry Brown and Newsom, by bottling up single-payer legislation; it’s been well understood that Brown and Newsom wanted to confine the state party’s support for single-payer to lip service.

In the same vein, the CDP’s current chair, Rusty Hicks, signed a pledge that the state party would not accept fossil-fuel money. But he went on to do exactly that to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. 

As an elected member of the California Democratic Party’s central committee during the last decade, I’ve often witnessed such top-down maneuvers. Frequently, the CDP’s most powerful leaders are in a groove of thwarting the progressive aspirations of the party’s bedrock supporters — and blocking measures that would materially improve the lives of millions of Californians.

“This is what happens when the culture of high-priced consultants and cult of personality meets a corporate-controlled legislature and party,” said Karen Bernal, a Sacramento-based activist who chaired the CDP’s Progressive Caucus for six years. She told me: “The campaign promises and vows of support for progressive policy are revealed to be nothing more than performative, while the hopes and dreams of the party’s progressive base are sent to die in committee and behind closed doors. The end result is a noticeable lack of fight when it’s most needed.”

Now, with the recall election barreling down on the state, the routinely aloof orientation of the state party’s structure is coming back to haunt it. Overall, the CDP’s actual connections to grassroots activists and core constituencies are tenuous at best, while Newsom comes across as more Hollywood and Wall Street than neighborhood and Main Street. No wonder Democrats statewide are less energized about voting on the recall than Republicans are.

If Newsom loses the recall, his successor as governor will be determined by who gets the most votes on “part 2” of the same ballot. In that case, you might logically ask, isn’t the “part 2” winner a safe bet to be a Democrat in such a heavily Democratic state? Actually, no.

On the theory that having any prominent Democrat in contention would harm his chances of surviving the yes/no recall vote on the ballot’s “part 1,” Newsom and party operatives conveyed to all of the state’s prominent Democrats: Don’t even think about it.

The intimidation was successful. Not a single Democrat with substantial name recognition is on “part 2” of the ballot, so no reasonable safety-net contender exists if the recall wins. As a result, Newsom’s replacement looks as likely to be an ultra-right Republican as a Democrat. And even if the replacement is a Democrat, it would almost certainly be a highly problematic fellow — financial adviser and YouTube star Kevin Paffrath, whose grab bag of ideas includes a few that appeal to Democrats (marriage equality, higher teacher pay and promotion of solar and wind farms) but features a lot of pseudo-populist notions that would do tremendous damage if implemented. 

Paffrath’s proposals, as described by the Southern California News Group, seek “to make all coronavirus safety measures optional, to ditch income tax for anyone making less than $250,000, to use the National Guard to get all unhoused Californians off the streets and to give trained gun owners more rights.” As a clue to the inclusivity of the “centrist solutions” that Paffrath says he yearns for, he introduced himself to voters with a video that “features clips from Fox News and from conservative media host Ben Shapiro.” Recent polling shows the 29-year-old Paffrath neck-and-neck with the frontrunning Republican on the ballot, bombastic Trumpist talk-show host Larry Elder.

Whether Newsom will remain governor past mid-autumn now looks like a coin flip. And what’s at stake in the recall goes far beyond California — in fact, all the way to the nation’s capital.

California’s 88-year-old senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, is widely understood to be in poor health and suffering from cognitive decline as she — with increasing difficulty — navigates the U.S. Senate, now evenly split between the two parties. Under state law, if she dies or otherwise leaves her seat vacant, the governor gets to appoint the replacement. In a worst-case scenario, a Republican becomes governor when the recall election results are certified in October and thus, for at least the next 14 months, would have the power to select Feinstein’s replacement, thereby once again making Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader.

Given the looming political dangers, Feinstein should resign so that Newsom could appoint a Democratic replacement. But such a selfless move is highly unlikely. Despite all the talk about loyalty to their party and determination to defeat the extremism of the Republican Party, corporate Democrats like Newsom and Feinstein routinely look out for No. 1. That’s how we got into this ominous recall mess in the first place.

Why Americans can’t have nice things: We squandered our nation’s wealth on pointless wars

All the recrimination-filled reporting and commentary about how fast Afghanistan fell to the Taliban after President Biden made the courageous decision to finish withdrawing our troops misses a much more important story.

This story concerns why Americans can’t have nice things anymore while our main economic competitor China does — and is investing in a lucrative and influential future.

It’s the story of jettisoning the sensible Powell Doctrine of asking whether war is quickly winnable before rushing into military action in favor of chronic combat. Endless war creates enormous fortunes for investors in the military-industrial complex, enabled by jingoistic political cowardice in Washington.

For two decades our elected leaders foolishly spent our money trying to impose democracy at the point of a rifle in a country with no democratic culture or tradition.

To date, U.S. taxpayers have spent about $2.3 trillion on an undeclared war that cost 2,448 American troops their lives avenging about the same number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. More than 100,000 Afghans died in the 20-year war.

This butcher bill comes to more than $6,000 for each American man, woman and child. Our elected leaders borrowed all that money because of federal tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2017.

Cutting taxes in a time of war is as dumb an idea as ever infected American politics.

America would be far better off today had Congress built a giant bonfire with all those greenbacks. Seriously.

That’s because the costs of this foolish enterprise will continue until the last eligible dependent of an Afghan combat veteran dies sometime near the dawn of the 23rd century.

Last Civil War check

It wasn’t until last year when Irene Triplett died and her $73.13 monthly check stopped that American taxpayers paid out the last pension from the Civil War, which ended in 1865.

The total ultimate Afghan war bill? More than $6.4 trillion, according to the Cost of War Project at Brown University. That’s more than $100,000 for the iconic family of four.

There’s a good chance that estimate will prove low because our government instilled hatred of America and democracy among many of the 35 million Afghans. Once the Taliban complete their bloodbath — executing American collaborators, mutilating women who dared work outside the home and arresting other infidels — they likely will hunt for ways to exact revenge on us. After all, we’d do the same — in fact, we already have.

And our participation occurred without a congressional declaration of war, as required by our Constitution.

While our elected officials squandered money on an undeclared war that drained our economy, the dictatorial regime in Beijing bought China a bright future.

No better life

China spends more than 5.5% of its economy on infrastructure. America spent about 3.1% of the economy on steel and concrete infrastructure way back in 1980, before more than half of today’s Americans were born. In recent years, American infrastructure investment has been slashed by half to a record low.

None of this Afghan war spending bought us a better life. None of it was an investment in the public furniture, which is the commonwealth foundation on which private wealth is built.

That money didn’t maintain or build new roads, dams, bridges, rail lines or public buildings that could last centuries if adequately designed and constructed. It didn’t buy textbooks or strengthen our third-rate grid in this electricity-dependent Digital Age.

It bought bullets and bombs that become useless once they go off. And most of those killing devices were wasted because they failed to kill their targets and, worse, often killed innocents, including women and children.

China, in contrast, didn’t spend its money on wars. Indeed, China hasn’t been in a war in this century, though it brutally oppresses those within its grasp who challenge its totalitarian control.

Creating wealth

Instead, China invested in public furniture that makes commerce more efficient, shrinks its carbon footprint, reduces rural poverty and expands influence beyond its borders. Those investments create jobs galore and, in turn, wealth.

“Infrastructure investment in China has increased significantly in recent decades and has been a significant driver of economic growth and improved standards of living,” according to the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The can-do spirit has been throttled in America by petty politicians like the anti-taxers who insist we cannot afford to invest in the public’s welfare. Be it making college tuition-free, or nearly so, or taking care of our existing infrastructure, they stand for tax cuts for the rich and the big companies that their patrons own. At the same time, they oppose building new and refuse to recognize that electricity, cell phones and the internet are core necessities of life in the Digital Age.

The can-do spirit, however, is not gone from this earth. It’s just moved to China, which in 43 hours tore down and replaced a multi-lane highway bridge in Beijing, as this fantastic brief video shows.

Think about how long it takes to get anything done in America these days.

In just 10 years, starting in 2008, China built nearly 16,000 miles of high-speed rail. That more than doubled total global high-speed rail lines.

How many miles of high-speed rail carry passengers in America? None.

This smart CNBC program explains why America has no high-speed rail, and how we also lost many urban rail transit systems.

Investing in the future

China isn’t afraid of debt either. Its infrastructure investments, private and public, are essentially 90% debt-financed. From 2000 to 2014, China invested the equivalent of $29.1 trillion U.S. in infrastructure while issuing $26.1 trillion of debt, researchers at Oxford University calculated.

Our Congress is in a lather about just $1 trillion for traditional infrastructure.

To a person, the Republicans won’t consider a separate bill that defines infrastructure in human terms with money for housing, expanded education, cash to lift children out of poverty, climate change mitigation, rural internet access and investments in science.

From my many visits to China in this century, it’s evident that the regime there builds smooth roads on very deep beds of rock, assuring potholes will be rare. America, by contrast, produces inferior roads.

The long-lasting Chinese highways with wide lanes put to shame the German Autobahn, which puts to shame our cheapskate interstate highway system.

America thinks in terms of 90-day corporate financial reports and two-year election cycles. China’s leaders think in terms of decades and centuries.

America has literally gone backward in some areas since 1863.

During the Civil War, the president of the New York Central worked in Manhattan but lived in Batavia, midway between Rochester and Buffalo in western New York. Dean Richmond took his private rail car down to arrive at work Monday morning and returned home late Friday supper.

The trips he took in 1863 took 90 minutes less than they do today.

If we built the kind of trains that China already has, then Batavia to Manhattan could take less than two hours, not eight.

Serious investment in infrastructure could yield elevated mag-lev trains like the one connecting the Shanghai airport to the edge of that city. The repulsive force of magnets lifts rail passenger cars millimeters above the tracks so trains can run at a friction-free 300 mph.

Put such trains in vacuum tubes and you could go from L.A. to Manhattan in less time than it takes to reach JFK from Manhattan or LAX from Beverly Hills — all while using a tiny fraction of the energy a jetliner uses per passenger today to connect those megacities.

But instead of working toward such goals, we squabble over the scraps left over after wasting blood and treasure in a war that had no purpose except to catch those behind the awful attack on us almost two decades ago.

We had good reason to invade Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden’s fanatical followers crashed jetliners into both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, while a fourth plane heading to D.C. was bravely brought down in the Pennsylvania countryside by passengers who fought terrorists.

The Real Vietnam comparison

The 2001 invasion should have followed the Powell Doctrine, named for Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later secretary of state. He said a lesson of Vietnam was that America should use military force only when national security demanded it, and even then only after building overwhelming global support and then applying overwhelmingly military force.

Instead of applying that doctrine to find and kill bin Laden and his confederates, the inexperienced George W. Bush agreed with conservative fanatics who said we could buy our way into capturing our enemies.

Air Force cargo planes stuffed with American dollars flew to the Middle East during the Afghan and Iraq wars. We gave literally tons of greenbacks to warlords who promised to catch bin Laden and his pals. They lied.

They took our money and hid the mastermind of 9/11. Bush declared in 2004 that he was “not concerned” about finding bin Laden.

Not until Barack Obama became president was our military told to find and capture him, as they did on May 2, 2011.

But Obama, like Trump, lacked the political nerve to do what Biden did — stop investing in a bad decision to keep troops in Afghanistan.

Be glad we pulled out troops this month because Biden said “enough.” Don’t be surprised that the Taliban are in control of that country. They were always going to come out on top, be it this month, 10 years ago or 100 years from now.

And be glad the ultimate total cost of this folly is only about $100,000 per family because it could have gone on forever, the costs piling higher and higher every day because of the political cowardice of Bush, Obama and Donald Trump.

And, now, please think about all the good things we could be investing in to make our lives better had we elected politicians who read and understand:

  • Our first president’s farewell warning about foreign entanglements;
  • Our 34th president Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell warning about the dangers of our military-industrial complex.

Of course in a democracy, we choose our own leaders so we know ultimately who to blame for why we can’t afford nice things and are falling behind China: Ourselves.

Despite Biden’s promises, immigrant detention and surveillance just keep growing

President Joe Biden promised to end prolonged immigration detention and reinvest in alternatives that help immigrants navigate the legal process while living outside of government custody. These promises were part of Biden’s campaign platform and the reform bill he sent to Congress on his first day in the White House.

But six months in, Biden’s administration and his Democrat-led Congress are spending millions more taxpayer dollars to expand detention and surveillance of immigrants. A private prison company is profiting from both.

Meanwhile, community case management — which past pilot programs and international studies suggest is less expensive while more effective and humane — is receiving comparatively little support.

To understand why the president’s promises and actions aren’t matching up, Capital & Main interviewed a dozen policy experts, analyzed recent government spending plans and looked back at past attempts to shrink detention.

Capital & Main found that “alternatives to detention” has come to mean something different to lawmakers, for-profit companies and community groups. The private prison industry has lobbied to make surveillance the government’s chosen alternative, whereas the community organizers who originally coined the term intended for lawmakers to support legal and social services.

The federal government and its contractors have said for almost two decades that “alternatives to detention” would reduce incarceration of immigrants for civil violations. But under Biden, both systems are continuing to grow alongside each other.

“It’s really insidious,” said Caitlin Bellis, an attorney with the nonprofit National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. “We see a trend of extending the carceral state in ways that are sold as less intrusive, but that actually end up placing people under state monitoring for much longer and extend control over people’s lives.”

Detention and surveillance are both growing

When former President George W. Bush launched the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program in 2004, it was touted as an “alternative to detention.” ISAP was meant to track people moving through the immigration courts through less expensive and invasive means than confinement. The government hired a private company to monitor a few thousand immigrants through scheduled office check-ins, unannounced home visits and electronic surveillance like ankle monitors. 

In almost two decades since, the federal government hasn’t reduced its reliance on detention. Rather, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s largest law enforcement agency, has grown its sprawling nationwide network of detention facilities and added on an expansive surveillance system that enables officers to make more arrests.

Congress started off giving ICE a budget of $3 million for “alternatives” in 2003 ($4 million in today’s dollars), when the budget for detention was about $600 million. 

By 2021, Congress increased ICE’s budget to $440 million for alternatives and $2.8 billion for detention. 

Although Biden had the chance to keep detention use low and even phase it out altogether, he is now the fourth consecutive president to support expanding these enforcement tactics.

Detention centers were emptier than they had been in decades amid the COVID-19 pandemic — 15,000 detainees remained, compared to the record 55,000 reached under Donald Trump.

At first, detention kept shrinking in Biden’s first month. But ICE has since increased the number of people in its custody by about 50% — detaining more than 25,000 immigrants as of July 30, 2021.

Congress has already given ICE enough funding through September 2021 to detain up to 31,500 immigrants daily. Looking ahead to the next government spending year, ICE says it needs at least 30,000 detention beds available because of “surging migrant patterns along the Southwest Border.” 

ICE is arresting fewer people under Biden than Trump — about half as many per month. But the new administration is increasingly arresting more people crossing into the United States from Mexico. Advocates said the ramped-up enforcement may be in response to a “border crisis” narrative pushed by conservatives ahead of mid-term congressional elections in 2022.

Biden has taken steps to reduce arrests around the country. The president immediately directed ICE, and other enforcement agencies like Customs and Border Protection, to stop the Trump-era practice of prioritizing arrests of all undocumented immigrants (which some officers have not heeded). ICE has stopped using two detention facilities under investigation for alleged detainee abuse. And recently ICE was told to stop arresting pregnant, nursing or postpartum immigrants — restoring the Obama-era practice of only detaining them under extraordinary circumstances. (Democrats in both chambers of Congress are supporting the move with legislation to make it permanent).

But the administration expects to detain more people anyway due to its border arrests strategy and plans to fast-track immigration court hearings in an effort to clear deep backlogs, which could speed up deportation orders.

At the same time, Biden is asking Congress to increase ICE’s funding next year so that its “alternatives to detention” program can track 140,000 immigrants — about two-thirds more than the roughly 86,000 enrolled when Biden entered office. Currently, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Detroit have the most people enrolled, followed by Miami, Newark and Chicago.

ICE, as a law enforcement agency, has a culture of arresting, detaining and deporting immigrants. “That’s their comfort zone,” said Randy Capps, who directs U.S. research for the Migration Policy Institute think tank. As a result, ICE’s alternative program follows the same enforcement logic.

Usually, ICE requires participants to attend scheduled office check-ins, receive unannounced home visits and have their movements tracked through electronic monitoring, including GPS tracking, voiceprint verification and facial recognition on a phone application called SmartLINK. 

Some participants also must wear ankle monitors, which they say are painful and interfere with daily activities like going to work, accessing health care and participating in the community. International human rights bodies like the United Nations Refugee Agency strongly discourage “harsh” forms of electronic monitoring like ankle monitors. 

ICE did not respond to Capital & Main’s request for comment or emailed questions.

Private prison companies lobby for this lucrative opportunity 

When community groups started asking the federal government to invest in alternatives to detention in the 1990s, the private prison industry saw a profitable opportunity. While bipartisan consensus was building around reducing incarceration, the industry’s bread-and-butter work, there was money to be made tracking people released from prisons, jails and detention. 

Each year, private prison giant GEO Group pours more than a million dollars into political donations and lobbying of members of the U.S. House and Senate to keep contracts for both detaining immigrants and monitoring them, advocates said. 

“They’re making money at both ends of the system,” said Julie Mao, an immigration attorney and deputy director of Just Futures Law. “Once [immigrants are] released from detention, they’re putting on the ankle shackles or requiring people to do the SmartLINK app.”

Now, under Biden, GEO Group is relying more on these profits. 

Biden ordered two top federal agencies, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service, to stop using private prisons for federal inmates. It was a financial blow to private prison companies. 

But GEO Group recently told its investors not to worry — losses will be offset in part by detaining and surveilling immigration detainees, which are not included in Biden’s order.

Before Trump left office, GEO Group locked in several long term detention contracts with ICE, including a 10-year contract extension for a massive facility in South Texas and 15-year contracts for five detention centers in California, where local laws were soon set to banprivate prison companies from detaining immigrants. GEO Group and the federal government are suing to overturn California’s ban.

On top of this detention income, GEO Group is counting on its Colorado-based subsidiary BI Incorporated. 

BI started out in the late 1970s as a dairy cow tracking service in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. But the company grew exponentially over the years into the largest nationwide provider of electronic monitoring technology for keeping tabs on people in local, state and federal criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems. 

ICE has paid BI Incorporated more than $1 billion since the company started tracking immigrants with its proprietary technologies in 2004. By 2011, GEO Group purchased BI to secure those profits. 

For the 2021 spending year, Congress boosted the budget for alternatives to $440 million — a $120 million increase from the previous year. 

Providing these tracking services has become so remunerative that several companies have sued to protest not winning the contracts. CoreCivic, the country’s second-largest private prison company, was so desperate to take over the job in March 2020 that it offered ICE a low bid in an attempt to be more competitive ($1.9 billion compared to BI’s $2.6 billion bid). The government thought CoreCivic’s price was unrealistically low and rehired BI.

Surveillance is invasive and leads to more detention

ICE’s privately run monitoring program has been criticized by immigrant rights groups and tech experts for replicating many of the same problems of the detention system. The surveillance boom is also creating new physical and psychological harms, as well as privacy concerns, advocates said.

“It’s a terrorizing tactic. It’s meant to make people feel scared, and it works,” said Grace Kindeke, who works with the American Friends Service Committee in Rhode Island providing legal, cash and housing assistance to immigrants, including some who have been monitored by BI upon release from detention. 

ICE officers and BI employees have broad discretion to decide which immigrants participate, how they are tracked and whether they’re sent back to detention. Since 2013, ICE officers have relied on a data tool that recommends when to detain or release immigrants. Following the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policies, ICE altered the algorithm in 2017 to remove the recommendation for release. The tool has since suggested detention for almost everyone.

Advocates told Capital & Main that data tools like these let ICE claim objectivity while reinforcing racial biases and a presumption of detention rather than release. 

The compulsion to detain goes so far that in 2015 the Department of Homeland Security suggested that ICE’s alternatives to detention would be more effective if some resources were shifted back into arresting and detaining “noncompliant participants.”

Since then, ICE has used ankle monitor GPS data to orchestrate mass arrests, including the biggest ever U.S. workplace sting in a single state — when officers arrested more than 600 people at seven poultry plants in Mississippi in 2019.

Oftentimes, ICE chooses to track recently arrived asylum seekers, including families, who would benefit from legal and social services rather than invasive tracking, advocates said.

Agencies like ICE should be judicious when using tech tools, said Joe Russo, who manages the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center at the University of Denver. 

“Almost anything is better than detention. So if we can use technology to get folks out of facilities, whether it’s immigration or criminal justice, then it definitely should be explored,” Russo said. But electronic monitoring isn’t always the answer. “There might be less intrusive ways of accomplishing the same goal.”

Aly Panjwani, a Just Futures Law fellow who recently wrote a report examining the monitoring program, told Capital & Main that the technological extension of detention has devastating impacts on peoples’ lives.

During the pandemic, ICE temporarily stopped requiring in-person check-ins and started relying more on electronic monitoring and telephone calls.

The BI-run intensive supervision program is increasing surveillance through facial recognition and GPS tracking on its SmartLINK phone app. The privacy policy lets officers access virtually any information collected, according to the Just Futures report. This potentially includes real-time location data the agency could use to plan arrests. 

Panjwani said that these technologies are not precise, raise privacy concerns and reinforce a carceral approach to managing immigration. 

“These programs are pitched as a softer version of immigration enforcement,” he said. “But I don’t think we can accept anything less than the full and wholesale transformation of the system itself and the foundational premise that immigrants should be criminalized.”

Copyright 2021 Capital & Main

OAN must pay Rachel Maddow $250K in legal fees after failed libel lawsuit

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow scored another court victory in a libel suit by One America News’ parent company Herring Networks, after an appeals court upheld a previous ruling in the case.

The right-wing OAN and its owner sued Maddow after she commented on a Daily Beast report on the explicitly pro-Donald Trump network’s employment of a Kremlin-paid journalist, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling that her statements were not actionable, reported The Hollywood Reporter.

“We literally learned today that that outlet the President is promoting shares staff with the Kremlin,” Maddow said in July 2019. “I mean, what?… ‘In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

The libel suit was dismissed in May 2020 when a district court judge found that a reasonable viewer would not interpret Maddow’s comment to mean that OAN was paid Russian propaganda, but instead her own hyperbolic opinion on the matter.

“In comparison to the undisputed facts that Maddow reports, the contested statement was particularly emphatic and unfounded: Maddow went from stating that OAN employs a Sputnik employee to stating that OAN reports Russian propaganda,” wrote Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. “A reasonable person would understand Maddow’s contested statement as an ‘obvious exaggeration,’ that is, as Maddow explains, ‘sandwiched between precise factual recitations’ of The Daily Beast article.”

The judge ordered OAN to pay $250,000 in legal fees to Maddow and MSNBC.

Mike Lindell lashes out as cyber expert demands $5M reward for debunking election data

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is scrambling to defend his claims of election fraud after a cybersecurity expert demanded his cut of the $5 million reward Lindell had promised to anyone who could disprove the accuracy of his alleged election data. 

Bill Alderson is a longtime cybersecurity professional specializing in packet captures — the exact type of data Lindell claimed to be in possession of — and attended the pillow maven’s “cyber symposium out of a legitimate desire to “discover the truth.” A longtime Republican, Alderson said he supported Donald Trump in 2020 and told Lindell when he was invited to the event, “I’d love to prove you right.”

Only, he couldn’t. 

Lindell has long claimed to be in possession of a large set of network data from the 2020 election, saved as packet captures, or .pcap files. He’s even claimed that it contained every vote cast last November. 

Not so, says Alderson. It took roughly 45 minutes for him to see that the data given to him and the dozens of other experts in attendance was bunk — not only did it fail to prove anything about the accuracy of the 2020 election, but the files weren’t even in the right format.

“P-CAPs adhere to an international standard,” Alderson said, and include information like the date a file was created and an IP address. But Lindell’s data, shared as text files, had none of that. In fact, it was saved in hexadecimal format — despite the fact that packet captures use binary code. 


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


“This is not something that can be misunderstood,” Alderson said. “So I just said, ‘I’m done, I’m leaving, you don’t have any packets here.”

At the conference, Lindell had all of the invited cybersecurity experts sign a legal document explaining the rules and stipulations under which he would give out the $5 million reward — all of which Alderson says he met.

He even sent a 10-page letter to Lindell’s attorney Wednesday outlining each part of the agreement and how he was able to meet the requirements.

This prompted Lindell to lash out during an interview with Steve Bannon on the right-wing network “Real America’s Voice,” calling Alderson a “hostile” actor and claiming that he had looked at the “wrong” information.

“It had nothing to do with my data,” Lindell said.

“The whole rumor going around the symposium was that this data is not from the 2020 election,” Lindell said. “Well, the whole challenge was to validate data from the 2020 November election.”

Alderson, for his part, called these claims a “boldface, unmitigated lie,” and said he’s hoping Lindell pays the sum and admits he was wrong.

Another cybersecurity expert at Lindell’s symposium said in an interview with a local TV station that they did not anticipate this would happen, and that the pillow magnate had taken his $5 million offer “off the table.”

Lindell did not respond to a Salon request for comment.

“I’m not sure what’s wrong with Mike,” Alderson said. “He’s like those desperate Afghanis clinging to the side of a C17 as it tries to take off from the Kabul airport.”

“Let’s just hope he’s able to jump before he falls to his death.”

Read Salon’s previous coverage of Lindell’s South Dakota “cyber symposium”:: 

Mike Lindell promised Dominion voting machines — but he doesn’t have any

Lindell-apalooza melts down: MyPillow guy claims antifa sabotaged his “cyber symposium”

Mike Lindell shares details of alleged “attack” during cyber symposium photo-op

Mike Lindell’s South Dakota “cyber symposium” has a bumpy launch: No real evidence

If Mike Lindell’s claims were correct (they’re not), he likely broke wiretapping laws

Nicole Kidman is ready to Goop you now in Hulu’s hollow “Nine Perfect Strangers”

The last time we saw Nicole Kidman was in HBO’s “The Undoing,” a stylish waltz through wealthy Manhattan society by way of a murder mystery.  

Anxiety defined our national mood back in the autumn of 2020, making the limited series a brilliant antidote to the ennui that gripped us back then. Nearly a year later we’re slogging through some version of burnout, making us especially vulnerable to seductive promises of rebirth and renewal.

Such enticement fueled our obsession with “The White Lotus”; now that’s ended, Hulu’s offering its own fictional timeshare presentation by way of “Nine Perfect Strangers” and Kidman’s off-putting guru Masha Dmitrichenko.

Masha is the physical manifestation of Tranquillum House, an exclusive retreat catering to customers – or are they subjects? – in a serene destination dedicated to the healing of broken souls.

As one visitor observes in an early episode, the group Masha invites to her resort are intentionally curated; that is, joining wealthy clients paying full freight to be there are everyday folks who probably saved up for years to savor 10 days of what the place offers.

That includes Masha herself, a Goop-tastic creation whose studied smile, meant to convey a sense of reassurance, is locked in an eternal battle with a non-specific accent prickling with dubiousness.  A cascade of blonde frames her face, flowing seamlessly into the airy tunics she wears, each a slightly grander version of those swathing her staff.

Masha keeps the audience and her guests in the dark as to whether she’s a force for good, or a charlatan, or something infinitely more dangerous. She’s a reminder that many self-styled alternative health revolutionaries are not entirely dissimilar to cult leaders.

But this is of less importance to its appeal than the fact that the show reteams Kidman with “The Undoing” creator David E. Kelley for another story based on a bestseller from “Big Little Lies” author Liane Moriarty.

The overwhelming success of “Big Little Lies” proves how potently their collaborative approach combines with this material. Even without Moriarty’s twisty reads to guide them, Kidman and Kelley manage to seize the audience’s fascination with their work.  

But the overall quality of the projects themselves matters less than the cast’s ability to act loudly and with extravagance. Some performances garnered award nominations and, in Kidman’s case, wins. That doesn’t mean the series showcasing them are great. They merely need to be good enough to get people hooked on their dramatic excess.

All of this is to say that comparing this show to “The White Lotus,” HBO’s recently completed conversation piece of the summer, is setting it up to lose. Mike White meticulously designed his drama to be an unsparing view of class privilege and the corrosion colonialism inflicts on populations many generations after its initial imposition.

“Nine Perfect Strangers” also uses its spa as a canvas upon which to splatter critiques about Western immoderacy by looking at what wealthy people will do to address their feelings of spiritual deficiency. But it can’t quite decide whether it’s a parody of the wellness industry or a thriller, a comedy or a drama. 

One certainty is that Kidman and Kelley’s latest effort strives for broader appeal, largely removing overt examinations of racial strife from the equation in favor of class contrast. Even on that front the show refuses to take itself too seriously, adopting the toothless paradigm that we’re alike in our flaws and that our various tragedies that make us who we are. But nobody’s woe weighs the same as another’s. One party’s is an outgrowth from a loved one’s suicide. Another involves the sudden acquisition of wealth by way of a lottery win.

Everyone is hiding darkness, otherwise they wouldn’t surrender themselves to the care and control of Masha and her acolytes Yao (Manny Jacinto) and Delilah (Tiffany Boone). Upon arrival everyone surrenders their smartphones and any way of interacting with the outside world, signs a troubling waiver and blindly agree to whatever Masha requires of them.

At first this seems reasonable, since Tranquillum’s purpose to unplug in a space surrounded by forests. Upon arrival each guest is served a special, individualized smoothie they’re required to drink each day. They’re shown to their heavenly rooms. Soon after the restorative journey starts getting strange. For example, we see that Masha monitors every patron’s movements through her network of close-circuit cameras. Then she begins manipulating their moods in violative ways.

Patrons go along with each escalation because they’re desperate to achieve “wellness,” whatever that is. To Masha and her devoted staff, the pathway to enlightenment must be embarked upon together. Sometimes it runs through others.  

This is the way that “Nine Perfect Strangers” manages to be watchable, not as a complete, holistic piece but as a pastiche of solid performances placed in woodsy settings, or in pools and streams. Melissa McCarthy’s wound-up Frances Welty, a bestselling romance novelist whose faith her herself is flagging along with her career, is a standout primed for confrontation.

The performer’s tart sarcasm takes on a wounded softness in Frances that matches the damaged cynicism Bobby Cannavale brings to Tony Hogburn, a scruffy misanthrope who shows up in sweats, refusing to believe he can be helped. Frances and Tony immediately clash. But a lot can change over the course of 10 days.

Those two, along with married young couple Ben and Jessica Chandler (Melvin Gregg and Samara Weaving), represent the rich guests. Then there’s the Marconi family, including the obliviously verbose high school teacher Napoleon (Michael Shannon), his testy wife Heather (Asher Keddie) and their 20-year-old daughter Zoe (Grace Van Patten), who arrive at Tranquillum in a psychologically fractured state.

For Regina Hall’s meek, weight-obsessed Carmel Schneider, the spa represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix her perceived brokenness. The actor substantially dials down the feisty blast she brings to “Black Monday,” so much that it takes a moment to recognize her, until some of the demons Carmel has internalized break free. Luke Evans’ Lars Lee, in contrast, is an enigma.

Watching Kidman mess around with a personality hiding fangs is a welcome departure from wronged rich spouses she’s played in other Kelley-related works. Masha might be a charlatan, a cult leader or, as one character asks of her staffer, “the real deal.” The further she pushes boundaries with her clients, the steeper the potential for calamity escalates.

Parallel to her performance are Jacinto’s and Boone’s portrayals of loyalists who also fit into the wellness industry image of earthiness and purity, two people of color quietly walking beside clients on their journeys dispensing wisdom and holding hands with them when they get emotional. “The White Lotus” places this brand of service industry theater front and center and rips into it. If that show hadn’t existed I wonder if we’d even be looking for it here.

But I’m not sure that part matters in terms of estimating the show’s worth. Against all else, a looming threat to Masha’s life that’s woven throughout the plot it registers as background noise, proof the plot’s motor is operational.

Surely the inelegantly presented homicidal menace will take on more prominence in a way that Yao’s and Delilah’s cultural window dressing probably won’t. No matter. Those jonesing for their annual Kidman fix are less likely to care about this or any other structural weak points than the temporary uplift each new episode brings, in the same way people have embraced all of Kidman’s less-than-consequential jaunts with Kelley. Like those other works, “Nine Perfect Strangers” may not be five-star TV, but for an audience starved for indulgence, it does the job.

And if it doesn’t cure what ails us, we’ll simply have to wait for FX’s freshly announced limited series “Retreat” to come around.

“Nine Perfect Strangers” debuts its first three episodes Wednesday, Aug. 18 on Hulu, with subsequent episodes dropped weekly.

Is there any evidence ivermectin can treat COVID-19? We analyzed the prominent scientific studies

Is ivermectin the new hydroxychloroquine? 

While the two drugs are different in composition, many infectious disease experts would agree they have both been wildly overhyped as a possible treatment for COVID-19. Last year, there was an obsession with hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment among the American right, to the extent that the drug was hyped by President Donald Trump himself — despite limited scientific evidence at the time for its efficacy. This year, hyping Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has, peculiarly, become the norm on many American right-wing news channels and forums — suggesting that even little-known pharmaceutical drugs are not immune to the feverish culture wars. 

Ivermectin is an off-label anti-parasite drug used for the treatment of some parasitic worms in people and animals. Since it is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, it can be prescribed by any U.S.-based physician, usually to those with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis — two conditions caused by parasitic worms.

Without a prescription, the only way for a layperson to obtain Ivermectin would be at a feed store or farm supply store, which sell the drug as a horse dewormer. As Salon previously reported, some tractor supply stores around the country posted signs reminding their customers that the ivermectin they sell is only for horse consumption.

Crucially, the FDA has not recommended ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. In fact, the public health agency warns against it. 

“The FDA has not reviewed data to support use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients to treat or to prevent COVID-19; however, some initial research is underway,” the FDA stated. “Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous.”

The FDA says that even approved use of ivermectin “can interact with other medications, like blood-thinners.”

“You can also overdose on ivermectin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hypotension (low blood pressure), allergic reactions (itching and hives), dizziness, ataxia (problems with balance), seizures, coma and even death,” the FDA states. “There’s a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it’s okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong.”

And yet, there are many reports of people acquiring ivermectin and taking it to treat COVID-19. In Louisiana, which is experiencing a surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, a local Louisiana news outlet reported that doctors are seeing patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 who say they took horse ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

“It is the saddest thing to have somebody come in and say, ‘but I was taking my ivermectin.’ And have to admit them to a hospital, put them on a breathing machine, when we have great prevention [t]hat is the vaccine,” one doctor said.

Like many myths about COVID-19 drugs, the idea that ivermectin is a viable treatment didn’t appear out of thin air. The claim grew from shaky scientific evidence and was perpetuated by seemingly authoritative figures with an agenda. There was even an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, titled “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?”; tellingly, the op-ed was co-written by a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a right-leaning, pro-free market think tank, and a pharmaceutical industry consultant who previously worked for the company that developed and marketed ivermectin.

Shortly after publication of this op-ed, the Wall Street Journal issued a correction, noting that one of the authors’ primary pieces of cited evidence, an Egyptian study on ivermectin and COVID-19, was retracted due to charges of data manipulation. Despite this, the Wall Street Journal hasn’t retracted their op-ed; and despite both the retracted cited study and the authors’ clear agenda, the op-ed continues to circulate widely online as “evidence” that ivermectin is an effective COVID-19 treatment being suppressed by the FDA.

The aforementioned retracted Egyptian study of 200 people was first published on the Research Square website, a platform where scientific studies are submitted before they are peer-reviewed and accepted by a journal. It was the biggest study of its kind at the time to suggest any evidence of the effectiveness of ivermectin.

Still, one retracted study does not mean that ivermectin is necessarily ineffective. Hence, scientists have not abandoned their study of ivermectin’s efficacy to treat COVID-19; clinical trials like the National Institute of Health’s Activ-6 study and U.K.’s PRINCIPLE outpatient trial are evaluating whether ivermectin, and other repurposed medications, can treat mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in patients who have had fewer than seven days of symptoms.

Aside from the retracted Egyptian study, and the Activ-6 study currently in progress, is there any other scientific evidence that ivermectin is a viable treatment for COVID-19?


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


Salon looked at the prominent studies of ivermectin as a drug to treat COVID-19, and asked experts for their thoughts on what they meant. These consisted of four major ivermectin studies related to COVID-19, including another (non-retracted) one referenced in the WSJ op-ed. While some studies had language that suggested that ivermectin was helpful for patients, scientists explained to Salon that these studies, due to the their small size, should be taken with a grain of salt. Details about each study are included in a footnote at the end of this article.

Notably, two of the scientific studies had some positive language from the researchers that, to a layperson, might sound bullish on ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. “A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19,” wrote the authors of one PubMed randomized controlled trial, titled “A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness.” 

Yet while a layperson might take this title as a signifier that ivermectin is a COVID-19 wonder drug, that thesis is belied by statistics. All of the prominent studies Salon looked at, including the above PubMed study, were very small, which means that statistically they are unlikely to lead to a gold-standard result that would allow scientists to draw specific, unequivocal conclusions. 

This is one reason why experts like David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota’s Medical School and a co-chair of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ACTIV-6 trial steering committee, says there is definitely not enough scientific evidence to believe that ivermectin is an effective treatment.

“The whole problem with all of the ivermectin data is there are a bunch of small studies, that include a dozen of people or a couple dozen people — maybe 100 people — but it’s all very small,” Boulware said. (Indeed, Salon could find no study with even 100 patients.) “There hasn’t really been a large phase three clinical trial, up until the Together Trial, which is the first one.”

Boulware was referencing a forthcoming large scientific study out of Brazil. This study, known as the Together Trial, consisted of nearly 2300 participants, and is a Phase 3 randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. While the results have yet to be published or peer-reviewed, they were presented at an Aug. 6 NIH symposium where investigators said ivermectin appeared to have no significant effect on reducing emergency room visits or hospitalizations.

Smaller studies, Boulware added, tend to look and see if ivermectin has an impact on a patient’s viral load. Yet there is debate as to whether viral load is a meaningful metric. 

“The question in COVID, which is kind of unknown, is whether that actually means anything,” Boulware said. “It sounds great — making the virus go away faster is probably a good thing — but the virus is going to go away eventually anyway with your immune system. What is the clinical benefit of the treatment? “

Boulware said larger clinical trials are needed to answer more significant questions.

“Does it prevent hospitalization? Does it shorten the duration of symptoms? Or lessen symptom severity?” Boulware said. “These larger trials are necessary to define what the clinical benefit is.”

Advocates of ivermectin have pointed to a study that ivermectin can stop the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a test tube — but that is nothing new when it comes to viruses.

“Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit a broad spectrum of DNA and RNA viruses with no underlying unifying logic (HIV, influenza, Dengue, Zika, pseudorabiesvirus, polyoma virus, adenovirus),” said Dr. Benhur Lee, a Professor of Microbiology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, via email. “These results were all based on in vitro test-tube/cell culture work; to a virologist, that raises eyebrows.” 

“In vitro” refers to studies that take place in test tubes, petri dishes, or otherwise outside of human patients. Lee used an example to explain how what happens in vitro might not necessarily translate to the human body.

“I can increase the concentration of sodium chloride (table salt) by 50% to my tissue culture cells and show inhibition of most viruses,” Lee said. “But I don’t go asking people to eat as much salty food as possible to combat virus infections, much less SARS-CoV-2.”

Lee added that hoping ivermectin works based on “in vitro efficacy studies” is “magical thinking.”

“Do I know for sure whether it will NOT work in vivo? No,” Lee said. “But if it is shown to work in rigorously controlled clinical trials (which is ethically indefensible these days), then its mechanism of action has nothing to do with the in vitro studies that the trial was based on in the first place.”

In the literature, Lee said, “you will hear about [terms like] ‘IC50’ or ‘EC50’ – that is, what is the concentration of drug that will inhibit 50% of the virus replication.” Lee explained that the level of drug concentration needed to stop replication in the body “simply cannot be achieved.”

“The concentration of drug required to inhibit 90% of virus replication in the body – a minimal standard when it comes to antiviral drug action – simply cannot be achieved based on the known pharmacology of the drug,” Lee added in a follow-up interview.

This is all to say that the evidence does not look good for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.

So that leaves the question: why is it so important for some op-ed writers, individuals and politicians to promote ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment? And why has it gained momentum as a COVID-19 treatment in some countries in Latin America and in India?

“I understand why low and middle income countries hold so many trials in the hopes that ivermectin works — it’s cheap, it has been around for decades,” and is reputed to have minimal side effects, Lee said, noting that ivermectin’s side effects are often more prominent than promised. “But to extrapolate from how much drug is needed to work in the test tube to how much it is required to work in a human being against the virus makes these trials and all the meta-reviews published less than worthless – it’s dangerous.”

* * * 

For this article, Salon looked into the following studies on ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment:

Study: “A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness” in PubMed

This study, published in December 2020, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted to “determine the rapidity of viral clearance and safety of ivermectin among adult SARS-CoV-2 patients.” It was tested on 72 hospitalized patients — a very small number — and found that “a 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19.”

“Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings,” the authors note.

Study: “The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with mild COVID-19: a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial” in ResearchSquare

This was a pilot study, and also a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center, parallel-arm, superiority, randomized clinical trial that compared a single dose of ivermectin with placebo in patients with mild COVID-19 and no risk factors.” The study started by assessing 94 patients, but found that “50 did not meet eligibility criteria, 20 declined to participate and 24 were randomized.”

The researchers found that “patients in the ivermectin group reported fewer patient-days of any symptoms than those in the placebo group.”

Study: “Antiviral Effect of High-Dose Ivermectin in Adults with COVID-19: A Pilot Randomised, Controlled, Open Label, Multicentre Trial” a preprint in The Lancet

This study was a “pilot, randomized, controlled, outcome-assessor blinded clinical trial with the goal of evaluating the antiviral activity of high dose IVM in COVID-19 patients.”

It included 45 randomized patients. 

The researchers concluded that “there was no difference in viral load reduction between groups, but a significant difference in reduction was found in patients with higher median plasma IVM levels (72% IQR 59 – 77) versus untreated controls (42% IQR 31 – 73) (p=0·004). The mean ivermectin plasma concentration levels also showed a positive correlation with viral decay rate (r:0·47, p=0·02). Adverse events were reported in 5 (33%) patients in the controls and 13 (43%) in the IVM treated group, without a relationship between IVM plasma levels and adverse events.”

Study: “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro,” published in Antiviral Research (and referenced in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal op-ed as “evidence” that ivermectin was effective in treating COVID-19). 

This was an in vitro study, meaning it took place in a test tube; hence, the number of people in the trial was zero. 

The researchers concluded that their results “demonstrate that ivermectin has antiviral action against the SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate in vitro, with a single dose able to control viral replication within 24–48 h[ours] in our system.”

Jared Kushner pal pardoned by Trump now facing new charges

A friend and former associate of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law, was charged with cybercrimes on Wednesday by Manhattan’s district attorney for cyberstalking his ex-wife. 

Kurson, 52, a former editor of the New York Observer and a one-time speechwriter for Trump, stands accused of illegally accessing his ex-wife’s communications in 2015 and 2016 during his time as the editor-in-chief of Observer Media Group. Kurson allegedly used spyware that tracked his ex-wife’s keystrokes, allowing the Kushner confidante to glean his wife’s passwords for her email and social media accounts, according to a criminal complaint.

The charges are just the latest development in a bizarre case that was formally opened back in 2018 when the FBI ran a routine background check on Kurson ahead of his unpaid advisory role as a board member on the National Endowment for the Humanities during the Trump administration. At the time, the FBI quickly found that Kurson was facing accusations of harassment by a number of people, including a doctor working at Mount Sinai Hospital whom Kurson alleged ruined his marriage which ended in divorce in 2016. The former editor’s past accusers alleged that Kurson actions had been “diabolical.” 

Following years of litigation, Kurson was first charged in October of last year for cyberstalking and harassing three people before being pardoned by then-president Trump. Kurson was one of the many high-profile individuals to be pardoned or vacated by Trump during his final days in office. Trump’s intervention came amid reports that Kurson had been negotiating a plea with federal prosecutors, leading some to suspect that Kurson may have successfully evaded any legal repercussions.

But Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance recently revealed that Trump’s pardon will be ineffectual in the latest proceeding.

“We will not accept presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for the well-connected in New York,” Vance said in a statement. “As alleged in the complaint, Mr. Kurson launched a campaign of cybercrime, manipulation, and abuse from his perch at the New York Observer, and now the people of New York will hold him accountable.”

The latest complaint establishes that Kurson’s improprieties do not amount to a one-time affair, but rather a pattern of “installing software on one individual’s computer to monitor that individual’s keystrokes and website usage without his/her knowledge or authorization.”

“Dead men can’t pass laws”: Capitol rioter charged with threatening Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock

A New York City Proud Boy pleaded guilty for threatening to slice “a throat” and assassinate freshman Sen. Raphael Warnock, R-Ga., before and during the Capitol insurrection.

The Queens man, Eduard Florea, 41, admitted to his own guilt by video on Monday from a federal jail in Brooklyn, and is now facing up to fifteen years in prison for one count of transmitting threats to injure and another count of possessing ammunition after a previous conviction.

Court documents show Florea’s increasingly violent rhetoric leading up to the swearing in of Warnock, who in a momentous Georgia runoff election last year established himself as the state’s first black senator in U.S. history.

“Warnock is going to have a hard time casting votes for communist policies when he’s swinging with the fish,” Florea wrote on Parlor, a microblog popular with conservatives, on Jan. 5, just ahead of the fatal riot he participated in a day later. 

“Dead men can’t pass [expletive] laws,” he added that day, also mentioning “definitely slicing a throat” during the coming insurgency.

As the riot unfolded, Florea disseminated messages to his fellow insurrectionists looking to breach the Capitol and thereafter attack sitting politicians. “I am ready,” he wrote on Parlor. “We need to regroup outside of DC and attack from all sides … talking to some other guys … I will keep watching for the signal.”

Florea continued: “The time for peace and civility is over,” he wrote on the app. “Guns cleaned loaded … got a bunch of guys all armed and ready to deploy … we are just waiting for the word,”

“It’s time to unleash some violence,” the Proud Boy added.

On January 12, federal agents stormed Florea’s neighborhood in Queens, raiding his home, where they found over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, swords, hatchets, and nearly 80 military-style combat knives. According to The New York Times, Florea had already been convicted of illegally possessing an AR-15 and a semiautomatic shotgun back in 2014, rendering his recent possession of ammunition illegal. 

Florea is set to be sentenced on November 29, according to federal prosecutors. 

“With today’s guilty plea, Florea admits to threatening the life of a successful candidate for the U.S. Senate and to urging others to take up arms to unleash violence at the Capitol,” Jacquelyn M. Kasulis, the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement. “This office is deeply committed to protecting our democratic institutions and to using all available tools to preserve the public safety, uphold the rule of law and support the peaceful transfer of power.”

Back in March, a federal indictment revealed that 60 Proud Boys had used encrypted messages to plan out their attack on the Capitol. So far, at least 25 members of the far-right militia have been charged in connection to the riot.

Nanfu Wang took “great risk” shooting HBO’s damning COVID doc “In the Same Breath” in China

With “In the Same Breath,” director Nanfu Wang (“One Child Nation”) takes a critical look at COVID in both Wuhan and America. Her documentary chronicles — and questions — the responses and reactions to the pandemic as misinformation about the virus spreads fast.

In Wuhan, eight people were punished for spreading a rumor about a pneumonia that, had the messages been heeded, could have saved countless lives. However, as Wang’s film shows, China was very concerned about having a negative image and created propaganda to save face. Reporting around 3,000 deaths from the virus, the reality was likely more than 10 times that number. And the film’s numerous scenes of patients being denied care in hospitals is harrowing. 

In the U.S., things were not much better as precautions were ignored, health care workers were fired for expressing valid concerns, and citizens protested against Trump’s feeble efforts to control and contain the spread of the virus and claims that COVID is a hoax.

“In the Same Breath” is not an easy film to watch. While it is infuriating to see people disregarding the facts, it is encouraging to see people like Peien Liu, in China, speak truth to power by resisting “the official story.”

Wang chatted with Salon about her documentary.

What prompted you to tackle this subject during the very pandemic you’re documenting? 

At the very beginning, I didn’t think I was going to make a film. It was really in the midst of the craziness and fear — trying to get my son out of China and figure out if my family would be safe as we tried to understand what the situation was. There was confusion, and we did not know who or what to trust. During those moments, we were figuring out the severity of the virus, and the government’s statements, and how much was true. There was a huge discrepancy between what the government was saying about the virus — that it was contained — versus what was on social media: the virus was out of control; people couldn’t get into hospitals, and were dying. There was tremendous censorship of those stories. They would get onto social media and immediately be deleted. I also personally witnessed in my hometown where I have relatives who work in hospital would tell us how many cases they had. Whereas management and the government were telling them not to report any cases. It was being shocked by all that information and the reality that I learned. I tried to reach out to news organizations to report those stories [and they didn’t respond], so I was compelled to make a film. At the time, I had no idea what our reality would become.

You were back in America when you hired folks to film in hospitals in Wuhan. Can you describe how you “directed” from afar and worked with reporters and camera operators who were willing to risk their lives to secure the incredible footage in your film?

It was a process. Everything was shot remotely and directed remotely. We had a dozen camera people in China and a dozen in the U.S. I did the interviews via video chat. The verité shoots were a process. I knew some of the camera people and for some it was our first time working together. They would send me footage so I could review it, and that allowed me to gauge their style and give them feedback. The very first shoots happened inside the hospital in Wuhan. The camera people would implement self-censorship and turn off the camera when something was negative or not film certain things. So, the feedback I gave them was to film nonstop. Then it was sifting through the footage. The moment when they were not paying attention was the best moment! Outside of the hospital, once we established a relationship, it was walking them through the scenes that I wanted to get or anticipate what was going to happen. Sometimes it was pulling visual references — how I wanted the scene to be shot, and seeing what they understood, or didn’t. One scene took three times to get right because they shot it too fast, or too far away. We need to be close and slow. The most fascinating thing was when we sent different camera people to film the same event — the lifting of the quarantine of Wuhan. One person saw it with pride — Chinese government’s achievement — with all the lights lit up in the city. Another one saw it as signifying the atrocity of the blood and death that had happened because of the government’s cover-up.

There are some heartbreaking case studies, from Runzhen Chen, who ran a clinic with her husband who died, to Wenbing Tao, who was infected along with his son. But also, several traumatized health care workers in the U.S. What was your criteria for the stories you included in the film, and how did you get folks to talk candidly, which might even get them in trouble?

A lot of these people had just lost their family members. Before we met them in person, I called them, and we talked for hours before I convinced them to be on camera. The father, for example, we met him inside the hospital during quarantine and followed him. The final interview was after months of relationship-building. Most folks wanted to talk because they were in quarantine and had lost family members and had not seen other people. They had a lot trauma and needed their stories, and what they suffered, to be heard. It was extremely emotional. It was not difficult for them to tell the story on camera. 

There are many scenes in China of hospitals denying beds to folks who are dying from the coronavirus to scenes in the U.S. of healthcare workers being under-equipped. What observations do you have about how the situations escalated so quickly and why the responses in both countries were so lame?

I think, during those moments, governments in China and the U.S., and many other countries, prioritized preserving their image over its people. Every government tried to say, “There is no threat. The risk is low. We’re handling it really well. Everything is contained,” while they either knew or did not know the actual severity of the situation. But their priority is to go in front of a camera and tell everybody something that is not true. That’s why everything went out of control. They chose to mislead people when they knew what they were saying was not the reality. 

China created propaganda, sending messages of “confidence and hope,” to avoid negative responses to their handling of the crisis. They even lied about the number of deaths. In America, folks protested against Trump’s feeble efforts to control and contain the spread of the virus, claiming the government was disseminating lies. How can your film, which exposes these facts, work to change minds, rather than just preach to the choir?

Would a film change people’s minds or have an impact enough to make people see something they don’t see or agree with? I don’t know the answer. If I had to guess, I think it would change some people’s minds. “Oh, wow, I didn’t know this,” or “I didn’t think of it this way,” or, “I thought China did great, and only 3,000 people died of COVID, and now I’m seeing that this is a different narrative.” Maybe people will see the protests for reopening here in the U.S., and think those people were not getting it, but by watching the film, they realize the difference between those who created the narrative and those who consume that narrative. It came from the original messages that were intentionally misleading. The goal of the film is for people to see through the news and behind the news, and how we got to this point and what kind of actions and behaviors from our leaders led us to where we are today.

The film is very much about exposing the truth and speaking truth to power. What are the risks of making a documentary that is critical of both China and the U.S., especially given the censorship concerns in China?

The risks exist in almost every stage of filmmaking. During the production, everyone involved took great risk, and were willing to do this, and I appreciate that. Some of the camera people and the field producers followed activists who were arrested and some of them were questioned by police. After film is released, the risks still follow everyone who was involved. As the filmmaker, I am usually targeted. Some of the stories themselves may not be as critical as the film as a whole. My biggest concern is always my family, and every time I make a film about China that is critical, my family gets into trouble. And that is not an exception with this film. My family has been contacted several times since the film premiered at Sundance. They ask me not to make documentaries in China or talk negatively about China in interviews. That is the harassment and intimidation that my family faces. 

There was a recent article in the New York Times about the sudden popularity of Chinese women filmmakers. You and Chloé Zhao, were being shunned for your work because of the films you made, “One Child Nation,” and “Nomadland,” respectively. What is your response to this trend of female filmmakers in China?

I think there has been a growth of filmmakers and filmmaking, especially documentary filmmaking, which I follow. My friends are making great films. Despite that, though, it is still true that very few of their films can be seen if it is “considered” to be politically sensitive — and that’s a very broad term. What is politically sensitive, whether it is LGBTQ topics, or religion and issues about religion, or human rights, or social issues. I feel a lot of admiration and sadness that the reality for these filmmakers whose work can’t be seen inside China or won’t have the wide distribution that it deserves. All my films cannot officially be seen in China. People have to see them underground. It’s much harder for the filmmakers who work and live in China because that’s their environment, and their audience, and yet their films can’t be seen there. 

Do you think there is COVID fatigue that might prevent people from seeing “In the Same Breath”? 

No. I’ve seen several films about the pandemic, and each film takes a different perspective. It’s part of our history, and it’s still unfolding. We are writing and documenting the history we experience, so it’s natural that there are different interpretations. I think it deserves as many ways of people documenting, writing, and taking photos, about it. I’m glad it’s being done and look forward to seeing more. I am sure there will be more. 

“In the Same Breath” is available on Wednesday, Aug. 18 at 9 p.m. ET on HBO and HBO Max.

Trump rips Pfizer, accuses CEO of profiteering with vaccine boosters

Former President Donald Trump is ripping COVID-19 booster shots as a money-making scheme and accusing the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer of profiteering.

On Wednesday morning, in a phone interview on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo, Trump claimed COVID-19 booster shots were a lucrative business endeavor for Phizer.

“You know what? That sounds to me like a money-making operation for Pfizer,” Trump said. “Think of the money involved. An extra shot — that’s tens of billions of dollars. How good a business? If you’re a businessman, and you say ‘let’s give them another shot,’ that’s another ten billion dollars,” Trump continued. “The whole thing is just crazy.”

Trump criticized the “guy that runs Pfizer,” calling out Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla for announcing that the vaccine was ready just days after the 2020 election.

“You know, when these first came out, they were good for life,” Trump said. “Then they were good for a year or two. I could see the writing on the wall. I could see the dollar signs in their eyes — of that guy that runs Pfizer. You know, the guy that announced the day after the election that he had the vaccine. But we knew that, and I knew that, and the people knew that.”

Fox News hosts complains COVID restrictions in NYC amount to life under the Taliban

On Wednesday’s episode of “Fox and Friends,” co-host Brian Kilmeade made a dig at New York City and its implementation of vaccine passes, claiming it is run in a similar fashion to Afghanistan. 

“Guess what they’re doing in this terribly run city,” Kilmeade said. “They are deciding you can’t go to plays, you can’t go to movies, you can’t go to bars, you can’t go to restaurants, you can’t go to gyms, you can’t go to anything unless you have your vaccination card. Which takes a dollar to make a knockoff card.”

This as over a million of the Excelsior Pass, New York State’s e-vaccine passport, have been downloaded since its roll-out in June. 

In a press conference on Tuesday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said of the new system that “in our society there are so many ways to protect ourself…this is just one of those ways.”

But Kilmeade continued to say that life in New York is similar to that of life in Afghanistan because of the new vaccine pass.

“What if you have the antibodies, and what if you can’t get the vaccination? You have to shelter in place now, like an American in Afghanistan?”

He also stated on the episode that “you shouldn’t get the mayor making your medical decisions.”

Right-wing media already bored with bashing Biden over Afghanistan, return to the culture wars

The mainstream press — motivated by a combination of infatuation with foreign policy hawks and a desire to prove they’re equally “tough” on President Joe Biden as they were on Donald Trump — is absolutely certain they have a live one with the supposedly “humiliating” loss of the war on Afghanistan. Never mind that Biden didn’t lose the war because it was lost long before he got to office. He was just the guy willing to take the media fallout by admitting it. Never mind that many of the people pointing fingers at Biden are doing so to avoid the fingers being pointed, correctly, at themselves. Never mind that the people who are outraged over this don’t have the guts to they’re calling for forever war because victory was never an option. Never mind that no one can counter Biden’s basic argument: “One more year, or five more years, of U.S. military presence would not have made a difference.” The airwaves are filled with noise and outrage, and the headlines are dominated with 48 point fonts. 

The Beltway press may be dead certain that this Afghanistan retreat is a huge political black eye for Biden — or that they can make it one, anyway — but there’s starting to be telltale signs that right-wing media is not quite so sure. After all, if conservative pundits thought Biden had really stepped in it with this messy, depressing (but likely inevitable) end of the Afghan war, they’d surely be pressing their advantage with all their might. But, as it stands, there are indications that right-wing media would rather get back to their regularly scheduled calendar of race-baiting, concern trolling about “cancel culture” and general whining about “wokeness,” all of which will be much more salient for their voters heading into the 2022 midterms. 


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


As I write this Wednesday morning, the top headline at Breitbart is not about Afghanistan, but the usual “cancel culture” nonsense, this time with Fox News host Tucker Carlson equating people who mock and scorn racists with living in a “Soviet society.”

The Federalist, which also has its finger on what right-wing readers really care about, has some articles about Afghanistan on their front page, but the first headline when you open the page is some more nonsense about Hunter Biden and a laptop. Other front page stories include griping about students being required to wear masks to school and an article titled “How To Stop People From Falsely Accusing You Of Racism,” which is practically begging for the “my t-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt” meme. 

There is no doubt that Afghanistan is, at this moment, the big news story and so of course right-wing media wants a piece of it. But how they’re injecting themselves in the conversation is another hint that conservative media barons aren’t exactly sold on this notion that Americans are ready to turn on Biden because he’s the guy who finally pulled the plug on a failed war. Instead, they’re largely trying to reframe the Afghanistan story in culture war terms, making it less about the actual war and more about their usual whining and race-baiting. 

As Salon reporter Jon Skolnik detailed, from the moment the Afghan government fell, conservative talking heads were trying to make story an occasion to grouse about “wokeness.” Thus, you have Donald Trump Jr. and Tucker Carlson using the loss to take potshots at “woke generals” and “gender studies symposiums,” trying to frame this in terms they actually care about: how much they hate it when other people make them feel bad for being bigots. 

Sean Hannity had Trump on his Fox News show to talk about Afghanistan, not because Trump has anything useful or important to say about it, but mostly as a forum for Trump’s continued victim-tripping about how unfair it is that people keep treating him like the clown he clearly is. The desperation to find some culture war angle even got to the point where Brian Kilmeade of Fox News was trying to compare the “plight” of unvaccinated people who aren’t allowed in New York City bars to people trying to hide from the Taliban in Afghanistan. 

But the main pivot to the culture war that the right-wing media has landed on, due to their depressingly predictable sociopathy, is a big ol’ racist freakout over the possibility of Afghan refugees being relocated to the United States. As Salon’s Zach Petrizzo detailed, right-wing media has been wall-to-wall hysterics over this matter, with hosts claiming the U.S. is being “invaded” by “millions” of refugees, and falsely implying that terrorists will pretend to be refugees to gain entrance to the U.S. 

These attempts to hijack the Afghanistan story for a culture war narrative are gross, but, politically, make a lot of sense.

The mainstream media may believe that this is a make-or-break moment for the Biden administration, but polling suggests that actual voters have different priorities. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from Monday shows, for instance, that Americans are all over the place in their opinion, with 50% saying that the U.S. should send “combat troops back into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban” but 61% saying America should complete “its withdrawal of troops on schedule.” Similarly, 68% agree the war “was going to end badly, no matter when the U.S. left” but 51% think it “would have been worth it for the United States to leave troops in Afghanistan for another year.” Which is to say, a significant chunk of Americans appears to believe that the U.S. should simultaneously be both in Afghanistan and not in Afghanistan. (To be fair, this also appears to be the position of the mainstream punditry that claims not to want forever war, but also never to pull out of Afghanistan.) This kind of incoherence shows that people don’t really think much about the issue and tend to just agree with whatever sounds good at the moment and that they will likely stop thinking about it much at all once the withdrawal is complete. 


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


More to the point for right-wing media, the polling shows no strong partisan opinions on the matter.

Nearly half of Republicans still think withdrawing from Afghanistan is a good idea, which is only a few percentage points below GOP approval for the move in the spring. Republican voters can be counted on to reflexively reject anything Biden supports, which is why ICUs are filling up with unvaccinated COVID-19 patients in red states. If even that knee-jerk “screw Biden” attitude can’t be leveraged to gin up faux outrage over the Afghanistan withdrawal, it’s unlikely anything else will. It doesn’t help, of course, that most conservatives probably remember that it was Trump who first announced the withdrawal and that Biden is just following through on Trump’s plans. 

Obviously, only time will tell if the Beltway press is right to be so confident that the American people are just at outraged at Biden pulling the plug on forever war as they are. One thing that is known is that the right-wing media often has a better sense of what kind of stories will effectively tickle the lizard brains of the American people against a Democratic president. Their eagerness to get back to talking about culture war stuff suggests that they don’t think the Afghanistan story has legs as a major political hit on Biden.

How to make the best Italian-American spaghetti and meatballs dinner

My maternal grandmother, Nana, was a sauce aficionado. She could eat tomato sauce by the gallon. Though not Italian by any means, she would heap spoonful after spoonful over her pasta at Sunday afternoon dinners. 

Her plate always more so resembled soup with some pasta interspersed throughout — the focus was on the sauce and the more, the better. She passed this proclivity to my mother, who passed it to me. The rich, thick sauce she made was purely tomato. There was a bit of seasoning, garlic and oil to gild the lily, but it was foremost tomato-forward. The flavor was pure and the taste unlocks a world of memories and nostalgia. 

These Sunday afternoon meals (and the subsequent leftovers) were an ongoing component of my childhood, along with Whitney Houston and “The Wizard of Oz,” and I think my Nana and my mom for instilling in me such a deep laugh of red sauce. Note: we truly only ever called it sauce or red sauce, not marinara and definitely not “gravy.”

At its core, there may be no dish more directly synonymous with the Italian-American ethos as the iconic, indelible spaghetti and meatballs. It comforts, it satiates and its redolent with flavor, humor and images of cartoon couples amorously sharing a single strand of tomato-laced noodle. That said, it’s not frou-frou. It’s just a sensible, delicious full meal in a bowl. 


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


It’s also a perfect symbol of the Italian-American sensibility; there is no such thing as spaghetti and meatballs in Italy, but it encapsulates the entire notion of the culture. While other pasta shapes have taken precedence in recent years (remember the Great Bucatini Shortage of 2021?), spaghetti is forever an iconic classic. But how did it become one?

Origins

Today’s modern Italian-American meatballs look nothing like the originals. According to Escoffier Online, the first meatballs may have been made in ancient Persia and were called kofta. If you’ve ever had Italian Wedding Soup, the original meatball (or “polpettone”) was similar in size. It was about the size of an olive and had barely any ingredients beyond meat. Serious Eats also references a miniscule, “marble-sized” meatball called pallottine that was often eaten in Abruzzo along with tomato sauce and spaghetti alla chitarra. 

The Peterborough Examiner cites China as the origin-point of the dish, noting that Chinese meatballs appeared as early as 200 BC (although not usually with beef). China is also said to have mastered nodules — or an early variation of spaghetti — as well. Due to this, the publication deems spaghetti and meatballs “the first fusion food.”

As time went on, more and more additions were included in meatball recipes. The original polpettone was actually very rustic and served simply, almost never alongside pasta. Smithsonian Magazine notes that the first polpettone recipe found in print was in a cookbook published in 1891 by Pellegrino Artusi, called “La Scienza In Cucina E l’Arte di Mangiar Bene: manuale pratico per le famiglie.” 

Once Italian-Americans emigrated, though, meatballs grew and were paired with pasta — the growing staple of the Italian-American community — as well as tomatoes, which had recently come into popularity after being shunned for so long (many believed they were actually poisonous!). To put the sheer scale of the immigration into perspective, Smithsonian cites a statistic that notes that 4 million Italains immigrated to America between 1880 and 1920.

The Atantic notes that a 1936 cookbook said that meatballs may have actually been adapted from the Greeks. For Italian immigrants newly living in the US, the shockingly cheap meat and super-convenient canned tomatoes were mixed with the cheap pasta from their home country and voila, Italian-American spaghetti and meatballs were born. This helped turn the “peasant food” of polpettone into a substantial, hearty meal that could feed the whole family. Many outlets note the meatball size may have even been an indicator of a family’s wealth — the more money the family had, the larger the meatball.

Soon after, red-and-white checkered restaurant tablecloths splattered with sauce dotted the American landscape. What was once a meal to be enjoyed only at home — and usually without sauce or pasta — became a go-to meal at restaurants and a Sunday (and sometimes Wednesday) staple in the homes of Italian-American cooks. In 1955, the burgeoning popularity of the cuisine took a turn for the mainstream as it appeared onscreen in the now-iconic scene in “Lady and the Tramp.” The rest is history. 

As time has gone on, though, some argue that we’ve reached a point in which the “Italian” component of the Italian-American cuisine can even be dropped from the categorization, lionizing spaghetti and meatballs as the epitome of true “American cuisine.” As The Washington Post states in this piece, spaghetti and meatballs is now the epitome of American food, a dish that has nourished and satiated for over a century, a confluence of Italian ingenuity and (newly) American customization. 

Whatever the genre, spaghetti and meatballs is, and always will be, iconic. And I will make red sauce with reckless abandon for all of my days, thanking my Nana every step of the way. 

***

Some fun facts about my meatball preferences: I’ve never been a proponent of using stale bread soaked in milk in my meatballs, which is sometimes called a panade; I don’t find anything appetizing about that. To that end, I’ve actually never been a fan of especially tender meatballs. I find a “mushad,” soft meatball rather unappealing. I know that’s probably bizarre for many to hear, but I’m more committed to the deeply crisped, incredibly browned exterior — and a properly seasoned inside. Lastly, I don’t bake my meatballs and I definitely don’t throw raw meatballs into a cauldron of bubbling sauce, instead preferring to saute them. 

For the sauce, use the Classic Marinara recipe from this piece to take your spaghetti & meatballs up another notch entirely.

Recipe: Spaghetti and Meatballs
Ingredients

  • 1.5 pounds ground beef, combination of beef/veal/pork, ground lamb or plant-based ground “meat”
  • 2 tablespoons olive oil
  • 1 onion, peeled and finely chopped
  • 5 garlic cloves, minced
  • 1 egg
  • Handful chopped parsley
  • ⅓ cup bread crumbs
  • ¼ cup ricotta
  • ⅓ cup grated Parm.
  • Handful shredded mozzarella
  • Kosher salt
  • Freshly ground black pepper
  • Neutral oil, for frying
  • Box of spaghetti, whatever your favorite brand 

Directions

1. In a large saucepan, heat olive oil over medium-low heat. Add onions and cook until translucent. Add garlic and toast for 30 seconds, or until fragrant. Remove from heat and let cool. 

2. In a large bowl, combine ground meat or plant-based meat of choice, cooled garlic-onion mixture, egg, parsley, breadcrumbs, ricotta, parm, mozzarella, salt and pepper. Blend well, but not too much, and make a tiny polpettone “test patty” to ensure the seasoning is to your liking: heat a touch of neutral oil in a small pan and cook until deeply browned and crisp. Remove from pan, drain on paper towel, and season with flaky kosher salt. If well-seasoned, portion meatball mixture into golf ball-sized balls. If needing anything, re-season, re-mix, and then portion.

3. In a large, heavy skillet, add a few tablespoons neutral oil and heat over medium or medium-high heat. Add portioned meatballs and cook — not moving or turning — until the bottom is incredibly browned and crisp. Flip and cook until the opposite side is crisped in the same vein, and continue to flip and turn meatballs until they’re super browned on all sides. Be careful not to crowd pan or else the meatballs may steam instead of browning. Also, depending on which meat you used, be mindful of the excess oil. If the meatballs are drowning in oil and grease, drain repeatedly throughout the process. It’s a delicate dance. You don’t want the pan to be dry, but you’re also not deep-frying. 

4. Remove to a draining rack over a sheet tray or a paper towel-covered plate, season with flaky kosher salt, and let drain.

5. Meanwhile, boil water in a large pot and cook spaghetti according to package instructions until al dente.

6. In a large pan, toss hot pasta, hot sauce, and meatballs together, adding grated Parmesan and a touch of high-quality olive oil, tossing until spaghetti is evenly coated and all flavors are married. Serve with additional greeted Parm and side salad (recipe following).

***

To help break through the heaviness of the iconic classic, I’ve also included a salad recipe that is bright, pungent and downright delicious. The plums are an amazing inclusion!

Recipe: Plum, Pistachio, and Arugula Salad with Ricotta Salata
Ingredients

  • 2 firm, just ripened plums, any variety, thinly sliced
  • 1 cup baby arugula
  • ½ cup roasted and salted pistachios (if not roasted, merely toast in a dry pan until fragrant)
  • 1 bulb fennel, core removed, very thinly sliced (ideally – carefully – on a mandoline)
  • 4 ounces ricotta salata, crumbled
  • 1 teaspoon honey
  • 2 tablespoons sherry vinegar
  • 1 teaspoon honey
  • 1 teaspoon za’atar
  • 4 tablespoons high-quality olive oil
  • Kosher salt
  • Freshly ground black pepper

Directions

1. In a small bowl, whisk honey and sherry vinegar until homogenous. Add za’atar, salt, and pepper, and stir. Add olive oil, whisking until emulsified. 

2. In a large bowl, toss plums, arugula, pistachios, fennel, and ricotta salata together. Drizzle half of dressing oer top, toss, and taste. You don’t want this salad to be drenched in dressing, but feel free to add more, if necessary. 

3. Top with more crumbled ricotta salata.

More by this author: