Below aging U.S. dams, a potential toxic calamity

On May 19, 2020, a group of engineers and emergency officials gathered at a fire station in Edenville, Michigan to decide what to do about the Edenville Dam, a 97-year-old hydroelectric structure about a mile upstream on the Tittabawassee River. Over the preceding two days, heavy rains had swelled the river, filling the reservoir to its brim and overwhelming the dam’s spillway. The group was just about to discuss next steps when the radios went off, recalled Roger Dufresne, Edenville Township’s longtime fire chief. “That’s when the dam broke.”

“Up at the dam, Edenville residents watched as a portion of the eastern embankment liquified. Muddy water gushed through the breach. Over the next few minutes, that water became a torrent, snapping trees and telephone poles as it rushed past town, nearly submerging entire houses further downstream.

About 10 miles and two hours later, the flood wave bowled into a second aging dam, damaging its spillway, overtopping, and then breaching the embankment.

Al Taylor, then chief of the hazardous waste section within the state’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, was following the situation closely as the surge swept 10 miles further downstream into the larger city of Midland, where it caused a Dow Chemical Company plant flanking the river to shut down, and threatened to mix with the plant’s containment ponds. Taylor, who retired at the end of January, worried that contamination from the ponds would spill into the river. But that was just the first of his concerns.

In prior decades, Dow had dumped dioxin-laden waste from the plant directly into the river, contaminating more than 50 miles of sediment downstream — through the Tittabawassee, the Saginaw River, and the Saginaw Bay — with carcinogenic material. The contamination was so severe that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stepped in, and since 2012, worked with Dow to map and cap the contaminated sediments. In designing the cleanup, engineers accounted for the river’s frequent flooding, Taylor knew, but nobody had planned for the specific impacts of flooding caused by a dam failure.

While the dramatic breach of the Edenville Dam captured national headlines, an Undark investigation has identified 81 other dams in 24 states, that, if they were to fail, could flood a major toxic waste site and potentially spread contaminated material into surrounding communities.

In interviews with dam safety, environmental, and emergency officials, Undark also found that, as in Michigan, the risks these dams pose to toxic waste sites are largely unrecognized by any agency, leaving communities across the country vulnerable to the same kind of low-probability, but high-consequence disaster that played out in Midland.

After the flooding subsided, Dow and state officials inspected the chemical plant’s containment ponds and found that, though one of the brine ponds containing contaminated sediment had been breached, there was no evidence of significant toxic release. Preliminary sediment samples taken downstream did not find any new contamination. The plant’s and the cleanup’s engineering, it seemed, had done its job.

“Dow has well-developed, comprehensive emergency preparedness plans in place at our sites around the world,” Kyle Bandlow, Dow’s corporate media relations director, wrote in an email to Undark. “The breadth and depth of these plans — and our ability to quickly mobilize them –– enabled the safety of our colleagues and our community during this historic flood event.”

But things could have gone differently — if not in Midland, then somewhere else with a toxic waste site downstream of an aging dam less prepared for a flood. “As a lesson learned from this,” Taylor said, “we need to be aware of that possibility.”

* * *

In the United States, there are more than 90,000 dams providing flood control, power generation, water supplies, and other critical services, according to the National Inventory of Dams database maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which includes both behemoths like the Hoover Dam and small dams holding back irrigation ponds. Structural and safety oversight of these dams falls under a loose and, critics say, inadequate patchwork of state and federal remit.

A 2019 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the nonpartisan research arm of the U.S. Congress, found roughly 3 percent of the nation’s dams are federally owned, including some of the country’s largest, with the rest owned and operated by public utilities, state and local governments, and private owners. The report estimated that half of all dams were over 50 years old, including many that were built to now obsolete safety standards. About 15 percent of dams in the Army Corps database lacked data on when they were built.

In addition to information on age and design, the Army Corps database includes a “hazard potential” used to describe the possible impact of a dam failure to life and property. In 2019, roughly 17 percent, or 15,629 dams, had a high hazard potential rating, indicating that a loss of human life was likely in the event of a dam failure. The number of high-hazard dams has increased in recent years due to new downstream development.

According to the CRS report, more than 2,300 dams in the database were both high-hazard and in “poor” or “unsatisfactory” condition during their most recent inspection. Due to security concerns that arose after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the report did not name these dams, though an investigation by The Associated Press in 2019 identified nearly 1,700 of them.

For all that is known about America’s aging dam infrastructure, however, little information exists about the particular hazards dams pose to toxic waste sites downstream. This is why regulators knew about problems with the Edenville Dam and knew about the Dow cleanup, but had not connected the dots.

To identify dams that might pose the most serious risk to toxic waste sites, Undark searched for dams in the national database that are both high-hazard and older than 50 years, the age after which many dams require renovations. To narrow our search, we selected dams that sit 6 or fewer miles away from and appear in satellite images to be upstream of an EPA-listed toxic waste site. Experts say that many dams would flood much farther than 6 miles.

We then filed requests under state and federal freedom of information laws with various agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, seeking dam inspection reports and the Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that dam owners are typically required to prepare and maintain. Among other things, these plans usually include inundation maps, which model the area that would likely be flooded in a dam failure scenario.

The inputs for these models vary by state, and while some inundation maps were highly sophisticated, involving contingencies for weather and other variables, others were less so. In one Emergency Action Plan for a dam in Tennessee, the inundation zone was simply hand-drawn on a map with a highlighter (see above image). But whatever their quality, the maps represent dam officials’ best estimate of where large volumes of water will flow if a dam fails.

Undark successfully obtained inundation modeling information for 153 of the 259 dams identified in our search. For 63 dams, state and federal officials declined to provide or otherwise redacted pertinent inundation information, citing security concerns. For 31 dams, agencies said they did not have inundation maps prepared, or provided maps that were illegible or did not extend to the site. Despite improvement in recent years, about 19 percent of high-hazard dams still lacked plans as of 2018, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.

With those maps, we then looked to see if any EPA-listed toxic waste sites fell within the delineated inundation areas. Because the precise boundaries of each toxic waste site are not consistently available, we followed the methodology of a 2019 Government Accountability Office analysis of flood risks to contaminated sites on the EPA’s National Priorities List — more commonly known as Superfund sites — which used a 0.2-mile radius around the coordinates listed by the EPA for each location.

For a number of dams for which we were not able to obtain inundation maps to review ourselves, dam regulators or owners confirmed that coordinates we provided for the toxic waste site fell within 0.2 miles of the dam’s inundation zone.

We focused our search on the nation’s highest priority cleanup sites, as indicated by a designation of Superfund (for non-operating sites) or RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, for operating sites). We considered 5,695 of these sites, including both current and former sites. Types and levels of contamination vary widely across sites, as would the impact of any flooding.

Using this methodology, we identified at least 81 aging high-hazard dams that could flood portions of at least one toxic waste site if they failed, potentially spreading contaminated material into surrounding communities and exposing hundreds or thousands of people — in the case of very large dams, many more — to health hazards atop significant environmental impacts. At least six of the dams identified were in “poor” or “unsafe” condition during their most recent inspection.

In many instances, state and local agencies responsible for dam safety and toxic waste have not accounted for this kind of cascading disaster, and so remain largely unprepared.

Undark shared this analysis with engineering and dam safety experts, who verified the methodology. Several suggested that the true number of dams that could flood toxic waste sites if they were to fail is almost certainly far greater, but because no agency tracks this particular hazard, the actual number remains unknown.

“There are many situations across the country then with these dams where they don’t meet the current safety standards …” said Mark Ogden, a civil engineer who reviewed the American Society of Civil Engineer’s 2021 Infrastructure Report Card section on dams, which gave U.S. dams a “D” grade. “And the fact that there could be these hazardous sites as part of that, just increases that concern and what the consequences of a failure might be.”

* * *

Though impacts would vary widely, environmental scientists and toxicologists interviewed by Undark suggested that a sudden, intense flood caused by a dam failure could spread contaminants from hazardous waste sites into surrounding communities. Even sites designed to withstand flooding might be impacted if the debris carried in floodwater managed to scour and erode protective caps, potentially releasing toxic material into the water, explained Rick Rediske, a toxicologist at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. In Houston in 2017, flooding from Hurricane Harvey eroded a temporary protective cap at the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund site, exposing dioxins and other toxic substances.

Water could then move contaminants around the site and redeposit them anywhere in the floodplain, exposing people and ecosystems to health hazards, said Jacob Carter, a research scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who formerly studied flooding hazards to contaminated sites for the EPA. Carter also pointed out that communities living nearest to toxic waste sites and so most vulnerable to these events tend to be low income and communities of color.

It’s possible that any toxic material would be diluted by the flood and new clean sediment, said Allen Burton, director of the Institute for Global Change Biology at the University of Michigan. But this, he emphasized, would be a best-case scenario.

Generally, when there’s a massive flood like the one in Michigan, “it just moves the sediment everywhere downstream,” said Burton. “You have no way of predicting, really, how much of the bad stuff moved, how far it moved, how far it got out into the floodplain, what the concentrations are.” And regulated waste sites are just one source of potential contamination in a dam breach scenario, said Burton. Sediment behind dams is itself often contaminated after years of collecting whatever went into the river upstream.

Contamination can also come from more mundane sources in the floodplain, like wastewater treatment plants or the oil canisters in people’s basements that get swept into floodwaters, said Burton. “The fish downstream,” he quipped, “don’t care if contaminants came from your garage or Dow Chemical.”

Undark’s investigation found that state and local governments often have not prepared for the flooding that could occur at toxic waste sites in the event of a dam failure.

Emporia Foundry Incorporated, a federally-regulated hazardous waste site in Greensville County, Virginia, provides a representative example. It falls within the inundation zone of the 113-year-old Emporia Dam, which is a hydroelectric dam partially owned by the city and located on the Meherrin River, just over one mile west of the foundry site.”

The foundry, which once manufactured manhole covers and drain grates, includes a landfill packed with byproducts containing lead, arsenic, and cadmium. The landfill was capped in 1984, and in 2014, a second cap was added nearer to the river as a buffer against flooding. As in Midland, cleanup engineers accounted for flooding within the 100-year floodplain, but according to a spokesperson from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, they did not account for flooding from a dam failure.

The Emporia Dam inundation map shows that if the dam were to fail during a severe storm, the entire foundry site could be flooded, potentially disintegrating the cap and spreading contaminants across the floodplain. However, the site would not be flooded in the event of a “sunny day” failure.

More than 3,000 people live within a mile of the Emporia Foundry site, around 75 percent of whom are Black, according to EPA and 2010 census data.

Wendy C. Howard Cooper, director of Virginia’s dam safety program, explained that her program’s mandate is to define a dam’s inundation zone and inform local emergency managers of any immediate risks to human life and property — not to identify toxic waste sites and analyze what might happen to them during a flood. “That would be a rabbit hole that no one could regulate,” Howard Cooper said. She added that local governments should be familiar with both the dams and the contaminated sites inside their borders and should have proper emergency procedures in place.

This turned out not to be true in Greensville County, where the program coordinator for emergency services, J. Reggie Owens, told Undark he was unaware of the potential for the foundry site to flood if the Emporia Dam were to fail. The site is “not even in the floodplain,” he said. “It’s never been put on my radar by DEQ or anyone else.”

A similar pattern emerged in other states. In Rhode Island, for instance, our search identified eight dams. One of these, the 138-year-old Forestdale Pond Dam, was considered “unsafe” during its most recent inspection.

Located in the town of North Smithfield, the dam is immediately adjacent to the Stamina Mills Superfund site, which once housed a textile mill that spilled the toxic solvent trichloroethylene into the soil. Another area on the site was used as a landfill for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfuric acid, soda ash, wool oil, plasticizers, and pesticides.

A few years after trichloroethylene was detected in groundwater in 1979, the site received a Superfund designation from the EPA. According to the federal agency, construction for the site cleanup — which involved removing the contaminated soil from the landfill and installing a groundwater treatment system — was completed in 2000 and accounted for a 100-year flood, but it did not account for flooding due to a dam failure.

According to EPA and census data, more than 2,500 people lived within a mile of Stamina Mills as of 2010, and Forestdale Pond is not the only dam that could pose a threat.

In fact, the site sits within the inundation zones of two other high hazard dams identified by Undark. A failure of either of these dams on the Slatersville Reservoir could cause a domino effect of dam failures downstream, according to Rhode Island dam safety reports, all leading to flooding at Stamina Mills.

When asked to comment on possible flood risks to the Superfund site, the EPA responded that the only remaining remedy at Stamina Mills, the groundwater treatment system, would not be affected if Forestdale Pond Dam were to fail. EPA made no reference to the larger Slatersville Reservoir dams less than two miles upstream.

Spokespersons at the Rhode Island dam safety office and the state office responsible for hazardous waste had not considered that a dam failure could flood any of the sites identified by Undark, including Stamina Mills.

* * *

By building engineered structures or taking other resiliency measures, the most hazardous waste sites can be designed to withstand flooding, explained Carter, who recently co-authored a report on climate change and coastal flooding hazards to Superfund sites. But in order to prepare for floods, Carter said, flooding hazards have to be recognized first, whether they come from rising seas, increasing storm surge, or, as in these cases, dams.

“They could have looked at that dam and said, ‘Oh, it gets a D minus for infrastructure. This thing could break,'” said Burton, referring to the Edenville Dam. “So in the future, it would be smart of EPA to require the principal party who’s responsible for the cleanup to look at the situation to see if it actually could happen.”

One step that could make that process much easier is for dam inundation zones to be regularly included in FEMA’s publicly available flood risk maps, which show the 100-year floodplain and other flood risks to communities, said Ogden. A lack of available data on dam inundations — sometimes the result of security concerns — presents a major obstacle, said a FEMA spokesperson, but plotting inundation zones on commonly-used flood risk maps would ensure communities and agencies are aware of and can respond to dam hazards.

Some states, including Rhode Island, have already made inundation zones, Emergency Action Plans, and inspection reports for the dams they regulate publicly available online. In South Carolina, following a 2015 event when heavy rains caused 50 dams to fail, dam inundations for the most hazardous state-regulated dams were made publicly available. Though no state agency tracks hazardous waste sites within dam inundation zones, Undark was able to identify three dams in South Carolina which could flood a hazardous waste site in the state using this resource.

In California, inundation zones for the state’s most hazardous dams were made available following a 2017 dam failure scare at the Oroville Dam, the tallest dam in the country, which led to the evacuation of more than 180,000 people.

Using this resource, Undark identified four dams which would flood at least one hazardous waste site in California. These included the Oroville Dam, which could flood at least one current and one former Superfund site if it were to fail.

According to the EPA, neither of those sites downstream of the Oroville Dam had considered the possibility of flooding due to dam failure prior to the failure scare. Even so, commented EPA, due to the “extraordinary volume of water” that would flood the sites if the Oroville Dam were to fail, “it is not feasible to alter the existing landfills and groundwater remedy infrastructure to protect against the potential failure of the Oroville Dam.”

* * *

In order to fix the nation’s dams, the first step is to spread awareness about the importance of dams and the hazards they pose to people and property, said Farshid Vahedifard, a civil engineer at Mississippi State University who co-authored a recent letter in Science on the need to proactively address problematic dams. “The second thing is definitely we need to invest more.”

According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the fixes necessary to rehabilitate all the nation’s dams would cost more than $64 billion; rehabilitating only the high hazard dams would cost around $22 billion. Meanwhile, the $10 million appropriated by Congress in 2020 for FEMA’s high hazard dam rehabilitation program are “kind of a drop in the bucket for what’s really needed,” said Ogden.

Indeed, state dam safety programs report a chronic lack of funds for dam safety projects, both from public sources and from private dam owners unable or unwilling to pay for expensive repairs. In Michigan, both dams that failed were operated by a company called Boyce Hydro, which received years of warnings from dam safety regulators that there were deficiencies.

Lee Mueller, Boyce Hydro’s co-manager, told Undark that the company made numerous improvements to the dams over the years. After losing revenue when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) revoked the company’s hydroelectric permit, however, it was unable to fund repairs that might have prevented the dam failures.

“Regarding the Edenville Dam breach, the subject of the State of Michigan’s governance and political policy failures and the insouciance of the environmental regulatory agencies are the subject of on-going litigation and will be more thoroughly detailed in the course of those legal proceedings,” Mueller wrote in an email.

“The state of Michigan knew about this,” said Dufresne, the Edenville fire chief. State regulators, he says, should have insisted that the company pay for the badly needed repairs. “They needed to push him,” said Dufresne, referring to Mueller. More than half of all dams in the U.S. are privately owned.

Without the funding to match the problem, members of the state dam safety community have looked to non-typical sources of funding, says Bill McCormick, chief of the Colorado dam safety program. In Eastern Oregon for example, the 90-year old Wallowa Lake Dam — which Undark found would flood the former Joseph Forest Products Superfund site if it were to fail — was slated last year for a $16 million renovation to repair its deteriorating spillway and add facilities for fish to pass through. But the plans have stalled since the Covid-19 pandemic has reduced Oregon’s lottery revenues, which were funding most of the project.

The challenges facing U.S. dams are also exacerbated by climate change, say dam safety experts, with more frequent extreme weather events and more intense flooding expected in parts of the country adding new stresses to old designs. “If we start getting much bigger storms, then that itself will lead to a higher probability of overtopping and dam failure,” said Upmanu Lall, director of the Columbia Water Center at Columbia University and co-author of a recent report on potential economic impacts of climate-induced dam failure, which considered how the presence of hazardous waste sites might further amplify damages. The report also outlines how in addition to more extreme weather, factors like changes in land use, sediment buildup, and changing frequencies of wet-dry and freeze-thaw cycles all can contribute to a higher probability of dam failure.

Several state dam safety programs contacted by Undark said they are planning for climate change-related impacts to dam infrastructure, though according McCormick, the Colorado dam safety chief, his state is the only one with dam safety rules which explicitly account for climate change. New rules that took effect in January require dam designs “to account for expected increases in temperature and associated increases in atmospheric moisture.”

“We were the first state to take that step, but I wouldn’t be surprised if others follow that lead,” McCormick said.

* * *

No deaths were reported in the Michigan flooding, but more than 10,000 residents had to be evacuated from their homes and the disaster likely caused more than $200 million in damage to surrounding property, according to a report from the office of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Restoring the empty reservoirs, as well as rebuilding the two dams, could cost upwards of $300 million, according to the Four Lakes Task Force, an organization that had been poised to buy the dams just before they failed.

In contrast, the Four Lakes Task Force, which now owns the dams, planned to spend about $35 million to acquire and repair those dams and an additional two dams prior to the breach. Boyce Hydro declared bankruptcy in July and now faces numerous lawsuits related to the flooding. FERC is coordinating with officials in Michigan on investigations into the dam failures, and has fined Boyce Hydro $15 million for failing to act on federal orders following the incident.

Dufresne, the Edenville fire chief, watched for years as political and financial challenges prevented the dams on the Tittabawassee from getting fixed. His advice for any other community dealing with a problematic dam: Call your state representatives, tell them, “Hey you need to investigate this.”

By August, life in Midland County was slowly getting back to normal. “Some of the people started putting their houses back together. The businesses are trying to figure out what to do next,” said Jerry Cole, the fire chief of Jerome Township, located south of Edenville.

At the Edenville Dam, neat houses looked out over a wide basin of sand-streaked mud where the impounded lake used to be. Near the bottom, where the river was still flowing through the gap in the fractured dam, a group of teenagers lounged on inner tubes, splashing around.

“It just amazes me that this actually happened here,” said Dufresne.

* * *

James Dinneen is a science and environmental journalist from Colorado, based in New York.

Alexander Kennedy is a software engineer specializing in data visualization.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article. A multimedia version of this story, with rich maps and data, is available here.

In 2019 memo, GOP pollster Frank Luntz warned of “deep and growing anger” at the rich

In a 2019 memorandum obtained by Salon, longtime Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz reported that “public sentiment about the wealthy has been degrading over the last few years,” and that many Americans across party lines believed the ultra-rich were “gaming the system.” Luntz’s memo, entitled “The War on the Successful,” appears to add significant context to ProPublica’s recent report that many of the 25 wealthiest Americans paid little or no taxes from 2014 to 2018, with that group paying an average “true tax rate of only 3.4%” per year.

Luntz’s memo warns that Republicans need to alter their language and tactics in order to ensure that they keep taxes low on corporations and the rich.

Luntz wrote that he was not “pleased with what we learned” in his research. “Across partisan lines, there is a deep and growing anger that the wealthy are gaming the system.”

He reported that the popularity of capitalism was waning fast, calling that “a sad indication of what’s happening in our high schools and universities.” Public opinion, Luntz wrote, was strongly in favor of raising taxes on the rich, limiting corporate executive pay, providing tuition-free college and universal health care, and paying all working people a “living wage,” even when they’re not working.

Luntz noted with obvious disapproval that “just 31% of Americans self-identify themselves as capitalists” and that socialism is seen as “better than capitalism in helping the poor and struggling working class, first-generation immigrants, and people entering the workforce for the first time.”

Luntz said the “lawyers, lobbyists and loopholes” used by rich people and corporations to lower their taxes had become a political liability. He found growing support for a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to “raise the top marginal tax rate for the top 1% to 70%, as well as the 2% wealth tax among people who have $10 million or more proposed by Elizabeth Warren.”

Luntz advised a switch in semantics and branding: Conservatives should stop using the word “capitalism” and start saying “economic freedom,” argue that hard work and good ideas are what create massive wealth, rather than political, legal and economic advantages, and change the education system — presumably to promote pro-capitalist ideology.

Family Enterprise USA and the lobbying group Policy and Tax Group (PATG) had commissioned Luntz’s survey, in an effort to understand the “animus” toward the wealthy and “combat the often wrong perceptions and attitudes surrounding the wealthy.”

“The War on the Successful” was paid for by PATG members and distributed by lobbyist Pat Soldano, who ran both organizations. Luntz has worked with PATG for decades and is widely credited for coining the term “death tax” for the right-wing anti-taxation group, which boasts: “Consider our record: We changed the ‘estate tax‘ to the ‘death tax’ and that changed the course of legislative history.”

Luntz has never registered as a lobbyist, but on March 14, 2018, Sodano told PATG members that Luntz was “continuing to help us with our messaging — including as relates to the ‘family business exemption’ — and will, along with Squire Patton Boggs and McGuire Woods Consulting, continue to support our advocacy efforts this year.” Luntz then held a series of meetings in May and June of 2018 with then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who shaped fiscal policy under the Trump administration. In a December 2018 blog post for PATG, Luntz warned, “The Left has been motivated and activated, and as a result, the War on the Wealthy is alive and gaining strength.”

Luntz’s firm, FIL, Inc., was paid $183,838 by PATG for “consulting” in 2018, and was paid another $137,223 in 2019.

Potential 2024 candidate Tom Cotton leading GOP charge against “woke ideology” in military

During a Thursday Senate hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. — widely seen as a likely 2024 presidential candidate — confronted Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin about the effects of “woke ideology” in the military, which he claimed was causing “plummeting morale” and “growing mistrust.” Cotton avoided directing any such questions at Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has also thrown his support behind the military’s efforts to improve diversity and inclusion. It may or may not be relevant that Austin is Black and Milley is white.

“Mr. Secretary, we’re hearing reports of plummeting morale, growing mistrust between the races and sexes, where none existed just six months ago, and unexpected retirements and separations based on these trainings alone,” Cotton said to Austin during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. “And again, these are not my words. These are the words of your own troops.”

Cotton’s concerns come on the heels of a “whistleblower” initiative recently launched by him and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, which involves a tip line for military service members who feel compelled to “expose” attempts to indoctrinate the troops with “woke ideology.”

“Enough is enough. We won’t let our military fall to woke ideology,” tweeted Crenshaw in late May. “We have just launched a whistleblower webpage where you can submit your story. Your complaint will be legally protected, and go to my office and @SenTomCotton.”

During the hearing, Cotton noted that he and Crenshaw had heard “hundreds of whistleblower complaints” submitted to their online portal and read some of them before the Senate. Later in the hearing, the senator demanded that Austin answer a number of yes-and-no questions with respect to race and the military.

“Should a member of the organization you lead be treated differently, in violation of the Constitution, I would add, based on their sex or the color of their skin?” the Arkansas senator asked.

Cotton, who earlier this year also crusaded against the use of “critical race theory” in military education, prodded Austin on whether the secretary thought that the military was a fundamentally racist institution.

Austin did not respond with a “yes” or “no” to either question, pointing out that they warranted more complicated answers.

This dispute comes amid a broader conservative push to turn military education and training into a new front in the culture-war. Over the course of the past month, several prominent Republican lawmakers have accused the military of incorporating “leftist” ideology into its training programs. This response stems largely from the military’s recent efforts to create a more inclusive atmosphere for women and people of color amid multiple reports of rampant sexism and racism within the services.

Many observers have said that the full scope of bigotry and discrimination within the military — not to mention the scale of military membership in white supremacist or far-right organizations — is difficult to determine and has not been well studied. “It will be damn near impossible for any senior leaders to get their arms around the problem of extremists in the military as long as the Defense Department has so little data on how many service members have ties to domestic terrorist groups,” wrote Jeff Schogol in Task & Purpose.

In February, Austin ordered a stand-down across all branches of the military to address the issue of white supremacy within the ranks following revelations that a number of current and former service members .were involved in the Capitol attack on Jan 6. Shortly after that, Austin appointed a senior adviser of human capital, diversity, equity and inclusion.

Those initiatives have been supported by number of current military leaders, including Milley — the supreme commander of all U.S. armed forces — and Maj. Gen. John Evans, commander of the Army Cadet Command.

These efforts to improve diversity and inclusion within the military are not entirely new. Last year, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper launched a three-pronged initiative to promote equal opportunity for all members of the armed services amid the national wave of protests that followed the murder of George Floyd.

Facebook allowed pro-Trump group to pose as leftists in attempt to split Democratic vote

Reporting on Friday revealed that Facebook knowingly allowed a digital marketing firm tied to a pro-Trump group to release a series of ads purporting to be from a fake left-wing organization ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, while election officials failed to investigate the group at the time.

As The Guardian reported, a right-wing marketing firm called Rally Forge ran a $5,000 ad campaign beginning just days before the 2018 election, showing ads promoting Green Party candidates in an effort to split the Democratic vote and help Republicans in several close races. The ads were purported to be placed by a group called America Progress Now and expressed support for democratic socialism.

Facebook launched an investigation into the ads just after the election and quickly determined that America Progress Now’s official page on the platform was run by the same three men—Jake Hoffman, Connor Clegg, and Colton Duncan—who were administrators for Turning Point USA, the pro-Trump college organization.

To the alarm of a number of Facebook employees, The Guardian reported, the company did not find Rally Forge or Turning Point USA to be in violation of any of its policies.

One product manager at the time said a case could be made for Rally Forge and Turning Point USA having engaged in voter suppression through the ads, and asked, “Can we strengthen our ads transparency policies so that political ads are indeed transparent to the user?”

After the election, Facebook deactivated several other right-wing accounts run by the administrators, but the move did not stop Rally Forge from establishing a “troll farm” out of Phoenix, Arizona in 2020. Working for Turning Point Action, a group linked to Turning Point USA, the firm hired teenagers to post pro-Trump messages on social media, some of which cast doubt on the integrity of the election system.

Sophie Zhang, a former Facebook employee who participated in the investigation of the fake Green Party ads, wrote on Twitter Friday, “One wonders if [Rally Forge] would have escalated to troll farms, had FB deterred them in 2018.”

“This is egregious,” tweeted the women’s rights group UltraViolet on Friday.

Beyond Facebook’s decision to allow the firm to remain on Facebook after determining the ads were fraudulent, the ads “appeared to violate federal laws that require independent expenditures to be filed with the [Federal Election Commission] and include proper disclosures on advertisements,” The Guardian reported.

“This is an example of why disclosure is so important in elections: swing state voters who saw ‘America Progress Now’ ads promoting Green party candidates would’ve had no idea that they were the handiwork of Republican political operatives,” Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at CLC, told The Guardian.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the FEC in 2019 over America Progress Now and the administrators’ failure to disclose the true source of the Facebook ads, only to have the case dismissed before the FEC could conduct an investigation.

The election commissioners declined to look further into the complaint after a man named Evan Muhlstein contacted them to take full responsibility to the ads, claiming he alone had failed to file the ad expenditures with the FEC and saying his “inexperience” was to blame.

“The FEC’s job is to enforce the transparency laws and protect voters’ right to know who is trying to influence them, but the agency here failed to conduct even a minimal investigation,” Fischer said.

According to former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who served on the commission from 2013 to 2017, Muhlstein’s admission to the FEC appeared to amount to “clear fraud,” as he never disclosed to the officials that the ads had been the work of Rally Forge.

At the time, though, Muhlstein’s claim was enough to convince at least one FEC commissioner, James “Trey” Trainor, that the CLC had engaged in “wild speculation” by filing a complaint.

“This case wasn’t about a ‘fake political group … exploit[ing] Facebook rules … and hid[ing] spending from the FEC,'” Trainor wrote. “In fact, APN was established by an unsophisticated individual trying to show his support for several third-party candidates, but he got tripped by the myriad regulations governing online political speech.”

Zhang denounced the FEC for failing to contact Facebook regarding Muhlstein’s claim to verify that he’d administered the America Progress Now page—a cursory investigation which would have immediately revealed the true owners of the page.

“It’s quite possible that FB would have blown the FEC off,” Zhang said. “But many employees were upset over this case, and may have come forward if asked. I would likely have if I’d known.”

“In the end, this is a story about Facebook, the FEC, and broken systems,” she added. “Now it’s time for the FEC to prove that perverting justice has consequences.”

Pro-Trump pundit Charlie Kirk says getting marijuana delivered to your home is “actually slavery”

A prominent Trump supporter and frequent Fox News guest made some questionable comments at a conservative group summit Friday, calling the home delivery of marijuana available in some states “actually slavery.”

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who is currently fighting off an FEC complaint over his group’s refusal to disclose its donors, made the remarks on Friday while speaking at TPUSA’s annual “Young Women’s Leadership Summit” in Dallas, Texas.

“We live in a place where you can have, literally, weed delivered to your front door. It’s like, ‘What?’ And somehow, ‘Oh that’s liberty,'” Kirk said, according to video of the speech posted online.

The pro-Trump pundit then added, “No, that’s actually slavery!”

Upon the completion of his initial riff, Kirk began to backtrack on his statement.

“That’s actually…aw, okay, that’s actually a form of slavery for Media Matters [For America] watching,” Kirk stated. “That’s a form; it’s a form being; it’s a form of being subservient to something that actually controls you. That’s not you being free.”

A TPUSA spokesperson didn’t immediately return a Salon request for comment on Kirk’s remarks.

This isn’t the first time Kirk has made bizarre comments during his conferences, in which high school and college-aged conservative activists listen to speeches by various right-wing personalities. Back in December, Kirk claimed at a gathering that he had deleted his Twitter account over friends blasting his “stupid” tweets online, yet no such thing ever occurred.

Following Kirk’s remarks, he was brutally mocked on Twitter.

it rocks that this guy makes at least a 6 figure salary because right-wing mega donors think he’s redpilling kids https://t.co/gMLPRlQOxU

— Brendan Karet (@bad_takes) June 11, 2021

me ordering weed https://t.co/SuB0tsmjO5 pic.twitter.com/Z3sq69JEWm

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) June 11, 2021

Weed is Slavery. Amphetamines, now those are liberty. https://t.co/EagxlRta4c

— Matt Lech (@MattLech) June 11, 2021

Man, he’s stupid. https://t.co/efccFMOFgD

— Reed Galen (@reedgalen) June 11, 2021

Makes perfect sense. If you’re stoned. https://t.co/LiVWu5uDGy

— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) June 11, 2021

There’s a lot happening here, but my brain keeps turning over the phrase “literally weed.” Is there like figurative weed? https://t.co/bsy6SOetrG

— Sam Reisman (@thericeman) June 11, 2021

Watch below via YouTube:

HBO’s skate show “Betty” grows up, and not even a pandemic can break its momentum

No familiarity with skateboarding is required to get into “Betty,” HBO’s raw-edged show about a group of 20something young women staking their claim on the streets of New York City from atop their skateboards. All you have to know, and love, is what true freedom feels like.

We’re talking the somatic definition of the term, not the jingoistic version. You’ll realize this intimately whenever director Crystal Moselle glides alongside one of them during a trip. No matter what’s happening in the world, on screen or in our own, these actors convey the bliss of feeling breezes fluttering on skin or achieving some kind of oneness with whatever surrounds them.

This is the essence of what makes “Betty” a one-of-a-kind delight enlivened by a love of skating. For the performer the show represents more than just this. “We’re doing it for the people that need it,” said Ajani Russell during a recent press day interview with Salon. “People that don’t see themselves or don’t feel like they belong, or people that are afraid to be who they are because of their circumstances.”

“Betty” shines in its sense of purpose, indicated in its title. Usually a dismissive sexist term male skaters fling at women who love the sport, the show claims it as a badge of honor defining characters claiming their place in a subculture that can be chauvinistic.

These stories are only as much about the boys and men who skate as the women at the center of them allow them to be. Camille’s (Rachelle Vinberg) storyline revolved around that aspect in Season 1 as she sought legitimacy through their definition of it before seizing it on her own terms.

“We’re showing a different side of skateboarding and not the professional side,” Vinberg explained, “not, you know, ‘We do this and we’re amazing at it.’ We’re showing the real side of it.”

Vinberg sees parallels in what they’re doing to “The Sandlot.” “They’re not professional baseball players . . . Like, who can relate to professional baseball players? That’s kind of like how we see it.”

Sunbaked city streets and park ramps are their playground in the first season, which premiered last summer at a time when the world was fresh to pandemic lockdowns and COVID had New York by the throat.

Miraculously the show’s second outing maintains that vibe despite a couple of noteworthy changes the viewer can see as well as sense. These new episodes pick up on the cusp of autumn, announcing itself by way of puffy coats and other layers along with another unmissable indicator of change: masks.

This is only one respect through which these six new episodes of “Betty” acknowledge the reality of changes in season and circumstantial. Life’s hard knocks pound on their doors in other ways too, starting with the skating community’s necessary shift from their hallowed parks to indoors. But they’re also confronted with larger social conflicts: economic inequity, the heavier toll lockdowns take on communities of color and the ways people band together to overcome these barriers.

Just as the close-knit skater community to which Janay (Dede Lovelace), Kirt (Nina Moran), Honeybear (Kabrina Adams, known as Moonbear), Indigo and Camille belong moves to an indoor skate space, its building transfers ownership threatening to set them adrift.

But this also fuels each woman to uncover something new about themselves. Janay transforms her passion for vlogging into a mission to find and preserve community while Camille navigates the thornier world of skate brand sponsorship.

“Our characters are growing up more, so we’re going to be faced with more real-life things. And I think all the things that our characters go through is not uncommon for young people going into any kind of industry they want to get into,” Vinberg explains. “It’s like the kind of the rough beginning of trying to figure out how to navigate like, what am I doing? Is this okay? Is this right? Because you’re young, you’re taken advantage of. We’ve been taken advantage of, plenty of times.”

Indigo and Honeybear’s respective storylines are more personal, as the former struggles to establish her financial independence. Honeybear, meanwhile, is figuring out her boundaries and comfort with intimate relationships – what she wants, what she’ll tolerate.

Elsewhere Kirt has decided that the best way she can help women is to become a self-styled Venus translator for the feckless boys in their world.

For practical reasons, these new episodes also have a more structured feel to them than the more improvisational first season, which is both welcome and an odd imposition. The flow remains intact, but you can feel a hand gently guiding the action. That’s not necessarily a blemish on the piece; it’s akin to landscaper gently attempting to instill order and symmetry on a section of forest while retaining the naturalistic appeal of the place.

“That was the main thing, the note that we went into this season. We were like, ‘We need more structure.’ Everybody agreed on that,” Vinberg said. “Because yeah, there’s like a vibey-ness to the show, which is good, but we wanted plotlines and to be coherent. I think everybody got that.”

Moran described last season as “more kind of a freestyle kind of thing so yeah, [there was] way less improv this time. Not as chill. More intense.”

Moonbear found comfort in the structure. “I don’t really need to think about the lines as much when I’m doing it,” she said. “So it was way easier this time.”

Some shifts were palpable in other ways. “The most drastic difference in first and second season was how lonely I felt,” Russell admitted. “There’s so many restrictions when you’re shooting in COVID and like you have to be isolated for long periods of time.”

Luckily in skateboarding and in life, there’s a flipside to everything. “All that’s transpired has really given reason for community building to be expedited,” she added. “And I’ve met so many amazing people with similar interests and motivations as me in regards to like, interests and values and morals and motivations for making work and continuing our practice. And the support that I feel is something I hadn’t really experienced on such a large scale.”

The second season of “Betty” debuts Friday, June 11 at 11 p.m. on HBO.

Garland to double key DOJ Civil Rights division to combat spate of restrictive voting laws

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Friday during a speech that he plans to double the size of a key division within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to combat a Republican-backed spate of restrictive voting laws currently being pushed in various state legislatures across the country.

“There are many things that are open to debate in America, but the right of all eligible citizens to vote is not one of them,” Garland said in the address. “The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. The right from which all other rights, ultimately flow.

“To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” he added.

Garland said the DOJ will increase the size of its voting-rights enforcement staff twofold within the next 30 days, a key move meant to counter a growing right-wing movement to invalidate the 2020 election results on behalf of former President Donald Trump and add onerous voting restrictions primarily in states that President Joe Biden won last November. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will reportedly take aim at whether certain laws unduly burden minority voters, a concern that has arisen out of provisions that would disproportionately force voters in majority-minority communities to wait in longer lines, restrict voting access to citizens with IDs, truncate early voting hours and ban ballot harvesting.

Garland also addressed the conservative push to launch election audits in various states like Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, demurring as to their legality but refuting the premise upon which they were launched.

“Many of the justifications proffered in support of these post-election audits and restrictions on voting have relied on assertions of material vote fraud in the 2020 election that have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court — federal and state — that has considered them,” he said, according to the New York Times.

Back in May, the DOJ penned a missive to the Arizona state Legislature, arguing that its audit of Maricopa County election results may be in violation of federal law. The Arizona GOP, which ultimately parried the letter, has not stopped in pushing for the audit’s completion despite giving no clear indication as to when it will end.

The agency plans to post specific guidelines on how it will fight against civil rights violations and combat misinformation.

According to a Brennan Center for Justice report from late May, at least 14 states approved 22 measures to restrict ballot access across the country. In aggregate, at least 389 restrictive voting laws have been introduced over this year’s legislative session.

In response, Congressional Democrats have promoted the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, two landmark civil rights bills that would effectively require federal approval for the passage of any restrictive voting laws, among a host of other election reforms. Champions for both measures, however, have failed to garner the support they need to pass either bill.

Although Garland praised both bills in his speech, the attorney general promised that his department “will not wait for that legislation to act.”

What “Loki,” “Lucifer” and “Cruella” tell us about our love affair with rewriting ugly stories

In the opening episode of “Loki” the God of Mischief explains himself to his jailer, the Time Variance Authority agent known as Mobius. “I don’t enjoy hurting people,” Loki says. “I do it because I have to. Because I’ve had to. Because it’s part of the illusion. It’s the cruel, elaborate trick conjured by the weak to inspire fear.”

“A desperate play for control,” Mobius replies, adopting an empathetic tone. “You do know yourself.”

“A villain,” Loki glumly observes.

To that, however Mobius responds in a way that is very us, as in U.S., in 2021: “That’s not how I see it.”

Mobius is trying to win Loki’s cooperation in this scene; hence the audience may understand the sympathy as a purposeful act. Assuming you know Loki, and that you’ve been using your eyeballs in the process of watching this episode, that last line might throw you.

See, prior to this exchange Mobius screens a montage of Loki’s greatest hits – a parade of lies, times he’s cheated and stabbed allies, sold out his brother Thor, and inadvertently caused the death of the person he loved the most. At one point Mobius slows the footage to analyze Loki’s knavish grin so he can see what everybody else sees, which is someone who delights in others’ agony.

How else would a reasonable person see someone like that except as a villain? Marvel intends to spend five more episodes coming up with an answer.

But it’s not as if any defense is required – “Avengers” followers love Loki. Tom Hiddleston fans love watching him play Loki. Also, and importantly, seeing the world from the villains’ perspective is very on trend. “Loki” also – some would say mainly – serves a corporate purpose, which is to explore the concepts of timeline continuity and multiverses as a reference point for upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe theatricals.

From our own reality’s perspective, however, it is precisely on time. “Loki” is a beneficiary of our collective yen for rewritten histories and softening the image of evildoers. This doesn’t expressly refer to its premiere’s proximity to Disney’s “Cruella” or the dawning of new episodes of “Lucifer” on Netflix, but culture in general.

Of course, and some would say mainly here as well, all of these are the product of milking their respective intellectual property cows for all they’re worth. Hiddleston’s Loki has panache, but Cruella de Vil has been a fashion inspiration, for better or worse, since 1961’s “101 Dalmatians,” less for her love of fur than her black-and-white shag. Tom Ellis’ Lucifer is a handsome work of good tailoring and an extensive knowledge of top shelf liquors.

But one wonders if they’d have half as much appeal in a time when America wasn’t so broadly invested in rewriting the past, distant and near.

Before we go on, let’s establish that none of this is meant as an indictment on any of these TV shows or movies or their entertainment value. “Lucifer,” in particular, is widely loved series because it’s sturdily written, attractively produced and has an alluring star in Ellis. Its delectably bingeable fifth season is currently among Netflix’s most popular titles for that reason.

“Loki” was highly anticipated and dominated the conversation this week for similar reasons. “Cruella” has garnered more uneven reviews; still, at the very least, if you don’t ponder the story too extensively, it’s a stylish good time.

Then again, consider how squeamish it has been on some level for parents to explain Cruella de Vil to their kids. Legend has it she likes to skin puppies. For several movies now, animated and live-action (via the 1996 version of “101 Dalmatians,” starring Glenn Close), we’ve watched her pursue that hobby with passion and fury.

But “Cruella” explains that’s a lie, propaganda, fake news! She’s always loved puppies. She has her own dog, actually. The real evil is her envious rival in the fashion world, Emma Thompson’s Baroness Von Hellman, who is wealthy and cruel and – gasp!— has zero compunction about murdering people, including babies. Meanwhile our titular antiheroine is presented as a rebel, a great talent, avant-garde, a little mad and even in her kinder moments, concerned with elevating her own position in the world. But a puppy killer? She would never.

If only we tried walking in her shoes, we’d see her differently.

By no stretch is this evildoer-to-dirtied-angel flip a recent development in the real world or in fiction. Authors have been reconsidering villains long before that, with Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” being the most influential recent title in this regard.

It begat a wildly successful musical, of course, and no doubt led to the manifestation of Disney’s “Maleficent” in 2014, staring Angelina Jolie as the popular villainess – who, as we now know, had her reasons. Mistress of Evil? That’s not how we see it.

People flocked to theaters to get her side, mainly drawn by Jolie’s alluring costumes (the Disney villain films are nothing if not showcases for the company’s costume departments). But maybe the smallest part of its appeal hooked into our slow and steady rewiring to accommodate false equivalency. That easier to do with legend than with reality . . . hypothetically.

Conservatives have been altering history books for decades in order to make the indefensible palatable and maintain the sheen on America’s heroism. What’s frustrating is when those tasked with holding the truth play along. Such was the case with a recent NPR report on a Jacksonville, Fla. high school named after Confederate general Robert E. Lee that was considering a name change.

A portion of the report recorded a debate between two alumni, one of whom is pro renaming, citing that doing so aligns with the desires of the school’s 70% Black student population, and one who is against. In the course of his argument the “against” party eventually admits he doesn’t believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, and he’d have no problem attending a high school named after Adolph Hitler if its football program were strong enough.

This means the report presented a viewpoint based on data parallel to one based on racist feelings, and summed it up thusly. “We never expected these people to come to some sort of resolution. I mean, they couldn’t even agree on the facts of the Civil War. How were they going to find common ground on renaming a school? But they showed up. They listened to each other. And when the state of our civil discourse is so low, there is value in that alone.”

Except . . . there wasn’t much value here. There was a viewpoint based on fact, and a belief in a lie that for too many people feels nicer than the truth. (At any rate, the county school board voted to change the school’s name to Riverside High School.)

Loki’s broader lore commented on this very tendency in 2016 with Marvel’s “Vote Loki” comic book series, a head-on commentary on Donald Trump’s brazen lies and attention-getting bamboozlement during his first run for president. Within its pages Loki’s behavior grows ever more outrageous, gaining him more attention, more followers and strengthening his sway over the public at each turn.

“America, if I were your president, I’d have the guts to lie right to your face,” Loki calmly guarantees. “And you’d love it.”

Some five years after that comic’s run of many of the non-magical extremes that writer Christopher Hastings imagined have manifested in some way in our politics. We became so used to Trump making disprovable claims and his fans loving him for every lie that it became normal for his loyalists to stop believing their own eyes.

On Jan. 6, when insurrectionists followed his exhortations to storm the capitol building and hunt down fellow lawmakers, including his own vice president, the world watched in horror. Months later the ex-president’s followers correctly surmised they could get away with a rewrite. Texas congressman Pat Fallon called the insurrectionists “a mob of misfits.” Georgia representative Andrew Clyde put it another way: “If you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

And it keeps going, in Congress and via Fox News Channel’s echo chamber. Texas politicians are concocting an “1836 Project” dedicated to promoting “patriotic education” that “ensures future generations understand Texas values” in response to the New York Times’ “1619 Project.” That Pulitzer Prize-winning effort shows that every social, economic and political structure in America is rooted in slavery.

Examining its findings and eliminating any lingering inequities left by that institution’s stain on our history would not be pleasant or comfortable. It is much easier to gin up outrage over the supposed divisiveness of “critical race theory” and liken that mythical malice to Marxism.

America is defined by its dedication to the illusion of equality and endless opportunity, of being best. In that framework, ugliness is unacceptable and power is a virtue. So if a villain has power, maybe there’s something about them we’re not quite understanding, that we can learn from. Perhaps there’s another side to the story.

These real, arduous struggles between truthtellers and the stubbornly blinkered exist for reasons similar to those urging us to reconsider our favorite fictional scoundrels in a kinder light, which is that we need to “what about” everything, that we’re willing to countenance villainy as bad spin. We’d rather be comfortable than acknowledge sometimes evil is as evil does.

Provable fact, recorded and witnessed, should not be malleable. Fantasy always is, as the more complex “Lucifer” demonstrates. The devil as he’s initially imagined by Neil Gaiman, Mike Dringenberg and Sam Kieth, is a suave skeptic of the whole notion of God’s plan. In the original comic book he’s a rebel and a nightclub owner. Television writers partner him with a detective to solve crimes, so he can earn his way toward redemption and so his story fits a workable TV model.

“Lucifer” aired its first three seasons on Fox starting in 2016, making it a TV show that both commented upon and provided escape from the last administration’s culture warp. In that light Lucifer Morningstar is a particularly attractive character because he cannot lie.

What should be a virtue condemns him; honesty is painful. In its newest episodes we discover that the devil’s irredeemable reputation is largely the result of a smear campaign waged against him by his brother Michael (also Ellis) who rules with fear.

In the world of “Lucifer” the season’s main conflict resolves on a note of hope, and a victory won from an exceedingly uncomfortable sacrifice. Through extreme pain the hero sets the world right . . . and it takes him years of unpleasant, irritating excursions and self-reflection to find a way back to an honestly won, legitimate version of grace.

It’s a great story and one that should reflect how the real world works, but fantasy is almost always prettier than reality. And while we shouldn’t penalize ourselves too much for loving illusions about villainy created for our pleasure, maybe we ought to ask ourselves why we love these pretty revisions . . . and what we’re willing to accept as truth with regard to the story we’re living through.

“Loki” is streaming on Disney+. “Lucifer” is streaming on Netflix. “Cruella” is now playing in theaters.

A “Lord of the Rings” anime prequel is on the way

“Lord of the Rings” fans thirsty for spinoffs have never had to wait all that long, between the “Hobbit” trilogy of the 2010s, and Amazon Prime’s upcoming “Lord of the Rings” television series adaptation. New Line Cinema announced on Thursday that it’s begun working with Warner Bros. Animation to produce an anime film prequel to the classic, 2000s fantasy series directed by Peter Jackson, and animation work and voice casting are already underway.

Of all adaptations and spinoffs of the fantasy epic, an anime is certainly a new and refreshing departure, especially for the modern age. The anime film, directed by Kenji Kamiyama, is called “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,” and will tell the story of Helm Hammerhand, who was King of Rohan during the war with the Dunlendings who attempt to usurp his throne, long before the events of Jackson’s trilogy. The story will explore the legendary fortress Helm’s Deep, named after the king himself, and the familiar site of a key conflict in the 2000s films.

“This will be yet another epic portrayal of J.R.R. Tolkien’s world that has never been told before. We’re honored to partner with much of the incredible talent behind both film trilogies, along with new creative luminaries to tell this story,” Warner Bros. Animation President Sam Register said in a statement announcing the project. He also quoted King Theoden’s (Bernard Hill) line at the beginning of the iconic siege of Helm’s Deep: “And so it begins.”

While the project will feature new writers who weren’t a part of the original trilogy, Kamiyama will be joined by screenwriter Philippa Boyens, who co-wrote the original films as a consultant on the project.

The anime film has yet to receive a release date. As for Amazon’s rendition of the legendary fantasy franchise, the series is currently slated to have at least five seasons, with eight to 10 episodes per season. Filming for the first two seasons began earlier this year, and the pilot has completed filming and is in post-production, as of January.

More than 20 years after “Fellowship of the Ring” first premiered in theaters, the “Lord of the Rings” franchise has remained as popular as ever. And now, as it wades into an all-new, untold story, the epic fantasy franchise will do so via an all-new medium: anime.

“I had to be all things for my husband”: Meet the caregivers whose lives were upended by COVID

Last month, Marcy Myles-Clark did something that would have been unthinkable a year ago: she went on a week-long vacation with her husband, Tee. It was, in Marcy’s words, the best sleep he had in a year. Sleep, Marcy explained, wasn’t a problem for Tee until recently — after their lives changed, and after Marcy became his caregiver.

In March 2020, both Marcy and Tee got COVID-19. Marcy had a mild case while her husband became deathly ill. He spent a total of 46 days at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore; 28 of those he was in a medically-induced coma and on a ventilator.

“He was unable to walk, dress, or wash or bathe himself, for the first one and a half months of being home,” Marcy said. “It was like having a 56-year-old, who was previously completely healthy 45 days prior, turn into a baby; as a result of his new state he was very frustrated and cranky.”

Thus, when Tee was discharged, Marcy became his caretaker.

During the day, Marcy sought professional help from a nursing home. But at night, she had to help him with nearly everything. Her life, she says, became “restrictive.”

“I had to be all things at all times for my husband including his emotional and physical cheerleader,” Marcy said. “I had to preplan any gaps in my schedule to ensure that he always had proper coverage; I had to physically relocate to a downstairs bedroom with him in the beginning, when he couldn’t physically make it upstairs, amongst other things.”

On any given day, tens of millions of of Americans serve as informal caregivers to an adult or child. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report estimated that in 2015, 17.7 million Americans served as informal caregivers. Being a caregiver can be an “emotional and physical strain,” the CDC report notes, “leading to higher rates of depression, lower quality of life, and poorer overall health” for the caregivers.

It is often grueling work. And once the coronavirus began to spread across the country, many people — including Marcy — were catapulted into informal caregiving roles. Whether it’s because a loved one got COVID-19 or because lockdown restrictions made third-party help no longer an option, the pandemic created a new cohort of caregivers whose options for external support were restricted.

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

“I wish that I could have had more family support,” Marcy said. “Our family was readily available and eager to help. However, I was very skeptical to have anyone in the house outside of necessary health care providers because of my husband’s vulnerable state.”

Caregiving is a gendered duty: two out of every three caregivers in the United States are women. And the pandemic has swelled their numbers. In October 2020, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research conducted a poll of 1,893 adults, including 565 current caregivers, and found that one in 10 of those started during the pandemic. Half of those said they were providing care specifically because of the pandemic.

Deborah Cohan, Ph.D., associate professor of sociology at the University of South Carolina–Beaufort, told Salon that informal caregiving has long been undervalued in the United States, in part because it’s an invisible labor that usually falls on women.

“I think one of the primary reasons it was never valued in the first place is it is really gendered— because more women have always done it,” Cohan said. “People aren’t paid to do it unless they do it professionally.”

Indeed, informal caregiving has often been referred to as a “shadow workforce” within the healthcare industry. Personally, Cohan was a caregiver to her father. She wrote a memoir about the experience, entitled “Welcome to Wherever We Are: A Memoir of Family, Caregiving, and Redemption.“

“The subtitle of the book relates to redemption, and I will say that there were some redemptive qualities with caregiving, but it was very hard,” Cohan said.”It’s not all burden, but it’s some burden… there might be fulfilling aspects of it, but caring for someone can be heavy.”

While she was a caregiver, Cohan was also in grad school. She recalled the difference in financial resources at her disposal: she could easily take a loan out for her education, but not to be a caregiver.

Indeed, few resources exist for those in informal caregiver roles, and in-home informal caregiving can be quite costly. According to AARP, family caregivers devote about 24 hours a week to helping and spend around $7,000 out-of-pocket on that care.

In President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan, he proposes spending $400 billion over eight years on home and community-based services to ease the burden for families. Many experts say the plan is a start, but it’s not the best solution.

“This [plan] isn’t everything that’s needed, not by any step of the imagination,” Ai-jen Poo, director of Caring Across Generations, told NPR in April 2021. “What we really want to get to is universal access to long-term care. But that will be a multistep process.”

Renee Fry, a 49 year old living in Massachusetts who does next-generation estate planning, became a caregiver with her sister for her dad who has Alzheimers when the pandemic hit. She would have put him in a nursing home, but once her grandmother in that same nursing home died of COVID-19, it no longer felt like a viable option.

“We had to pack up everything and head to Pennsylvania,” Fry said. She was packing again to head there this summer and help her mom take care of her dad. A nursing home, or external care, is still off the table. “Even though everyone has their COVID shots and came back, I think my mom is still wary after having lost my grandmother,” she added.

Dismissing GOP threats, Dianne Feinstein backs fellow Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin on the filibuster

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., drew calls from progressives to resign this week after she rejected Democratic calls to reform the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation amid a Republican push to restrict ballot access that the party has likened to “Jim Crow.”

Sens. Joe Manchin D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have drawn intraparty scorn over their defense of the filibuster as numerous other centrist Democrats have softened their opposition to reforming the Senate rule in the face of Republican obstruction and assault on voting rights.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who has defended the filibuster, said this week that if it comes down to a choice between the archaic Senate rule and democracy, he would “choose democracy.” Asked about the comment on Thursday, however, Feinstein denied that democracy was in peril despite Republicans voting to block the certification of last year’s presidential election and GOP legislators in more than a dozen states passing new voting restrictions and, more importantly, laws that would make it easier to overturn elections.

“If democracy were in jeopardy, I would want to protect it,” Feinstein told Forbes’ Andrew Solender. “But I don’t see it being in jeopardy right now.”

Feinstein said she would “wait and see what happens” with the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights bill that every Senate Republican and Manchin have opposed (Manchin previously co-sponsored the bill in 2019). Asked what reforms she might support, Feinstein said, “I’d have to take a look” but “right now, nothing comes to my mind.”

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine who has tracked many of the hundreds of voting restrictions pushed by Republicans this year, said Feinstein’s denial that democracy was in danger left him “speechless.”

“A minority Party that has shown no respect for democratic norms has made a mockery of the Senate and majoritarianism,” tweeted Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at the University of Georgia. “Senator Feinstein is still trying to govern like it’s the 1990s.”

“A truly baffling quote,” said Sawyer Hackett, the executive director of the progressive People First Future, a group founded by former presidential candidate Julian Castro. “If Diane Feinstein isn’t able to recognize the attacks on our democracy and the rise of fascism she needs to get hell out of the Senate.”

Feinstein has defended the filibuster in the past but her renewed defense as Democrats push to advance voting rights legislation highlights that opposition to filibuster reform inside the party is bigger than just Manchin and Sinema, who have been on the receiving end of progressive criticism for months.

“There are certainly more senators with reservations about the filibuster that are giving Manchin steam to stay firm,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told The Daily Beast. “But I have also heard from colleagues that none of those other senators want to play Manchin’s role.”

But so far, other centrist Democrats have equivocated on whether they would support reforming the filibuster to pass voting rights.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., who was elected in a special election last year and will face voters again next year, told CNN this week that he would “evaluate any change to our rules, regardless of what they are, based on what’s in the best interest of Arizona, and the best interest of our country.”

Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., a top target for Republicans in next year’s midterms, has expressed “concerns” about eliminating the filibuster though she has supported reforming the rule in the past. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev, another top GOP target, has supported bringing back the “talking filibuster” to make it more difficult to block legislation, a proposal Manchin has floated in the past. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., who voted with Manchin and other centrists to oppose a $15 minimum wage increase earlier this year, has stayed quiet on the issue.

Others, like King, have said they would be open to reform in the interest of advancing voting rights.

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev, has opposed eliminating the filibuster but told The Washington Post this week she would support such a move “in the case of protecting democracy.” Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, opened the door to backing filibuster reform in an interview with MSNBC this week over concerns that it has been “weaponized,” but he told CNN that he was not there yet. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a longtime ally of President Joe Biden and opponent of filibuster reform, similarly told Politico that the filibuster may have to go if Republicans continue to block the president’s agenda.

Former Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., described Manchin as a “heat shield” for other Democrats reluctant to eliminate the filibuster. But the other Democrats’ reluctance to publicly back Manchin’s stance means that they are likely to fall in line if Manchin folds, Ocasio-Cortez told The Daily Beast.

“That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be pressed for their position and offer clarity to their constituents, though,” she added. “People deserve to know with clarity where their elected representation stands on the filibuster.”

Oregon House expels Republican Rep. Mike Nearman for assisting rioters who breached state Capitol

The Oregon state legislature voted in near-unanimous fashion Friday to expel one of its Republican members, Rep. Mike Nearman, after he was recorded giving a closed-door presentation to right-wing protesters with instructions on how to breach the state Capitol building. He was later caught on security camera footage opening a door for the rioters on Dec. 21, 2020, leading to a raid by hundreds of Trump supporters that served as an eerie precursor to the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

Nearman, who was charged with official misconduct and criminal trespass for his actions, was the only member to vote against his own ouster. He is the first representative to be ejected in state history, according to the New York Times.

“This is potentially the most serious and historic vote any of us will ever take in our career as legislators,” Democratic state Rep. Julie Fahey said at the proceeding, before urging her colleagues to oust Nearman.

“It was upsetting to learn that Rep. Nearman was planning and coordinating an attack on our Capitol,” another Democratic Rep., Andrea Salinas, said. “The trauma of that day will not leave with Rep. Nearman.”

The vote came just days after fellow Republicans in the Oregon House of Representatives turned on their colleague following the release of an hour-long video recording of Nearman’s Dec. 16 presentation to a crowd of Trump supporters, first reported earlier this week by Oregon Public Broadcasting.

The video, which was reportedly circulated online in right-wing circles before the riot, starts off innocuously as Nearman coaches the group on how to track bills and contact state lawmakers. But it quickly takes a dark turn as he launches into curated instructions for how to best breach the Capitol building — which was closed to the public due to COVID-19 safety protocols — while also making careful note to “disavow” each step of the process as he goes.

In the presentation, Nearman refers to the plan as “Operation Hall Pass” — “which I don’t know anything about,” he repeats — and gives his own personal phone number to the future rioters at least three times, OPB reported.

Reports painted the Dec. 21 riot as a mini-Jan. 6 insurrection, with throngs of protesters brandishing pro-Trump paraphernalia and clashing with police officers, who were ultimately overwhelmed by the surge. The rioters chanted threatening slogans targeting lawmakers, and even allegedly attacked police with a smoke bomb and chemical irritants.

Nearman was allowed unlimited time to speak during the proceedings Friday, but kept his remarks short, according to OPB, claiming that he simply believed the public had a constitutional right to access the building.

“You’re considering expelling a member, for the first time in history, because he thinks that people should have access to their Capitol, especially during session,” Nearman said. “After this session, we’re all going to go out to dinner or stop at the grocery store, or maybe tomorrow we’ll shop and buy clothes or get our oil change, because all these places are open, but not this building.”

No one else spoke in his defense.

In defense of an East Asian “Velma” in a new, reimagined Scooby-Doo spinoff

Because apparently there just aren’t enough bad things to be outraged by in a world where a cop flipped over a pregnant woman’s car and the planet is on the verge of being overrun by climate catastrophe, some people on the internet were pretty riled up about Velma of “Scooby-Doo” fame being of East Asian descent in her forthcoming HBO, adult cartoon spinoff.

This, of course, is not the first time a cartoon, fictional, or historical character has been recast or reimagined to not be white, and each time this happens, the world notably does not end or descend into apocalypse, as racist internet mobs seem to suggest. Yet each time, their reaction is the same, whether it’s the casting of a Black woman (Jodie Turner-Smith) as Anne Boleyn in a new historical drama, or Halle Bailey being cast as Ariel in the live-action “Little Mermaid,” or the nonwhite “Bridgerton” characters, or, you know, pretty much everyone in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton.”

HBO announced “Velma,” a Mindy Kaling project in which Kaling will also voice Velma, will join its roster of adult cartoons back in February, and delivered some exciting updates about the show at the TV Kids Summer Festival. Tom Ascheim, president of Warner Bros. Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics, specifically revealed Velma will be reimagined as an East Asian woman.

Ascheim said Kaling is “excited to reimagine what Scooby-Doo would be like if Velma were of East Asian descent.” He also noted that “Velma” will take place “in a different world,” and “there’s no dog and no van but we have our four key characters through a different lens.”

If there’s anything to be outraged about here, it’s the absence of Scooby, the lovable, mystery-solving pup himself, or the iconic “Mystery Machine” van. That’s how you know members of the internet mob attacking this reinvention of Velma aren’t actually that deeply passionate “Scooby-Doo” fans they pretend to be — real fans would be up in arms about the notable lack of dog and vehicle. These “fans” are just, well, racists.

In response to the announcement of Velma’s race on the new adult cartoon, some have responded by tweeting “Not my Velma,” and even calling the show “dead on arrival,” among other tweets that are taking a literal cartoon quite, quite seriously. But let’s get a few things straight. First, we don’t really even know that Velma was white, in the first place — she’s been played by the notably not white Hayley Kiyoko in two live-action “Scooby-Doo” films, after all. Velma and “Vilma” are also popular Filipino women’s names, leading some “Scooby-Doo” fans to have speculated already, for years, that Velma is actually Asian.

Second, so what if a literal cartoon was written as white, at one point, and is now being reimagined? This happens all the time, notably in all of the aforementioned examples, and is actually, dare I say, a good thing, by challenging whiteness as the long-held default. The fact that Velma’s race will no longer be ambiguous, and is decisively Asian, is progress — we’re at a point in which race isn’t just being ignored or conveniently left out of our storytelling.

And for what it’s worth, all of this applies to historical dramas, too. Historical dramas have always taken visual liberties with their storytelling, yet the only liberty that self-appointed internet historians ever seem to be upset by is when an actor of color plays a white historical figure. Shows and movies and entertainment are literally art, and art is literally imagination and reimagination, so maybe read a history textbook if you’re upset about a modern creator’s modern, artistic interpretation?

In any case, as someone who grew up hoarding “Scooby-Doo” graphic novels and marathoning the show and movies, I’m not sure how a young me would have felt about one of the cartoon sleuths sharing my Asian heritage — but I’m glad kids of today won’t have to guess how they’d feel, and get to live it themselves.

Musical “In the Heights” is a miraculous celebration of the multicultural symphony that is New York

For as long as the movies have existed, they have been in love with New York City. And how could they not? It’s one of the few places on Earth where the cacophony of traffic, industrial hubbub, and the subtle whirs of giant flashing ads, can become a symphony. Few films have captured the beautiful sounds of New York like director Jon M. Chu’s “In the Heights,” a musical that suggests every single New Yorker, regardless of their cultural background, contributes an irreplaceable beat to the city’s magnificent score.

From its opening number, the adaptation of Lin-Manuel Miranda (“Hamilton”) and Quiara Alegría Hudes’ Tony-winning Broadway hit establishes itself as a grand spectacle calling moviegoers to the largest screen they can find. We begin by following our narrator Usnavi (“Hamilton” breakout Anthony Ramos), as he goes about his morning routine en route to the bodega he owns in Washington Heights, a largely Dominican neighborhood in New York City.

It makes sense that Chu finds glory in the mundane by juxtaposing Usnavi’s morning journey with bits that show other residents of the Heights preparing for their day. From beauty salon workers and shopkeepers, to parents feeding their children, the film establishes how people strive to fulfill their dreams in a bustling city where they barely have time to sleep. The sequence culminates in a grand dance number in the streets, where it makes the case that it’s practically impossible to live in New York and not feel like you’re a character in a musical.

By expertly opening up the world of the musical from the confines of a Broadway stage to the real-life locations mentioned in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s infectious songs, “In the Heights” has only the sky to reach for, and it makes sure viewers come along for the joyful ride.

With his warm presence, Ramos’ Usnavi feels like a modern-day version of a Gene Kelly hero. He’s the conduit through which the rest of the lovable characters make their power known. Usnavi dreams of returning to the Dominican Republic where he was born, the land of his ancestors, and through the other characters we get a glimpse of the stars that make up his universe.

Anthony Ramos in “In the Heights” (Warner Bros.)

There’s Vanessa (a dreamlike Melissa Barrera of “Vida” fame), the girl of his dreams, who wants nothing more than to leave the Heights and find fame as a fashion designer downtown. Nina (a luminous Leslie Grace) a student at Stanford who returns home heartbroken by the constant microaggressions she faces in the unwelcoming world of higher education. Noble taxi-dispatcher Benny (the graceful Corey Hawkins) who works for Nina’s father, Mr. Rosario (a moving Jimmy Smits), and seems to have found contentment in helping his community travel safely. There’s also neighborhood matriarch Abuela Claudia (the kindly Olga Merediz), who albeit childless, has become a local source of wisdom and nurturing.

Hudes, who is also an executive producer and adapted the screenplay from the book of the musical she wrote, is such a generous storyteller, that each of the myriad characters in the film could warrant an entire musical of their own. It’s been more than a decade since the Broadway show premiered, and Hudes’ screenplay subtly reflects that with mentions of DACA, and other contemporary issues, without turning the film into an exercise in didacticism. She finds worth in everyone’s story, and infuses Usnavi with the same spirit.

Ramos shines, but the film is so aware of the richness of the ensemble, that it knows when to share the spotlight with others. In numbers like the spectacular “96,000,” in which hundreds of characters fantasize about winning the lottery while frolicking in a public pool, Ramos gently becomes an emcee figure, watching him smile watching his co-stars perform is one of the most joyful things in the film.

The film balances the eclectic musical genres, from bolero to salsa, without losing sight of the story it’s telling. In choreographer Christopher Scott and cinematographer Alice Brooks Chu found partners to vibe with. They dazzle with grand numbers like “No Me Diga” set in Daniela’s (a scene-stealing Daphne Rubin-Vega) beauty shop, and make hearts skip a beat in “When the Sun Goes Down,” a romantic duet in which Benny and Nina perform a gravity-defying dance on the side of the building.

As in the Broadway production, the showstopper is “Paciencia y Fe,” a soul-stirring number where Abuela Claudia looks back at the long line of women who came before her and led her to where she is. Merediz, the only actor reprising the role they originated on Broadway (although cameos do appear throughout), carries a fire that burns from within. The sequence set in a subway populated by ghostly ancestors and unaware commuters, epitomizes what the film does best: it celebrates the Latinx people in the U.S., as well as the richness they contribute to the country, without romanticizing their struggles or demanding miracles from them. To exist, the film posits, is miracle enough.

It’s this sense of gratefulness, pride, and a reminder of the power of dreams that makes “In the Heights,” such a powerful work of art. There is no place for cynicism in a world where we’re constantly trying to be our best, to create life for others, to celebrate what we have right now. Even as the characters encounter truly bittersweet moments, the film has patience and faith in every single one of them. It wants them to thrive, to find joy, while reminding them that the American dream is a dream, but not necessarily “the” dream.

“In the Heights” releases in theaters and HBO Max on Friday, June 11.

Saving “All These Sons” from gun violence in Chicago

“All These Sons,” which has its World Premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival, considers the topical issue of gun violence and its impact on Black communities in the South and West sides of Chicago. Co-directors Joshua Altman and Bing Liu (the latter Oscar-nominated for his doc, “Minding the Gap“) shine a light on Iman and Maafa — two programs run by Billy Moore and Marshall Hatch, Jr., respectively — that work with young men at risk of becoming either victims or perpetrators of gun violence. Both Iman and Maafa create a safe space for these men who are often looking over their shoulders, or at every car that drives down their street, in fear of gang violence.

The men are put to work physically and emotionally. They do construction jobs to rebuild houses, or clean sidewalks. But they also are asked to write stories about their experiences with gun violence in the community and participate in exercises that address morality in certain situations. They talk about forgiveness. Some young men work to finish high school. One participant slips and ends up under house arrest on a gun charge.

Altman and Liu’s strength as filmmakers is not just that they humanize these men, who viewers will come to care about, but they raise discussions about families and absent fathers, a lack of education (50 schools in South and West Chicago were closed) as well as the systemic oppression and the negative messages that set these men up to fail. Moreover, the film’s participants talk about their attitudes towards the police who should protect them, but instead make them feel that they are in constant jeopardy.

Altman and Liu spoke with Salon about their hopeful documentary.

How did you learn about these programs and select the participants for your film?

Bing Liu: Back in 2017, I got a call from Davis Guggenheim. 2016 was a year of record gun violence in Chicago. It was making national headlines. It was the worst statistic for 20 years. His friend Arne Duncan [visited] Cook County jail and some of the neighborhoods that were most affected and asked the guys, “What can we do to curtail the cycle? The overwhelming majority of respondents said, “We just need work. We need a way to make money in the legal economy.” He concocted a program to try address that, and other issues, such as trauma, and housing, and a laundry list of different things that contribute to violence. He was kind of building a plane as he was flying it in this pilot program. When Davis called me to explore doing a film on this program, I went and shot a few days and came back to Venice, California, to meet Davis and they introduced me to Josh to edit the materials and we developed this film from that. Josh came on to edit “Minding the Gap,” and we learned we worked really well together. By the time this turned into a feature, the program was all over Chicago. We eventually landed on these two programs, Iman and Maafa, but they are part of a large block of programs all over the city.

There is a real sense of brotherhood among the men in Iman and Maafa. Can you describe how you gained the trust of the film’s subjects to tell their stories? One participant, Zay, talks about how he is not able to trust folks.

Josh Altman: We filmed over 450 hours of footage over the course of many months, building trust, showing up, being there and listening and talking to people. Eventually, it just became this thing where they sort of expected us to be there, and we had to navigate and choose who was going to be in the film. They sort of choose themselves, or the camera chooses them. The way that they shine or talk about things with us. We interviewed almost everybody. There were multiple people we filmed full storylines that didn’t make it into the final cut. Along the way, the camera latches on people and the trust became deeper. It’s not just filmmaker-participant it is a lot more, I’m your friend. Let me put down my camera and help you out with this.

Liu: With Zay, specifically — not every participant was like this in the program — he was more trusting one-on-one versus being in a group because of the level of posturing the young men put on in a larger group. It’s kind of a defense mechanism. The first time we sat Zay down for an interview, he was wildly open and mature in a way that wasn’t that surprising. I was surprised by how quickly he opened up.

All of these men want respect and opportunity. They learn to “act different and define themselves differently.” Can you talk about that aspect of your film?

Liu: It’s interesting all of the rhetoric around gun violence tends to be really simple. So much of what this film is trying to show is that the willingness and the desire to want to change is there. All the conditions and all of the repetitive things that pop up in their lives — whether it is a miscarriage, or losing a friend, or getting shot yourself. Marshall says it best when he says these programs are “just a Band-aid for a bullet wound.” They can only do so much. These guys signed up for the program. They want to be there. The challenges are the conditions around them.

Altman: The emotional baggage of what they have gone through in their life, or their families have gone through, the restructuring and way they view the world, is built upon these new relationships. Having people show up for you who aren’t related, who don’t have to be there. But they do care, and they show up and are there for you. They get let down as the people who are trying to watch out for them and show their love, but they are lifted up, as well, when they see someone get a diploma. Marshall says, “When I talk about fate, as long as there is life, there is positive possibility.” That is the way he looks at all of this. As long as someone is still alive, good can come from it.

There are discussions of gun violence in the film both by victims and perpetrators. Can you discuss the idea of power here related to how the community sees the cops? There’s a great line in the film about “understanding our power in relation to theirs.”

Liu: A lot of these guys have very little faith in any institution that middle America buys into. Most of these guys don’t have bank accounts. There is no real institutional trust. That extends to politics and to preventing crime, which is through the police. We hope our film tries to instill and inspire in society writ large, is to focus this conversation on the “problem of gun violence” less on the problem being on specific guys, but the problem of either responding or holistically addressing — which is preventing — gun violence in the first place.

How much funding and budgetary allocations do we put towards police and prisons? That’s where the conversation stops. These programs are all over the place and have their own inconsistencies, so we talk about these programs as preventative measures, but we want to have a policy and social conversation about what prevention looks like. It’s this larger grappling with power in society. For me, Marshall is also asking that of all of us.

Altman: In terms of power, part of the reason these guys operate the way that they do on the street is out of a need for power and be in control of something in their life. So much feels so out of control — prison, where they live, their jobs, the schools not being there, and not knowing that they can vote. When they have something where they feel they can take power, albeit in an aggressive street way, it’s satisfying that human need. We all want some semblance of power, to be in control of things. So when you put somebody in a position where there’s nothing, they are going to look for other avenues.

In contrast, there is an upbeat episode where the group takes a road trip to Washington DC and the men feel they can “be themselves” and not look over their shoulders. Most of the film’s participants barely leave their blocks or the city. How did seeing more of the world, being exposed to museums, and visiting Howard University impact and inspire them?

Altman: It was a huge breath for everybody. When we started this film, we met a lot of people and they would tell us they haven’t been downtown or left their blocks. You think, that’s not really true, but a lot of people are cloistered in this way. It was interesting to be around them and see that there was no longer this worry. We were in Chicago waiting for some food and one of the guys had to put on a mask, because he can’t be seen in the neighborhood. It was 10 blocks maybe less from where he lives. So, to go to DC, and have all that disappear, that there was no worry that someone would do them harm, was amazing. They bonded as a group. It was a huge release.

The film touches briefly on the influence of gangs on these men. Can you explain why this is a subtext in the documentary, and not a larger theme, given its importance in this community?

Liu: Not the same as it was in “The Wire,” or that era. There are no longer the large gangs that control a network of money, income, and hierarchies on different levels. It was splintered by the arrests in the ’90s and the breaking up of these gangs from the Chicago police and FBI. It’s so much about friends creating cliques that are inspired by someone getting killed, or the name of a block you that lived on or grew up on or built networks or chose family relationships. The other side is the Chicago police that has maintained a gang database for decades. There have been reports on how corrupt it is. There are 70-year-old men and deceased men on that database. Iman is doing policy advocacy pushing to demolish the gang database. Judges are starting to smarten up and the dispelling of that traditional label. Billy Moore was labeled a gang member by the news. He was not in a gang but because he murdered Ben Wilson and they were looking for him, all the reports called him a gang member. It came from the fact that the city hated him. It was another tool law enforcement can use and has used to get tougher sentences and justify brutality.

Altman: We are very sensitive to the word “gang” because of the way it demonizes people.

Lui: Another program seen in the film is about doing storytelling to change the narrative to pitch to judges and for police to see that these are the stories from the community. That’s what Zay was pushing back on. Josh and I were drawn most to this subprogram during development. It’s storytelling. My girlfriend is a public defender in Orange County, and she tells a certain narrative about her clients to a judge so she can humanize them. And the DA does the opposite.

What may be the saddest fact in your film is that so many of these young men receive negative messages — that they will never amount to anything more than a drug dealer, or that they will end up in prison. But your film and these programs emphasizes potential, redemption, and change. Can you discuss how young Black men can break the cycle of violence and self-destruction?

Liu: The solution does start with them; at the same time, these programs are just half, if that, of the equation. Going back to that Marshall quote, “These programs are just temporary Band-aids.” We need to look at the conditions that produce shooters in the first place. The solutions are there and desire to want change is there. Take 30 police officers out of public schools and you have enough to fund these programs for a year or two. Allocation inequality is pretty damn drastic.

Altman: There is an abundance of people showing up to be in these programs; they can’t even take them all. They have to limit themselves. The programs technically run six to nine months, but they are with these men for their lifetime. They are building relationships, and they are going to be there forever. But they can’t pay you forever, and they only have this amount of time that they can work within this program. Six to nine months is nothing in the formative years of somebody’s life. Most people go to college for four years, so if the program was four years, maybe that would have more of an impact. But there is no funding for that. The onus is not on the [men] but the big part is on us as a society. We need to invest in these neighborhoods and show people that you care about them and put some options for them on the table. Driving by these places and seeing their schools closed transmits the image that no one cares. It’s a horrible feeling. It’s about looking at people in the community doing the work. We met so many amazing people who were on the ground doing the work. Listening to them and hearing their stories, we want more people to hear this.

What can you say about the idea of Sankofa that is espoused in the film?

Liu: The national conversation that touched upon that debate on both sides of the political aisle around the 1619 Project and how we reckon with this country’s past. That’s one part of it. The film deals with that part Marshall is interested in. But the other part is personal sort of reckoning. A lot of people are familiar with the feeling of having something unfair done to you, or having someone harm you. But there’s another aspect, which is known as moral injury, which is admitting and reckoning with the fact that you have also hurt people and have done very wrong things to people. That’s a part of reckoning with the past, too. That’s what is so interesting in how Billy tries to introduce this idea of forgiveness in the film. It about both those parts. All three of those aspects are very present in the film.

Herbal teas give me an anxiety-free boost. Here are my five favorites

It’s easy for some people to write off herbal tea as a wimpy alternative to the caffeinated stuff. Of course, even caffeinated tea has been called a weak replacement for coffee, though we know that’s not at all the case. My point is: Herbal tea can be vitalizing in its own way.

I’m an anxious person in general, and have become even more so throughout the pandemic. While my morning caffeine is nonnegotiable, when I try to throw in an afternoon cup, my body reacts swiftly and unfavorably. Once I began incorporating herbal teas into my routine, I found that they gave me the boost I’d been looking for, albeit not a caffeinated one. I make a pot of smoothing chamomile tea with oat milk and honey as a sub for an afternoon cup of jitter-inducing coffee (the pastry on the side is, of course, nonnegotiable). A cup of peppermint tea after a meal has a similar invigorating quality as an espresso (without, of course, the caffeine hit), plus it has some amaro-like vibes, thanks to its vegetal notes woven with menthol and a bit of bitterness. Smoky-sweet rooibos tea is even being used by some nonalcoholic drink creators, like the Digesteaf cocktail in Julia Bainbridge’s “Good Drinks,” which features an “amaro” concentrate from Steven Smith Teamaker, a blend of dried roots, flowers, and rooibos tea leaves. “With almost every sip, it morphs from bitter to sweet and then back again,” writes Bainbridge of the brew.

Herbal teas, often called “tisanes,” are beverages that are brewed similarly to tea, but are not from Camellia sinensis, the plant that green, black, and white teas all come from. Some of the more common varieties of herbal teas include chamomile, ginger, peppermint, and rooibos. Unlike green or black teas, which can turn bitter or tannic past their recommended steep time, it’s hard to over-steep herbal tea. Try steeping for the amount of time that the box or bag recommends, then give it a taste. If you’d prefer a more concentrated flavor, just keep steeping.

Like true tea, herbal tea is always fresher and more flavorful when it’s brewed from larger pieces of the plant — or as tea people say, from “loose-leaf” — rather than being brewed from bags filled with the pulverized plant. You’ll generally want a tablespoon of tisane for every cup of hot water. If you’d prefer your tea iced, you’ll generally want to brew it for a couple minutes longer than you would otherwise, then pour the brew over ice.

Here are 5 herbal teas that can be added into your daily routine. (Of course, if you plan on drinking any on a truly daily basis, it can’t hurt to consult with an herbalist or doctor to ensure they won’t interfere with any pre-existing conditions or medications you may be taking.)

Nettle

Susan Staley, herbalist at Railyard Apothecary and founder of the tea subscription service Standing Land, finds nettle compelling. It’s “a very yummy sort of mineral-rich green, vegetal-tasting tea,” that’s both nutritious and fortifying. It’s said to reduce inflammation, normalize blood sugar, and protect the liver from damage. Nettle in particular benefits from a nice long steep. Staley even recommends leaving it covered overnight on the counter to steep, then drinking it first thing in the morning, either at room temperature or reheated, if you’d like. I love this steeping method for nettle tea — it has the same virtuous-yet-pleasurable vibes as a green smoothie, but is somehow even easier to prepare. Railyard’s nettle leaf seems fresher than others I’ve found, and it smells grassy and lush.

Chrysanthemum

If you like the idea of a floral tisane but find the flavors of lavender and jasmine a tad soapy, try chrysanthemum. An herb commonly used in Traditional Chinese Medicine for high blood pressure and respiratory issues, chrysanthemum has sort of a woodsy, chamomile-like flavor and is great hot or iced. I love sipping it iced when reading or picnicking in the park. The buds in our pick from Amazon are from a farm in Zhejiang Province that’s certified organic in China, although not yet in the U.S.

Tulsi (Sometimes Known As Holy Basil)

There are many varieties of tulsi out there, with a range of flavor profiles. Staley calls Organic India, the most common tulsi tea brand, a “really nice” option that features a blend of three different varieties, called Krishna, Rama, and Vana. One variety called Kapoor, found commonly in northeastern India, has what Staley calls a “sweet, bubble gum, spicy, clove-y flavor.” Native to India, tulsi has uplifting, calming properties. I would happily sub it in for a post-work glass of wine on a stressful day. You could even make it into a non-boozy frozen drink.

Fresh Ginger

You’ve likely had ginger tea before, especially when you were sick. It’s pretty easy to find in store-bought blends meant to soothe colds or sore throats. Technically, ginger is a root (not a leaf or flower like the other herbal teas in this list), though it’s often dried and used as tea or added to tea blends.

If you’ve only had dried ginger tea bags, or even brewed tea with pieces of dried ginger, though, a brew made from fresh ginger will be a different experience. It’s spicier, fruitier — almost floral. I think because ginger is a tummy-soother, we think of it as grandmotherly, or to be reserved for when you’re feeling under the weather, but fresh ginger tea is downright sexy — I find the warming feeling after drinking a cup similar to that burst of endorphins that following a great cardio workout.

Buy the root from your grocery store, rinse it (then there’s no need to peel!), then slice it into rounds. Boil water in a saucepan — about a cup of water per inch of fresh ginger — then throw in the ginger and reduce the heat. Simmer for 5 to 10 minutes, then strain. Mix in a spoonful of honey to tame the intensity. If you can find a knob of fresh turmeric, rinse and slice it the same way, and add it to this mixture before simmering to round out the tea’s flavor and add fruitiness.

Lemon Balm

Technically part of the mint family, lemon balm is bright and refreshing, yet calming, too. As a child of the ’90s, I find its aroma eerily similar to Froot Loops, and thus love brewing a cup when I’m craving a sugary snack. Lemon balm is usually sold on its own, but for an extra-lemony kick, throw in some lemongrass or lemon peel as a DIY tea blend.

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. As an Amazon Associate and Skimlinks affiliate, Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

Lemony, buttery shrimp for when you’re short on time

Big Little Recipe has the smallest-possible ingredient list and big everything else: flavor, creativity, wow factor. That means five ingredients or fewer — not including water, salt, black pepper, and certain fats (like oil and butter), since we’re guessing you have those covered. Psst, did you hear we’re coming out with a cookbook? We’re coming out with a cookbook!

* * *

This is not shrimp scampi, but it’s also not not shrimp scampi. Because if you grab a shovel and dig into it, this saucy, satisfying dish, which took off in the U.S. in the wake of World War II, has so many meanings, it’s almost meaningless.

“In an effort to get an unromantic, unbiased definition of the word, Italian dictionaries of all sizes were consulted,” wrote Nan Ickeringill in 1964. “Unfortunately they were peculiarly silent on the subject, except for an occasional phrase such as, ‘Dio si scampi!’ which is translated as ‘God forbid!'”

What everyone can agree on is that scampi is the plural of scampo, the Italian word for a type of shellfish, as well as a type of dish using said shellfish. This is not uncommon. Think of callaloo: the greens of the taro plant and also the Caribbean dish using those greens. Or muffuletta: the round, sesame-speckled Italian bread and also the New Orleanian sandwich on that bread.

But all of that begs the question: If scampi is a crustacean and a preparation, what does that preparation entail?

If you read enough recipes, you’ll notice a pattern. Garlic, butter, olive oil, lemon juice, white wine, parsley, and red pepper flakes are regulars. And yet, bread crumbs, tomatoes, and just about any herb you can think of make appearances, too. Often it’s a skillet and stove situation. And yet, don’t count out a sheet pan and oven, or air fryer, or grill.

Discussing shrimp scampi’s murky definition in 2007, Melissa Clark wrote, “As I saw it, this meant I was free to interpret shrimp scampi pretty much any way I wanted.” And that’s what I’m doing, too.

Like many scampis, this shrimp dinner is speedy enough for a weeknight and saucy as heck, equal parts buttery and bright. But beyond the shrimp, beyond the butter, the ingredient list takes all sorts of swaps and skips, yielding something all its own.

Instead of achieving acidity with white wine and lemon juice, we’ll ditch the former and accomplish the same feat. Both freshly squeezed lemon juice and finely grated zest emit enough sunshine to require sunscreen. Then humble water effectively stretches that yield, because if there’s not enough sauce for bread-dunking, there’s not enough sauce.

Instead of savory garlic and spicy red pepper flakes, we’re calling in one of my favorite ingredients of all time — savory, spicy prepared horseradish. Adding a dollop at the start infuses the sauce with a world of oomph. Adding another dollop at the end delivers a vinegary dropkick amid all the richness, like a shake of hot sauce or dab of wasabi.

And instead of flat parsley, we’re turning to frilly dill. For greenery and freshness, yes, but mostly because I could devour this herb by the handful. If you don’t feel the same way? Go back to parsley. Or try cilantro or chives or basil. After all, it’s your shrimp not-scampi — whatever you want to call it.

***

Recipe: Speedy Shrimp With Horseradish Butter

Prep time: 5 minutes
Cook time: 5 minutes
Serves: 2

Ingredients:

2 lemons, preferably organic
3 tablespoons unsalted butter, divided
2 tablespoons prepared horseradish, plus more to taste
Kosher salt
1 pound large to extra-large shrimp, shelled and deveined
1 handful chopped dill
Crusty bread, hot pasta, or whatever starchy thing you want, for serving

Directions:

Finely grate the zest of 1 lemon and set aside. Now juice both lemons into a liquid measuring cup — you should get about 6 tablespoons. Add enough cold water to reach 1/2 cup of liquid total.
Melt 1 1/2 tablespoons of butter in a large skillet over medium heat. Stir in 1 tablespoon of horseradish, the lemon water, and a big pinch of salt.
As soon as that comes to a boil, add the shrimp and another big pinch of salt. Simmer for 2 to 4 minutes, flipping each shrimp halfway through, until pink and firm.
Stir in the remaining 1 1/2 tablespoons of butter and 1 tablespoon of horseradish. Taste and increase the horseradish, if you’d like.
Top with the lemon zest and dill, plus a sprinkle of salt (flaky is nice if you’ve got it), and serve with crusty bread for mopping up the sauce.

“Hawking Hawking”: A humanizing portrait of Stephen Hawking

Scientists become celebrities so rarely that the 20th century produced only a handful of such figures, with Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking topping the list. Einstein was renowned for a string of vital contributions to physics in the early decades of the century. Hawking, who lived from 1942 to 2018, may not have been Einstein’s equal, but he was often pegged as the natural inheritor of the Einsteinian mantle, given that his most important work — on the nature of gravity, on black holes, and on the origins of the universe — directly tackled problems that were raised by Einstein’s work a half century earlier.

But as Charles Seife’s new biography makes clear, there was something else that these two figures shared. Hawking, like Einstein, lived a double or even triple existence: There was Hawking the scientist, Hawking the man, and — more familiar to most of us today — Hawking the bestselling author and media darling, famous as much for his appearances on “Star Trek” and “The Simpsons” as for his contributions to physics. In “Hawking Hawking: The Selling of a Scientific Celebrity,” Seife, a veteran science writer and professor of journalism at New York University, shows how these disparate entities merged to make the “real” Stephen Hawking.

Seife’s title is perhaps a bit misleading, as it suggests a conspiracy of marketing executives manipulating an unwitting scientist for their own purposes. In fact, as Seife explains, Hawking was very keen on becoming a public figure. He loved the idea of communicating his work not merely to his colleagues but to the widest possible audience (an idea he might have gotten from his father, Frank, a physician who had written a couple of articles for Scientific American). And he loved being the center of attention.

But there is an additional twist — one that Einstein never had to face. Living with a progressive neurological disease for nearly all of his adult life, Hawking couldn’t help being an object of fascination for journalists and for the public, a figure whose illness always threatened to eclipse his scientific achievements. There was no way to write about him without mentioning the toll that ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in England as motor neurone disease) had taken on his body. In the final years of his life, he lost virtually all motor control, communicating with the outside world only by means of a few muscles in his cheek, which in turn controlled a voice synthesizer. Those who wrote about him, to much of the disabled community’s dismay, were perpetually tempted to contrast Hawking’s soaring mind with his withered, Earth-bound body.

Often, that temptation was too great to resist. Eleven years before his bestselling book “A Brief History of Time” hit the bookstores in 1988, Hawking appeared in a BBC television special called “The Key to the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Creation,” outlining the latest developments in particle physics. In the documentary, the narrator — using language that would be flagged as problematic today — says of Hawking: “Although the gentle gravity of the planet Earth confines him to a wheelchair, in his mind, he masters the overwhelming gravity of the black hole.” Seife observes: “The metaphor of Hawking was almost too perfect. The physics he so loved was always at risk of being obscured by his personal story. Yet he couldn’t ignore the media because he desperately wanted to bring his science to a popular audience, and he was beginning to figure out how.”

This tug-of-war over Hawking’s condition — acknowledge it as central to his identity, or declare it to be unimportant next to his science? — was evident even a decade after “A Brief History” made its debut. A 1998 article in New York magazine blasted Hawking’s publisher, Bantam, for depicting Hawking in his wheelchair on the book’s cover. The publisher knew that the only way a book about physics could conceivably become a bestseller “was to exploit the illness of Stephen Hawking to promote his book — in a way that is at best irrelevant and at worst shameful,” the article stated. As Seife notes: “This went straight to the core of Hawking’s identity, of his struggle to make his mark as a physicist, as a communicator, as a human being despite his disability rather than because of it.”

Hawking, for his part, said that he wasn’t involved with the book’s cover design, and denied the accusations of exploitation. (Seife quotes Peter Guzzardi, the editor of “A Brief History,” as saying that Hawking was pleased with the choice of cover.) Ultimately, Hawking had to accept that the public was just as interested (and likely more interested) in his personal struggle as his contributions to physics. Knowing that this was his reality, he adapted to it. As someone who worked to promote awareness of ALS and fought for the rights of the disabled, Hawking could hardly pretend that it wasn’t a central part of his existence. And yet, some of the mythology that surrounded Hawking was just that. As Seife notes toward the end of the book, the persistence and good humor that Hawking displayed, even as his condition worsened, was inspiring — “but to Hawking, that was hardly any sort of triumph; it was merely survival.”

Moreover, Hawking’s illness did not steer him toward his chosen field; he was destined for a “life of the mind,” as it were, from the beginning. As Seife puts it: “Hawking didn’t retreat into his mind as a result of the disease. Since childhood, Hawking had been cerebral to the extreme. Even when it wasn’t clear whether he would fail out of school, the core of Hawking’s identity, of his self-worth, was the superiority of his brain. It was what he always wanted to be known for.”

Not everything in “Hawking Hawking” is new — after all, Hawking’s own autobiography has been available since 2013 (“My Brief History“), and his first wife, Jane (born Jane Wilde) wrote about her life with the famous physicist in “Music to Move the Stars: A Life With Stephen” in 1999, updated in 2007 as “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,” and later adapted into the popular movie “The Theory of Everything.”

The problem is that Stephen’s and Jane’s accounts often differ — and Seife does an admirable job of deducing which is more accurate on which occasions. And while this is an “unauthorized” biography — Seife does not appear to have had access to Jane or to Hawking’s children — he does not lack for sources; the book is informed by candid interviews with Hawking’s former students, his fellow scientists, and his friends. (There are perhaps more details about Hawking’s sex life than a typical reader might want — or not enough, depending on the reader.)

Seife deftly weaves the physics into the overall story. He doesn’t skimp on the science, explaining very clearly what Hawking figured out about the early universe and black holes, and why those discoveries matter. (Those who struggled with Hawking’s discussion of “imaginary time” in “A Brief History” will benefit from Seife’s lucid explanation here.) Hawking’s greatest breakthrough — showing that black holes are not eternal, but evaporate over mind-bogglingly long periods of time — is a finding so shocking that the physics community is still grappling with its implications.

Was Hawking’s genius overrated? Seife notes that Hawking’s most important work came early in his career; during the final third of his life “his actual scientific contributions were more or less irrelevant to his fame”; much of the work in the latter part of his career has been “largely discounted” and made “little impact on the world of physics.” Even so, Seife on several occasions describes Hawking as a physicist “of the first rank.” (He may not have been an Einstein, but so what? We already had one of those.)

Perhaps Seife’s boldest conceit — some readers might call it an unnecessary gimmick — is to tell the story in reverse. We start with Hawking’s death and burial in Westminster Abbey, and work back through Hawking’s rise to superstardom, his two marriages, his life as a brilliant but bored student, and on to his childhood. As we make our way through the book, Hawking becomes progressively more able-bodied. It worked in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” and while it inevitably leads to occasional repetition, it more or less works here.

The vast majority of scientists, of course, never get biographies written about them at all. A few, like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, produce a vast literature. And in the middle we have Stephen Hawking, who was born 300 years to the day after the death of Galileo, and who happened to die exactly 139 years after the birth of Einstein. In a hundred years, when Hawking will have receded into history like those other figures, perhaps interest in the minutiae of his life will have faded away. But for now, while he lives on vividly in our memories, we yearn to peer behind the curtain, and “Hawking Hawking” allows us to do just that.

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

Leftist close to victory in Peru, despite U.S. opposition and cascade of media slander

With his wide-brimmed peasant hat and oversized teacher’s pencil held high, Peru’s Pedro Castillo has been traveling the country exhorting voters to get behind a call that has been particularly urgent during this devastating pandemic: “No más pobres en un país rico” — No more poor people in a rich country. In a cliffhanger of an election with a huge urban-rural and class divide, it appears that the rural teacher, farmer and union leader is about to make history by defeating — by less than one-half of 1 percent, according to the nearly-complete vote count — powerful far-right candidate Keiko Fujimori, scion of the country’s political “Fujimori dynasty.”

Fujimori is challenging the election’s results, alleging widespread fraud. Her campaign has only presented evidence of isolated irregularities, and so far there is nothing to suggest a tainted vote. She can challenge some of the votes to delay the final results, however, and as in the U.S., even an allegation of fraud by the losing candidate will cause uncertainty and raise tensions in the country.

Castillo’s victory will be remarkable not only because he is a leftist teacher who is the son of illiterate peasants and his campaign was grossly outspent by Fujimori, but because there was a relentless propaganda attack against him that touched on historical fears of Peru’s middle class and elites. It was similar to what happened recently to progressive candidate Andrés Arauz, who narrowly lost Ecuador’s elections, but even more intense.

Grupo El Comercio, a media conglomerate that controls 80% of Peru’s newspapers, led the charge against Castillo. They accused him of being a terrorist with links to the Shining Path, a guerrilla group whose conflict with the state between 1980 and 2002 led to tens of thousands of deaths and left the population traumatized. Castillo’s link to the Shining Path is flimsy: While a leader with Sutep, an education worker’s union, Castillo is said to have been friendly with Movadef, the Movement for Amnesty and Fundamental Rights, a group alleged to have been the political wing of the Shining Path. In reality, Castillo himself was a rondero when the insurgency was most active. Ronderos were peasant self-defense groups that protected their communities from the guerrillas and continue to provide security against crime and violence.

Two weeks before the elections, on May 23, 18 people were massacred in the rural Peruvian town of San Miguel del Ene. The government immediately attributed the attack to the remnants of the Shining Path involved in drug trafficking, although no group has taken responsibility yet. The media linked the attack to Castillo and his campaign, whipping up fear of more violence should he win the presidency. Castillo denounced the attack and reminded Peruvians that similar massacres had occurred in the run-up to the 2011 and 2016 elections. For her part, Fujimori suggested Castillo was linked to the killing.

Peruvian newspapers spreading fear about Castillo. Photos by Marco Teruggi, @Marco_Teruggi

On the economic front, Castillo has been accused of being a communist who wants to nationalize key industries, and who would turn Peru into a “cruel dictatorship” like Venezuela. Billboards along Lima’s main highway asked the population: “Would you like to live in Cuba or Venezuela?” referring to a Castillo win. As seen in the photos above, newspapers linked Castillo’s campaign to the devaluation of the Peruvian currency and warned that a Castillo victory would hurt low-income Peruvians the most because businesses would shutter or move overseas. Time and time again, the Castillo campaign has clarified that he is not a communist and that his aim is not to nationalize industries but to renegotiate contracts with multinationals so that more of the profits stay with local communities.

Meanwhile, Fujimori was treated with kid gloves by the media during the campaign, with one of the newspapers in the above pictures claiming that “Keiko guarantees work, food, health and an immediate reactivation of the economy.” Her past as a first lady during her father Alberto Fujimori’s brutal rule is largely ignored by corporate media. She is able to claim that “fujimorismo defeated terrorism,” without being challenged on the horrors that the previous Fujimori regime inflicted on the country, including the forced sterilization of more than 270,000 women and 22,000 men, for which her father is now on trial. He is currently imprisoned for other human rights abuses and corruption, though Keiko had promised to free him if she won. Also ignored was the fact that Keiko herself is out on bail as of last year, pending a money-laundering investigation, and without presidential immunity, she too will probably end up in prison.

The international media was no different in its unbalanced coverage of Castillo and Fujimori, with Bloomberg warning that “elites tremble” at the thought of Castillo as president and a Financial Times headline screaming, “Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election.”

Peru’s economy has grown impressively over the past 20 years, but that growth did not raise all boats. Millions of Peruvians in the countryside have been left abandoned by the state. On top of that, like many of its neighbors (including Colombia, Chile and Ecuador), Peru has underinvested in health care, education and other social programs. Such choices so decimated the health care system that Peru now has the shameful distinction of leading the entire world in per capita COVID-19 deaths.

In addition to the public health disaster, Peruvians have been living through political turmoil marked by an extraordinary number of high-profile cases of corruption and four presidents in three years. Five of its last seven presidents faced corruption accusations. In 2020, President Martín Vizcarra (himself accused of corruption) was impeached, unseated and replaced by Manuel Merino. The maneuver was denounced as a parliamentary coup, leading to several days of massive street protests. Just five days into his tenure, Merino resigned and was replaced by current President Francisco Sagasti.

One of Castillo’s key campaign platforms is to convoke a constitutional referendum to let the people decide whether they want a new constitution or wish to keep the current one written in 1993 under the regime of Alberto Fujimori, which entrenched neoliberalism into its framework.

“The current constitution prioritizes private interests over public interests, profit over life and dignity,” reads his plan of government. Castillo proposes that a new constitution include the following: recognition and guarantees for the rights to health, education, food, housing and internet access; recognition for indigenous peoples and Peru’s cultural diversity; recognition of the rights of nature; redesign of the state to focus on transparency and citizens’ participation; and a key role for the state in strategic planning to ensure that the public interest takes precedence.

On the foreign policy front, Castillo’s victory will represent a huge blow to U.S. interests in the region and an important step towards reactivating Latin American integration. He has promised to withdraw Peru from the Lima Group, an ad hoc committee of countries dedicated to regime change in Venezuela.

In addition, the Peru Libre party has called for expelling USAID and for the closure of U.S. military bases in the country. Castillo has also expressed support for countering the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) and strengthening both the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The victory is also a good omen for the left in Chile, Colombia and Brazil, each of which will hold presidential elections over the next year and a half.

Castillo will face a daunting task, with a hostile congress, a hostile business class, a hostile press and most likely, a hostile Biden administration. The support of millions of angry and mobilized Peruvians demanding change, along with international solidarity, will be key to fulfilling his campaign promise of addressing the needs of the poorest and abandoned sectors of Peruvian society.

Did Marjorie Taylor Greene just break campaign finance rules by appearing in a super PAC ad?

Not long after her election to Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., helped raise money for a super PAC by appearing in a video ad that tests the boundaries of rules limiting fundraising by elected officials.

The ad explicitly asks for money for the Stop Socialism Now PAC, an entity that can accept unlimited donations. But candidates and elected officials are not allowed to solicit contributions greater than $5,000, according to campaign finance experts.

Greene made the ad with Rick Shaftan, a North Carolina-based consultant whose company also handled ads for Greene’s campaign and works with a gun activism group that has been closely aligned with the freshman lawmaker. Some Republicans have cut their ties to Shaftan over his history of racist remarks.

In December, Greene appeared in several ads for the super PAC leading up to Georgia’s two Senate runoffs. “It’s time to fight back now before it’s too late,” Greene said in one of the videos.

Immediately after she leaves the screen, a voice-over urges viewers to “make a contribution today.”

Under federal law, candidates and elected officials cannot “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election … unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Super PACs aren’t subject to those requirements, as noted in the fine print on the donation webpage referenced in the Greene ad. The statute defines “solicit” as “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly,” that a person give money or something of value. The law says messages should be considered in context, including “the conduct of persons involved in the communication.”

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

Legal experts differed in their assessments of whether Greene’s appearance follows the law, depending on their views of how strictly campaign finance rules should be interpreted. The Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance rules, is notoriously weak. Although the commission staff looks into complaints about violations of fundraising rules, the six-member commission, which has equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, routinely deadlocks.

Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert with the good-government advocacy group Common Cause, said he believes the Greene ad clearly crosses the line.

“This communication constitutes an illegal solicitation by a member of Congress of unlimited funds,” Ryan said. The ban on soliciting unlimited donations, he said, “becomes meaningless if a candidate can do this.”

Ryan said he’s never before seen a candidate reading a super PAC’s script in an ad that explicitly asks for money. That goes further, he said, than other instances where super PACs have repurposed footage of a candidate or hosted candidates at fundraisers that people have already paid to attend.

Political operatives have steadily pushed to blur the lines between candidates and their allied super PACs, which are supposed to be independent. Candidates regularly started showing up at super PAC fundraisers with the FEC’s blessing. Campaigns and super PACs are not supposed to share private information, so campaigns started publicly posting video that super PACs could use — in 2015, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign famously posted hours and hours of raw footage.

The Greene ad is different because her appearance was clearly recorded specifically for the super PAC.

“Even if a super PAC can accept, a federal candidate can’t solicit — that is clear and indisputable,” said Erin Chlopak of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “The whole basis for these organizations to exist is acting independently and not in coordination with federal candidates. The weaker we make that, or the lack of rules that really require such independence, then the entire premise of why they’re allowed to accept unlimited contributions falls apart.”

The Greene ad doesn’t specify a $5,000 contribution limit, which experts say could have avoided the issue.

“My advice would be to be very clear that a candidate is not soliciting beyond those limits,” said William Minor, a campaign finance lawyer at the firm DLA Piper. Minor said the FEC has given detailed guidance about what candidates can and can’t do in relation to fundraising events, but the only rule that addresses asking for money in ads is the blanket ban on soliciting outsize donations.

Still, Jan Baran, a prominent Republican campaign finance lawyer, said he believes the ad complies with FEC rules because the solicitation for money flashes up while Greene is not on screen. She also doesn’t appear on the super PAC’s online donations page, he said.

“The ad and Ms. Greene seem in compliance since there is no solicitation by Ms. Greene and no evidence direct or indirect that impermissible [federal election] funds are being solicited by using Ms. Greene’s name or likeness,” Baran said in an email.

The Greene campaign and its lawyer, former Trump White House deputy counsel Stefan C. Passantino, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Reached by phone, Shaftan hung up. His Twitter bio says, “I no longer talk to the #FakeNewsMedia or care what you write.”

Greene voted to overturn the presidential election by objecting to the Electoral College results on Jan. 6, when a violent mob of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol. Georgia Democrats called for Greene to resign over her inflammatory rhetoric leading up to the insurrection.

In February, the House voted to remove Greene from her committee assignments for conduct such as accosting a school shooting survivor and showing support online for killing Democratic leaders. Greene said in a speech that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be executed for treason and liked a Facebook comment that suggested removing Pelosi with “a bullet to the head.”

Those incidents predate Greene’s election to Congress, but while in office she has provoked fresh altercations on Capitol Hill. Freshman Democrat Cori Bush of Missouri moved her office after she said Greene and her staff “berated” and “threatened” her in response to being asked to wear masks. Greene also put up an anti-transgender sign outside her office, across the hall from a lawmaker whose daughter is transgender. Last week, Greene aggressively pursued Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., outside the House chamber, falsely accusing her of supporting terrorists.

It is not clear exactly when and where the super PAC launched the ad featuring Greene. Stop Socialism Now PAC reported spending $12,000 on Dec. 4 for “digital and television advertising” against the Democratic candidates in the Senate runoffs, according to FEC disclosures. The group didn’t show up in a search of broadcast airtime by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

The super PAC posted the Greene ad that asked for money on its Facebook page on Dec. 3, logging more than 3,500 views. That ad isn’t one of the super PAC’s paid posts that show up in the social network’s voluntary disclosures of political ads.

FEC disclosures don’t connect contributions to any particular ad or solicitation. But the super PAC has received several donations above the $5,000 limit that applies to regular (non-super) PACs.

Cynthia B. Howalt, whose family owns a chemical manufacturing company in Greene’s district, gave $125,000 on Nov. 13. Her husband, Frederick “Chip” Howalt, told a local reporter in January that the couple wanted to increase support for Greene and oppose Republicans who didn’t vote to overturn the 2020 election. The couple didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Another large donor to the super PAC was William O. Cooley, a retired land developer in West Palm Beach, who gave $10,000 on Dec. 9. He declined to comment.

Greene’s extensive television ads, financed in part with her $1 million loan to her campaign, were key to her victory in the Republican primary last year. Her campaign has paid Shaftan’s firm, Neighborhood Research and Media, more than $665,000 for ads, polls, mailers, phone messages and calls, according to FEC disclosures. The super PAC paid the firm another $10,000.

Shaftan’s ads for Greene’s official campaign included one simulating an explosion at an enormous Confederate monument in Stone Mountain, Georgia, as Greene says, “The socialist left won’t stop until America is destroyed.” In another ad, Greene brandishes an assault rifle and appears to blow up targets labeled “gun control” and “socialism.”

Shaftan also works with a network of pro-gun groups run by brothers in Ohio named Chris, Aaron and Ben Dorr. They are also prominent allies of Greene’s. In an interview with Chris Dorr a week before the 2020 election, Greene said that if Trump lost, his supporters might resort to violence.

“Once it’s gone, freedom doesn’t come back by itself — the only way you get your freedoms back is it’s earned with the price of blood,” Greene said in a video of the interview, reported by Mother Jones. “This is it. Nov. 3, freedom is on the ballot.”

Greene planned to speak at a May 1 rally in Columbus, Ohio, organized by Chris Dorr, who told followers they could openly carry guns there. On the eve of the rally, the organizers called it off. Greene released a statement claiming state authorities refused to provide security for her.

An Ohio State Highway Patrol spokesman disputed that account, saying the police “had every intention of providing security” and had “all necessary measures in place.”

Chris Dorr didn’t respond to requests for comment. In 2019, Ohio authorities investigated and decided against prosecuting him for threatening assassinations in response to the Republican governor’s proposed gun regulations. “There could be political bodies lying all over the ground,” Dorr said in an online video. “We gun owners will pull the trigger and leave the corpse for the buzzards.”

Greene also touted the Dorr brothers’ American Firearms Association’s endorsement of a bill she introduced in Congress to block federal funding for any gun regulations. An article on the far-right website Breitbart said Greene’s bill was a response to an abandoned effort late last year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to restrict equipment that makes it possible to use pistols like assault weapons. This type of weapon was later used in the Boulder, Colorado, mass shooting in March.

In April, Greene’s campaign said it would raffle off a version of the weapon. “I’m giving away the gun that triggers the Fake News Media,” Greene said in an email to supporters.

The end of QAnon: U.S. Democracy still isn’t safe

There are people in this world who don’t like —and even hate — democracy. They’re on the move against it, particularly here in America, and the Qanon religion/cult is the glue that’s bringing them all together.

One group doesn’t like democracy because they don’t trust the “ignorant masses” and the “rabble” to choose leaders who can make decisions for an entire country. They’re the “Philosopher” opposers of democracy.

They’re well-represented in America by a large handful of rightwing billionaires and their “libertarian” think-tanks and front groups working against, for example, HR1/SB1 For The People Act.

Some hate democracy because they’re members of the “faction” class that James Madison warned us about in Federalist #10; the special interests. They’re the “Thieving Scoundrel” opposers of democracy.

These would be the giant businesses (and the billionaires they produce) that want to keep their profits high by poisoning our air, water and food; running giant monopolies to stomp out small businesses; or otherwise rip off America and Americans…and don’t want “we the people” to be able to protect ourselves through government regulation.

And some hate democracy because they’re running undemocratic, authoritarian governments outside the US, and if they can destroy democracy in America it’ll take a lot of pressure off of them. They’re the “Foreign Enemies” of democracy.

All three of these groups have found common cause in a collective takeover of the Republican Party and the embrace of Qanon. And, ironically, they all claim to be “defending democracy” in the process.

Voltaire wrote, “[W]hoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

That was just the first part of the quote; he was speaking specifically of the many absurdities embraced by our various religions. Which now includes Qanon, a pseudo-religion apparently started by an American pig farmer who lives in The Philippines.

It’s burrowed so deeply into the bloodstream of conventional American religion that the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention worried out loud on CNN that it’s replacing churches as parishioner’s primary religion. “[P]astors only have access to people maybe an hour or three hours a day, that’s nothing compares to 24 hours a day from Facebook,” he told Erin Burnett.

While much of white evangelical Christianity has long tilted Republican, QAnon is not just Republican but anti-democracy, anti-American, pro-oligarch Republican. The Michael Flynn variety of Republican.

One in six Americans, according to a recent PRRI survey, today “believes” in the Qanon conspiracy, including the part about Democrats drinking the blood of children. Given that about a third of Americans are Republicans, and virtually all of those believers identify as Republicans, that suggests that between a third and half of all Republican voters have bought into this new secular religion/cult.

And elected Republicans are, almost to a person, either supportive of this new religion or silent on the issue.

As Voltaire said in the rest of his quote, “If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.”

While religion generally has achieved an uneasy truce with democracy, the three groups mentioned earlier who openly hate and regularly work to destroy democracy have found QAnon and the general gullibility it creates in its “believers” to be extraordinarily useful.

The “Philosophers,” “Thieving Scoundrels” and “Foreign Enemies” who collectively want to bring down democracy around the world are actively promoting the various parts of the Qanon religion that each finds most useful.

The “Philosophers” use it to promote doubt about the accuracy and fairness of elections and the democratic process.

The “Thieving Scoundrels” use it to portray government efforts to reduce inequality and poverty, protect citizens from a deadly pandemic, and regulate the activity of toxic, planet-destroying industries as if they were all parts of an “evil conspiracy.”

And the “Foreign Enemies” are popping up all over social media and the internet, portraying themselves as “average people” while doing everything they can to use this new religion to stir hatred and division among Americans.

Because if democracy can be taken down in America, the oligarchs and autocrats of the world will find it much easier to bring down elsewhere.

They’re already working as hard as they can to bring authoritarian/oligarchic governance to Europe, having established beachheads in Sweden, France, Germany and England and completely taken over Turkey, Hungary and Poland.

Democracy is a fragile flame. While it burned brightly in indigenous societies for over 100,000 years, since the agricultural revolution it has only appeared a few times among what we referred to as “civilized” or “advanced” societies.

It first popped up in Greece about 3000 years ago, then in Rome around 2000 years ago; both times it failed in a few generations. It then made its appearance here in North America about 240 years ago, and now has spread to roughly half of all nations, about a fifth of the population of the world.

From the Republican Party’s efforts to rig future elections to General Michael Flynn calling for the violent overthrow of the American government to billionaire-owned or -subsidized media operations openly supporting oligarchy and ridiculing efforts to make a more pluralistic, egalitarian society, the forces that seek to destroy democracy are on the move.

The “Philosophers,” “Theiving Scoundrels” and “Foreign Enemies” are having their collective moment.

Qanon believers are now convinced that Donald Trump will return to his throne in the White House this August. Many have sworn to do everything they can to bring that about, making anything from another January 6th to mass murder like Tim McVeigh did possible.

As that recent PRRI poll found, about 1/6th of Americans agree with the statement that “the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex trafficking operation.” The New York Times headline reads: QAnon Now as Popular in U.S. as Some Major Religions.

They believe absurdities, and are prepared to commit atrocities. Democracy in America — and around the world — hangs by a thread.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

The slow leak of Trump’s corruption is a problem for Biden’s DOJ

The Justice Department seems to be having some trouble running away from the past it’s apparently so desperate to shake off.

Amid reports of corruption running far deeper within the DOJ under the Trump administration than previously acknowledged, current Attorney General Merrick Garland, has taken a number of curious steps to defend the former administration in the past week despite Biden’s campaign promise to “restore the soul of America.”

On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department in 2018 quietly subpoenaed Apple to obtain the records of two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. The two lawmakers – Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the panel’s current chairman – both confirmed that the probes have since been closed.

“It is concerning that they continued to seek our records with no evidence that there was any wrongdoing other than that they were calling the president out for his corruption,” Swalwell told the Post, adding: “It’s a fragile time for our democracy.”

The request, which demanded the data of former House members as well as their family members, was part of a larger Trump crusade to get to the bottom who had leaked classified information to various media outlets throughout his term.

Last week, it was found that the Trump DOJ subpoenaed a number of reporters from The New York Times – a move also made against journalists from both CNN and The Washington Post months prior. The Times probes specifically concerned the paper’s coverage of Russia’s influence in the 2016 election.

Last Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki condemned the practice, alleging that the current president “is committed — strongly — to the rights of the freedom of press, as you have seen for decades, and to standing up for the rights of journalists.”

However, The New York Times found that the forceful seizure of reporters’ records continued under Biden’s watch. In fact, the Biden administration reportedly pressured a number of Times executives with a gag order preventing them from revealing Trump’s former subpoenas. Though the gag order was lifted on March 3, Psaki claimed that no one had known about its enforcement until last Friday.

Reports of Trump’s attacks on various media come amid deeper revelations surrounding Trump’s effort to undermine the Biden presidency both before and after Biden was elected in 2020.

This week, CNN revealed leaked audio from 2019 of longtime Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani pressurizing two top Ukranian officials to publicly announce an investigation to President Biden and his son, Hunter.

“All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I’m gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he’s gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out,” Giuliani said in the tape. “Somebody in Ukraine’s gotta take that seriously.”

Trump would later call the president of Ukraine himself, Volodymyr Zelensky, to exert pressure on country to open an inquiry – the implication being that if a probe was not opened, the U.S. would suspend military aid to the Ukraine, undermining the country’s military position in its proxy wars with Russia.

Revelations also came this week about Trump’s saga to overturn the 2020 election results following Biden’s win. According to The Washington Post, back in late December, during the final weeks of Trump’s term, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows penned a spate of emails to acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, pressurizing Rosen to investigate unsubstantiated claims of widespread election fraud.

In his letters, Meadows asked Rosen to probe several baseless conspiracy theories about a “stolen” election in various states throughout the U.S. One theory involved the idea that Italian satellites had been weaponized to manipulate U.S. voting machine counts.

Rosen has repeatedly maintained that the Justice Department did not comply with any Trump officials’ requests to look into the results of the 2020 election despite facing the threat of removal by Trump.

During his campaign, Biden was steadfast about his desire to “move on” from the all-encompassing nature of Trump’s corruption, emphasizing the need to “restore the soul of America.” However, in recent weeks, it’s fair to say that the Justice Department has assumed a series of legal postures that appear to flout the president’s promise.

In late May, Garland committed the DOJ to blocking the full release of the “Barr memo” – an internal document that shows how former Attorney General William Barr managed to ensure Trump would not be charged by former special counsel Robert Mueller during Mueller’s investigation into whether Trump allowed Russia to meddle in 2016 election.

The memo, which specifically analyzes whether some presidential actions by Trump constituted obstructions of justice, was only partially publicized by the DOJ, which has been accused of mischaracterizing the document.

“The Department of Justice had an opportunity to come clean, turn over the memo, and close the book on the politicization and dishonesty of the past four years,” Noah Bookbinder, president of government watchdog CREW, told NPR. “Last night it chose not to do so. In choosing to fight Judge Jackson’s decision, the DOJ is taking a position that is legally and factually wrong and that undercuts efforts to move past the abuses of the last administration. We will be fighting this in court.”

Last week, the department again sparked ire from progressives when it asked a federal judge to shut down a civil rights lawsuit filed against Trump and Barr for violently sweeping Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters at the height of the George Floyd Protests back in June.

Federal attorneys have argued that the intervention was necessary to ensure the safety of the former president, though ACLU attorneys have disputed the notion that Trump was in any real danger, instead claiming the protesters were targeted with undue force “because of their viewpoint, their message, their speech.”

On Monday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through progressives for a third time when it announced that it would continue to defend Trump in a defamation suit filed in 2019 by one of Trump’s rape allegers, former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll.

The department has argued that because the allegations date back to Trump’s time in office, he should remain immune from the suit – a privilege afforded to public officials in the case of defamation suits.

Justice Department attorneys explained: “Given the president’s position in our constitutional structure, his role in communicating with the public is especially significant, the president’s statements fall within the scope of his employment for multiple reasons.”

Carroll’s lawyers have rebutted that Trump, who accused Carroll of lying while in office, made remarks that were way out of his official purview. “There is not a single person in the United States — not the president and not anyone else — whose job description includes slandering women they sexually assaulted,” her legal team contended.

Many on the left have found Garland’s unexpectedly lenient – and perhaps protective – treatment of Trump deeply troubling. This week, Jeff Hauser, the founder and director of the Revolving Door Project, argued that Garland’s actions demonstrate a dark side of “liberalism’s belief in process itself.” He wrote in The New Republic:

“When standard procedure is sacrosanct, all that the right needs to do is make it standard procedure to never hold them accountable. Notably, Garland consistently promised ‘that politics would play no role in his decisions’ during his confirmation hearing, after numerous prompts by Senate Republicans. That’s intentional. The GOP was framing it as wrongfully partisan to reverse course from the most wrongful, partisan, and most importantly, anti-democratic President in history.”

Many speculated that Garland’s confirmation as attorney general, which boasted bipartisan support from Congress, would mark a clean break from the Trump administration.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., indicated that Garland’s confirmation would begin the dawn of a new era. “After Donald Trump spent four years – four long years – subverting the powers of the justice department for his own political benefit, treating the attorney general like his own personal defense lawyer, America can breathe a sigh of relief that we’re going to have someone like Merrick Garland leading the justice department,” he declared. “Someone with integrity, independence, respect for the rule of law and credibility on both sides of the aisle.”

As Trump’s past improprieties within the DOJ continue to emerge, Garland’s commitment to these virtues will no doubt be tested far more intensely than they already have been.

Jeffrey Toobin is back on CNN and I have questions

On Thursday afternoon, were you also surprised to see disgraced legal analyst and Ryan Murphy adaptee Jeffrey Toobin re-emerging from a seven-and-a-half-month shame hiatus to reclaim his seat at CNN, where he had been placed on leave following an incident in which he was observed by New Yorker and WNYC co-workers masturbating on camera during a work Zoom call? In his first few minutes back on the air, Toobin performed a ritual act of penance — which, in a concession to discipline, I will not describe as “self-flagellation” — and after witnessing the good-natured grilling by anchor Alisyn Camerota, I still have questions beyond her opening salvo of “What the hell were you thinking?”

Is the cable news on-air legal analyst hiring landscape so dire that the network had no choice but to hold Toobin’s position for him for two-thirds of a year while he worked on becoming, as he told Camerota, “a person people can trust again”? Was his masturbation incident, as Toobin said, a “deeply moronic and indefensible” choice that made performing community service while “trying to be a better person” necessary, or was it “one terrible mistake,” as an unnamed CNN executive told The Washington Post, that shouldn’t “define a person”? Is the cable news audience this hungry for legal analysis from makers of “deeply moronic” decisions? (And what Olivia Pope knock-off advised Toobin to tell us he has been “working in a food bank” in order to improve himself, like a slacker staring down the end of junior year and desperate to cobble together an adequate college application? Is it possible to cringe so hard at the TV you develop a cramp?)

Does this set a precedent at CNN that the entire staff understands and feels comfortable with? Would the network hire Toobin today if he hadn’t already been a contributor before he got fired by the New Yorker as a result of their internal investigation — which Toobin assures us revealed no further incidents than the one caught on camera? If so, is this climate of forgiveness transparent in CNN’s job postings? What types of previous workplace misconduct that might come to light during a pre-employment background check would qualify for red-flag status in the network’s HR department? If he had gone Inner Toobin (don’t look at me, I didn’t name his Harvard column!) during a CNN meeting instead, would the network have fired him for it? If the answer is no, how many times can CNN’s on-air talent masturbate in front of their colleagues before HR takes action? Is there a different number for workers who don’t appear on air? Is this information shared with all new hires in an orientation, or just the men?

Are the four years Kathy Griffin has remained fired from her CNN gig after one terrible mistake, compared to Toobin’s seven and a half months of personal leave, an example of a gender grace gap? If one agrees with the network executive that a terrible mistake shouldn’t “ruin [a person’s] employment opportunities for life,” is there not a wide terrain of other opportunities available for someone of Toobin’s experience and stature, outside of TV news celebrity, that could keep him from eviction or ruined credit? To paraphrase Ebenezer Scrooge, are there no Substacks, no Netflix option checks, no quiet consulting gigs? Is downgrading a man’s celebrity status considered a cruel and unusual punishment in the media industry? On a scale of one to “flashed by a coworker,” how degrading should we understand that to feel?

And finally, how should viewers expect CNN to handle legal analysis of stories about workplace sexual misconduct or harassment, especially when covering the industry itself? Level with us: Just how awkward is that going to get?

Joe Manchin and Donald Trump: The two men who threaten it all

After West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s comments last weekend in which he refused to consider reforming the filibuster or voting to support the For the People Act, it’s been very hard to avoid the dreaded thought that the 2021 Democratic agenda is already on life-support.

Sure, Senate Democrats recently managed to get a bipartisan bill passed to fund programs that increase competition with China and deal with various security threats, but that’s because Mitch McConnell granted his rare dispensation since he knows such legislation is not the sort of thing that the public will see as a Democratic “win.” And there was word on Thursday evening that the “Gang of 10” working on a bipartisan infrastructure bill in the Senate had come to an agreement, although early reports suggest that the climate change mitigation portion of the initiative has been jettisoned. But even as bad as such a “deal” would be, it is hard to imagine finding even 10 Republicans to vote to break the filibuster in support. Or even 50 Democrats for that matter!

Everything feels very small and insubstantial all of a sudden, which is extremely worrying.

It’s hard to imagine the Democrats will be able to keep the Trumpified GOP at bay in 2022 and 2024 if they are unable to deliver more than this. Just saying you tried, kind of, isn’t the most inspiring electoral message. On the other hand, it’s not as if the Trumpified Republicans are in particularly good shape either. It’s always tempting to see them as having some magical hold on the American public because it seems so bizarre and inexplicable that they are able to win at all. But it is important to remember that the leader to whom they are compelled to pay fealty despite losing the popular vote twice and never gaining above a 45% approval rating is making the GOP even more toxic than it was before. And many of the candidates they will be facing are more likely to be following the Marjorie Taylor Green model than the “reasonable” Republican model that might appeal to the suburban voters who could make the difference. According to the New York Times, there are a boatload of these weirdos jumping into the fray:

Across the country, a rising class of Republican challengers has embraced the fiction that the 2020 election was illegitimate, marred by fraud and inconsistencies. Aggressively pushing Mr. Trump’s baseless claims that he was robbed of re-election, these candidates represent the next generation of aspiring G.O.P. leaders, who would bring to Congress the real possibility that the party’s assault on the legitimacy of elections, a bedrock principle of American democracy, could continue through the 2024 contests.

One of them is a Michigan woman who calls herself the “MAGA bride,” complete with a Donald J. Trump-themed wedding dress, and says it is highly probable that Trump actually won her state. A Washington state Republican candidate for governor who lost by 545,000 votes decided to drop his inane lawsuit contesting the results and decided to run for Congress in 2022 instead. They are just two among many across the country who are running on Trump’s Big Lie agenda which includes support for all those vote subversion and voter nullification laws being passed by Republicans all over the country.

Considering the huge majority of Republican voters who are convinced that the Democrats stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump, the turn to conspiracy theories certainly makes sense in GOP primaries. But there are some Republicans who remember all the way back in 2012 when the GOP ran a bunch of right-wing kooks for the U.S. Senate and lost their majority. Remember Todd “legitimate rape” Akin and Sharron “second amendment remedies” Angle? Those two didn’t work out so well for the GOP’s play for the majority in the Senate. This time there may very well be dozens of candidates like that — many of whom endorsed by Trump himself.

For his part, Mitch McConnell is not thrilled about any of this:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1402992722776973315

The National Journal’s Josh Krakauer reports that McConnell isn’t the only Republican leader who is nervous about Trump’s influence. He points out that if Trump were any kind of team player he would stay out of the process and just use his clout with voters to raise money and turn out voters. But that’s not how Trump rolls:

[O]ut of office, he’s continuing his destructive behavior, endorsing weaker candidates in contested primaries, squelching the campaigns of erstwhile allies, and elevating not-ready-for-prime-time contenders in must-win Senate contests. His erratic behavior since losing the presidential election—exemplified by his conspiracy theorizing and suppression of the GOP vote in Georgia’s Senate runoffs in January, handing Democrats the majority—is only accelerating as the midterms draw closer. It’s leading to increasing Republican pessimism about their chances of retaking the Senate majority next year, even as the political environment is awfully favorable on paper to the party out of power.

What a shame that would be.

As for the Democrats, there may be some hope on the electoral front. The recent special election in New Mexico to fill the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland offered some interesting info that relates to the extreme radicalization of the GOP. The Democrat Melanie Stansbury beat the Trump Republican Mark Moores, as expected. But she beat him by 24 points, which is more than both Haaland and Biden received in the district last November. According to Politico, both parties attributed this to the Trumpification of the New Mexico Republican party which has been turning off Independent voters for a while and failed miserably with a dishonest message calling Stansbury a “radical extremist” who wanted to defund the police.

Obviously, it’s unknown if this portends a larger trend but it shocked the GOP which expected Moores to do much better than he did. Not that they can change their approach now. Their leader Donald Trump won’t allow that and neither will their hardcore base.

CNN’s data analyst Harry Enten pointed out that there have been a number of special elections at the state and local level that follow the same dynamic which he attributes to President Biden’s popularity. While history suggests that the party in power will lose the midterms, Enten says that Biden’s approval rating is the steadiest of any president since WWII and that gives Democrats a chance to hang on. It would certainly be helpful if the Senate Democrats could help out a little bit by passing some of the popular legislation he — and they — ran on last November. After all, that’s one of the main reasons people support him.