Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Big Oil spent $10 million on Facebook ads last year — to sell what, exactly?

Online advertisers are always trying to sell you something, and in the case of slip-on sneakers or leather handbags, that something is pretty clear. But other times, the motive behind a sponsored post is less transparent. Why, for instance, are oil companies buying prime space in your social media feed to prattle on about “innovative” climate solutions and visions of a “lower-carbon future”?

A new report makes the case that the oil and gas industry is trying to sell you a story — one that casts these companies as paragons of sustainability and seeks to delay policies that would address climate change. Last year, the oil and gas industry spent at least $9.6 million on ads on Facebook’s U.S. platform, according to an analysis by the think tank InfluenceMap. Just over half of this spending came from one company, ExxonMobil.

“The oil and gas industry is engaging in this really strategic campaign using social media and the tools available, particularly these targeting tools on Facebook, to reach a really broad audience pretty easily,” said Faye Holder, program manager at InfluenceMap.

The report looked at roughly 25,000 of these ads, analyzing their messages and whom they were targeting. The decision to focus on Facebook ads, which represent only a fraction of the oil industry’s wider campaign to influence the discourse on climate change, was made for data reasons. “We just looked at Facebook,” Holder said. “That is because the other social media platforms don’t even offer this transparency.”

Oil companies have long sought the help of public relations whizzes to burnish their reputations, painting themselves as environmental champions, plastering their logos all over science museums and jazz festivals, and even hiring Instagram influencers to tout the merits of gas stoves. In recent years, climate advocates have honed in on ways to counter these tactics — launching a campaign demanding that PR firms drop fossil fuel clients, for instance, or trolling oil companies on social media. Some climate groups have decided to fight fire with fire, recently funneling $1 million directly into anti-oil advertisements.

The oil industry’s more recent ads use subtler messages than outright climate denial to undermine action on global warming, such as portraying natural gas as a green fuel source and arguing that decarbonization would make energy unaffordable. Last year, companies’ Facebook ad spending soared when it looked like the federal government might do something to address rising emissions. For example, spending jumped dramatically last summer when then-presidential candidate Joe Biden released his climate plan, and stayed high until after the November election.

a chart that shows spending by oil companies on Facebook over time. You see a big spike in spending between July 2020 and November 2020.

Courtesy of InfluenceMap

Those 2020 spending patterns follow a long-time trend: The scale of the oil and gas industry’s advertising efforts has historically tracked with politicians’ interest in taking action on the climate crisis. The world’s five largest oil companies spent $3.6 billion on promotional ads from 1986 to 2015. Spending shot up around 1997, when countries were considering the Kyoto Protocol, an attempt to set legally binding cuts on greenhouse gas emissions. The peak of oil companies’ ad blitz occurred in 2010, when Congress was mulling over a national cap-and-trade program (that ultimately didn’t pass).

As part of InfluenceMap’s analysis, researchers broke down last year’s Facebook ads based on the location of targeted users. “In terms of the distribution regionally of the ads, we saw that they were focused towards states with really high levels of production of oil and gas but also swing states,” Holder said. “So it sort of plays into that very politically motivated effort.” Interestingly, the advertisements tended to target men more than women.

Looking at oil and gas’ 25 biggest Facebook ad spenders, the analysis found that each segment of the industry was pushing a slightly different message. Individual companies promoted the affordability and reliability of their products (“Ann chose natural gas, and now she can invest the savings back into her business”). The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s biggest lobbying group, talked more about oil and gas being part of the “solution” to climate change. Finally, pro-fossil fuel advocacy groups argued that the industry was helping communities and the economy (“fracking supports thousands of jobs”) and emphasized philanthropic efforts.

The report has prompted some critics to question Facebook’s commitments to climate action; the company has tried to highlight its small carbon footprint, announcing earlier this year that its operations were already running on 100 percent renewable electricity. “Despite Facebook’s public support for climate action, it continues to allow its platform to be used to spread fossil fuel propaganda,” said Bill Weihl, former sustainability director at Facebook, in a statement.

Déjà vu? Consumers scramble for COVID tests in hard-hit areas

Andrea Mosterman, an associate professor of history at the University of New Orleans, was already dismayed that she had to wait three days to secure a covid-19 test at a Walgreens near her home after being in contact with someone who had tested positive.

But on Sunday, when she showed up at the pharmacy drive-thru, she was told the store had run out of test kits and none was available anywhere in the city. “I told them I had a reservation, but they said it didn’t matter,” she said.

On Monday, eager to know her status and get back to work, she waited at an urgent care center for four hours to get tested. Within minutes, she was told she had tested negative.

While relieved, Mosterman said the process upset her. “It was incredibly irresponsible for them to promise me a test and have me wait three days to have the test and then to say, ‘We don’t have it.’ That was so frustrating,” she said.

As the nation confronts its latest and worsening surge of covid cases, consumers are again facing delays getting tested, many turning to social media to complain. The problem appears mostly in the South and Midwest, where infections driven by the virus’s delta variant are proliferating the fastest.

About 100,000 new cases of covid are being reported each day this week, up from about 12,000 a day in early July. Testing is up 41% in the past two weeks, to nearly 770,000 tests a day, according to The New York Times’ analysis of federal and state data.

Walgreens spokesperson Phil Caruso said the company has seen demand for tests “rise significantly, as testing volume across our stores doubled chainwide from June to July.” Overall, Walgreens has met the demand, he said, despite minor delays at some locations.

The shrinking supply of tests becomes clear when checking the websites of the nation’s two largest pharmacy chains, CVS and Walgreens — which have become popular test sites since cities and states curtailed testing to focus on vaccinations this spring.

On Wednesday, not a single appointment was available through Friday at 52 Walgreens locations in and around Jacksonville, Florida, which has one of the country’s highest infection rates. The earliest option was Thursday morning in Brunswick, Georgia, 70 miles away.

At CVS stores around Jacksonville, tests weren’t widely available until Tuesday, nearly one week later, when 21 of the closest 35 stores had appointments. If someone was willing to drive 15 to 20 miles, a handful of slots were available Monday, but nothing sooner.

Jacksonville’s Duval County had one public test site open this week, but health officials said they were weighing opening more because of increasing demand.

In Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, officials planned to open testing sites after reports from residents that they were waiting up to three days.

Experts say testing is vital for identifying patients to treat or isolate, as well as for tracking the disease’s spread.

“It’s understandable that resources have been pulled away, but testing is still a really important part of the pandemic,” said Gigi Gronvall, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

States closed many of their mass test sites over the past several months because of declining demand and the need to focus on vaccination.

Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said pharmacies likely have an adequate supply of tests, although they may have to redistribute them to keep up with increased demand in hard-hit areas.

“It’s no surprise there has been a little bit of a backup,” he said.

CVS Health spokesperson Tara Burke said her company is largely keeping up with demand, but she would not comment on consumer complaints about waiting three days or more to have a test.

“We continue to be able to meet the demand for COVID-19 testing, even with increasing numbers of patients seeking out tests at one of our more than 4,800 CVS Pharmacy locations across the country offering testing with same day and future day appointments in most geographies,” she said in an email response to KHN.

The nation’s largest pharmacies have been popular test sites, although consumers have other options, including going to their doctor, urgent care facilities or outpatient clinics. The tests at all these locations are available at no out-of-pocket expense.

Consumers can also test themselves at home with kits that cost as little as $25 and give results in 20 minutes.

But these tests aren’t as accurate as molecular tests analyzed in a lab. Rapid tests come with a higher risk of a false negative result, especially for people without symptoms; that is, the test shows you don’t have covid when you actually do.

A spokesperson for Abbott, which makes BinaxNOW, one of the home tests, said the company is working with retailers to meet “increased demand in certain areas of the country as case rates rise, and as testing needs and guidance changes.”

Even areas of the country that have not seen huge surges in covid cases have seen appointment slots fill up at the major pharmacies and other testing sites.

In San Diego County, California, on Wednesday, CVS appointments weren’t widely available until the weekend, and 13 of 20 Walgreens locations in the city of San Diego had no appointments before Friday.

San Diego County is running walk-up testing sites every day of the week, in addition to locations where appointments are required or recommended. In early July, the county — California’s second-most populous — recorded an average of 7,200 tests a day. By the end of the month, it averaged more than 11,800, with more than 15,000 tests on an especially busy day. To meet increasing demand, the county added four new testing locations this week and is working on a fifth, according to Sarah Sweeney, communications officer for the Health and Human Services Agency.

In Sacramento, the county-run sites accept only walk-ins, although some locations are hitting capacity and must refer people elsewhere, a county spokesperson said.

Going to one of the thousands of pharmacies advertising covid testing remains the first option for many people. Yet these days it can be frustrating.

Patricia Rowan said she struggled to find a pharmacy with an available appointment for her 67-year-old mother, Karen Liever. Liever had recently traveled to a conference and wanted to get tested near her home in Palm Bay, Florida, before visiting Rowan, who has young children who are not eligible to be vaccinated.

Rowan finally found a CVS about 25 miles from her mom’s home on Thursday.

In Florida, where covid hospitalizations are higher than ever, mass testing sites run by the state closed at the end of May and Gov. Ron DeSantis said local governments could use their CARES Act funding to restart testing operations if they want. DeSantis, a Republican, has spent this week trying to play down the surge in hospitalizations, saying most admissions are of younger adults and death rates are lower than a year ago. He also blamed the rise in cases on unvaccinated immigrants crossing the border illegally into Texas and the Southwest.

“People obviously have the opportunity to get a test,” DeSantis said Tuesday, the same day Orlando’s main public testing site closed early — for the 16th day in a row — because it had reached capacity. The governor noted that at-home rapid tests are available in pharmacies and criticized the effectiveness of past testing campaigns. “Quite frankly, we spent a lot of money on the testing. … I don’t think it did anything to bend the viral curve.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

As COVID-19 cases surge in Texas, Ted Cruz slams vaccine mandates on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program

The healthcare system in Texas is in crisis as the Delta variant of COVID-19 surges through the state.

On Monday, Gov. Greg Abbott announced the state would attempt to hire out-of-state medical personnel and would ask hospitals to delay so-called elective surgeries.

Later that same day, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show to argue against public health measures.

“There should be no mandates — zero — concerning COVID,” Cruz said. “That means no mask mandates, regardless of your vaccination status, that means no vaccine mandates, that means no vaccine passports.”

The senator said he would be introducing three pieces of legislation to block vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, and mask mandates nationwide.

Even though Texas’s hospital system is struggling to keep up with the surge in COVID-19 patients, Abbott so far has given no indication that he will roll back his bans on mask mandates or vaccination mandates.

You can watch the video below via Twitter:

Corporate liberals finally see the threat of Trumpism — but they can’t defeat it

Jane Mayer’s article in The New Yorker last week, “The Big Money Behind the Big Lie,” starkly illuminates how forces aligned with Donald Trump have been upping the ante all year with hyperactive strategies that could enable Republican leaders to choke off democracy, ensuring that Trump or another GOP candidate captures the presidency in 2024. The piece runs close to 10,000 words, but the main takeaway could be summed up in just a few: Wake up! Core elements of U.S. democracy really could disappear soon.

Anti-democratic ducks are being lined up in Republican-run state legislatures to deliver the White House to the party nominee. Driven by Trumpian mindsets, it’s a scenario that could become a dystopian reality.

In early June, the New America organization issued a Statement of Concern, signed by 199 eminent “scholars of democracy” in the United States, warning that “Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.”

The statement included a sentence that flagged an ominous, even fascistic, cloud on the horizon: “Statutory changes in large key electoral battleground states are dangerously politicizing the process of electoral administration, with Republican-controlled legislatures giving themselves the power to override electoral outcomes on unproven allegations should Democrats win more votes.” 

New America, which calls itself “a think and action tank,” deserves praise for issuing the statement. Yet, overall, the organization typifies a political establishment that arguably does more to fuel Trumpism than to hinder it.

The CEO of New America, Anne-Marie Slaughter, did her part to oil the Democratic Party’s machinery of neoliberalism as the State Department’s director of policy planning for the first two years of the Obama administration. Later, she wrote and spoke widely to call for U.S. warfare in Libya and Syria. Like Hillary Clinton, who was her patron as secretary of state, Slaughter has been a prominent promoter of what is sometimes glibly labeled a “muscular” foreign policy.

Slaughter’s zeal for U.S. military intervention — boosting Pentagon budgets that enrich war contractors while shortchanging domestic social programs — fits neatly with an overall neoliberal model of reverence for maximizing corporate profits. It’s a sensibility that Slaughter presumably brought to her stint on the board of directors of the McDonald’s Corporation before getting to the State Department.

Members of New America’s board of directors, such as media foreign-policy darling Fareed Zakaria and ubiquitous New York Times pundit David Brooks, have long echoed pro-war conventional wisdom. But hawkishness from elites has worn thin for working-class communities in the wake of combat deaths, injuries and psychological traumas. Research indicates that Clinton’s militaristic persona helped Trump defeat her in 2016, with “a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.” More than four years later, the liberal establishment’s support for endless war is unabated as the U.S. continues to routinely bomb several countries.

As for the ongoing class war at home, the current Democratic brand of mild liberalism still refuses to give a forthright answer to a pivotal question: “Which side are you on?” The party’s usual answer, in effect, is “both sides” — or, more commonly, to pretend that class war isn’t really happening. (“Can’t we all just get along?”)

Certainly the Biden administration has taken important steps — such as expanding the child tax credit and regulatory moves against corporate monopolies — to reduce extremes of economic unfairness. And it’s true that Biden has turned to Keynesian public investment. But the structures of neoliberalism are still largely in place, and the inroads against it have been incremental. With a closely divided Congress and a likely GOP takeover of the House in 17 months, the advances are temporary and precarious. 

An affirmative program for progressive change — to substantially improve the economic and social conditions of people’s daily lives — will be essential for mobilizing voter turnout and preventing the Republican Party from seizing control of the federal government. GOP obstructionism on Capitol Hill is no excuse when Democratic leaders, as happens all too often, fail to clearly set imperative goals and go all-out to achieve them in tandem with grassroots movements. A prime example is Biden’s refusal to use his authority to cancel student loan debt.

Meanwhile, Trump and associates are raising plenty of cash. During the spring, some news reports claimed that Trump was losing his hold on devotees — a Washington Post headline in May declared, “Trump is sliding toward online irrelevance” — but such wishful thinking has been eclipsed by recent information. Trump’s online fundraising brought in $56 million during the first half of this year, and his political committees report having $102 million in the bank. Those figures “underscore the profound reach of Trump’s fundraising power,” Politico reported as this month began. Trump is maintaining “a massive online donor network that he could lean on should he wage a 2024 comeback bid.”

A vital challenge for progressives is not only to block Republican agendas but also to effectively campaign for policy changes that go far beyond the talking points of current Democratic leaders offering to tinker with the status quo. Merely promising a kinder, gentler version of grim social realities simply won’t be enough to counter the faux populism of a neofascist Republican Party.

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

Salon’s continuing investigation of Rep. Lauren Boebert‘s unexplained late-night tour of the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 12, 2020 — three weeks before the Colorado Republican became a member of Congress — has revealed further information. Earlier that day Boebert attended a march in Washington to support Donald Trump’s baseless theory that the 2020 election was stolen. Evidence suggests that the Capitol tour itself — involving Boebert, her mother, her teenage son and a Capitol Police officer — apparently took place close to midnight, at an hour when the Capitol complex is normally completely shut down.

Amy Kremer, chairwoman of the pro-Trump group Women for America First, posted a tweet on Dec. 12 thanking Boebert for attending what some participants called the “Million MAGA March,” which involved a number of street clashes between marchers, counter-protesters and police, four stabbings and at least 33 arrests.   

As Salon reported last week, later that night Boebert gave what appears to be have been an unauthorized after-hours private tour of the Capitol building to a group of her family members. It remains unclear how this tour was arranged since everything about it fell outside the normal regulations regarding such visits, which require the presence of a member of Congress and a Capitol guide and must be scheduled between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays. There is no evidence that anyone accompanied Boebert and her family members, other than a single Capitol Police officer visible in one family photo posted to social media.

Metadata reviewed by Salon from Boebert’s son’s Instagram post of the Dec. 12 tour indicates the post was created at 11:53 p.m. That is consistent with a photo taken from the observation deck at the top of the Capitol, showing the National Mall completely deserted (it is open 24 hours a day), and showing the permit parking areas near Pennsylvania Avenue and Maryland Avenue, close to Union Square, almost entirely vacant. 

None of the Boebert group’s photos from the tour show any other people present in the Capitol building, except for the single police officer who accompanied the group to the observation deck overlooking the city. It would seem reasonable to speculate that a highly-placed government official, either in Congress or the Trump White House, must have approved this extraordinary visit, but Salon has not found any evidence of that.

It’s not surprising that Boebert attended the Dec. 12 march, given her involvement in several other pro-Trump rallies focused on the then-president’s false claims of election fraud. According to a permit issued Jan. 4 by the Department of Interior, Boebert was scheduled to speak at the “Rally to Revival” event on Jan. 5, along with a long list of MAGAWorld celebrities, including retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump confidant Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. 

Boebert was scheduled to speak on the morning of Jan. 6, at the “Save America” event sponsored by Amy Kremer’s organization, Women for America First, which had joined efforts with right-wing activist Ali Alexander’sWild Protest.” That event, of course, fueled and preceded the mob assault on the Capitol a few hours later. 

USA Today reported on Jan. 4 that Boebert and another new member of Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., had “co-signed” the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally. Boebert was added to the speaker lineup on Dec. 29, shortly after the event website was launched. She did not in fact speak at the Jan. 6 rally, but as Salon had reported, attended the event that morning with her mother and can be seen in photographs with event organizers.

Leading up to those rallies, Boebert tweeted and almost immediately deleted “President Trump shouldn’t pack up yet” on Dec. 30 and retweeted and then deleted a post from @MediaKane that said “BOOM…RISE UP!” with a link to a Gateway Pundit article titled “Report: 100+ GOP Lawmakers may Vote Against Stolen Election on January 6th” on Dec. 31.

Earlier, Boebert had attended the first “Stop the Steal” rally in D.C. on Nov. 14, according to a tweet from co-organizer Kylie Jane Kremer. Other incoming members of Congress present that day included Greene, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Mary Miller of Illinois and Bob Good of Virginia, along with sitting Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. There were no U.S. senators or senators-elect in attendance. 

The newly elected members were in Washington that week for freshman orientation that week. The day before that November protest, Boebert posted to her Parler account, “Orientation today at the United States House of Representatives. Going to make Colorado proud!” with a photo of herself in the House chamber.

Ron DeSantis threatens to withhold superintendent salaries if schools mandate face masks

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year signed a bill banning schools from mandating face masks, but some school districts are testing that law as they head back to class.

Tallahassee’s school superintendent has vowed to defy the DeSantis mandate ban by saying that they will mandate masks in their schools. Florida State University is also mandating that all teachers and students wear masks.

While there are likely to be lawsuits to fight over the Florida law, DeSantis isn’t waiting. Monday afternoon he threatened that no school board member or superintendent will be paid if their district implements mask mandates in schools, reported CBS Miami.

“With respect to enforcing any financial consequences for noncompliance of state law regarding these rules and ultimately the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s education and health care decisions, it would be the goal of the State Board of Education to narrowly tailor any financial consequences to the offense committed,” said the DeSantis statement. ‘For example, the State Board of Education could move to withhold the salary of the district superintendent or school board members, as a narrowly tailored means to address the decision-makers who led to the violation of law.”

Parents of students with disabilities have already filed a lawsuit against DeSantis over his ant-mask order.

The federal lawsuit was filed last week in the Southern District of Florida. The 27 parents and their children said that DeSantis “does not have the authority to threaten school districts with loss of funding if they protect their students with disabilities health and rights to be in an integrated learning environment.”

DeSantis’ anti-vaccine passport law is also in question as a federal court issued an injunction Sunday against the governor’s ban on cruise lines requiring passengers to be vaccinated.

Last week, an Arkansas judge blocked the state from enforcing their anti-mask mandate passed by the Republican legislature. The state saw a dramatic increase in cases in the past months. Florida has now overtaken those high Arkansas numbers. Speaking to CNN Sunday, Dr. Jonathan Reiner explained that if Florida was its own country, the United States would likely ban travel to it. It’s the same sentiment that Florida residents have said.

The ocean is about to flip a switch that could permanently disrupt life on Earth: study

A massive Atlantic Ocean current system, which affects climate, sea levels and weather systems around the world, may be about to be fatally disrupted.

new report in the journal Nature Climate Change describes how a series of Atlantic Ocean currents have reached “an almost complete loss of stability over the last century” as the planet continues to warm. The report, authored by Dr. Niklas Boers, specifically analyzes data on ocean temperature and salinity to demonstrate that their circulation has weakened over the past few decades. If current trends continue unabated, they may slow to a dangerous level or even shut down entirely.

The series of currents in question is known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC for short. The current system is sometimes likened to a series of conveyer belts: one “belt” flows north with warm water that, upon reaching the northern Atlantic, cools and evaporates, in the process increasing the salinity of water in that region. The saltier water becomes colder and heavier, sinking and flowing south to create a second “belt.” Those two currents are in turn connected by other oceanic features in the Southern Ocean, the Labrador Sea and the Nordic Sea.

The study reinforces earlier scientific studies which found the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation system to be at its weakest in 1,600 years.

This so-called conveyer belt system has been in place for thousands of years or more, and ocean life is adapted to its rhythms. Indeed, AMOC, which scientists believe can slow down or turn off abruptly when temperatures increase, is also vital to maintaining humanity’s way of life. If it shuts down, temperatures will plummet in Europe while the number of storms increases; changing weather conditions will lead to food shortages in South America, India and Western Africa; and rising sea levels along the North American eastern seaboard will force millions to flee their homes. Considering that AMOC is already starting to decline, this is a serious threat that could radically alter our planet in a matter of mere decades.

“This decline may be associated with an almost complete loss of stability over the course of the last century, and the AMOC could be close to a critical transition to its weak circulation mode,” the analysis explains.


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


This is not the first troubling news which has emerged about AMOC. In February another study disclosed that AMOC could be weakened by 34% to 45% by the end of the century as Arctic ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet continue to melt. The new report, however, increases the growing sense of scientific alarm about AMOC’s integrity.

“This work provides provides additional support for our earlier work in the same journal Nature Climate Change suggesting that a climate change-induced slowdown of the ocean ‘conveyer belt’ circulation already underway, decades ahead of schedule, yet another reminder that uncertainty is not our friend,” Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, wrote to Salon. “There are surprises in store, and they are likely to be unpleasant ones, when it comes to the climate crisis.”

Cristian Proistosescu, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign who studies climate dynamics and global warming consequences, was more measured in his assessment.

“If the worst-case scenario comes to pass — and that’s a big if — we can certainly expect to see dramatic changes in climate in the far north of Europe,” Proistosescu told Salon by email. He described a world in which Scandinavian winters are no longer mild, where precipitation patterns shift as far south as central Africa and in which other meteorological patterns alter radically. The worst case scenarios may be “somewhat unlikely,” he added, noting that the majority of updated climate models predict a gradual deterioration over the 21st century rather than an abrupt showdown.

“The data we have is too short to say with any real confidence whether the collapse of the North Atlantic Overturning Circulation is truly imminent,” Proistosescu concluded. “The question for me is how risk-averse should we be in the face of uncertainty, and how much do we want to avoid a high cost–low probability worst-case scenario? Given the how high the costs would be, we should be fairly risk averse.”

Not every climate expert is impressed with the new study’s conclusions. Kevin Trenberth, who is part of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Salon by email that the new report is “a bunch of total BS. They do not refer to any of our publications about the Atlantic and what is going on there and they get it all wrong.” He added that based on “the best and longe[st] record than they have, the N[orth] Atlantic is dominated by natural variability and they can not say anything about the longer term changes.”

American atmospheric scientist Ken Caldeira also warned against overstating the situation with AMOC. He wrote to Salon that “it should also be noted that paleo-climate data indicates that a shut-down of the North Atlantic circulation may have more widespread consequences than is predicted by the climate models.” The problem is that even our most sophisticated climate models do not contain enough details to be able to anticipate with certainty what is going to happen in our climate system.

Like Proistosescu, Caldeira urged erring on the side of being safe. “In this case, uncertainty means risk, and, because effects of our CO2 emissions are effectively irreversible, this risk should motivate a high degree of caution,” he concluded.

In bizarre rant, Tucker Carlson claims we’re “not allowed” to call American buildings “grotesque”

On Monday, as part of his lengthy series championing the authoritarian right-wing government of Hungary as superior to the United States, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson went on a rant attacking American architecture and claiming that “you’re not allowed to say” how ugly U.S. buildings are.

“Looking at these buildings, which move me,” he began. “Not simply because they’re old, and some have bullet holes, which in my view are a very useful reminder, I wish I lived in a city with bullet holes in the buildings, because every morning you look at them and you think to yourself, it could be really bad because it’s been really bad, there’s a lot at stake, make wise, sober, long-term decisions or else you could wind up with more bullet holes — it’s true, it’s true.”

Carlson went on to say that most Americans were naive about just how dangerous the rest of the world is.

“Americans have no sense of how bad things can get, that it actually could be a lot worse,” continued Carlson. “Our physical isolation cuts us off from the history of the rest of the world. There’s not a passion to study what happened before in a place that you’re building anew. Right? Right. So we don’t have a sense of that. So I love your bullet holes.”

Carlson went on to claim that American architecture is ugly compared to what he saw while in Budapest.

“It is pretty, the buildings are pretty,” he said. “The architecture uplifts. This is another third rail of American politics, you’re not allowed to note that our buildings are grotesque and dehumanizing. Why are they bad? Because they’re ugly, and ugly dehumanizes us.”

Carlson’s rant about American architecture was met with bemusement from some, with writer Matthew Yglesias offering this response:

“The Suicide Squad” is a grim portrait of real-life U.S.-Nazi collaboration

Now streaming on HBO Max and playing in theaters, DC’s “The Suicide Squad” may have opened to dismal box office numbers, but is drawing praise from critics who point out its unconventional heroics. As the sequel to the 2016 hit, similarly named “Suicide Squad,” this latest contribution to the increasingly predictable superhero genre is uniquely critical of the U.S. government and military, at times invoking the darker features of the country’s checkered past.

In the film, antiheroes of Task Force X – or the suicide squad of dangerous, violent criminals selected to take on missions so dangerous as to be “suicide” – form two squads to take down the Nazi science lab Jötunheim and its mysterious Project Starfish experiment on the fictional South American island of Corto Maltese. Margot Robbie reprises her role as beloved antihero Harley Quinn, while Idris Elba portrays the rebellious and surprisingly heroic Bloodsport. John Cena is Peacemaker, a smartly named, dangerously patriotic member of the second squad. Daniela Melchior is the rat-controlling Ratcatcher 2, and Viola Davis is Amanda Waller, the Task Force X leader with a secret agenda.

In the DC Comics, the island Corto Maltese is first introduced in the 1990s comic Time Masters #4 as yet another site of Cold War conflict. The U.S. supports the island government and sends Superman to deal with the Soviet-backed rebels, marking the beginning of another nuclear battle between the two global superpowers. 

This is the same Corto Maltese we encounter in 2021 in James Gunn’s “The Suicide Squad.” Sure, the island — and, for that matter, the movie — is fictional, but it draws on disturbing, relatively recent histories. In the movie, Corto Maltese was a safe haven for Nazis at the end of World War II, attracting many Nazi scientists in particular who eventually set up Jötunheim for human experimentation on prisoners on the island. 

Similarly in our world, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other South American countries saw an influx of thousands of escaped Nazis seeking refuge — in some cases, with the help of the U.S. government – post World War II.

Corto Maltese’s historical roots in U.S.-Nazi collaboration

While much of the real world’s South American Nazi resettlement efforts took place through forged passports and backdoor dealmaking between countries like Argentina and Germany, which had deep ties at the time, the U.S. government was complicit in at least one case involving the Nazi Klaus Barbie, and his resettlement in Bolivia. 

Barbie, who had been the Gestapo chief in Lyon, France, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of French Jews and members of the French Resistance, was secretly recruited by the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps to help with anti-communist efforts ahead of the Cold War.

In “Suicide Squad,” Project Starfish is the Nazi lab experiment overseen by the Thinker (Peter Capaldi) . . .  and in one of the film’s darker twists, is revealed to be funded and led by the U.S. government. At the heart of Project Starfish is the alien being Starro the Conqueror, who was captured by the U.S. and has been experimented on in Jötunheim ever since. 

Project Starfish recalls one of the real-life Operation Paperclip, which saw the U.S. government secretly recruit and employ more than 1,600 scientists from Nazi Germany after World War II primarily to help the U.S. military in its Space Race with the Soviet Union.

The resemblance between this secret history and the dark, fictional revelations of “The Suicide Squad,” which sees the U.S. government partner with Nazi scientists obtain a dangerous alien being from space on which to conduct covert human experimentation is almost uncanny. And there are even more unfortunate parallels between Corto Maltese and the real-life U.S,-South American political history. Across the fictional island, political dissidents and their families are routinely disappeared and imprisoned. This is perfect for the Thinker, who seizes the opportunity to use these prisoners for his Project Starfish experimentation.

And in real life, autocratic governments across South America, especially during the Cold War era when many of these regimes had the backing of the U.S., the disappearing, killing and torture of unsaid numbers of dissidents was an unfortunate reality for years, often with direct help from the U.S. Today, little is known about the full extent of these atrocities, such that several South American countries have tried to instate truth and reconciliation committees to determine how many people were victimized, and hold accountable those who are responsible and may still hold power.

A superhero flick with a new villain: the U.S. military

“The Suicide Squad” is being called a superhero movie unlike any other, namely for its slate of villains cosplaying as heroes. There’s also its extreme, truly horrific violence and gore, which at one point displays an army of rats tearing a giant alien being’s brain to shreds, and at other points shows people torn apart limb from limb. But it also diverges from the typical hero flick that portrays the U.S. military as a benevolent, peacemaking force, and if not incompetent compared with enhanced superhuman beings, at least well-meaning. 

In contrast, the U.S. military in “The Suicide Squad” is the villain, and a “hero” named Peacemaker is so bloodthirsty for “peace,” he’ll embrace any amount of violence and imperialist, jingoistic tactics to achieve it. In a shocking twist, we learn Peacemaker is in cahoots with Waller, and he’s aware of and determined to destroy all evidence of the U.S. government’s involvement in Project Starfish. He is the embodiment of the real-life dangers and backdoor brutalities of American nationalism.

Few superhero movies keep it as real as “The Suicide Squad” does. Marvel Studios famously consults with the U.S. military on its projects for its portrayals of the military. In “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” we get a taste of criticism of real-life U.S. government policies around surveillance, and predictive policing of who is and isn’t a “criminal” or enemy of the state before they’ve even done anything. But all of this can be very neatly blamed on Hydra, the fascist, parasitic group that’s infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D. and was started by Nazis in “Captain America: The First Avenger.” In “The Suicide Squad,” the U.S. military is evil, period. 

Even beyond the grim realities that the fictional Corto Maltese and Jötunheim lab reflect, the premise of “Suicide Squad” and “The Suicide Squad” itself is eerily familiar to the realities of how we treat “criminals” like Harley Quinn and the rest of her squads, in real life. Incarcerated people’s lives are treated as expendable, both in the U.S. and a fictional land called Corto Maltese — whether they’re forced to give their lives to Project Starfish or in real life, risk their lives to put out California wildfires or die from lack of prison COVID safety protocol. It’s the realness of “The Suicide Squad” that sets the movie apart, and finally brings something fresh to the superhero genre by setting up a new super villain: the actual U.S. government.

“No more ‘Indian in the Cupboard'”: “Reservation Dogs” is the new direction of Native storytelling

FX on Hulu’s new comedy “Reservation Dogs” marks a crucial representational victory for Native communities, yet beckons audiences of all backgrounds with its subversive, unapologetically Native-specific humor. Using smart comedy and dark jokes, the show explores the hijinks and endearing bond between four Native teens on a reservation in Oklahoma, as Bear (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai), Elora Danan (Devery Jacobs), Willie Jack (Paulina Alexis) and Cheese (Lane Factor) commit a string of small-time heists to raise money to escape the small town they’ve come to despise.

The Sterlin Harjo and Taika Waititi-created project deliberately and excitingly diverges from its catalog of predecessors in storytelling about Native people. 

“There was a time where the content had to be depressing,” Waititi said, speaking on a panel before the Television Critics Association last week. “We don’t want to depress people because there’s so much humor in our communities. There’s so many jokers.”

As storytelling about Native people written and portrayed by Native people grows and expands, it’s because of projects like “Reservation Dogs” that non-Native people’s sole perception of Native culture will no longer be rooted in tragedy and white-washed mysticism. “No longer will we have to empathize with ‘The Indian in the Cupboard,'” observed Jacobs, referring to the film adaptation of the children’s book about a young boy befriending a toy-sized 18th-century Iroquois chief who comes to life through a magical cupboard.

Meanwhile, the fun heists on “Reservation Dogs” give way to painting a deeper picture of the teens’ lives. They’re simultaneously trying to fight off the boredom of life on the reservation, reckon with grief after the death of their friend one year ago, defend their place in town against a rival teen “gang” and experience the coming-of-age growing pains familiar to teens of all backgrounds, really.

Bear and Elora Danan (yes, named after the baby from “Willow”) are set up as the leaders of the “Reservation Dogs” gang. They may be best friends, but there’s often tension between the two and their conflicting priorities. Elora is dead set on getting to California, while Bear is often more easily distracted, especially when it comes to his seeking the attention of his absent father, out-of-work Native rapper Pumpkin Lusty (Sten Joddi), or conflicts with his mother, Rita (Sarah Podemski), a loving single mom seeking the perfect stepfather for her teenage son, while shrugging off the overtures of just about every man in town. 

Willie Jack and Cheese are their backup, with subtle, perfect comedic timing: when the gang suggests Bear is suffering from depression after he’s particularly quiet one day, Cheese is quick to chime in that “depression affects one in five Native Americans.” Before that, when neighborhood kids tell Willie Jack they have no friends to publicize the rez dogs’ chip-selling street business to, she simply tells at them to “make some.”

As universal as teen coming-of-age stories often are, “Reservation Dogs” isn’t shy about being deeply and delightfully specific to Native people. From extensive references to previous onscreen portrayals of Native characters, to the sharing of family meat pie recipes, the show is an unsubtle celebration of Native culture.

Waititi told reporters that he recalled “negative feedback” about his early films, which criticized them for not having “enough culture specificity” and being “depressing,” while also criticizing his work for “making fun.” He said, “I get what’s happening. All they want is to see us, like, riding whales, talking to trees.”

“Reservation Dogs” is rife with jokes poking fun at white audiences’ expectations of Native people as mystical tree-talkers. A non-Native Indian Health Services doctor embarrassingly calls his patients a “majestic people,” and throughout the first episodes, Bear repeatedly hallucinates about a hilarious warrior from the battle at Little Bighorn who has some not-so-spiritual wisdom to impart.

As Salon’s TV critic Melanie McFarland points out, the show taps into a level of cultural specificity that’s typically been reserved exclusively for shows and movies centering white people, which rely on “the assumption that non-white people should be versed in white culture with no expectation of reciprocity.” Well, no more of that in “Reservation Dogs.”

Breakout stars and fresh faces tell the story of Sterlin Harjo’s upbringing

Before bringing their dynamic characters to life, taking on roles that seem like they were made for them, Woon-A-Tai, Jacobs, Factor and Alexis were plucked from relative obscurity. When asked by the press about the frequent excuse from Hollywood creators who don’t cast Natives because “we can’t find them,” Jacobs answered bluntly, “None of us live in LA.” 

And, as Harjo points out, historically, before Native-led and created projects like “Reservation Dogs,” there weren’t exactly a lot of attractive opportunities for Native talent in Hollywood. “Hollywood makes a Western every few years where Native actors get to come and get killed in front of a camp, and it’s just not the most exciting work,” Harjo said. “So they are not in LA, beating down the door, trying to get these parts.” 

He continued, “You have to go to these communities to find the actors. That’s all [‘Reservation Dogs’] did. We went and cast in the communities. We went and got tapes from all over Indigenous communities. The talent is there. It just doesn’t happen to be on Hollywood Boulevard.”

The actors are also noticeably bonded to their characters — especially Woon-A-Tai as Bear, the de facto leader (in his mind) of the Rez Dogs. “When I first read the script, right off the bat I found a connection with Bear,” he said. He continued, “There’s so many things I can relate to my life and Bear’s life. Bear is a very loving person who cares a lot about his friends — these friends right here. I have the exact same feelings for them. This is my family.”

It’s clear from the young stars’ presence on the panel that they share a real friendship and love of Native comedy. Jacobs recalled bonding with Alexis over their enjoyment of the Native sketch comedy group the 1491s, and the cast and producers described their love for Alexis’ hilarious brothers and family of “comedians.” Additionally, in the show’s all-Native writers’ room and main cast, Harjo emphasized how important it is to him that they worked together as a community.

While “Reservation Dogs” was conceived by Harjo and Waititi on the latter’s kitchen floor over “late-night tea,” it is firmly Harjo’s show as the American in the creative partnership. Harjo was born and raised in Oklahoma, where the show is shot and set, and the many everyday storylines of “Reservation Dogs” are based loosely on the ups and downs of his childhood. 

Waititi is of Maori heritage from New Zealand, and while he described sharing many experiences with Sterlin as Indigenous people, he emphasized that “it’s not my place to make this show.”

“I really believe people need to tell their own stories and especially from whatever area they are from,” he said. Harjo is a member of the Seminole Nation and has Muskogee heritage. Waititi continued, “It just wouldn’t have been appropriate if I had come in and been, like, ‘Let’s Taika‑fy this show.’ It’s stealing the story. It’s [Harjo’s] town.” The extent of Waititi’s involvement, he said, is to be “the one push this thing out into the water, and Sterlin was the one who paddled the boat and made sure that there weren’t any holes in the bottom of it.”

“Laughter is medicine”: Comedy and reality over tragedy

“Reservation Dogs” is funny, but, in the best way possible, that doesn’t mean it’s mindless, fluffy escapism. Between mundane yet hilarious storylines at the local IHS clinic, and the kids’ guilt that their theft of a grocery truck will indirectly cause the hood-winked truck driver to die of diabetes, the show isn’t all heavy and depressing — but in its own way, it also doesn’t shy from the realities of the under-investment of resources in Native communities and reservations, the inaccessibility of health care, the disparate struggles with addiction among Native people due to systemic racism. 

The show’s honest comedy, and even its deep specificity to Native experiences, is especially enjoyable because of its relatability, even to non-Natives, who can see their own culture-specific counterparts in the different storylines on the show. Anyone can relate to the dread of wanting to leave your boring, dead-end hometown, or the awkwardness of working on a group project (in this case, committing crimes to escape to California) with a friend who isn’t taking it as seriously as you are, or a frustratingly slow day spent in the waiting room of the local emergency room.

“Every community has problems with health care and addiction,” Harjo said. “Whether you are Native or non‑Native, these communities, especially in rural areas, deal with that.”  He continued, “In the background, you’ll have some of the more serious things. But it’s just like our lives, right? We have a lot of issues and serious things, but . . . we try to laugh through it.  And I think that our Indigenous communities, that’s how we’ve survived, is through laughter.  

“There’s a lot of bad s**t that happened to us at the hands of the U.S. government and other governments, but we survived, I think, partially because of our humor, and for me, that’s the important part of the show.”

The triumph of “Reservation Dogs” is that it subverts the long history of exclusively depressing storytelling about Natives, often written by creators and writers plagued by white guilt. It also, by no means, is intended to assure white and non-Native folks’ comfort or gloss over continued oppressions and racist stereotypes with apolitical comedy. What “Reservation Dogs” does is recognize that, as the show’s creators and cast spoke on at their Television Critics Association panel, comedy is an inextricable feature of Native communities.

“Laughter is medicine,” Alexis said, simply. “That’s the goal. I hope our people can come together and laugh, because our people need medicine. That’s my goal with all of that — make people laugh.”

“Reservation Dogs” premieres Monday, Aug. 9 on FX on Hulu.

How anti-vaxxers weaponized Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer drug, as a COVID-19 treatment

In November 2020, a pre-print study touting the safety and efficacy of an anti-parasitic drug called Ivermectin was published on the Research Square website, a platform where scientific studies are submitted before they are peer-reviewed and accepted by a journal. The study, led by Dr. Ahmed Elgazzar of Egypt’s Benha University, claimed that in a randomized control trial of nearly 600 people, hospitalized COVID-19 patients who “received ivermectin early reported substantial recovery.”

In the search for a COVID-19 wonder drug, the preprint study seemed promising. But then, in July 2021, the paper was pulled “due to ethical concerns.” Those concerns included alleged plagiarism and calculation of data points that were “mathematically impossible,” according to The Guardian.

Despite the retraction, the anti-parasite drug is allegedly flying off shelves of local farmer supply stores, according to various local news reports who say some feed stores are struggling to keep it in stock. That’s because the drug has become a political flashpoint, enveloped by the culture wars just like nearly everything else related to the pandemic.

Indeed, Republicans politicians like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have promoted Ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Robert Malone, a doctor who has spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on platforms like “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” alleged to have personally used the drug to treat COVID-19, further popularizing it among followers of Carlson’s show. The response to Malone’s latest Ivermectin-related tweet reveals how many of his followers are using the so-called treatment to undermine the available COVID-19 vaccines. “You don’t need a #vaccine, people,” one commented. “Ivermectin works,” another one chimed in.

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 de-wormer. Some such stores report having to put up signage reminding their customers that the drug is approved for horse consumption, not human consumption.


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


Salon reached out to Tractor Supply Company, whose spokesperson would not share sales numbers, but did note that the retail chain has put up “signs to remind our guests that these products are for animal use only.”

“The product sold in our stores is only suitable for animals and is clearly labeled as such,” the spokesperson said via email. “The anti-parasite drug Ivermectin has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans; if customers have questions about COVID-19, we suggest consulting a licensed physician and finding more information at  FDA website.”

Meanwhile, right-leaning politicians abroad have been promoting the drug. The presidential administration of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil has spent “millions” to promote un proven drugs like Ivermectin as COVID-19 treatments, according to an NPR report. In India and elsewhere in Latin America, Ivermectin has gained momentum. Craig Kelly, an Australian member of Parliament, has repeatedly promoted Ivermectin.

The obsession over Ivermectin, and its politicization, is curious from an economic standpoint. Unlike climate change denialism or other anti-science culture wars, there is no lobby group profiting off of Ivermectin sales to the extent that they might pull politicians’ strings. So why have so many on the right seized on an unproven drug as a COVID-19 treatment? 

According to Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, the right-wing obsession with Ivermectin may be important to that demographic merely because it sows distrust in science in general while stirring up vaccine skepticism. 

“Politics got injected into it, and then Ivermectin became a crusade for certain individuals, as a way to kind of deflect the importance of the vaccine,” Adalja told Salon. “It’s the same kind of story of the politics of this pandemic that’s driven a lot of the interest in Ivermectin — and when I do interviews on ivermectin I get a slew of hate mail.”

Yet such promotion of unproven drugs can be dangerous. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there have been “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.”

Ivermectin, as previously mentioned, is often used to treat or prevent parasites in animals. Reminiscent of how anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine was touted by former President Donald Trump as a treatment for COVID-19 despite there being little sound scientific evidence to support such a claim, Ivermectin has become weaponized in a way to distract efforts from getting the unvaccinated vaccinated. This kind of misinformation costs lives — not only because humans should not be taking Ivermectin that is meant for animals, but also because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that it treats COVID-19.

“There’s no evidence that Ivermectin has a beneficial effect in treating COVID-19,” Adalja said. “Studies that are there are of poor quality, none of which really has an unequivocally positive result. One of the studies which was touted to provide the most evidence has been shown to be invalid study.”

Adalja was referring to Elgazzar’s study. Salon reached out to Elgazzar twice and did not receive a comment prior to publication.

Imran Ahmed, CEO of Center for Countering Digital Hate, said that promoting the idea that treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine can treat COVID-19 fall into one of three categories of misinformation promoted by anti-vaccine influencers. The three misinformation categories, Ahmed said, include “COVID isn’t dangerous,” “vaccines are dangerous,” and the idea that you “can’t trust doctors.”

“This is all part of the spreading of the idea that vaccines might not be the safest way of dealing with this,” Ahmed said.[It’s part of] ‘the government’s trying to kill you with a vaccine,’ and blah, blah. It’s an extremist narrative.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a warning against its use with the exception of clinical trials.

“The current evidence on the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive,” WHO stated in March 2021. “Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.”

As Nature has reported, there are risks to people taking the unchecked drug to treat COVID-19. Not only has it been linked to convulsions, lethargy and disorientation; it can impede researchers’ ability to conduct clinical trials. 

Alejandro Krolewiecki, an infectious-disease physician at the National University of Salta in Orán, Argentina, told Nature that the more people take it, especially in Latin America countries, “the more difficult it will be to collect the evidence that regulatory agencies need, that we would like to have, and that will get us closer to identifying the real role of this drug.”

Texas Democrats win lawsuit against Gov. Abbott

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Twenty-two Texas House Democrats sued some of the state’s top Republican leaders in federal court in Austin late Friday, alleging that GOP officials’ efforts to bring them home for a special legislative session infringed on their constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The lawsuit was filed on the final day of the first special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott — and on the eve of a second specially called legislative session — and names as defendants Abbott, House Speaker Dade Phelan and State Rep. James White.

Abbott has called for the arrest of the more than 50 House Democrats who fled the state last month for Washington, D.C., to block the passage of an elections bill they said would restrict voting rights in the state. Their departure left the House without a quorum, the number of present members needed to pass bills, stalling the chamber’s operations. Phelan put the chamber under a “call” in an effort to regain quorum and signed a civil warrant for state Rep. Philip Cortez, D-San Antonio, after he returned to the Texas House only to depart for the nation’s capital again a few days later.

It’s unclear why White was listed as a defendant. White said Friday night he did not know he’d been sued or why he was named as a defendant. The lawsuit also did not use Phelan’s legal name, which is Matthew McDade Phelan.

Abbott and Phelan did not immediately have a statement on the lawsuit.

The Democrats’ attorney, Craig Anthony Washington, is a former Democratic lawmaker who is practicing law under a probationally suspended license, according to the State Bar of Texas.

The lawsuit alleges that some Democrats are being targeted because of their race and skin color, but then provides no evidence.

It also claims the three Republican lawmakers acted together under the “color of law” to cause the harm alleged in the suit, but then points no specific harmful actions other than “public statements.” The lawsuit also says some individual plaintiffs experienced “retaliatory attacks, threats and attempts at coercion relating to the exercise of their First Amendment rights” but again does not provide specifics.

The plaintiffs listed in the case are state Reps. Senfronia ThompsonTrey Martinez FischerGene WuVikki GoodwinRon ReynoldsEddie RodriguezJon RosenthalJasmine CrockettMary Ann Perez, Alma AllenChristina MoralesNicole CollierCelia IsraelAna-Maria RamosBarbara Gervin-HawkinsTerry MezaDonna HowardJarvis JohnsonRay LopezShawn ThierryElizabeth Campos and Gina Hinojosa.

But Saturday morning, Thierry issued a statement saying she had not asked to have the suit filed in her name.

“I did not request, review or authorize the filing,” she said.

Collier issued a similar statement about an hour later.

Washington declined comment.

The lawsuit alleges that the three Republican lawmakers have attempted “by public statements and otherwise, to attempt to deny, coerce, threaten, intimidate, and prevent” the Democrats and their constituents from voting in all elections, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, speaking publicly about their constitutional rights, exercising their right of association and their right to not being arrested without probable cause. The Democrats allege that in acting together, the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Because of the defendants’ actions, the complaint alleges, the plaintiffs have been “deprived of liberty for substantial periods of time, suffered much anxiety and distress over separation from their families, and much discomfort and embarrassment.” They also have suffered damages to their reputations and have had to spend time traveling to Washington to lobby Congress to pass laws that would protect voting rights.

The complaint then claims $5 in actual damages and $10 in punitive damages.

Disclosure: The State Bar of Texas has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Twitter comes for Melania Trump on anniversary of her destruction of the White House Rose Garden

After more than a year, former First Lady Melania Trump has become aware of the criticism surrounding her changes to Jackie Kennedy’s famous design of the White House Rose Garden.

Because the Trumps wanted to use the White House for the Republican National Convention in 2020, they made significant changes to the legendary Rose Garden. At the time of the change, presidential historian Michael Bechloss insulted Melania Trump’s work by posting some of the photos of the garden throughout the years. Upon the anniversary of the project, Bechloss posted another photo showing the rows of simplistic box hedges and low-profile shrubbery.

“[Beschloss] has proven his ignorance by showing a picture of the Rose Garden in its infancy,” the Twitter account linked to the “Office of Melania Trump” said on Sunday. The account shared a photo that some said was taken from a vantage point that neglected to show how the cherry blossom and crab apple trees were removed.

As some noted, it is as if it was replaced with simplified knockout roses and a tangled mess of randomized plants that might work in The Hamptons, but demand a higher level of sophistication for the White House. Unfortunately, after all of Melania Trump’s work, it was already in need of repairs.

Some said it would take years to repair the damage Mrs. Trump did, particularly with the mature trees.

Thousands of patients were implanted with heart pumps that the FDA knew could be dangerous

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball-sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died two days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they mostly rely on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to healthcare providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient-focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, the director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make CEO Geoffrey Martha or president of mechanical heart support Nnamdi Njoku available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued, “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will also provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will also offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.

Warning Signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped through the cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”

“Run Its Course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

How parents can help kids deal with back-to-school anxiety

As a child, I had a great deal of anxiety. If you’ve ever seen me speak in public, that might surprise you. But anxiety among children is extremely common and affects almost all children, to varying degrees.

During pre-pandemic times, researchers noted that as many as 7% of children had a diagnosable anxiety disorder that disrupted their everyday functioning. In addition, 20% had a tendency to feel anxious that didn’t rise to the level of a clinical disorder. And all children feel anxious at some time or another.

As a researcher who’s studied children’s mental health for decades, I know that predictability helps prevent anxiety in children. Predictability means things going along as they’ve always gone: sleep at night, up in the morning, cornflakes for breakfast, off to school, activities in the afternoon, dinner with the family. In Louise Fitzhugh’s children’s novel “Harriet the Spy,” Harriet’s mother can’t believe that her daughter always takes a tomato sandwich to school. Always. Harriet has no interest in variety. She’s perfectly happy with the same sandwich, year after year.

Given children’s fondness for sameness and predictability, it should be no surprise that a global pandemic that halted school as kids know it, slammed the brakes on seeing friends, stopped extracurricular activities and banished all but immediate family members would have a profound impact on children’s anxiety.

A to-be-published study I conducted on 238 teens between January and May 2021 at the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center found that an astonishing 64% reported increased anxiety over the course of the pandemic. Even back in the spring of 2020, researchers were finding increased levels of anxiety among children in China. Similarly, a large-scale survey by the nonprofit Save the Children found significant increases in negative emotions including anxiety, in 48 countries around the globe.

To whatever extent the delta variant affects in-person instruction in the fall of 2021, back-to-school this year will be different from pre-pandemic years. Anxiety may be a challenge for many more children than usual, and it can be intertwined with other feelings, such as excitement and shyness.

Here are steps parents can take to help reduce their kids’ back-to-school anxiety and encourage a better start to the fall term.

1. Look for general symptoms of anxiety

Ask your kids how they’re feeling about going back to school, and keep an eye out for headaches, stomachaches, sleeping troubles, persistent “what if” questions, crankiness, excessive concern about very distant events, problems focusing on schoolwork and persistent concerns that aren’t alleviated by logical explanations. An example of this might be worrying that there has been no progress in fighting the pandemic, despite widespread information about the development of effective vaccines and better treatments.

What’s tricky, of course, is that any of these can potentially be an indication of many different problems, so take a second step. Talking to your kids about their thoughts may help you unravel whether they’re feeling anxious.

2. Encourage activities that reduce anxiety

Playing outside, playing with friends or even just “hanging out” can be powerful ways to reduce negative feelings. Outdoors, people often feel more relaxed – the antithesis of anxiety. Playing in an unstructured way – that is, without someone else telling them what or how to play – allows kids to work through their feelings successfully and reduce anxiety.

3. Help your kids understand the pandemic

Look for books and activities that can educate kids about the pandemic and post-pandemic life to help them feel like they understand what is happening around them. Children may not understand what a vaccine is, for example, and how it can protect against disease. People who know more about cataclysmic events or relevant facts typically feel less helpless, and children are no exception. There are several age-appropriate books that use pictures and humor to explain to kids what is happening.

4. Focus on family activities

The emotional connection that children have with their families is their psychological anchor during difficult times. At a time when so much of everyday life has changed, spending time with family can be an antidote for uncertainty. Take a walk or a hike together, eat dinner together, play board games.

5. Embrace distraction

Distraction isn’t a cure for anxiety, but it can diminish its intensity and help sufferers think more clearly about the source of their worries. When children are feeling very anxious, it’s fine to talk to them about how watching an engaging program, or reading a funny book, can help them feel calmer.

6. Get professional help when needed

If your child’s anxiety is interfering with sleep, eating, socializing or school attendance, and it persists beyond a few days, it’s a good idea to call your pediatrician or family doctor and report what’s going on. Medical professionals who work with children are seeing anxiety skyrocket among kids, and they know how to get your child the necessary help.

As with any back-to-school season, you may find yourself shopping for binders and backpacks. This year in particular, though, children and their anxiety may need more of a focus. Practicing simple prevention and intervening when necessary can get your kids off to a great school year.

Katharine Covino contributed to this article.

Elizabeth Englander, Professor of Psychology, Bridgewater State University

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

“Code red for humanity”: Most dire climate report in history poised to be ignored

A United Nations-backed panel of climate experts issued its starkest warning yet in a report on Monday detailing irreversible climate change caused by human activity but expressed hope that there is still time to prevent its most devastating effects.

Temperatures rose more in the last 50 years than they have in the previous 2,000 years, according to the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report since 2013. The global temperature is expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius, a longtime scientific benchmark, as early as 2030 — as much as a decade earlier than previously thought.

Without swift global action, the temperature is expected to continue to rise far higher by the end of the century. Rare extreme weather events will be more commonplace and may irreversibly alter climate systems. Part of the Atlantic Ice Sheet is expected to collapse. The rate of ocean rise has doubled since 2006 and could rise by seven feet by 2100 and even a 16-foot rise by 2150 “cannot be ruled out,” the scientists said.

“We can expect a significant jump in extreme weather over the next 20 to 30 years,” Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds and one of the report authors, told The New York Times. “Things are unfortunately likely to get worse than they are today.”

It’s the “strongest statement the IPCC has ever made,” Ko Barrett, the panel’s vice-chair and an advisor at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told reporters on Monday.

The report, which was compiled by 234 scientists based on more than 14,000 studies and approved by 195 governments, said that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and land clearing, was “unequivocally” the cause of such rapid climate changes.

Republicans, however, have long opposed legislation to rein in CO2 emissions, arguing that they would economically hurt the oil and gas industry, whose firms often donate millions to their campaigns. Former President Donald Trump mocked climate change as a Chinese “hoax.” More than 130 Republican members of Congress have expressed skepticism about humans’ role in the escalating crisis. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., suggested last month that climate change was “bullshit.” And a recent Gallup poll found that just 32% of Republicans believe that global temperature rise is the result of human activity, down from more than half two decades earlier.

But the IPCC report said that though humans’ influence on climate change was once a scientific hypothesis it is now “established fact” and the evidence is “overwhelming.”

Recent extreme weather across the United States and the world shows that the problem can no longer be dismissed as hypothetical. Many deadly temperature extremes, like the record-breaking heat that hundreds in the Pacific Northwest and Canada this summer, “would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system,” the report said.

“It’s now become actually quite obvious to people what is happening, because we see it with our own eyes,” Corinne Le Quéré, a professor of climate science at the University of East Anglia and one of the report authors, told The Washington Post. “You don’t have to have a PhD. You don’t need to be a climate scientist. You just need to be a person who looks out the window.”

Such extreme weather conditions will become more frequent. A heatwave that occurred once every 50 years now occurs every 10 years, the panel said. If the global temperature rises by 1.5 degrees, these heatwaves will occur every five years and be even hotter, the panel said. If the temperature increases by 4 degrees by the end of the century, these heatwaves will become annual.

Studies also show that a 1.5-degree global temperature increase will lead to water shortages caused by severe droughts, increase the frequency and severity of hurricanes and cause certain animal and fish species to become extinct.

For the majority of people who have trusted decades of climate science, the report “contains no real surprises,” tweeted activist Greta Thunberg, who has been repeatedly attacked by Republicans for sounding the alarm on climate change. “It confirms what we already know from thousands previous studies and reports – that we are in an emergency… We can still avoid the worst consequences, but not if we continue like today, and not without treating the crisis like a crisis.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres echoed that sentiment, calling the report a “code red for humanity.”

“We must act decisively now to keep 1.5 alive,” he said, calling for the findings to “sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

The panel modeled different outcomes based on potential action or inaction taken by governments. Even its best-case scenario predicts that the global temperature will increase by more than 1.5 degrees, at least temporarily. By the end of the century, the temperature rise will likely range between 1.4 degrees and 4.4 degrees, though it could increase as much as 5.7 degrees.

“Today, I, and so many other young people, wake up enraged — the IPCC report is apocalyptic, catastrophic, and nothing we haven’t been screaming from the rooftops for years,” Varshini Prakash, the executive director of the Sunrise Movement, said in a statement. “Our politicians shouldn’t need a report to tell them how bad things are. We’re already living it.”

The report shows that much of the carbon emissions that have caused the temperature increase have come from burning fossil fuels. Only reducing emissions to net zero and ultimately net negative values by replanting trees and using carbon capture technology could prevent global temperatures from continuing to rise.

“The IPCC report underscores the overwhelming urgency of this moment. The world must come together before the ability to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is out of reach,” special climate envoy John Kerry said in a statement. “As the IPCC makes plain, the impacts of the climate crisis, from extreme heat to wildfires to intense rainfall and flooding, will only continue to intensify unless we choose another course for ourselves and generations to come.”

While Republicans have long downplayed the human role in climate change, conservative parties around the world have been far quicker to acknowledge reality.

“Today’s report makes for sobering reading, and it is clear that the next decade is going to be pivotal to securing the future of our planet,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement. “We know what must be done to limit global warming – consign coal to history and shift to clean energy sources, protect nature and provide climate finance for countries on the frontline.”

While the report largely echoed climate scientists’ findings in recent years, the tone of the report marked a significant departure from the last report in 2013, which described a 1.5-degree rise as a far-off possibility. The new report painted a more dire picture, describing the last decade as the hottest in 125,000 years and warning that glaciers are melting at a rate “unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years.” Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are the highest they’ve been in 2 million years.

The report comes just months before the major COP26 climate conference in Scotland after the previous report served as a basis for negotiations ahead of the Paris climate accord. Scientists estimate that existing policies will put the world on track for a 3-degree rise by the end of the century, highlighting the fact that most of the biggest economies in the world are still not on track to meet the temperature targets set out in the deal.

“I think a key message here is that it is still possible to forestall most of the most dire impacts, but it really requires unprecedented, transformational change,” Barrett, the panel’s vice-chair, told NPR. “But the idea that there still is a pathway forward I think is a point that should give us some hope.”

President Joe Biden earlier this year laid out a plan to reduce emissions to net-zero by 2050 but the administration acknowledged that even that might not be enough.

“The target that the Biden-Harris administration articulated earlier this year is the most ambitious ever in U.S. history,” Jane Lubchenco, the deputy director for climate and environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, told NPR. “This report is telling us we need to be ambitious. We probably need to be even more so.”

Senate Democrats on Monday introduced a $3.5 trillion budget bill that includes billions to boost clean energy, create a Civilian Climate Corps, and impose new polluter fees on methane and carbon imports, among other measures. The bipartisan infrastructure bill that was advanced by the Senate over the weekend also includes billions to expand electric vehicle charging stations.

“We cannot afford to squander this once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver historic investments in clean energy, good-paying jobs, and environmental justice,” said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., who chairs the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

“If Senators truly followed the science in this report, we’d have 100 votes for climate action to match the 100 percent certainty that human-caused climate change is destroying our planet,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who chairs a Senate subcommittee on the climate. “This report must be the final warning to the world that time has run out to save the planet from dangerous and irreversible climate change.”

Of course Cuomo’s top cover-up artist was a woman — sexists have long hid behind complicit women

After the show “The Handmaid’s Tale” debuted, the term “Aunt Lydia” — to describe women who conspire to uphold sexist systems for personal gain — entered the American lexicon, and none too soon. Aunt Lydias have always been with us, of course. They believe it’s unlikely that they’ll ever see true equality for women in their lifetimes. So rather than fight for a better tomorrow for others, they decide there’s a lot to be gained, personally, from complicity. But explaining this complex reality in soundbite-driven American political discourse is always a slog, making “it can’t be sexist even if women support it” a disturbingly effective, if incredibly dumb, gambit. It is why sexist men have long employed Aunt Lydias, willing to give a select few women a minor taste of power, so long as they work to keep other women in their place. 

The shorthand “Aunt Lydia” was useful to illustrate situations like Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine defending Justice Brett Kavanaugh after accusations of sexual assault, or explain why the anti-choice movement has so many women in it. But for those of us who loved the book long before Ann Dowd’s indelible performance as Lydia on the otherwise flawed TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” the icon of female complicity will always be Serena Joy. In Margaret Atwood’s hands, the character is a darkly funny satire of Phyllis Schlafly, the clever and ambitious far-right activist who, in the 70s, realized her only real pathway to power was to become the nation’s most prominent anti-feminist. Serena in the novel is Atwood’s revenge fantasy on Schlafly. Serena, like Schlafly, rose to power and fame by promoting patriarchy, and her punishment is living in the world she fought so hard to create, where she is shut up in the house, bored and angry, while her husband sleeps with enslaved sex workers.

Her story is also a warning to complicit women: Sexist men will let you have a small amount of power, as long as you cape for an unjust system. But the moment they don’t have use for you anymore, you’ll get a nasty reminder that they see you like they see all women: as second class. (Schlafly got her own taste of this. Her army of anti-feminist housewives elected Ronald Reagan as president, and she was thanked for her hard work by being laughed out of her request for a position in the administration.) 


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


All of which is a long way to say that it really should be no surprise that the first head to roll in the sexual harassment scandal in the governor’s office of New York does not belong to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the man who is facing an attorney general’s report documenting 11 women accusing him of abuses. Cuomo is digging in, determined to survive this through gaslighting and sheer belligerence. Instead, the big resignation news on Monday morning is that of his top aide, Melissa DeRosa, who put out a statement saying “the past two years have been emotionally and mentally trying.” 

To be clear, DeRosa had it coming. Her name is all over the investigation report released by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James. “DeRosa is mentioned by name 187 times — as much as Cuomo,” Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post writes, “She is portrayed as a constant force, taking part in an alleged effort to discredit one of his accusers, lining up women and elected officials to defend him and even confronting and chastising the governor about his behavior at one point.”

DeRosa is described as going particularly hard after Lindsey Boylan, who was the first woman to accuse Cuomo publicly. DeRosa reportedly demanded Boylan’s “full file,” with the apparent intent to use the information within to discredit her. DeRosa is also accused of pressuring unrelated government officials to defend Cuomo, spying on other government employees, and trying to kill a story about Cuomo changing promotion rules for state troopers so he could have a specific woman as his bodyguard. That trooper has now accused him of harassment. 

It’s quickly becoming clear how much Cuomo believes he can use women — and feminist politics — as a shield to hide his own predatory behavior. In his grotesque response to the attorney general report, Cuomo repeatedly leaned on his supposed feminist bona fides, bragging about “all the progress we had made in fighting sexual assault” in his office, highlighting how he brought “in an expert to design a new sexual harassment policy and procedures,” and feigning umbrage over female managers being held to a “double standard” of being “maligned and villainized for working long hours or holding people accountable or for being tough.”


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


Using a woman to do his dirty work is just more of the same. It’s not about a sincere commitment to advancing women’s careers or men like Cuomo wouldn’t be asking their female underlings to do such terrible things to other women in the first place. It’s about using women as props, someone to point to as a “I’m no sexist” defense when the truth finally comes out. Media mogul Harvey Weinstein employed the same tricks, publicly supporting women from Meryl Streep to Hillary Clinton, while secretly abusing countless women in private. Donald Trump does it, too, hiding behind female spokespersons like Kellyanne Conway and Kayleigh McEnany, to muddy the waters around his own long history of sexual predation. 

Indeed, DeRosa is far from the only woman who Cuomo used in this way. Roberta Kaplan, the chairwoman of the anti-sexual harassment group Time’s Up, got involved in Cuomo’s defense when the governor leaned on her for advice on how to respond to the allegations. It’s a reminder of how complicit women can often tell themselves a story about how it’s for the greater good, that the power they are cultivating by siding up to bad men can somehow be used to fight the bigger fight. But Kaplan is also finding out the price, as she too resigned Monday morning — even as Cuomo continues to cling to power. 

Women play along with sexist men all too often, because doing so means power. Like Aunt Lydia, they long ago accepted they’ll never have male status, but they figure they can achieve some measure of power by being complicit with a sexist system. But DeRosa’s situation is a reminder that the power gained from complicity is tenuous and dependent on how much value you offer to men who need women to take fire for them. Once that’s gone, complicit women all too often find that power stripped away. They were never respected, not really, any more than the other women they worked so hard to oppress. 

MAGA civil war: Why Trumpworld is suddenly lashing out at Fox News and Dan Bongino

A MAGA civil war, of sorts, is starting to bubble up.

On Sunday, Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington accused Fox News and host Dan Bongino of censorship after the Trump aide discovered that a Saturday evening interview posted to the network’s YouTube channel was edited to exclude a part in which Trump calls the 2020 election “fake.” 

“It’s a disgrace what’s happening, and I don’t think the country’s gonna stand for much longer; they are disgusted. You have a fake election; you have an election with voter abuse and voter fraud like nobody’s ever seen before, and based on that, and based on what happened, they are destroying our country, whether it’s at the border, whether it’s on crime, and plenty of instances, including military,” Trump said in a part which was cut out from the segment before Fox News uploaded the interview to YouTube.

After the “jump edit” was discovered by Harrington, a former Free Beacon writer and Steve Bannon associate, she ripped into not only Fox News but the stanch pro-Trump pundit, known for creating a right-wing mini-media empire. “WOW. So I went to post a clip from President Trump’s great interview from Fox News last night, and lo and behold, Fox News EDITED and CHANGED what President Trump said, censoring out 45 accurately describing the Fake Election,” the former Republican National Committee spokeswoman tweeted. “Fox News DELETED President Trump’s words,” she added. 

In a now-deleted tweet, Harrington took an additional swing at Bongino, stating, “They are putting President Trump’s honest statement, and the concerns of tens of millions of Americans, down the Memory Hole. I guess it’s FILTERED, after all, Dan Bongino,” referring to the Fox host’s show name, which features the phrase “unfiltered.”  

Shortly after Harrington took swipes, the Fox News host responded by heading to war with the spokesperson with a quote from the Batman movie, The Dark Knight. “If you can’t tell the difference between your allies, and your enemies, then maybe you shouldn’t step on the battlefield,” Bongino declared on Parler. “Alfred was right that some people ‘just want to watch the world burn.'”

But the drama didn’t end with the two sparing, fellow TrumpWorld figures, including former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis and conservative radio host Todd Starnes, jumped into the fold. 

“Idiots. Fox should issue a public apology to Dan and Trump,” Ellis tweeted. Starnes took a swing at Bongino a different way: “Hey Liz Harrington – the president is more than welcome to come on my national radio show. We don’t tolerate censorship on our program.” 

Once steadfast supporters of Bongino on Parler, a platform he claims to be an investor in, also expressed frustration regarding the Fox News host’s role in the “censorship” of Trump. 

“It’s really very simple, Dan: If you stay with Fox after they’ve committed this fraud, then you’re fraudulent yourself,” one Parler user wrote. Another added: “Dan will not go against faux news [Fox News]. He is like the rest of them. A paycheck is all he is after, [the] country last.”

“Your move to Fox [News] let me know what battlefield you entered! I think your ‘truth’ will show itself one day just as everyone else’s has. All about the $$$$,” a different user with a profile picture of a bald eagle stated. 

The right-wing website, The Gateway Pundit, summed up the incident as “truly a new low from FOX News,” adding that “on ‘Unfiltered’ no less!”

Bongino and a Fox News spokesperson didn’t return Salon’s request for comment on this story.  

Following publication, Bongino addressed the growing controversy Monday morning on his daily podcast. “I should have checked it; I didn’t,” Bongino told his listeners. “I was only made aware of it after Liz’s tweet. That was my only objection to Liz [Harrington] as well.”

“It was edited. The reason I was given was to comply with YouTube rules. We have no intention of doing that on my show,” he continued. “I don’t control the Fox News YouTube account. However, I do work with them, and it’s my show.”

Bongino stated he is working with Fox News to find a “definitive resolution” to the issue. 

The Fox News host added that many of his supporters called him a “traitor to the movement” and a “sellout” stemming from the YouTube edit debacle.

This post has been updated.  

The GOP’s death cult comes for the children

There is little doubt that the pandemic has exacerbated the fears parents have about their children’s well-being. The typical parental anxiety now comes with worries about the latest delta variant of COVID-19 —which appears to spread more easily in children than the initial coronavirus outbreak — questions on whether their children are going to have to wear masks when they go back to school, and anticipation for a yet-to-be approved vaccine for children under 12

Over a year ago, Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir described the mad scramble to reopen schools without a vaccine or coherent safety standards as “a ‘Deer Hunter’-style game of Russian roulette, played blindfolded under conditions of complete chaos.” One year later, Donald Trump is out of the White House but Republican and Democratic executives alike are all rushing to reopen schools — even as children under 12 are still not cleared to be inoculated despite an 84% jump in the number of children contracting COVID-19 last week alone. 

On Thursday, the U.S. set a single-day record for the number of children admitted to a hospital with COVID-19, with 261 children, some less than 1 year old, admitted to U.S. hospitals according to updated HHS figures. Anecdotally, Patricia Darnauer, the administrator for LBJ Hospital in Houston, noted that an 11-month-old girl had to be airlifted more than 170 miles away on Thursday because no pediatric hospitals would accept her. “We looked at all five major pediatric hospital groups and none [had beds] available.” As of Sunday, there were only six ICU beds left in the 11-county Austin region. 

Pediatric doctors in Texas have taken to Twitter to vent their concerns about rising cases of COVID in very young children. Dr. Heather Haq, a pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said she and her colleagues have been called on to work mandatory overtime shifts because the hospital also has “winter-level patient volumes of acutely ill infants/toddlers with” respiratory syncytial virus (RSV.)

“We’re heading into dark times,” Texas Medical Center CEO Bill McKeon said last week. 

“If children are not masking in schools, it will be a major problem,” Dr. Christina Propst told Houston’s KTRK in a plea for mask mandates. Recently, Texas overtook New York in terms of total statewide deaths. But Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has banned such mandated precautions — even though we’ve already seen big camp and daycare outbreaks all summer with the delta variant. And inoculations are severely lagging among teenagers for whom the vaccine is available. 

“No governmental entity can compel any individual to receive a Covid-19 vaccine administered under an emergency use authorization,” Abbott said in an executive order. “No person may be required by any jurisdiction to wear or to mandate the wearing of a face covering.”

The Texas Education Agency said last week that schools don’t have to inform parents of positive cases or conduct contact tracing; parents can choose to send a student to school if he or she has been in close contact with a COVID positive case. The agency argued that such precautions will not be required because of “the data from 2020-21 showing very low COVID-19 transmission rates in a classroom setting and data demonstrating lower transmission rates among children than adults.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone — students, teachers, staff and visitors — wear masks in schools. But Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, blasted the CDC guidance as “inconsistent” and “unscientific” before banning their required use indoors. Florida currently leads the nation in kids hospitalized for COVID-19, with 32 pediatric hospitalizations per day between July 24 and 30 (a rate of 0.76 children hospitalized per 100,000 residents), CDC data shared with The Tampa Bay-Times shows.

“Why would we have the government force masks on our kids when many of these kids are already immune through prior infection,” DeSantis, notably not an immunologist, questioned just as the Sunshine State broke a COVID record, reporting more than 21,000 new cases in residents under 19 years old. He has threatened to withhold funding from districts that require masks. As the New York Times reported over the weekend:

Mr. DeSantis has been unyielding in his approach to the pandemic, refusing to change course or impose restrictions despite uncontrolled spread and spiking hospitalizations — an approach that forced him to undertake the biggest risk of his rising political career.

DeSantis’ bigfooting on mask mandates is now even being called out by other Republicans. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., conceded on CNN Sunday, “I do disagree with Gov. DeSantis. The local officials should have control here.”

It’s hard to watch the actions of Republican executives like Abbott and DeSantis in recent weeks and not conclude that the GOP’s death cult has worked its way down to the children. After all, the Republican response to the coronavirus has been, in every facet, a method of leveraging, not solving, the pandemic. The delta variant — more aggressively spread in children — looks to be no different. 

In Florida, the state school board backed DeSantis while using the pandemic to prop up charter schools with taxpayer funds, providing vouchers to students who face mask requirements. See the plan here? Schools become so unsafe and inhospitable that parents are forced to push their children into private schools. It’s a playbook as old as white flight from school desegregation under the guise of religious freedom. It’s why conservatives have spent the pandemic rehashing the culture wars on new fronts — so-called critical race theory in schools and trans students in sports — while preventing all of the measures that would have likely meant a much safer return to in-person learning this fall. Republicans are using children as political pawns again. This time it is most certainly a matter of life and death. 

Vaccine paranoia: Why right-wingers are worried about their “precious bodily fluids”

Conspiracy theories and anti-intellectualism have been distinguishing attributes of the American right since at least the 1950s. The Age of Trump and American neofascism has amplified those worst impulses and transformed them into virtues and sources of pride for members of the Trump-Republican cult.

A new public opinion poll from the Economist/YouGov offers additional proof of the mass derangement that is afflicting TrumpWorld and the MAGAverse. Roughly 30 percent of Republicans say they believe it is “definitely” or “probably” true that the government has put microchips in the COVID-19 vaccines.

But today’s conspiracy theories and related bad behavior in response to the pandemic and the new vaccines are part of a much older and deeper history. Jason Colavito is a professional skeptic, researcher and author whose essays have been featured at Slate and the New Republic. He has also offered expert commentary on the History Channel. His new book is The Legends of the Pyramids: Myths and Misconceptions about Ancient Egypt.”

In this conversation he explains how conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and vaccines can be traced back at least as far as the 1950s and Cold War-era fears of bodily pollution by Communism, as well as related anxieties about social change. Colavito also discusses the overlaps between coronavirus conspiracy theories and the QAnon worldview, whose obsession with “global elites” is a continuation of centuries-old antisemitic and racist tropes that now have more power because of the internet, social media and the right-wing echo chamber.

In this conversation Colavito also warns that facts and truth have little sway or influence over those deeply committed to conspiracy theories such as QAnon or who believe they are being tracked by microchips in coronavirus vaccines. Many such people, Colavito suggests, have suffered some type of psychological injury that has convinced them of their own self-importance, a narcissistic fantasy of living a life that “matters” in the grand narrative of history.

At the end of this conversation Colavito provides an update on the aftermath of the Pentagon’s new UFO report and its anti-climactic findings.

Millions of Americans apparently believe that COVID vaccines are part of some great conspiracy which involves being tracked by microchips. They believe the vaccines were not properly tested and are dangerous to use, that the vaccines will rewrite their DNA or that the vaccines and COVID itself are part of some “New World Order” plot. How much of this paranoia is new and how much of it has been around for much longer?

The specifics of this conspiracy theory are unique to the COVID vaccine, but the underlying ideas are old ones. It goes all the way back to the Book of Revelation and the mark of the beast. Many evangelical and conservative groups have applied that label to basically any technology or medicine that they do not like. This includes everything from barcodes to vaccines. Through that lens almost anything can be interpreted as the mark of the beast because it is something Satanic or in the case of the vaccine, some type of evil government conspiracy.

One of the attributes of these particular types of conspiracies is that old elements keep getting recycled in new ways. For example, there is the classic scene in the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” where the military general played by Sterling Hayden has locked himself in his office after starting what he hopes is going to be a nuclear war. He’s sitting there telling this British officer, played by Peter Sellers, that the Communists are trying to pollute Americans’ “precious bodily fluids.” That is the same type of thinking we are now seeing with the COVID vaccines and the conspiracies surrounding them.

These claims go back to the 1950s and 1960s with the John Birchers and their pseudo-science conspiracies about bodily purity and how the Communists are trying to infiltrate not just American culture and society, but also our very bodies to corrupt us from the inside out. Conspiracies about fluoride in the water are part of that imaginary as well. Ultimately, with these types of conspiracies it comes down to keeping out all of the hostile, foreign, unwanted theologies and beliefs that are somehow manifesting at a physical level.

There are the conspiracy theories. Popular culture in turn reflects these conspiracy theories. And then the people who believe in the conspiracy theories draw on popular culture as “proof” that the conspiracy theories are true. How do you make sense of that dynamic?

Because it is a feedback loop there really isn’t a clear beginning and a clear end. It’s almost like a merry-go-round that keeps going in a circle. But it is also a spiral that goes up and up and up. That is really the only direction it can go, because each new iteration of the conspiracy theory builds on pop culture. Popular culture then takes the current conspiracy theories and escalates them and then the cycle continues with new conspiracy theories.

The feedback loop is very hard to break, especially so in a culture such as America that is decentralized, and where there is no strong cultural authority who can impose a counter-narrative to break the cycle.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, for example, one of the reasons those “bodily fluids” conspiracies did not take hold of the culture as much was because the media was more centralized. There were relatively few outlets, compared to now, for sharing conspiracy theories. There were also gatekeepers who would say, “This is ridiculous. We’re not going to publish this, or if we do mention it, we’re going to say how ridiculous it is.” That limited the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories outside of the crank pamphlets and tracts and zines that promoted it to a small audience. There really wasn’t a platform for circulating conspiracy theories beyond that subculture.

But today, there aren’t the gatekeepers that there used to be. So even if, say, NBC or The New York Times says that they’re not going to give credence to some conspiracy theory or aren’t going to cover it, you still have 101 different methods for getting it out there. And once it starts getting shared across social media, there just isn’t any method for saying, “No, this is ridiculous,” and shoving it out of the cultural conversation.

Now the very act of people talking about something, however ridiculous, justifies other media making the decision to talk about it too.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms as well as news outlets are putting disclaimers on, or event outright banning, disinformation and lies about the coronavirus and other subjects. In the minds of the conspiracy theorists, aren’t these bans and warnings just more proof that their claims are real? 

It certainly can work that way. We see that across a wide range of conspiracy beliefs, and not just vaccines, but also election conspiracies, UFO conspiracies, even things like psychic powers and ghosts. Whenever you have authority figures saying no — to a certain type of believer, the very fact that somebody is saying, “No, it isn’t true,” becomes proof that you’re onto something and there is some kind of vast conspiracy standing behind it all. When media outlets and the like declare something to be a lie or disinformation, the narrative among conspiracists is that no government entity or other powerful outlet would issue those denials unless they were afraid that there was some truth that they don’t want you to know.

What is the relationship between the serious conspiracists and popular culture? Do they go to movies or watch TV shows, for example, and see fictional events as evidence for the conspiracy in the real world? What about their ability to engage in reality testing?

There are a significant number of high-profile people in those conspiracy communities who genuinely think they’re getting secret messages through movies, or that the plots of movies are controlled by higher powers in order to disclose hidden truths or confirm conspiratorial beliefs. Others in these communities believe that Hollywood is producing conspiracy or science fiction movies to prepare the public for further revelations about aliens or what have you.

It’s scary that the line between fact and fiction, for a great number of people in the conspiracy world, is very thin. It’s hard to have a rational conversation with somebody whose evidence is, “I saw it in a movie and it’s a secret conspiracy and the aliens are behind it all. And this is how I know it: Because they’re channeling it into my mind through subliminal messages in movies.”

It’s difficult to form a rational discourse with people who don’t share the same basis in reality or the rules of logic, reason and evidence. And it’s a really difficult thing for society as a whole when you have a growing number of people who are living in a sort of fantasy world where their ideology changes everything they see into evidence of a conspiracy.

When people in the conspiracy community and elsewhere talk about the vaccines as part of a “globalist plot” or as evidence for the “New World Order,” what are they really saying? What are the underlying beliefs?

In many cases, what they are doing is adapting old conspiracy theories — many of them antisemitic in origin — to fit a modern worldview. These conspiracy theories are helping the true believers to navigate, however imperfectly, a world where they are no longer the center of the narrative. A lot of what we’re seeing is deep distrust of a changing world. And so to make sense of it, they’re trying to hold onto the sort of mid-century sitcom fantasy of America that never really existed, but is the imagined America that they grew up with and that they had hoped to live in all their lives.

When members of these communities propose conspiracy theories about “the elites” or aliens or “the Jews” or some other secret group that is trying to destroy America and take over the world, it is really an attempt to cling to the way things were before the country experienced demographic and cultural change.

What is the role of the Internet and right-wing disinformation media such as Fox News in mainstreaming these conspiracy theories?

It basically becomes propaganda. What happens is that a person is exposed to the same message repeatedly across multiple outlets. Over time the conspiracy theories take on the veneer of truth. That’s the danger of having an entire media ecosystem that circulates and repeats the same bad ideas repeatedly. It reinforces lies, misinformation and bad ideas and makes it all seem true, just because so many people are talking about it and repeating it as though it were in fact true.

With the vaccine conspiracy theory and the lie that they are delivery systems for tracking microchips, how would believers respond to the following intervention: “You have a tracking device in your pocket already. It is called a cell phone.” Or here is another intervention: “Why would anyone want to track you? Why are you so important that the government would care about you?”

When you ask such people questions like that, you’re really puncturing the heart of the narrative, and that narrative is one that says you are important. You are a participant in a grand historical narrative. You are part of this world-historical event. If you take that away from them and say, “Well, maybe you’re not in the center of it, maybe you are just on the sidelines or a bystander,” then you are creating feelings of upset and anger. Most people want to believe that we are the heroes of our own story. We want to think that we are in the middle of the narrative and that our actions have meaning and consequence beyond ourselves.

Therefore, when people believe in conspiracy theories that put them in the middle of the action, where they are somehow important enough to be tracked, or important enough that someone is working to stop them from reaching their full potential, it is a way of reinforcing their own ego and self-importance. Many people who are deeply involved in conspiracy culture have professional, emotional,or social frustrations and are grasping for explanations about why they aren’t getting the things that they want out of life.

What has happened in the aftermath of the Pentagon UFO report?

There is not a lot of new information about UFOs per se. There is, however, a lot of new UFO programming that’s available. Netflix has a new UFO documentary series out right now. J.J. Abrams has a new UFO documentary series forthcoming on Showtime. We are witnessing the transformation of the UFO phenomenon from a scientific question into a money-making opportunity.

What about the prominent public advocates for the Pentagon UFO report? They had their few weeks or months of fame. What do they do next?

I wish I had good answer for it. Chris Mellon has put out a statement on his website basically begging for cash, demanding that the government fund UFO research, and making it plain that he is interested in making sure that he and his friends get in on it. Lou Elizondo is on the UFO circuit right now. In fact, he’s doing a UFO conference that’s selling $250 tickets. Many of the people who are begging Congress to appropriate money to hunt UFOs apparently subscribe to a trickle-down theory, where they believe that some of that money will end up in their pockets.

Guns, desperate migrants, and dangerous drugs: How the U.S. is fueling a Mexican crime wave

Even as Republican members of Congress accuse Joe Biden of failing to secure the nation’s southern border, Mexico is facing a growing problem of securing its northern border. Guns from America are pouring into Mexico, arming violent drug gangs.

Mexico has tried just about everything to stop the flow of firearms from the north – passing strict gun control laws, imposing stiff penalties on traffickers, and pleading with U.S. authorities to stop the trafficking – but nothing has worked. So now it’s doing what any litigious American would do: it’s suing. 

Mexico announced Wednesday it’s seeking at least $10 billion in compensation from America’s 11 major gun manufacturers for the havoc the guns have wrought south of the border. It alleges America’s gunmakers know their products are being trafficked to Mexico and are expressly marketing their weapons to Mexican criminal gangs – designing guns to be “easily modified to fire automatically” and be “readily transferable on the criminal market in Mexico.”

The deluge of firearms from the United States to Mexico – on average, more than 500 every day – is contributing to mayhem there. Killings have become a routine part of the Mexican drug trade. In Mexico’s recent midterm election campaign, 30 candidates were gunned down by criminal gangs. In 2019 alone, at least 17,000 homicides in Mexico were linked to trafficked weapons. 

Yet Mexico’s lawsuit is likely to face tough going in the United States, where the easy accessibility of guns is also wreaking havoc but where gun ownership is considered a constitutional right and gun purchases are skyrocketing.

In addition, American gunmakers have erected a fortress of legal protections. In 2005, the gun lobby got congressional Republicans to enact the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, banning most lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers for marketing and distributing their products. 

At a more basic level, American capitalism considers any market to be an opportunity to make a profit. After all, a buck is a buck (or, more precisely, 19.98 pesos, at today’s exchange rate). In America, buying and selling are hallmarks of freedom. For government to prohibit a sale is to intrude on the “free market.” For another government to bar its consumers from buying American goods is to violate “free trade.”


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


Alejandro Celorio, a legal advisor to Mexico’s foreign ministry, estimates the damage to the Mexican economy caused by trafficked guns to total 1.7% to 2% of Mexico’s gross domestic product. What’s left unsaid is that Mexico’s illicit drug business is also a boon to the Mexican economy, adding billions of dollars each year in foreign sales, mostly to American consumers eager to buy thousands of kilos of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl each year.

Freedom of contract, it’s called. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us. 

But this isn’t trade in goods. It’s trade in bads. There’s death on both sides.

The merchants of such death – American gunmakers like Glock, Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, Barrett, Century International Arms and Colt; Mexican producers of methamphetamines, heroin, and fentanyl; and the wholesalers and traffickers connecting buyers with sellers on both sides of the border – are making piles of money. Free market ideologues will argue that as long as everyone is getting what they want, these trades are efficient. Yet vast numbers of people are dying.

The Republicans who protect gun manufacturers and who are criticizing Joe Biden for failing to secure the southern border from migrants who are desperate to come to America should take note of this tragic irony. 

The flood of guns from America into Mexico is helping fuel much of the crime, violence, and corruption pushing thousands of Mexicans to seek a better life north of the border. 

It’s also enabling the flow of dangerous drugs from Mexico to America that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, many in states and congressional districts represented by those same Republicans. 

Guns, dangerous drugs, and desperate migrants are inextricably connected. The answer to solving one of these problems lies in responding to all three.

‘He broke the law’: Cuomo groping accuser speaks out for first time

An executive assistant to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo who last week filed a criminal complaint alleging he groped her came forward Sunday and publicly identified herself amid growing calls for the embattled Democrat’s impeachment or resignation.

Brittany Commisso—one of 11 women whose allegations against Cuomo were substantiated by a report released Tuesday by New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office—told “CBS This Morning” that “the governor needs to be held accountable.”

According to the 168-page attorney general’s report, which identifies Commisso as “Executive Assistant #1,” Cuomo “reached under her blouse and grabbed her breast” on one occasion in November 2020, “grabbed her butt” on “multiple occasions in 2019 and 2020,” and “put his hand on and rubbed and grabbed her butt” while taking a selfie on New Year’s Eve 2019.

“What he did to me was a crime,” Commisso said Sunday. “He broke the law.”

Commisso also said she endured a series of inappropriate actions that began with Cuomo’s “hugs and kisses on the cheek” but escalated as he “quickly turned his head and kissed me on the lips.”

The executive assistant said she did not speak up about her ordeal because she feared she would not be believed.

“I didn’t say anything this whole time,” she told CBS. “People don’t understand that this is the governor of the state of New York. There are troopers that are outside of the mansion and there are some mansion staff. Those troopers that are there, they are not there to protect me. They are there to protect him.”

“I felt as though if I did something to insult him, especially insult him in his own home, it wasn’t going to be him that was going to get fired or in trouble. It was going to be me,” she added. “And I felt as though if I said something that I know, who was going to believe me?”

Cuomo denies the allegations, saying last week: “I never touched anyone inappropriately or made inappropriate sexual advances. That’s just not who I am.”

Calls have grown for the impeachment of Cuomo, who is now in his third term as governor. On Tuesday, President Joe Biden added his voice to the chorus of calls for Cuomo’s resignation. Congressional leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calf.) and both of New York’s U.S. senators—Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D)—have also urged Cuomo to step down.

Trump spokesperson blasts Fox News for ‘censoring’ his latest interview

In a series of tweets on Sunday afternoon, Donald Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington lashed out at Fox News less than 24 hours after the president called into the conservative network to air out 17 minutes worth of his grievances.

Harrington — who took over her position after Jason Miller left to create the beleaguered new pro-Trump social media platform Gettr — accused Fox of censoring Trump’s comments while speaking with late-night personality Dan Bongino.

According to Harrington, whose main job is to post statements from Trump on Twitter to get around his banning by the platform, “WOW. So I went to post a clip from President Trump’s great interview on @dbongino last night, and lo and behold, Fox News EDITED and CHANGED what President Trump said, censoring out 45 accurately describing the Fake Election.”

After sharing multiple versions of the clip — edited and unedited — she wrote, “This is just as bad as Big Tech. They are putting President Trump’s honest statement, and the concerns of tens of millions of Americans, down the Memory Hole. I guess it’s FILTERED after all.”


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


A review of the clips on both YouTube and on FoxNews.com shows the YouTube clip was indeed edited — possibly out of fears by Fox that they might be banned for spreading election misinformation.

Regardless, you can see Harrington’s tweets below:

6 common misconceptions about flying

From the realities of autopilot to explaining what authority the TSA actually has, we’re here to dispel the myths about flying, adapted from an episode of Misconceptions on YouTube.

1. Misconception: a bullet hole can depressurize an airplane cabin

As anyone who’s watched a movie set on an airplane knows, a bad guy firing a gun inside the cabin means certain disaster. Just one bullet hole can depressurize the aircraft, causing it to plummet uncontrollably into the nearest mountain. But does that really make sense? Can one tiny hole in an airplane cabin really bring the whole thing down?

Not really. If someone actually fired a weapon in flight, the bullet would likely pierce the aluminum siding of the plane, but the air leak would be so minor that the aircraft’s pressurization system would easily be able to compensate for it. It is possible to shoot out a window, creating a much larger and potentially passenger-sucking problem. It’s also not outside the realm of possibility to hit the fuel tank, which could maybe, possibly, if a lot went wrong, cause an explosion. But for the most part, fatal bullet holes in planes are a Hollywood invention.

2. Misconception: we understand how flying actually works

Believe it or not, there’s no one simple explanation for how planes stay aloft. Scientists disagree on the principles behind the aerodynamic force known as lift. Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli had a go of it in 1738, well before planes were even a reality. The Bernoulli school asserts that air traveling across the top of a curved wing is faster than air traveling along the bottom, resulting in lower pressure and therefore lift. But Bernoulli’s theorem doesn’t explain why that higher velocity on top of the wing lowers pressure. It also doesn’t explain how people can fly upside-down, where the curved portion is at the bottom.

Newton’s third law of motion can also be applied, since it means an airplane stays up by pushing air down, but according to NASA (except in cases like Space Shuttle reentry with very high velocity and very low air densities), the predictions are “totally inaccurate.” Both theories were repurposed for flight much later. Scientists have only incomplete theories of lift and are still searching for a comprehensive answer.

3. Misconception: turbulence is cause for concern

When we travel in cars, we expect a smooth ride on carefully maintained highways. If there’s a bump in the road or we’re jostled, we start to worry about our car, our drink, and our pets. In the air and with turbulence, spilling our coffee is no longer the worst possible outcome. A few bumps and we might think we’ve run into a violent storm that will result in our last meal being a bag of peanuts.

As scary as turbulence might be, it’s normal. So normal, in fact, that pilots often know about it in advance, are trained to handle it, and are operating planes that are designed to withstand a tremendous amount of stress. There are a few different causes of turbulence, ranging from mountains to weather conditions to differences in wind speed. But even though the plane might feel like it’s plummeting or diving like Snoopy pretending to fight the Red Baron, it’s hardly moving—maybe 10 to 40 feet, which is less than the height of a Boeing 737. And it’s almost impossible for normal turbulence to cause a crash. So long as you obey the “fasten seat belt” sign, it’s also very unlikely to even cause any injuries. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, only four passengers and five crew members were seriously injured as a result of turbulence in 2018. With 778 million people traveling domestically that year, the odds are definitely in your favor.

Turbulence in the earlier days of commercial aviation was a different story. Because planes weren’t as well-constructed, rough air currents could be fatal. In 1966, a British Overseas Airways captain veered off-course near Tokyo so that his passengers could look at Mount Fuji. The 140mph winds near the mountain tore the tail fin apart, sending the plane down. But that was clear air turbulence, which is when two different air masses interact with each other even in clear skies. That kind of turbulence can’t be detected in advance by weather radar and might pose slightly more risk. But you’re still safe. Feeling like you’re on the inside of a cocktail shaker is perfectly normal.

4. Misconception: the plane flies itself

It’s true that today’s modern airplanes are marvels of design and engineering, making flying one of the safest forms of travel. In fact, the odds of perishing while flying are just 1 in 4.7 million. But it’s not accurate to say that these aluminum beasts are doing all the work while pilots nap or play cards in the cockpit.

The media has a habit of promoting the autopilot capabilities of newer airplanes, and many systems have become automated, with elements like navigation, altitude, speed, and engine power all able to be programmed to stick to preset operations. Think of it as airplane cruise control. But it’s still the job of the pilot to taxi, take off, land, and tell the plane how best to perform. One example offered by the popular website AskthePilot.com compared it to advances in medicine. While a physician might have more tools at their disposal, they still need to be around to treat patients. An airplane might have an automatic setting for climbing or descending, but it might also have seven different options for that automated task. Pilots need to know how best to use these systems. Autopilot still needs a pilot.

Planes are automated in the sense that pilots might not have to physically have their hands on the controls at all times, but we’re not going to have an empty cockpit anytime soon. Which brings us to another mistaken belief—that the second pair of hands, namely a co-pilot, is somehow a sidekick. Co-pilots are pilots. They have the same qualifications as the pilot. They just might be a rung or two down the seniority ladder. But they still might wind up flying the plane.

5. Misconception: oxygen masks deliver oxygen

In theory, those little plastic oxygen masks in the overhead compartment are there in the event the plane is depressurized and passengers need supplemental oxygen to avoid passing out from hypoxia, which is a lack of oxygen. That’s because, at 30,000 feet, each breath of air doesn’t have enough oxygen in it for humans to survive. So instead, airplanes pressurize the cabin to around 5000 to 8000 feet, which is why it’s bad if there’s a loss of pressure. Sometimes those masks do deliver oxygen from pressurized tanks, but others put out a kind of bespoke, custom oxygen.

The masks release chemicals like barium peroxide, sodium chlorate, and potassium chlorate. While those might sound like ingredients for your bathroom cleaner, barium peroxide is found in fireworks and sodium chlorate is a weed killer. So, worse than a bathroom cleaner. But, there’s absolutely nothing to be worried about from the masks. When burned, they actually produce breathable oxygen that will keep passengers from getting loopy. It can last for about 10 to 20 minutes, enough time for the pilot to figure out a solution for whatever has gone wrong. Usually, that means descending to an altitude comfortable for people. And those little bags attached to the masks? They’re not supposed to inflate. So don’t worry about that.

So what’s wrong with regular oxygen? It’s a safety issue. If canisters of oxygen were stored on board the aircraft, they’d add to the weight of the plane and could present a fire hazard. The chemical substitute is less hazardous, though it’s also flammable. That’s why it won’t deploy if there’s a fire on board the plane. And if there’s a fire on board the plane, you’ve got problems a mask isn’t going to fix.

6. Misconception: the TSA is law enforcement

They do have uniforms, they do have authority, and they can and will seize your bottled water, but Transportation Security Administration officers are not actually law enforcement, and they technically can’t arrest you for disobeying their orders.

TSA officers are government workers or private contractors who have a responsibility to ensure the safety of passengers and take steps during screening to minimize potential threats. They can’t arrest you. All they can do is call actual police, who could arrest you. You can also be prevented from boarding your flight for not complying with a TSA officer’s instructions.

As for those confiscated items—they don’t keep them. Contraband might wind up with third-party contractors, which supply individual states with inventory that can be resold. So if you have something that means a lot to you that got seized, you can check sites like Govdeals.com or a surplus center near the airport and hope you find it. You’ll have to pay for it again, but it’s better than nothing.