Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

4 things to know about the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine pause

Four months into the largest U.S. vaccine rollout in decades, it’s become clear that the messaging surrounding covid-19 vaccination efforts is as important as the science behind them.

That was true when the first covid vaccines were introduced in December at hospitals and nursing homes and even more so after the federal government on Tuesday paused the Johnson & Johnson vaccine after reports of extremely rare but very serious — in one case, fatal — side effects emerged.

Most health experts largely applauded the government for its decision, saying it showed regulators making vaccine safety their top priority. They said regulators need to strike a balance between addressing small but serious risks while encouraging millions to get inoculated to quickly end the pandemic.

“The pause is a good decision and shows the public health system is working,” said Noel Brewer, a professor in the health behavior department at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

1. What exactly happened with the J&J single shot anyway?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration recommended Tuesday that health providers and states temporarily stop the use of J&J’s covid vaccine after reports emerged that six women in the U.S. who got the single-shot preventive developed a rare but serious blood clot. One of the women died and another is in critical condition.

All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred six to 13 days after vaccination, FDA and CDC officials said.

It’s the latest in a series of messaging challenges.

This pause comes less than a week after three vaccine clinics in Georgia, North Carolina and Colorado temporarily stopped using the vaccine when several people fainted or became dizzy immediately following their shots. Fainting is a known risk from all vaccines, affecting about 1 in 1,000 people, health experts say. In response to these cases, some health experts questioned whether even the short-term halt was necessary.

In addition, federal regulators are concerned that the blood clotting seen with the J&J vaccine is the same type as seen globally with AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The AstraZeneca vaccine isn’t in use in the United States but has been authorized in more than 70 countries. The European Medicines Agency recently concluded that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as “very rare side effects” on the AstraZeneca vaccine label. While advising the public to look out for signs of clots, the European regulators said the benefits of the shot were still worth the risk.

It also comes on the heels of questions faced by J&J regarding its rollout after a Baltimore subcontractor who was making its vaccine accidentally spoiled 15 million doses earlier in April. The problems at the facility were contributing to a drop in J&J doses this month.

2. But what does all this mean in terms of my risk?

More than 560,000 Americans have died of covid in the past year — or 1 in 586 people. An individual’s risk of dying of or being hospitalized with covid is far higher than the risk of getting a rare blood clot from the J&J vaccine.

Meanwhile, the risk of getting a blood clot is also far higher if you have covid.

To put the less-than-1-in-a-million risk of getting a severe blood clot from the J&J vaccine in perspective, people face a 1-in-500,000 chance each year of being struck by lightning.

“It’s important to keep these numbers in context,” Jonathan Watanabe, a pharmacist and an associate dean in the College of Health and Sciences at the University of California-Irvine, said of the rare blood clots. “While frightening, it’s a rare event.” The risk of blood clots associated with covid infection is actually greater, he added.

The pause, which FDA officials said they expect will be a few days, will give regulators time to alert doctors to the added risk and show them how to recognize and treat the clots and make reports to the government.

The CDC will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices today to further review these cases and assess their potential significance. The committee could recommend adding the blood clot risk to the list of warnings about the vaccine or could recommend that certain populations avoid the vaccine.

3. Why is messaging important?

How the concerns about risk are communicated could have a lasting impact on whether some people go ahead and get vaccinated.

“The messaging is very important because science alone does not get us to the outcomes we need,” said Zoë McLaren, associate professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

McLaren said the FDA is known for being risk averse and that’s how it developed its reputation for protecting Americans’ food and drug supply. “Part of messaging is communicating to the public what the FDA is doing,” said McLaren, who was inoculated with the J&J vaccine.

J&J’s is one of three covid vaccines that have been cleared for use under an emergency authorization in the U.S. Unlike the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which require two doses, the J&J version requires only one shot.

According to the CDC’s vaccine tracker, nearly half of U.S. adults have been at least partially vaccinated, and the numbers have been soaring in recent weeks to an average topping 3 million doses a day.

Of the more than 190 million doses of covid vaccine administered in the U.S., about 7 million were J&J.

Nonetheless, the number of new covid infections is still rising in many states and there are concerns from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and others about another surge as a result — in part — of people hesitating to get vaccinated.

On the bright side, though, the blood clot issue comes months after the vaccination rollout began and as Moderna and Pfizer have committed to having enough doses to vaccinate most Americans.

4. How does this play into vaccine hesitancy? Does transparency help or hurt?

The latest surveys show 13% of adults say they won’t get a covid vaccine and 15% will get one only if required by their employer or to travel.

Experts are torn on whether the J&J pause will increase hesitancy among some people or give them more confidence in how federal regulators are overseeing the vaccination effort.

Dr. Amesh Adulja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said he worries the pause will have a lasting effect. “We have a lot of vaccine hesitancy that exists, and that is only going to be magnified.”

But to Dr. Kartik Cherabuddi, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Florida health system, this is one hurdle in the long vaccination game. He predicts the overall effect from the pause will be minimal within a few weeks as regulators and health providers put the vaccine risks in perspective for the public. He said Americans are used to being told about the health risks of drugs, as they are bombarded with television drug advertising.

Meanwhile, UC-Irvine’s Watanabe said he hopes the pause will lead to more discussions with hesitant Americans about how they have several vaccine options. Watanabe said it was wise of the FDA to show “an abundance of caution” by pausing use of the J&J vaccine now, particularly because there are two other vaccine options for Americans that can more than fill the gap.

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

Heinz ketchup packet shortage has delivery services seeing red

The latest effect of pandemic-influenced consumer habits is a Heinz tomato ketchup package shortage that’s affecting food delivery services around the country. What’s the culprit behind this condiment scarcity? Food delivery services.

As restaurants continue to limit in-person dining capacities and customers continue to order in food, the country’s seemingly limitless supply of ketchup packets has begun to take a hit. Glass and plastic ketchup bottles that typically live on restaurant tables have been largely unused since restaurants pivoted to delivery and takeout models more than a year ago, and the sharp increase in to-go orders has resulted in elevated demand for single-serving condiments as well (a move first recommended by the CDC to avoid shared dispensers).

According to The Wall Street Journal, ketchup packet prices are up 13% since January. The Kraft Heinz Company, manufacturer of nearly 70% of the American ketchup market, will be opening new manufacturing lines to increase production by 25%, producing more than 12 billion packets per year to keep up with demand as diners’ preference for takeout and delivery orders holds fast.

In the meantime, some restaurants unable to replenish their ketchup packet supplies are turning to eBay. Sellers are hawking cases of packets from Heinz, French’s, Hunt’s, and other brands for a tidy markup, accompanied by verbiage like “high demand,” “fast shipping,” “hot,” and even “for emergencies.” Other restaurants are switching to generic-brand packets or dispensing bulk Heinz ketchup — which is still widely available — into single-serving containers, and asking diners whether they want ketchup with their order (an unthinkable question in the Before Times).

Expect to see this shortage alleviated in the coming weeks as the condiment behemoth churns out millions of additional Heinz packets to ensure that no french fry, no burger, no omelet, goes un-ketchup’d on their watch.

Even More Ketchup: Hark! I’ve figured out the best way to get ketchup out of a bottle

An ancient Egyptian city as well preserved as Pompeii has been unearthed

For centuries archaeologists and other scholars have carefully excavated the ruins of Pompeii, the wealthy ancient Roman city that was frozen in time after being buried in volcanic ash and pumice after Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. Pompeii continues to capture the public imagination because it is so well-preserved: One can find houses and shops, graffiti and art, and even observe the voids where people and animals spent their final moments before dying.

Pompeii is iconic in part because it is a metaphorical means of stepping back in time thousands of years. Now, scholars are claiming they have found the Egyptian equivalent — a comparable, well-preserved ancient Egyptian city.

Described as the largest ancient city ever discovered in Egypt, the mission that led to its discovery was led by Egyptian archaeology Zahi Hawass. Hawass and his colleagues were searching for the mortuary temple of King Tutankhamun (the famous “King Tut”). They were surprised when they instead uncovered a “lost golden city” in Luxor founded by King Tut’s grandfather.

The city was founded by the pharaoh King Amenhotep III, who is believed to have ruled Egypt from roughly 1390 until 1353 B.C.E., and remained active for a period of time by ruling with his son Amenhotep IV/Akhenaton. Based on historical references and a close analysis of the finds in the city, experts believe that the newly-discovered city included three of King Amenhotep III’s royal palaces along with many of the empire’s important industrial and administrative buildings.

Excavators have so far uncovered mud brick buildings, pottery, rings and scarabs. They have also found a bakery, complete with ovens and storage pottery; a vessel containing 2 gallons of meat; and even wine vessels with hieroglyphic inscriptions on their clay caps. Many of the rooms contain tools that Egyptian workers would have used in their day-to-day lives for industrial occupations. They also uncovered a person buried with the remains of a rope wrapped around his knees and two unusual burials of either a cow or bull.

“There’s no doubt about it; it really is a phenomenal find,” Salima Ikram, an archaeologist who leads the American University in Cairo’s Egyptology unit, told National Geographic. “It’s very much a snapshot in time — an Egyptian version of Pompeii.”


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


King Amenhotep III’s reign was one of the most important in ancient Egyptian history. His rule is widely believed to have been a prosperous and powerful one for the empire, but only a few years after he died, his successor King Amenhotep IV — who ruled from 1353 to 1336 B.C.E. — became a locus of controversy. He renounced Egypt’s polytheistic religion and reformed the Egyptian religion to focus on a single god from their pantheon, the sun god Aten, a decision that is believed to have been unpopular with the people. He even changed his name to Akhenaten, which translates to “devoted to Aten,” and moved the royal seat from Thebes to a new city he dubbed Akhetaten (now located in Amarna).

His changes did not last, however. When his son King Tut took over, he reversed all of Akhetaten’s religious changes and worked to wipe out his new capital, his art and as much else as he could associated with his predecessor’s tenure.

“This was really a large city that was lost,” Hawass told the Associated Press. “It was lost because we never thought that this city could be discovered.” He added that inscriptions found in the city reveal that it was associated with the sun god Aten, even noting that they found inside houses disks associated with Aten.

My 89-year-old dad’s roommate refuses to get vaccinated

Dear Pandemic Problems,

My father is 89 years old. Over three months ago, he got COVID-19 and was hospitalized for a few days. Then he was in a nursing home. He almost did not make it out alive. Today, he’s still struggling. Both my dad and his caretaker have received both vaccinations. The three of us here received the first dose, but we are waiting for our second dose.

I visit him daily with my ill brother, and I don’t know what to do. I’m frightened because my dad’s roommate will not agree to get vaccinated. She does not wear a mask in the house. She goes out shopping, does other things, but doesn’t wear a mask inside the house. She’s gone as far as bullying us, demanding her space, showering with the door open out of paranoia, and much more.

I don’t know what to do.

Sincerely,

Reeling About a Roommate

Dear Reeling About a Roommate,

First off, I’m so sorry you’re going through this. I can’t imagine how incredibly frustrating and helpless it must feel to have your vulnerable dad, who survived COVID-19 at age 89, live with someone who is not doing their part to protect others during this pandemic. The pain and anger are palpable through your letter, and I send you all the peace and comfort I can during this time. Of course, I know that it’s going to be hard for you to sleep at night until your dad is in a better living situation.

I’m happy to hear your dad is vaccinated, and this will mostly protect him from his roommate. The Moderna vaccine is 94.1 percent effective at preventing COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 95 percent effective at preventing COVID-19. In the grand scheme of vaccines, these ones are highly effective. Technically there is a roughly five percent chance that the vaccine won’t work at preventing the illness. But in those cases, the infections are typically mild or without symptoms at all.  Admittedly, we know now that the vaccines may not protect forever — current studies suggest they confer immunity for at least six months. In any case, it sounds like you’re not at that point yet. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states it’s OK for a fully vaccinated person to mingle inside with unvaccinated people from one household. The only exception is if any of the unvaccinated people have an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19. If I apply this guidance to your father’s situation, this would mean that it’s OK for the roommate to walk around the house unmasked when only your father is home. However, it’s not OK for the roommate to do this when you and your brother, who you say has health issues, are visiting. And this is all to say that the bullying, demanding of space, and showering without a door open, is certainly not OK, too. Overall, it doesn’t sound like a good living situation for your dad. I also know that moving your 89-year-old dad who’s still struggling with post-COVID symptoms during a pandemic isn’t an ideal solution, but more on that later.

While the CDC states vaccinated people at any age are usually safe from one unvaccinated household, I would chat with your dad’s doctor about your concerns.  

It sounds like if your dad’s roommate was vaccinated, you’d be more OK with the living situation. And if that’s the case, my first recommendation would be to talk to the roommate and see how open she would be to getting the shot. The first step to talking to someone who is hesitant about the vaccine is to listen. When you’re all feeling less emotionally charged, perhaps you can have a conversation with this woman and ask why she doesn’t want to get the vaccine? From there, make sure to give her space to share her concerns.

Many guides on discussing vaccines with the vaccine-hesitant advise responding with empathy, and putting an emphasis on “safety” especially if that’s a concern. As the World Health Organization advises: “Emphasizing the existing scientific agreement on vaccine safety and efficiency can strongly influence people’s attitudes towards vaccinations. You should emphasize how overwhelmingly the evidence supports vaccine safety and efficacy – not just one or two studies – and that the vast majority of scientists and clinicians in the field agree with this.”

Another tidbit to focus on during this conversation is that getting vaccinated doesn’t only protect her, but your family as well as people she comes into contact with everyday. If this doesn’t work, I would advise getting your dad’s doctor involved.

If the roommate is totally set on not getting vaccinated, it might be time to think about if she’s the right roommate for your dad. I don’t know the landlord situation, but it’s normally acceptable to break a lease if a roommate is putting a tenant’s health at risk. Again, you might need a note from a doctor speaking to this point to give to the landlord or property manager, but it shouldn’t be a problem.

I don’t know where you’re located, but it might be worth looking into a local tenant rights’ union and seeing what your dad’s rights are regarding the apartment. Can he stay, or can he ask the roommate to find a new home?

Unfortunately, these kinds of situations between people who share a space are becoming more common. The pandemic has revealed that not everyone is aligned on trusting public health wisdom. This can create incredibly frustrating divides, as it has in your case. But casting judgement and blame won’t help the situation.

You also mentioned that the roommate is “paranoid,” which makes me wonder if there’s an underlying mental health problem. But ultimately, as I told another Pandemic Problems reader, a roommate’s behavior is out of your control. The only person’s behavior you can control is your own.

I know it’s a lot. Nobody wants to move during the pandemic, especially an 89-year-old. I truly hope it doesn’t come down to that. But mostly, I hope you’re able to stay strong during this time. I know the worrying and anxiety is exhausting. It leads to sleepless nights. I know you almost lost your dad to COVID-19, and you don’t want to lose him due to the actions of a careless roommate. My heart breaks for you, but I know you’ll weather this storm. May it pass faster than it has lingered.

Sincerely,

Pandemic Problems

“Pandemic Problems” is an advice column that answers readers’ pandemic questions — often with help from public health data, philosophy professors and therapists — who weigh in on how to “do the right thing.”  Do you have a pandemic problem? Email Nicole Karlis at nkarlis@salon.com. Peace of mind and collective commiseration awaits.


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


Matt Gaetz takes out political ad attacking CNN as he fights sexual misconduct allegations

On Wednesday, POLITICO reported that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has taken out a political ad attacking CNN as part of a PR offensive to try to deflect from the allegations of sex trafficking and misconduct.

“The new 30-second ad will be featured in the Florida Republican’s congressional district and nationally on select cable networks, according to a statement from Gaetz’s congressional campaign,” reported Benjamin Din. “The ad marks the beginning of Gaetz’s counteroffensive, as he ‘fight[s] back against a multiweek fake news cycle against him,’ it said.”

“The ad incorporates footage obtained by Project Veritas, an organization that has a reputation for using deceptive practices in attempts to expose what it views as ‘corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct’, principally from liberal organizations or individuals,” noted the report. “In the footage, a man identified as a CNN employee is heard making remarks about the news organization’s coverage of Gaetz. A spokesperson for CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”

Recent reporting indicates that an indicted Gaetz associate, former Florida county tax collector Joel Greenberg, has been cooperating with the Justice Department since last year, and may have given information against the congressman. Greenberg was allegedly an intermediary Gaetz used to Venmo money that was used to pay teenage girls.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to include a correction issued by Politico, following publication of their story. The correction changes their initial description of Project Veritas, and is now reflected in the story.

Top U.S. sports anti-drug official was involved in covering up swimming sex scandals

The celebrated head of the U.S. Olympic Committee agency that polices performance-enhancing drugs began his career in the Olympic bureaucracy as a lawyer managing investigations of claims of sexual abuse by coaches at USA Swimming — which is now the subject of a federal grand jury investigation targeting what critics of the organization call a generation of cover-ups.

Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, has something of a white-knight reputation in the sports world for his work in exposing the career-long drug violations of seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong. Tygart became director of legal affairs at USADA in 2002 and CEO in 2007.

But Tygart’s actual history comes with its own questions. Before joining USADA, Tygart was an associate in the Denver office of the Holme Roberts & Owen law firm, which in 2011 merged with the Bryan Cave firm. That office has counseled the U.S. Olympic Committee and a number of its affiliated national sport governing bodies, including USA Swimming, which is headquartered nearby in Colorado Springs.

In 2012, thousands of pages of internal documents, which had been withheld by USA Swimming in defiance of California lower court discovery orders in sexual abuse civil lawsuits — resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in court sanctions against the organization — were produced under order of the California Supreme Court. Subsequently, these records were also subpoenaed by an FBI field office.

Among other things, this document trove, obtained by Salon, shows that Tygart served on several occasions in the 2000s as USA Swimming’s counsel of record for hearings of its National Board of Review. That board was responsible for adjudicating abuse complaints against coaches and setting disciplinary measures for those found guilty.

The current grand jury, under the supervision of the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, is probing allegations that USA Swimming’s handling of abuse claims included various illegal practices, such as insurance fraud and hiding the group’s assets in order to mitigate settlements with victims and limit unfavorable court judgments.

The most dramatic of these alleged practices literally involved an offshore entity: a wholly owned reinsurance subsidiary of USA Swimming called the United States Sports Insurance Company, which was headquartered on the Caribbean island of Barbados. In 2014, USA Swimming brought USSIC onshore, in what was called “runoff mode,” before selling it to a London investment firm for $2.1 million in 2016.

USSIC was what is known as a “captive.” In the late 1980s and ’90s, large corporations, profit and nonprofit alike, faced steep premium hikes. What emerged from the creativity of that generation’s lawyers and MBAs was a new wrinkle called captive reinsurance. In a nutshell, parent entities, through imaginative leveraging of tax breaks and regulatory gimmicks, could save money by insuring themselves, managing the claims themselves or underwriting the risks of their third-party commercial carriers. Some nonprofits, including the Roman Catholic Church, have used captives to ameliorate the high premiums charged by conventional third-party insurance companies to underwrite sexual abuse claims.

According to sources close to the grand jury investigation, federal prosecutors are looking at various USA Swimming practices, including the movement of funds between USA Swimming and the offshore entity. Other issues include coverage caps on claims and an underhanded provision called “wasting,” in which the costs of defending lawsuits are subtracted from the funds available to plaintiffs in settlements or court judgments.

Though the subpoenaed documents do not make any connection between Travis Tygart and USA Swimming’s controversial insurance strategy, they do make clear that he helped execute it as one of a rotating group of lawyers who managed internal review board cases and performed other related tasks.

In at least one sexual abuse complaint for which Tygart served as USA Swimming’s legal point person — that of Venezuelan-born swimming coach Simon “Danny” Chocron — the documents raise questions about a personal conflict of interest. USA Swimming’s 68-page dossier on Chocron describes his conviction and banning by the review board, in absentia, in 2001.

Chocron had coached at the Bolles School, an exclusive private prep school in Jacksonville, Florida, both for the school itself and for a USA Swimming club that used the school’s facilities.

Tygart was born and raised in Jacksonville and attended Bolles, graduating in 1989. He played baseball and basketball at the school, and later was employed by the athletic department as an assistant coach before moving on to pursue his law degree. From the documents, it is not clear whether Tygart was assigned to Chocron’s USA Swimming case because his personal history at Bolles was perceived as an asset, or whether no one at USA Swimming even noticed the apparent conflict of interest or cared about it.

Neither Tygart nor USA Swimming responded to Salon’s repeated requests for comment on Tygart’s relationship to Bolles and the Chocron case. (This article will be updated with any responses.)

Chocron was arrested in 2001 after a 16-year-old swimmer told the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office that Chocron had masturbated in front of him and encouraged the swimmer to masturbate in front of him, sometimes while playing pornographic videos, and engaged in mutual oral sex. There were soon two additional accusers, including a young female. Chocron confessed to police interrogators.

Facing a court hearing on 14 criminal charges, Chocron jumped $250,000 bail and managed to flee the country despite having surrendered his passport. In 2004, the Jacksonville Times-Union reported that he had nearly been captured in Spain, but Chocron eventually made it back to Venezuela — with which the U.S. has no extradition treaty — and resumed his career as a swim coach.

USA Swimming never publicly announced that Chocron had been banned, and said little about the case. The subpoenaed documents from cases of claimed abuse suggest that USA Swimming leaders sought to limit public disclosure around the Chocron case, along with abuse allegations against many other coaches. In fact, the organization did not begin publishing its banned list until 2010, after the late chief executive Chuck Wielgus was confronted about abuse scandals within American swimming in interviews on ABC’s “20/20” and ESPN’s “Outside the Lines.” Today there are 186 names on swimming’s banned list — and, according to insiders, dozens more on a secret but unpublished “flagged” list.

There is no evidence that USA Swimming made any effort to alert the international swimming community or to get Chocron off pool decks in Venezuela. In 2017, the Venezuelan Federation of Aquatic Sports reported it had suspended Chocron from “any activity related to the sport” for one year. This was apparently the result of online coverage of the scandal surrounding his admissions of abuse in Florida and his flight from the U.S. It’s not clear whether he has faced any such allegations in Venezuela.

Right-wing radio rivalry breaking out: Which radio host is Rush Limbaugh’s true heir?

In the world of right-wing media, all pundits aspire to impact and direct the conservative movement as the late Rush Limbaugh did. Following the clown prince of right-wing radio’s demise, several radio hosts and media moguls have begun scrimmaging over Limbaugh’s daily radio time slot, and the title of conservative radio kingpin. 

Shortly after Limbaugh’s death in February, figures such as Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and Sebastian Gorka could all be found elbowing each other for room in the dog-eat-dog world of conservative talk radio.

In the middle of March, Bongino announced that his new radio show would fill the time slot Limbaugh left behind, although broadcasting on a different channel. “The Dan Bongino Show,” starting on May 24, will begin airing in “select markets” from 12 to 3 p.m. Eastern. That hasn’t stopped Kirk, the Turning Point USA founder, from seizing a piece of the action, also claiming he is taking over Limbaugh’s time slot on terrestrial radio, via yet another channel.

“What an honor to join @77WABCRadio, New York — the flagship station of the Great Rush Limbaugh,” Kirk tweeted on April 9. “Tune in every weekday from 12 EST for coverage, updates, and analysis from the frontlines of the American Culture War, only on The Charlie Kirk Show.” Kirk’s program will be just an hour, from 12 to 1 p.m. Eastern. 

“I am thrilled and honored to take the same time and station where my friend and American hero Rush Limbaugh launched his national radio show in 1988,” Kirk said in a statement.

Asked on Wednesday whether Bongino and Kirk were contesting who really occupies the coveted Limbaugh timeslot, TPUSA and Kirk spokesperson Andrew Kolvet said that both Kirk and Bongino are “pulling in the same direction,” despite competing on opposite channels and broadcasting at the same time. “There is no other Rush, nor will there ever be. He was one of a kind. But Rush and Charlie were good friends, and he is honored to be one of the hosts picking up his mantle,” Kolvet told Salon. “Rush inspired Charlie to get into podcasting and radio. Dan is a great radio host and also a friend. They will be on separate stations, yes, but pulling in the same direction.” 

Neither Bongino nor Shapiro returned Salon’s requests for comment. 

While both Bongino and Kirk are advertising themselves as heirs to Limbaugh’s throne, Premiere Networks, the company that syndicated Limbaugh’s radio show around the nation, told Salon on Wednesday it hasn’t tapped anyone to fill Limbaugh’s slot. “No one can replace Rush Limbaugh, and Premiere Networks will continue to provide millions of loyal listeners with the voice of Rush Limbaugh for the long term,” Rachel Nelson, Premiere’s vice president of public relations, told Salon. We have a variety of familiar voices who are guiding the audio of Rush for all of the important issues of the day, including Todd Herman, Ken Matthews, Jason Lewis, and Brett Winterble. With over 30 years of audio, Rush has a definite view on any and every topic.”

Kirk and Bongino have been upfront about their efforts to fill Limbaugh’s time slot. Shapiro has been quieter but remains an immensely influential conservative voice who reaches millions through his syndicated radio program managed by Westwood One, the same firm that handles Bongino’s radio syndication. As for Sebastian Gorka, he must be considered a long shot to claim Limbaugh’s mantle. Unlike Kirk, Shapiro, and Bongino, Gorka has been banned from YouTube, which greatly reduces his national reach. 

Can any of these younger right-wing pundits unite the massive conservative audience Limbaugh commanded for so many years? That seems unlikely in this new media age of micro-niches and narrowcasting, but only time will tell. 

New York Times argues Georgia voting law won’t shrink turnout — but what it does might be worse

Democrats have criticized Georgia’s new voting restrictions as “Jim Crow in the 21st century,” drawing complaints from Republicans that they are playing the “race card” and overhyping the effects of the law. A New York Times analysis last week lent credence to those Republican talking points, arguing that the restrictions are unlikely to have a large effect on voter turnout. But that analysis casts aside the intent of the law, voting rights groups say, and the law could have even worse effects than reducing turnout.

The Georgia law, clearly written in response to false claims of election fraud by former President Donald Trump and his allies, appears to be an attempt to reverse-engineer conditions that might have allowed Republicans to prevent or overturn his 2020 loss. The new regulations will likely make it harder to vote, argued Nate Cohn, the Times’ election data guru. But setting intent aside, he says, research suggests that making it harder to vote is “unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances.”

The sweeping 98-page law makes it harder to request and return an absentee ballot, requires voter ID for absentee ballots, limits the time voters have to vote by mail, and severely limits ballot drop boxes. About 1.3 million Georgians voted by absentee ballot in the last election, with 65% of them voting for President Joe Biden. Some studies have found that voter ID laws can have a small but statistically significant effect on voter turnout that is more pronounced among voters of color. The dropbox restrictions will have a disproportionate impact on the Atlanta area, which has a large number of Democratic and Black voters, with the region’s 94 round-the-clock drop boxes in 2020 limited to no more than 23 drop boxes that will only be available during business hours in future elections.

The law also reduces the period for runoff elections from nine weeks to four after Republicans lost both Senate runoff races this January, makes it harder for voters to correct ballot mistakes, and makes it a crime to provide water or food to voters in long lines. The final bill excluded previously proposed provisions that would have ended no-excuse absentee voting and automatic voter registration entirely and included cuts to Sunday early voting that would have disproportionately impacted Black voters. The law also expands in-person early voting, though this will primarily affect rural areas, and requires large precincts in urban areas with long lines to add machines and staff or split the precinct, though it’s unclear how this will be implemented.

In all, a separate New York Times analysis identified 16 provisions in the law that would make it more difficult to vote or give more power over elections to Republican lawmakers, including the ban on Fulton County’s mobile buses and the ban on sending absentee ballot applications to all voters, both of which appear aimed at recent efforts by Atlanta-area officials to expand voter access. It also points to bans on third-party funding for county election and voter assistance, after Republicans complained about turnout-boosting efforts by groups like the Stacey Abrams-founded Fair Fight Action.

“This is really the fallout from the 10 weeks of misinformation that flew in from former President Donald Trump,” Georgia’s Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan told CNN, blaming Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s testimony to the state legislature for “spreading misinformation and sowing doubt” in the results.

Setting aside the obvious intent of Republicans who pushed this law after their party suffered defeats amid record turnout, Cohn argues that “expanding voting options to make it more convenient hasn’t seemed to have a huge effect on turnout or electoral outcomes” in studies of early and absentee voting. Even studies looking at universal mail-in voting found that it boosts turnout about 2%, with no clear partisan advantage. President Biden saw virtually the same improvement over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 performance in states that expanded mail voting as in those that did not, and turnout increased just as much in states that introduced no-excuse absentee voting as it did in those that did not. A Stanford study found that no-excuse mail voting might have only increased turnout by a minuscule 0.02% in the 2020 election. Cohn also points to Georgia’s runoff elections, which saw Sens. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., defeat Republican incumbents, despite voters having fewer opportunities to vote than in the general election, as a result of high Election Day turnout.

Cohn acknowledges that long lines — such as those frequently seen in Georgia since the state shuttered more 200 polling places after the Supreme Court gutted an important section of the Voting Rights Act — can reduce turnout, his core argument is that “convenience isn’t as important as often assumed.”

“Almost everyone who cares enough to vote will brave the inconveniences of in-person voting to do so,” he wrote, adding that “nearly every person will manage to vote if sufficiently convenient options are available, even if the most preferred option doesn’t exist.” The law’s provision to reduce long lines might not only “mitigate the already limited effect of restricting mail voting,” he writes, “but it might even outweigh it.”

Some election experts disagree. Charlotte Hill, an election researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, argued that Cohn’s analysis is largely limited to early and no-excuse absentee voting, which primarily affect active registered voters, while ignoring “convenience reforms” that boost turnout by making voting easier for low-propensity voters.

“The effect of election reforms on turnout is complicated,” she wrote. “You have to take into account the details of the reform, the distribution of specific costs across types of people, and the context in which they’re adopted. This NYT piece doesn’t do that.”

Voting rights groups also pushed back against Cohn’s analysis.

“Any suggestion that obstacles to voting aren’t that bad as long as a lot of voters overcome those obstacles plays into the hands of those working to make it harder to vote,” Seth Bringman, a spokesman for Fair Fight Action, said in a statement to Salon. “Voters are not numbers on a spreadsheet; they are people with constitutional rights. Voting should not be made difficult, full stop. Turnout would be even higher if those obstacles did not exist.”

Studies of the effects of individual policies may not suggest a huge effect on turnout, but the sweeping nature of the Georgia law, which touches virtually every part of the state’s election process, combines provisions to make it difficult to vote in numerous ways with other provisions blatantly targeting overwhelmingly Black and Democratic areas. And while a relatively tiny shift in turnout may not be enough to affect most races or register as statistically significant in a study, the 2020 presidential race in Georgia was decided by just 0.24%. Both Senate runoffs were decided by about one percentage point, and the controversial 2018 gubernatorial race between Gov. Brian Kemp and Abrams was decided by 0.4%. As Cohn himself notes, making absentee voting harder may be worse for Democrats than eliminating it entirely, because it’s likely to result in rejected ballots cast by voters who could have cast them successfully in person.

“Georgia Republicans’ intent in changing our voting laws was to appease conspiracy theorists and to target communities of color and young people who turned out in record numbers in 2020 and 2021,” Bringman said. “This intent cannot be set aside even for a moment. The reason why the law was written is precisely how Republicans intend to use the law, and the party that has criminalized civic participation should not be given any benefit of the doubt.”

Cohn suggested that the law could also spark Democratic backlash, pointing to a study finding that the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act decision did not reduce Black turnout because “subsequent efforts to restrict voting were swiftly countered by efforts to mobilize Black voters.”

But Seth Masket, a political science professor at the University of Denver, said that wasn’t evidence that restrictive policies are overblown.

“If there’s a state policy to kill all firstborn males, let’s say, but the population responds by hiding all its firstborn males such that the policy is unsuccessful, it is not correct to conclude that the policy was no big deal,” he wrote.

“Civic groups should not have to drain their resources in order to mobilize voters under systems of voter suppression,” Bringman said. “The right question is not ‘Do a lot of Black folks still vote?’ The right question is ‘Is voting more difficult under the wave of post-Shelby voter suppression laws?’ and ‘Are people shut out of the democratic process who would otherwise be included?'”

Numerous voting rights groups and academics took issue with Cohn’s framing, arguing that any impact of a law based on a lie was egregious.

“We’re so obsessed [with] estimating causal effects of suppression efforts we have ceded [important] normative ground,” argued Hakeem Jefferson, a political science professor at Stanford. “The right to vote is sacred. Access to the ballot should be expanded, not burdened. Be wary of those who look at attempts to disenfranchise folks & remark, ‘Oh, no big deal.'”

While statistical experts can disagree on the impact of voter restrictions in a state where the presidential race was decided by 11,779 votes — out of about 5 million votes — the new Georgia law also includes even more alarming provisions that could make it easier for Republican state lawmakers who backed Trump’s lies to subvert the results of an election.

The law replaces Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who repeatedly shot down Trump’s falsehoods, as the head of the state election board with a “nonpartisan” appointee from the Republican-led state legislature, though it bars anyone who has been a political candidate, party official or campaign contributor in the previous two years. It also strips Raffensperger of his vote on the election board and allows the legislature to appoint a majority of its five members.

Cohn himself noted in another analysis that these provisions open the door to election subversion, noting that a majority of congressional Republicans and state attorneys general backed efforts that would have “invalidated millions of votes and brought about a constitutional crisis.”

“With that backdrop, it seems naïve to assume that no one would try to abuse such power, whether in Georgia or elsewhere,” he wrote.

Another provision in the law allows the state election board — again, a majority of its members appointed by the legislature — to suspend and replace local election officials, though it requires the board to show either three clear violations of its rules or “demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in the administration of the elections” in two consecutive elections.

Though the law includes some safeguards, the risk that this provision could be used to subvert election results is particularly high in Georgia, considering the context of Trump’s infamous call to Raffensperger demanding that he “find” 11,780 votes to reverse his defeat and alleging widespread fraud in heavily Democratic Fulton County.

Under the new law, the state election board “could have usurped the power of Fulton County, based on the president’s allegations in the general election and other allegations from the primary,” Cohn wrote, and could have used Trump’s “allegations as a basis to refuse to certify the result or to disqualify otherwise eligible voters.” The new law also makes it easier to try to disqualify voters, allowing a single person to legally challenge the eligibility of an unlimited number of voters.

This would have been difficult to do immediately following the election because the process takes time, Cohn added, but a “nefarious board could lay the groundwork earlier, potentially putting a newly appointed superintendent in control before the elections, when he or she would have the ability to pre-emptively disqualify voters and ballots.”

Marilyn Marks, executive director of the nonpartisan Coalition for Good Governance, argued it would be easy for the state election board to claim to find three rule violations from two election cycles in “any county.”

“This takeover provision is egregiously undemocratic and dangerous,” she wrote.

The Georgia law is one of more than 360 bills introduced across the country so far that would restrict voting access. And more than a dozen states are following Georgia’s lead in trying to snatch power away from local election officials. While Democrats have responded to the restriction push by rallying behind the For The People Act, a sweeping set of voter protections and election reforms that stands little chance of passing in its current form, the bill has no provisions that would protect nonpartisan election entities from partisan power grabs. Democrats say they are still working on the specifics of the proposal, but little attention has been focused on responding to measures that Cohn — no longer separating the Georgia law from its obvious intent — describes as “grave and fundamental risks to democracy, risking political violence and secessionism.”

Bone scans reveal how the largest flying animal to ever live supported its weight

Unlike their peers, the pterodactyls, the azhdarchid pterosaurs aren’t a familiar part of the pop culture lexicon. Yet these Cretaceous-era reptiles are similar in appearance to the pterodactyls from the “Jurassic Park” series: the massive wings, the large jaws, the clawed feet, the long neck.

Azhdarchid pterosaurs looked like that except, well, bigger. They flew over modern North Africa roughly 100 million years ago, with wingspans that reached up to 33 feet and necks longer than those of modern giraffes. And they are believed to be the largest animals to ever fly. 

That raises some interesting physics questions, not all of which have been solved. After all, in order for such a large animal to fly, they would require very light-weight bones that were at once very strong. How could an animal so massive feed itself without breaking its neck?

A group of scientists recently published an article in the journal iScience with a tantalizing hypothesis that may answer that mystery. Their finding was done with fossilized materials under a CT scan, as Cariad Williams — a Ph.D. student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who co-authored the paper — told Salon.

Williams described the moment of discovery as “incredible.”

“I put them straight into my computer and I literally went to my friend, who was also a co-author of the paper, Roy Smith,” Williams recalled. “‘You have to come and see this.’ Then I went straight to Dave [Martill]’s office and said to David, ‘You have to come to my office right now and have a look at this.’ And we spent the entire day just talking about what we could do next with this study.”

Their scans reveal that the azhdarchid pterosaur was utterly unique. And in order to fly and eat while supporting such a heavy frame, the azhdarchid pterosaur evolved to have a neck unlike anything else known in the animal kingdom. 

“There’s between seven and nine cervical vertebrae, and that’s neck vertebrae. Inside each vertebra, it basically looks like a tube within a tube that’s connected by very thin bones,” Williams explained. She added that the bones were organized helically, comparing it to the spokes on a bicycle wheel.


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


The bizarre and highly tensile structure of their bones allowed pterosaurs to be both very strong and very light-weight.

It explains that the pterosaur was able to actually carry a greater load than what we once thought, like prey items,” Williams told Salon. “It was able to carry larger prey by the support of its neck… It actually distributed this stress along the spokes inside the vertebrae.” This meant that the ancient beast actually would have been able to capture larger prey without hurting or even breaking its neck.

Dr. David M. Martill, a professor of paleobiology at the University of Portsmouth, told Salon by email that while this discovery does not change anything we know about the outward appearance of the pterosaurs, it has possible applications not only for what we know about how they carried their prey, but how they handled “being buffeted by strong winds for example.”

He added, “It was always a surprise when you found a broken pterosaur vertebrae as to how incredibly thin the bone was, even in the gigantic pterosaurs. Now we know how they got away with it.”

Yet the researchers’ work is not without its critics. Paleontologist Rodrigo Pêgas of Brazil’s Federal University of ABC–São Bernardo told Science Magazine that he wished the team which scanned fossils of an azhdarchid’s neck had done the same thing with other pterosaurs to see if the structure is unique to them. 

Alexander Kellner, a paleontologist and director of the National Museum at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, told the publication that he is “not very impressed” because “I think you should have more specimens to really make a claim.”

“Pêgas has a point, we should look at a range of pterosaurs,” Martill told to Salon. “But herein lies a problem. We were specifically looking at the hyper-long necked pterosaurs called azhdarchids (like Quetzalcoatlus, Hatzegopterus, Arabourgiania), not the ‘ordinary pterosaurs’. And for our study we needed well preserved 3D material that would scan well in the CT scanner. There are very few places in the world where you can get this material.”

The researchers wound up using material from the Kem Kem beds of Morocco, where “it is easy to extract from the rock, it is uncrushed, and so the interior is intact,” as Martill explained. This, he said, makes for them ideal for CT scans.

“We would love to go to Russia to see their material, and maybe one day that will happen,” he added. 

Martill said that the researchers hope to expand their work to other pterosaurs, adding that there is pterosaur vertebrae in Brazil that could be studied in this fashion. “I am very surprised that Kellner has not done so, as the material is just begging to be studied in this way,” he noted.

In an email to Salon, Pêgas explained that “I think the methods and the results that these authors presented are very interesting and well-done, but the conclusions need further support from the comparisons with ‘ordinary pterosaurs.'” He argued that the researchers need to differentiate between azhdarchids and other pterosaurs in order “to demonstrate that the biomechanical properties of azhdarchids are ‘unordinary.'” He also claimed that “there is plenty of well-preserved material that belong to ‘ordinary pterosaurs’ that can be used in a CT scan, including tapejarids and anhanguerids in the State Museum of Natural History of Karlsruhe (Germany).” He concluded that it is acceptable for the authors to not proceed with analyzing other pterosaurs, but that “their claims will remain unresolved until someone else does so. I am looking forward to see someone proceeding with such analyses, as I do think they have great potential to corroborate the new claims!”

Updated April 15 to include an additional quote from Dr. Rodrigo Pêgas.

Trump supporters blast Ivanka for urging Americans to get vaccinated: “Stop trying to manipulate us”

On Wednesday, Ivanka Trump posted an image of herself being vaccinated for COVID-19 to Instagram, urging her followers to get immunized as well.

“Today, I got the shot!!! I hope that you do too!” wrote Ivanka. “Thank you Nurse Torres!!!”

But Ivanka’s urging fell on unwilling ears. Her post quickly filled up with angry replies from Trump supporters refusing to be vaccinated and suggesting a government conspiracy — despite the fact that the development of the vaccine began under, and was promoted by, former President Donald Trump himself.

“I’m losing respect for the Trump family. So over this virtue signaling,” said one poster. Another said, “No thanks! Don’t want to be a lab rat. #justsayno.” Yet another replied, “Your personal choice but please don’t push on others.”

“No thanks! With a 99% survival rate, I shall pass. With Bill Gates involved I will not get one,” said Rice448.

“Hell no. Why would you post this?” asked kenny_vv.

“Nope not putting that in my body,” said call_me_g95.

“Bummer. I was hoping you were above this kind of virtue signaling,” rmgvd commented.

“Wow that’s extremely disappointing, but honestly I’m not surprised,” said heather_15la.

“Nope and please stop trying to manipulate us into doing so. It’s surprising to see you doing this now like the left and Hollywood have been,” said the__real__american.

In recent weeks, polling indicates the percent of Americans unwilling to be vaccinated has dropped significantly. However, vaccine refusers remain, with white Republicans being among the most hostile group.

Liz Cheney tells Fox News host she won’t support Trump in 2024 since he violated his oath of office

On Fox News Wednesday, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.,  said that she will not back former President Donald Trump if he is nominated by the Republican Party for a third time in 2024.

“If Donald Trump were the 2024 nominee, would you support him?” asked anchor Neil Cavuto.

“I would not,” said Cheney. She went on to say that Trump’s incitement of the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol was “the gravest violation of an oath of office by any president in American history.”

Cheney, the third-ranking member of the House GOP, was one of ten Republicans to vote to impeach Trump in connection with the Capitol riot. She has faced fury from within her own caucus, and although she narrowly managed to avoid being removed from her leadership position, she is already drawing primary challenges for her perceived disloyalty to the former president.

You can watch the video below via Twitter:

Fauci slams Fox News host Tucker Carlson for suggesting COVID vaccines don’t work: “Typical crazy”

Dr. Anthony Fauci on Wednesday shot down Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s insinuation that vaccines for the novel coronavirus may not actually work.

During a CNN appearance, Fauci was asked to comment on Carlson’s remarks on Tuesday in which he suggested that maybe the COVID-19 vaccines “don’t work” as the medical establishment has claimed.

Fauci quickly smacked down Carlson for being scientifically illiterate.

“That’s just a typical crazy conspiracy theory,” he said. “The data is overwhelming in the three vaccines used in an emergency use and emergency use authorization: The J&J, Pfizer, and Moderna, you had 30,000, 44,000, and 40,000 people in the clinical trial with an overwhelming signal of efficacy. So I don’t have any idea what he’s talking about.”

Host John Berman then asked Fauci whether it was “dangerous” for a TV personality with such a large audience as Carlson to be spreading anti-vaxx talking points.

“It’s certainly not helpful to the public health of this nation or globally,” Fauci replied. “I don’t want to get into arguments about Tucker Carlson, but to me it’s counter to trying to protect the safety and health of the American public.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

Netflix renews “Bridgerton” for Seasons 3 and 4

Netflix is going all-in on its hit series “Bridgerton,” giving the Regency-era romance a green light for Seasons 3 and 4. The show had the biggest debut month of any Netflix original, besting even heavy hitters like “Stranger Things,” and even though the show’s lead Regé-Jean Page is leaving after the first season, the streamer is moving full speed ahead on giving fans more of the series.

“Bridgerton” is based on a series of books by Julia Quinn. There are eight books in the series, and from the look of things each season of the show could follow a book, giving Netflix a possible eight seasons of smoldering period romance. Each deals with a different member of the aristocratic Bridgerton family, with characters from earlier books written out or having reduced roles as the series goes on, hence why Page won’t appear in Season 2.

The show’s success shouldn’t come as a surprise. Romance dominates the publishing industry and that means there’s a whole audience out there ready to devour shows and movies. (That’s precisely why Tosca Musk’s romance streaming service Passionflix is so successful.) By backing “Bridgerton,” Netflix is showing support for a genre that doesn’t get a lot of love.

After Season 2 of “Bridgerton,” Netflix is bringing it back for at least two more years

Romance enthusiasts are slowly but surely finding that their genre is gaining traction in pop culture, and streamers like Hulu and Netflix are taking notice as the race to find original stories heats up. Romance is a $1 billion industry, with romance novels outselling any other genre handily every year.

Netflix is paying attention. Even though Page won’t be part of “Bridgerton”‘s upcoming seasons, executives are excited about the show’s future. Bela Bajari, VP of Global TV at Netflix, expressed that the streamer is very happy having Shonda Rhimes working on the series and they’re invested for the long haul. “They have some exciting plans for the future, and we think audiences will continue to swoon for this show. We’re planning to be in the ‘Bridgerton’ business for a long time to come.”

Now that “Bridgerton” is guaranteed through Season 4, keep an eye out for new romance series and movies to appear in the streaming landscape.

“The Nevers” had the best-ever debut for an original series on HBO Max

This past Sunday, HBO debuted “The Nevers,” a new Victorian steampunk fantasy drama about a group of women with superpowers fighting against a stuffy English establishment: think of it as “X-Men” meets “Masterpiece Theater.”

I’m enjoying the show so far, but its quirkiness could make it a hard sell. And then there’s the matter of writer-director Joss Whedon leaving the project shortly before several actors he’d worked with over the years came out and accused him of inappropriate behavior. HBO has replaced him as showrunner with English screenwriter Philippa Goslett, but a cloud now hangs over the series. Will it find an audience?

Well, so far, so good. Variety reports that the premiere episode, “Touched,” pulled in over 1.4 million viewers across linear telecasts and digital on Sunday night, and that the number is likely to balloon when you factor in HBO’s other platforms and additional telecasts. “The Never”s also had the best debut for a new original series on HBO Max so far, beating out shows like “Lovecraft Country” and “The Undoing.”

Of course, HBO Max only launched last May, not even a year ago, so there haven’t been many original series premieres on it yet. Also, “The Nevers” is premiering at a time when more people have HBO Max subscriptions — it picked up a lot of new ones around the time Warner Bros. starting releasing big screen fare like “Wonder Woman 1984” on the service at the same time.

In other words, I dunno if I’m prepared to call “The Nevers” a runaway hit just yet. The real test will come with subsequent episodes.

How about you? If you’re watching, did the premiere intrigue enough to tune in for more?

In Netflix’s “Why Did You Kill Me?” a California mom uses MySpace to hunt her daughter’s murderer

Netflix’s new documentary, “Why Did You Kill Me?” has all the makings of an attention-grabbing addition to the true crime genre. 

It opens with a blast from the past, as a Windows XP desktop browser boots up, and we watch as a mouse navigates over to MySpace. There, we see a chat between a young man and woman flirting back and forth via the social media site’s clunky messaging platform. He professes his love for her in all caps.

“Then,” she types, pausing for a moment before finishing her thought, “why did you kill me?” 

From there, viewers are whisked back to a February 2006 night in Riverside, California, where the Lane-Theobald family was taking a late-night trip to the nearby grocery store. Twenty-four-year-old Crystal was in the car with her boyfriend and her brother, Justin Theobald. Crystal’s boyfriend was driving, and her mother, Belinda Lane, was in another car just ahead of them.

As Crystal’s boyfriend pulled up to a stop sign, a white Ford Expedition screeched into the intersection and a young man began shooting at the vehicle. A bullet hit Crystal in the back of the head. Her brother tried to render her aid outside the grocery store, but after being hospitalized, she died two days later. 

Detective Rick Wheeler, who was already haunted by an unsolved gang shooting that had come across his desk, was called to the scene and became determined to find Crystal’s killer. Using elegant model miniatures of cars and characters — as well as some gutting archival footage from the grocery store of Crystal’s injury, plus present-day interviews — the events of that night are retold for the camera over and over again as different theories emerge. 

However, the Lane-Theobalds were initially trepidatious about cooperating with the police. “I didn’t come forth with everything I knew right away,” Belinda said. 

She initially said it was because she didn’t like the detective’s mannerisms, though once we find out about her family’s lengthy rap sheet, it seems that was more likely motivating her distrust of Wheeler. Eventually, Belinda’s other son, Nick, gets a lead from some acquaintances in the neighborhood. According to them, Crystal was killed by members of the 5150, a gang that was largely populated by young Mexican-American men and teens. 

Belinda becomes obsessed with finding her daughter’s killer and enlists the help of her 14-year-old niece, Jaimie, who makes a sort of digital honeypot on MySpace with the intention of extracting information from the 5150 members who are active on the platform. 

Initially, Jaimie makes a fake profile for “Rebecca,” a 17-year-old party girl in a “Super Chicana” shirt who loves to smoke, drink and flirt. Rebecca gets the attention of some of the members, but doesn’t hold it after they ask her to come out to party and she demurs. That’s when Belinda makes a risky choice. 

She makes her own MySpace account with a photo of Crystal using the moniker “Angel.” Like her name would suggest, she’s a good girl — the kind of girl with whom even the most hardened criminal could fall in love. That’s when “Angel” gets the attention of a user who goes by the name “Jokes.” V.5150×3.SSR.” 

His profile makes him out to be rebellious. “Jokes” doesn’t watch movies — he watches porn. Under the section indicated what he reads, he writes, “F**k books.” He’s also comfortable openly affiliating himself with 5150, as evidenced by his full username: “Jokes V.5150×3.SSR.” 

But “Jokes” — whose real name is William Sotelo — soon develops a soft spot for “Angel” and starts telling her about his life. He’s in the Job Corps and is working as a pantry cook. He’s getting his GED and would like to be “a badass chef” one day. So begins a game of cat-and-mouse as Belinda attempts to find out who Sotelo knows that has a white Ford Expedition. 

When he offers to pick up “Angel” for a date, that’s when Belinda finds out that the car seen the night of the shooting was Sotelo’s, though the question remains whether he was the one who pulled the trigger. That’s not the end of the story, by any stretch; what happens in the ensuing decade includes a serial murder plot, an escape to Mexico, a serious police crackdown on gang violence and, finally, a motive for that fateful 2006 shooting. 

Put simply, it’s the kind of story that is wild enough that it doesn’t need too many narrative flourishes to hit, but in trying to build suspense,”Why Did You Kill Me?” doles out pertinent information in spurts, leaving some of the more revealing items until the final minutes. 

It also leaves numerous questions unanswered: Who was Crystal’s boyfriend? According to articles about the shooting, his name was Juan Patlan and he was shot in the stomach that night, though eventually recovered. Why didn’t we hear from him in the documentary? 

We find out partway through the 90-minute documentary that most of the Lane-Theobalds have lengthy criminal records, having faced charges and time for offenses ranging from selling drugs to receiving stolen property. Viewers are told some about Crystal’s background. She was loving and often combined luck with hard work. One time, she played the slots with $5 and left with almost $40,000. She used that money to open a heating and cooling company with her ex-husband before he lapsed back into drug use and bad behavior — another character or potential plot point that is abandoned early. 

Given her family’s history, I found myself more curious about Crystal. We know that she begged Belinda to get clean, but did she personally have any problems with the law? Was she the lone “straight citizen” in her family? To be clear, I’m not looking for a “But she was no angel,” twist. However, knowing how she lived and, eventually, came to thrive would have presented a more nuanced picture of who Crystal was and what her death meant to the community around her. 

“Why Did You Kill Me?” attempts to address several larger themes with varying levels of success. One thread that isn’t fully explored is how social media has changed the way crime and criminal investigations are carried out. Everyone can become an online sleuth and even lose themselves, like Belinda did, to obsessively trawling webpages for more information about a real-world crime (for a more comprehensive look into this phenomenon, add Netflix’s “Don’t F**k with Cats” to your queue). 

“Why Did You Kill Me?” also grapples with the similarities between the Lane-Theobald family and the families of the young men in 5150. Crystal’s brother, Nick, found himself drawn to a gang while coping with Belinda’s addiction. The documentary is missing some context — what about Riverside has these young men turning to criminality? Is it a lack of opportunities? Poverty? Cyclical addiction? Failed anti-crime policies and the demonization of immigrant populations

But the documentary is truly at its strongest as we watch Belinda’s shifting understanding of justice and revenge. In the beginning of the investigation, she maintains that the two are synonymous and begins taunting 5150’s rival gangs on MySpace in order to try to spark a war between them that would result in someone — anyone — getting killed as a kind of atonement for Crystal’s death. In the decade that follows, she becomes less certain that she’ll find closure that way and grapples with what justice really means. 

While occasionally bumpy, it’s worth watching “Why Did You Kill Me?” for these deeply human moments alone.

“Why Did You Kill Me?” is now streaming on Netflix. 

White nationalists go wild for Tucker Carlson’s “great replacement” theory

White nationalists, members of the far right and the guru of the neofascist “Groyper” movement are delighted with Tucker Carlson’s racially charged “great replacement” remarks made on his primetime Fox News program. 

Last week, Carlson stirred up controversy by claiming Democrats are deliberately seeking to change U.S. demographics for their own political advantage. “In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country,” Carlson stated a week ago in a 20-minute monologue. That led to Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt calling for the Fox News host’s firing, which only resulted in Carlson further doubling down on his previous remarks. 

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” Carlson stated. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it: That’s true. … If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So I don’t understand what we don’t understand, cause, I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Oh, you know, the white replacement theory? No, no — this is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they’re importing a brand new electorate.”

Since then, white nationalists and other denizens of the far right have offered the Fox News host praise for his “great replacement” commentary. Carlson’s remarks strongly echo rhetoric pushed by overt white supremacists, who have suggested that white Christians in English-speaking countries are becoming endangered by immigration and growing demographic diversity.  

Media Matters for America reporter Eric Hananoki pointed out that the white nationalist website VDARE, published by alt-right figure Peter Brimelow, called Carlson’s remarks “one of the best things Fox News has ever aired.”

Leading white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes, whose “Groyper Army” appeals to disaffected young white men, also offered Carlson praise. “I have been skeptical of Tucker ever since his coverage (or lack thereof) of the stop the steal movement after the election, but tonight he really brought it all together & spelled out explicitly what is happening to the country,” Fuentes wrote on Twitter. “Unironically huge victory in the battle of ideas.” Fuentes went on to call Carlson “based” (a term of praise) and claim that the Fox News post had just “red-pilled 4 million people, and there is nothing liberals can do about it.”

But the outpouring of support didn’t stop there. In a Telegram message, Newsmax host and far-right pundit Michelle Malkin weighted in on Carlson’s comments: “Glad to see Tucker Carlson step up now and finally name names of America’s enemies. Hope he pays homage to those who came before him and have had the courage to name them and fight them, long before our generation did.” 

A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment on the record about the outpouring of support Carlson has received from the racist fringe of the far right. Carlson has occasionally made explicit denunciations of racism, but often in coded terms that left considerable wiggle room. 

“I’m sure that people who hate my politics will try to discredit them by calling me names, but there is no show that I’m aware of that has made a stronger case for a color-blind meritocracy than ours has,” Carlson told Variety in August of 2020. “I believe that all American citizens, regardless of how they were born, should be treated equally under the law. As I say on a nightly basis, we should not impugn people for things they cannot control, for their immutable characteristics. That is an argument against racism.” 

“Florida hasn’t always been the weird state”: Florida Man pens book reframing the Sunshine State

Tyler Gillespie is a man from Florida, but he’s not a Florida Man, you know? Or maybe he is. Because if your only image of the Sunshine State is punchline headlines and hurricanes, you don’t know Florida at all.

As a writer for Salon’s “Young Americans” project a few years ago, Gillespie reliably sought to show a different side of his home state, one that tempered its outsized reputation with its humanity. Now, he’s written a new book of essays, “The Thing About Florida,” about the much-maligned and misunderstood birthplace of both Eva Mendez and Matt Gaetz. Salon spoke to him recently about the most complicated state in the union, and making peace with the place you come from.

Maybe the best place to start is where you start the book, which is the concept of the Florida Man. I’d taken it for granted the Florida Man as an idea has always been with us, but that’s not  the case. 

I became really interested with that when I was living outside of the state. I got my MFA at the University of New Orleans. I had started to see all these headlines were going viral, and people asked me about weird Florida stuff. This was the image of these headlines, and the reputation of the state.

I never thought of Florida as very strange. I didn’t necessarily love being from the state when I was younger; I don’t think all teenagers love being where they’re from. But then I came to connect with the state. I didn’t think these things were weird until so many people were telling me they were. I needed to know more about how these headlines came to be. It seems so ubiquitous, but there are reasons why this has happened. And Florida hasn’t always been the weird state. 

I didn’t understand that part of what makes Florida Man and Florida Woman is the relationship that law enforcement has with public records.

That’s a huge part of it. We’re very proud of our open records laws in this state, because we should have open records laws for our politicians and for things like that. But it does have the consequence of making it very easy for these stories to be put online. Someone can be arrested for something that they’re never convicted for, that didn’t necessarily happen, and there are ways to frame it so journalists can write about it without getting a libel allegation. Other states don’t have those laws.

I think too, Florida has always been a place where people come for vacation, for sun, and it has that myth to it about being this fantastical place. I do think that a lot of the people who get arrested here are not necessarily from there. They may be on vacation or whatever. So it’s the “Florida Man,” or “Florida Woman,” but it’s not actually a Florida person. I think people sometimes unfortunately see Florida as a place where anything goes, and maybe they’re not on their best behavior when they come visit us.

Throughout the book, you identify these concepts that are almost mythic about Florida — hurricanes, crocodiles, the Confederacy, Christianity. Then you go in there and you say, “This is what they are,” and humanize and demythologize. How did you come up with what those big ideas were going to be?

I knew I had to write about alligators. You can’t not write about alligators, writing about Florida. I was thinking about these concepts that people identify with Florida, like alligators or hurricanes or Florida Man, and thinking about what they actually are. Like I write, I could have been a Florida Man or I could have been a headline if things would have just shaken out a little differently. I’m always interested in the story behind the headline, the human behind the headline.

When we’re on deadline for newspaper or magazine, we may not have the time to do that. What I try to do is just try to let people talk and hear what they have to say, and look for that something that I wasn’t expecting. I just find that more interesting and more honest.

I loved Mary Thorn, the gator woman. Her whole story comes out of grief and tragedy and loss, and then she’s got this giant bachelor alligator who can’t get a girlfriend.

She’s a great example of someone who, the headlines are, “Wow, she tries to dress up her alligator.” Of course people are going to want to know about that, but that’s where it stopped. She was going through the loss of a child and all of these things while she was raising this alligator that had been stolen and kept in the dark. People are complex. Florida’s complex. What I really wanted to do is try to get those complexities without trying to make any judgment. I may not agree with something that somebody is doing, but that doesn’t mean that they’re not a fully realized person and that we can’t learn something from their story or connect to their story in some way.

You’re really candid about your own brush with Florida Manness, about your Christian education, about losing friends in the Pulse shooting. Why does that need to be part of the story?

Originally I was not in a lot of these essays. I was more interested in what other people were doing, but then there were some moments of narrative connection. I had to maybe use my own personal experience to connect some of these threads that may seem disparate. My editor and my agent were like, “We want some more of those moments.”

It took me a while to figure out how to balance that. The last chapter was not in the original, final draft of the book, which I think as the most personal. I’d been working on that chapter about growing up gay person in the Southern Baptist church for years and I couldn’t figure it out. Then after going through the whole drafting and everything, a reader was like, “I really feel like this should end in Orlando.” I said, “I don’t have an essay about Disney World, but I do have an essay about the Holy Land Experience,” which is in Orlando.

So it was a process, especially for writing about recovery. Honestly, if I’m going to talk about a person’s story, then it is my responsibility as a writer to at least share what is my stake in this and at least share that I have similar experiences.

With Pulse, it’s really hard. I wasn’t there, but people do ask me about it once they know I was living in Orlando. Bringing that up, I was able to connect to the foundation started in my friend’s honor. 

The book is a story about reconciling with home. That’s what makes it relatable, not just as a book that’s about Florida that’s interesting to people who are not from Florida. We all have to come to terms with where we come from, how we were raised, who we are.

That’s the thing. Florida has this reputation, but everybody’s got a hometown. Everybody feels a kind of way about their home and we have to reconcile that. It’s a very human thing to do. Now, I love being from Florida and I’m so glad I get to be from Florida. 

We’re in the midst of a real Florida Man Renaissance in the halls of our greatest power. When you look at somebody like a Matt Gaetz, is he a Florida Man? Is Donald Trump a Florida Man?

I end the book about the complexity and the redemption of some folks, but that being said, of course there are things that do not deserve to be redeemed. What I hope that is maybe we’ll focus less on the viral headlines of everyday people who may be in a moment of addiction or mental health or socioeconomic circumstances or having a really stressful bad day or something, and focus more on the headlines that you’re talking about, about a Matt Gaetz, about our politicians, about our water quality. The state is really important to the country in terms of many different things, We just really need to be focused more on that and less on people thinking, “Okay well, it’s a wild state. Wild things go on.”

Sometimes people don’t take Florida seriously because of all the viral headlines, and we have very serious things going on here that affect many people that aren’t just Floridian. I do hope that people will take it seriously, especially people who are residents, and vote and be engaged.

Despite promises, Biden on pace to accept far fewer refugees than Trump

The United States is on pace to accept the fewest number of refugees in more than 40 years despite President Joe Biden’s vow to boost resettlement levels to historic highs.

Initially, Biden entered office with a flurry of executive actions rolling back many of former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Trump had decimated the refugee resettlement program, which limited the number of refugees at 110,000 the year he entered office, cutting the cap to just 15,000 on his way out. Biden then announced his intent to raise the cap to 62,500 for the fiscal year ending in September and double that for the following fiscal year. But even though such a move would only require his signature, Biden has yet to issue any executive actions raising the ceiling on admissions and the White House has curiously continued to dodge questions about the delay.

Without any action from Biden’s White House, the country is set to accept the lowest number of refugees since the resettlement program began in 1980, according to a report from the International Rescue Committee, a nonprofit humanitarian aid group.

The US has admitted just 2,050 refugees halfway through the fiscal year and is on pace to admit only 5,410 refugees through September, well below the 11,814 admitted in Trump’s final fiscal year and the 15,000 cap imposed by Trump for this fiscal year.

“There has now been an unexplained and unjustified eight-week delay in issuing the revised refugee admissions policy,” the IRC report said. “This delay means that highly restrictive and discriminatory Trump-era policies remain firmly in place. As a result, tens of thousands of already-cleared refugees remain barred from resettlement and over 700 resettlement flights have been cancelled, leaving vulnerable refugees in uncertain limbo.”

The report also criticized Biden for leaving in place Trump’s October executive action banning the resettlement of most refugees from Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, arguing that the Biden administration is continuing to deny refugees “fleeing the world’s worst displacement crises.” It also argued that by refusing to raise the refugee cap the administration was neglecting to use a “critical tool” to address the rise in migrants at the Southern border, noting that the US has accepted just 139 refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

“With more than 1.4 million refugees in need of resettlement worldwide and fewer than 1 percent of all refugees ever considered for this life-saving program, no admissions slot should go unfilled,” the report said.

“I don’t know the specific reason why [Biden] hasn’t signed, and it’s really unusual that he hasn’t signed,” Nazanin Ash, the vice president for global policy and advocacy at IRC, told The Washington Post. “It is typically a standard, automatic last step in the process.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has repeatedly avoided answering questions about the timeline to raise the admissions ceiling.

“It’s an issue he remains committed to,” she told reporters on Monday.

State Department spokesman Ned Price echoed that talking point but told the Associated Press that there is a “great deal of rebuilding that needs to take place in order to have a refugee program that allows us to achieve what we wanted to achieve in a way that is both effective and that is safe.”

Ash argued that Trump administration policies targeting refugees from Muslim-majority countries “are nothing short of discriminatory” and, as a result of the extensive nature of refugee vetting, have no implications for security or other concerns.

“They were simply put in place by the Trump administration to restrict refugee admissions and in particular to restrict the admission of black, brown, Asian and Muslim refugees,” Ash told the Post.

More than 100 elected state and local officials last week joined advocacy groups in calling on Biden to immediately raise the cap to 62,500 for the second half of the fiscal year.

“At least 80 million people around the world have been forced to flee their homes and among them are more than 29 million refugees,” the letter said. “Despite this, only a tiny fraction will ever be afforded the chance for resettlement to a third country, like the United States. Now is the time for your administration to fulfill its commitment to human rights and refugee protection; only then can we urge the global community to also do their part.”

Journalists have also repeatedly called out Biden for delaying an increase his administration touted in the weeks after he took office.

“The numbers are a blatant betrayal of Mr. Biden’s public commitment, and they have real-world impacts,” The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Wednesday, noting that pregnant women seeking refuge may soon be unable to fly and clearances for other refugees may also expire before the delay ends. “In the meantime, the suffering will only deepen for Iraqis who assisted U.S. Special Operations forces, Syrians fleeing civil war’s devastation, and Somalis, Congolese and others eager to build new lives after having escaped the world’s most shattered places… The optics are bad enough. The actual costs, in real distress and suffering, are incalculable.”

“This is not, presumably, what most Americans thought they were getting when they elected Biden,” wrote Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell, adding that the numbers suggest the “most anti-refugee president in modern history may not be Donald Trump. Right now, it’s looking like Joe Biden.”

HBO host John Oliver also excoriated Biden over the delay on Sunday, slamming the White House for failing to provide a “straight answer from this administration on why” and leaving hundreds of eligible refugees “beholden to Trump’s low admission ceiling and bullshit racist rules.”

“For Biden, this is actually really simple… He just needs to sign a piece of paper,” he said. “And for a guy who clearly wanted to be the person who restored the soul of America, it is past time to for him to look deep into his own, pick up a fucking pen, and do the right thing.”

Republicans who pushed Arkansas’ anti-trans ban just passed a bill to teach creationism in schools

GOP state Rep. Mary Bentley has been very busy doing what religious conservatives might say is the lord’s work in the Arkansas state legislature. 

A fourth-term member of the House, Bentley has introduced two seemingly anti-science bills in the past month – HB 1701 and HB 1749 –– that enact what some on the religious right might celebrate as Bible-sanctioned policies targeting children. 

HB 1701, filed on March 11, stipulates that K-12 teachers in a “science class at a public school or open-enrollment public charter school may teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist.” The bill, later passed in the House on April 7, does not require creationism to be taught by K-12, but nevertheless reinvigorates debate around an issue which the state of Arkansas has not touched since the early 80s. 

Back in 1981, as NPR  later recounted, Arkansas adopted a law that required “balanced treatment” of evolution and creationism in the classroom, which sparked a fiery legal battle and resulted in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) suing in federal court, arguing that the state’s new law was unconstitutional for promoting religion in the public school system. In 1982, U.S. District Judge William R. Overton scrapped the law on the grounds that it violated the constitutionally-mandated separation between church and state (i.e. the Establishment Clause.) 

Bentley’s other recent bill, HB 1749, filed just five days after HB 1701 and passed by the House just weeks later, mandates that public school teachers and other public employees are “not required to use a pronoun, title, or other word to identify a public school student as male female that is inconsistent with the public school student’s biological sex.” According to the bill, any employee that “faces adverse action as a result of a violation” of the law is “eligible for remedies afforded under…the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993.” 

In Religion Dispatches, Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional and civil rights attorney, pointed out in a scathing piece that, although the bills tackle two independent issues, they both point to the “undeniable link between [Bentley’s] bigotry and creationism.”

“For Bentley, creationism dictates her anti-trans views,” he wrote. “For Bentley, the Bible demands her bigotry. And it’s not enough that she believes it, she wants the machinery of the state to push this creationism in public school classrooms. That is, of course, unconstitutional.”

In a floor speech delivered last month, which she transcribed in a subsequent Facebook post, Bentley expressed: “Father God is proud of who he created each of us to be and to deny who you are is to deny that he created you […] to deny who you are and were created to be is to deny Him.”

Bentley, Seidel argued, is “legislating her holy book and denying citizens their rights because she sees the very existence of LGBTQ people as a denial of her god, a hateful religious belief she wants preached to captive audiences of schoolchildren across the state.”

This isn’t Bentley’s first go-around with creationism in the classroom.

Back in 2017, the Republican introduced HB 2050 to “amend the Arkansas Code” by “allow[ing] public school teachers to teach creationism and intelligent design as theories alongside the teaching of the origins of the earth and the theory of evolution.” Bentley has vehemently defended HB 2050 on account of its potential to offer good-spirited “discussion” and “debate in the classroom.” She said, “I think our students learn more when they discuss it and debate it in the classroom and look at different scientific theories. I think we can look at them and learn from them all. I really do,” she said.

Other state lawmakers across the aisle don’t share her views.

“Why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is illegal to do that?” Rep. Deborah Ferguson, D, pressed Bentley on the House floor. 

Senate Minority Leader Keith Ingram, D, told Salon that Bentley’s most recent push with HB 1749 seemed to come out of nowhere.

“I don’t think any of us when we came in here in January anticipated a piece of legislation” like HB 1749. “I don’t think it’s workable. The most important thing is the child is in a classroom getting an education.”

Although both HB 1749 and HB 1701 are both Republican-backed, he expressed doubt that House Republicans would see unanimous support from their colleagues in the Senate. “I haven’t talked to my Republican colleagues about either one of these, but I would think there would probably be spirited discussion within their caucus about both of these. It strikes me as something that would not be a lockstep vote on the Republican side.”

“Hopefully,” he added, “the Senate can be more a voice of reason.”

Salon reached out to Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson on whether he plans to sign the bill in support of creationism in schools should it reach his desk but have not received comment at the time of publishing.  

Ex-officer charged with second-degree manslaughter in fatal shooting of Daunte Wright

The former Minnesota police officer who was captured on camera fatally shooting Daunte Wright during a traffic stop has been charged with second-degree manslaughter, authorities said Wednesday.

Kim Potter resigned as a Brooklyn Center police officer on Tuesday, two days after shooting and killing 20-year-old Wright. On Wednesday, Potter was officially charged with second-degree manslaughter, Washington County Attorney Pete Orput said.

In Minnesota, second-degree manslaughter applies when authorities allege a person causes someone’s death by “culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.” The charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.

On Sunday, Wright was shot by Potter during a traffic stop in the small Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center. According to what Wright’s mother said he told her on the phone during the stop, the police told him he was pulled over for hanging air fresheners on his rearview mirror.  

“All he did was have air fresheners in the car, and they told him to get out of the car,” Katie Wright told The Star Tribune on Sunday. “During the call, she said she heard scuffling and then someone saying ‘Daunte, don’t run’ before the phone call ended. When she called back, her son’s girlfriend answered and said Daunte had been shot,” The Tribune reported.

In the wake of Wright’s death, Potter and Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon turned in their badges Tuesday. The shooting occurred just 14 miles north of where George Floyd was killed last year.

During a press conference Tuesday, an aunt of Daunte Wright revealed that the former girlfriend of George Floyd had also been her nephew’s teacher at one point. “I wear this shirt and the craziest thing is to find out today that my family has connections to this man, to this family. His girlfriend was the teacher for my nephew,” she said. 

The Floyds and the Wrights are two families both mourning Black men who died because of officers’ use of force.

“Can you blame Daunte for being terrified as a Black man in custody of police, when you just watched here in Minneapolis George Floyd being murdered at the hands of the very same police?” George’s nephew Brandon Floyd asked.

https://twitter.com/qasimrashid/status/1382373968607338504?s=21 
 

As NRA was bleeding money, it offered Dan Bongino $1.5 million for failing TV channel

Newly released court documents allege that in 2018, the National Rifle Association and its CEO Wayne LaPierre approved a $1.5 million dollar contract to keep then-NRATV host Dan Bongino on for the 2019 calendar year at the NRA’s failing TV outlet. This came as the gun rights organization was falling deeper into financial troubles over the course of 2018

A legal document obtained by Salon and filed by Ackerman McQueen, the NRA’s longtime PR agency, in the gun group’s ongoing bankruptcy case in Texas, contains a list of commitments that Ackerman alleges the NRA “refused to honor.” It then claims that at an October 2018 meeting in Dallas, “LaPierre approved NRATV for the 2019 budget year, including Dan Bongino’s $1.5 million contract (which Mr. Bongino ultimately turned down).”

According to reporting by The Daily Beast, Bongino was “dropped” by NRATV around the end of 2018, but Ackerman McQueen’s new legal filings suggest that was not in fact the case.

Reached for comment by Salon about the $1.5 million offer and about whether LaPierre ever told him about the NRA’s financial struggles, Bongino responded angrily. “I typically send your ridiculous inquiries to junk because I think so little of you, and your drifting,” Bongino wrote. Then he observed, in his colorful style, that the court documents show that the Daily Beast’s reporting three years back may have been inaccurate.

“Liberal media morons, and their blind, gullible, imbecilic followers breathlessly reported for years that I was ‘fired’ from NRATV, or ‘dropped,’ as the disingenuous Daily Beast put it,” Bongino wrote. “Now that court documents have surfaced to completely refute this b*llsh*t story, you send me an email asking for comment on the NRA? You guys are a pathetic joke. Your parents must be horrified at what they spawned.”

In light of the NRA’s bankruptcy petition in Texas, which is now being heard in court and has yielded some unfavorable moment court for both the organization and LaPierre, one gun safety group argues that the $1.5 million Bongino deal offers more evidence of the NRA’s “egregious spending.” 

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, told Salon the alleged Bongino offer further illustrates the NRA’s financial ineptitude. “Offering Bongino $1.5 million to be on its faux-TV-network, that no one watched, is yet another example of the NRA’s egregious spending and financial mismanagement, which have led them into multiple investigations and lawsuits culminating with the disastrous ongoing bankruptcy trial,” Watts said.  

Republicans take trolling to “trigger the libs” to the next level

Tucker Carlson recently got oodles of attention — which was what he wanted — for unleashing a literal neo-Nazi argument on his highly rated prime time Fox News show last week and, when called on it, doubling down Monday night. Carlson’s “argument” is basically a rehash of the same idea that drove white nationalists to riot in Charlottesville in 2017. At its core is a belief that social and demographic changes in the U.S. are due to a shadowy conspiracy of “elites” (Democrats in Carlson’s telling, Jews in the more forthright white nationalist version) trying to deprive conservative Christian white people of their god-given right to control the country. 

“[T]he Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” Carlson said, eyes glinting with impish delight. He circled around again on Monday, whining, “In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country.”

Carlson’s arguments are, of course, utter nonsense, starting with the fact Democrats already win the majority of votes in national elections, and only lose power because votes of conservative whites are more heavily weighted in our electoral system. Here at Salon, Heather “Digby” Parton recently pointed out that it’s ridiculous “to believe that immigrants are ‘replacing’ real Americans in a country where the only people in it who aren’t the descendants of immigrants or trafficked African slaves are Native Americans.”

Immigration foes have never come up with a satisfactory explanation for why it’s anything but racist to argue that immigration was good in the past but is bad now.


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


Carlson doesn’t even really try to hide his core appeal, using overtly racist terms like “Third World” and acting like feigning umbrage at the use of the word “racist” is sufficient rebuttal to the accusation. Instead of trying to actually defend his anti-democratic, racist arguments, Carlson instead chooses a much simpler tactic: Trolling. 

His trolling comes in two forms, the “trigger the liberals” type and the more classic “neener neener” type. Neither really constitutes an argument in the traditional sense of the word. Both, instead, focus the attention of Carlson’s audience on the emotional rewards of irritating liberals, instead of on the incoherence of what he’s trying to argue. 

The full quotes from Carlson’s rant defending “replacement theory” really underscore how central liberal-triggering is to selling his audience on this nonsense. After offering a fake laugh, Carlson noted that he’s “laughing” because “the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,'” and “they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually.” The joke being that “replacement theory” may not make much sense, in other words, but it’s guaranteed to make liberals upset. As making liberals upset is the prime directive of the modern conservative, that’s a good enough reason to embrace what is literally a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. 

Carlson went on to claim that this is merely a “voting rights question,” and that more voters in the system means “I become disenfranchised as a current voter.” But Greg Sargent at the Washington Post did a noble job of pointing out the incongruity of “Carlson’s underlying presumption that if representatives chosen by U.S. voters allow more outsiders admission to an expanded polity, this cannot be a democratic outcome by definition.” Parton also took a shot at this silliness, noting “we are all going to be ‘replaced’ by the generations that come up behind us.” Carlson, notably, isn’t arguing against the practice of childbirth, which also “dilutes” his vote by adding new voters to the populace. 

But Carlson isn’t really trying to make sense. This is just a “neener neener” argument, drafting off the fact that liberals have been heavily focused on protecting actual voting rights against a wave of GOP voter suppression. Basically, it’s Carlson saying, “You libs say you’re for voting rights, but what if I said my voting rights depends on other people not getting to vote? Checkmate, libs!” It’s not really an argument. It’s about injecting noise into the discourse and is meant to confuse people, waste time by forcing liberals to carefully debunk it, and give his viewers something to say to rationalize their racism, even if it is literally nonsensical. 


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


This “neener neener” type of trolling is swiftly becoming central to the entire GOP strategy around dismantling voting rights.

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri are proposing using anti-trust laws to break up Major League Baseball to punish the organization for pulling the All-Star Game out of Georgia in protest of the anti-voting law just passed there. This isn’t because Cruz or Hawley believe in anti-trust laws. It’s a neener-neener move of weaponizing liberals’ own beliefs against them. It’s part of a larger push by Republicans to parrot liberal criticism of corporate influence in politics by whining about “woke” corporations. No one actually believes Republicans have suddenly become concerned about monied power in politics. It’s just a “neener neener” troll to derail debate about the actual anti-voting law, which conservatives know is indefensible. 

Indeed, the efforts to roll out “checkmate, libs” deflections beat new records in idiocy this week, when not just one, but two senior writers at the National Review — which is supposed to be the home of “intellectual” conservatism — tried to “gotcha” New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait on his pro-democracy writings. They did this by arguing — wait for it — that democracy is bad because it gave us Jim Crow and slavery. Yep, you read that right. 

It makes us all stupider that it has to be said, but the flaw in this argument, of course, is that enslaved people and Black people living under Jim Crow did not, in fact, have the democratic right to vote. Indeed, Jim Crow functioned just like the Georgia law that these conservative “intellectuals” are defending, which is by undermining democracy in order to preserve white supremacy. As the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer and the Washington Post’s David Weigel pointed out, this is the equivalent of arguing that apartheid South Africa was a “democracy” despite disallowing the majority of Black citizens from voting. 

But these kinds of tactics from conservatives shouldn’t be understood as arguments. Instead, it’s all just flat-out trolling. None of these “arguments” are offered in good faith. The point is, as Steve Bannon once famously said, “to flood the zone with shit,” which is to say to derail efforts to inform and engage the public by pumping out so many dumb arguments, trolling tactics, and other distractions that few people can pay attention to what really matters. 

Fighting back against these tactics isn’t easy. Ignoring the trolls isn’t good enough. If bad arguments like Carlson’s aren’t rebutted, they can spread even more rapidly, as not everyone has the critical thinking skills to spot the flaws right away. But it’s also important not to let trolls waste too much of liberals’ time and energy debating arguments offered in bad faith. Instead, the key to fighting back is to go meta, by pointing out as often as is necessary, that conservatives resort to such sleazy strategies because they know their arguments can’t stand on their own. Going meta instead of taking the bait is the only real way to beat back the trolls. 

On January 6th, the U.S. became a foreign country

Just about everyone was shocked by what happened at the Capitol building on January 6th. But as a former soldier in America’s forever wars, horrifying as the scenes were, I also found what happened strangely familiar, almost inevitable. I thought that, if only we had taken our country’s imperial history seriously, none of us would have found that day either shocking or unprecedented.

Honestly, it could only seem that way if you imagined our domestic politics as completely separate from our foreign policy. But if we’re to learn anything from that maladroit attempt at a government-toppling coup, it should be that they are anything but separate. The question isn’t whether then-President Donald Trump incited the assault on the Capitol — of course he did. It is rather: Since when have we cared if an American president lies to incite an illegal insurrection? In all honesty, our commanders-in-chief have been doing so abroad for generations with complete impunity. It was only a matter of time before the moral rot finally made its way home.

Back in 2007, I actually met Nancy Pelosi whom those insurrectionists were going after — “Tell Pelosi we’re coming for that b**ch. Tell f***ing Pelosi we’re coming for her!” — in that very Capitol building. That day, my family was testifying before theHouse Committee on Oversight and Reform concerning the U.S. government’s disinformation campaign about how, three years earlier, my brother Pat Tillman had died in Afghanistan (as a result of “friendly,” not enemy, fire). We would testify alongside former soldier Jessica Lynch who had suffered a similar disinformation fate in the wake of a tragic ambush of her convoy in Nasiriyah, Iraq, where soldiers died and she was taken prisoner. After the hearing, we discussed the case with Pelosi, who then took us on a brief personal tour of the halls of the building. Given the circumstances, it was a thoughtful gesture and a humbling experience.

So, it was personally quite unsettling to watch that rabid mob of insurrectionists storm our Capitol, some actively seeking to kill the woman who had walked our family through those same halls, wearing her signature green business suit. To see people desecrating that building over grievances rooted in demonstrable and absurd untruthsmanufactured by President Trump was both grotesque and shameful. 

And yet, however surreal, disappointing, disqualifying, even treasonous that assault and the 57-43 Senate acquittal of the president would be, what took place should, in another sense, not have been a shock to anyone. The idea that January 6th was something new for this country and so a unique affront to the American idea of democracy, not to speak of common decency, was simply wrong. After all, ever since 1945, this country has regularly intervened in elections all over the globe and done far worse as well. What’s disorienting, I suppose, is that this time we did it to ourselves.

Around the Globe, Generation after Generation

My own limited experience with American interventionism involves the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. After the September 11th attacks, I enlisted in the U.S. Army with Pat. We would be assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment and our unit would in March 2003 be sent into Iraq, one of so many tools in the Bush administration’s war of aggression there. We would help remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by force. It was hardly the mission I had in mind when I signed up, but I was naive when it came to foreign policy. Being part of illegal invasions, however, leaves lasting impressions.

That particular intervention in Iraq began with a barrage of administration lies about Saddam’s supposed supply of weapons of mass destruction, his reputed links to al-Qaeda, and the idea that we were liberating the Iraqi people. Some of us actually were assigned to run around Baghdad, “east, west, south, and north somewhat,” looking for those nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. The whole invasion would prove catastrophic, of course, resulting in the destruction of Iraqi society, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers, even as that country’s leadership was removed and its military disbanded (mission accomplished!). Of course, neither President George W. Bush, nor the rest of the top officials of his administration were held responsible for what happened.

So, when I watched the January 6th insurrection unfold, my mind was immediately drawn to the period leading up to the Iraq war — except this time, the drumbeat of lies had to do with massive voter fraud, voting irregularities, “dead voters,” rigged software, and other fabrications. Obviously, the two events were drastically different in scale, complexity, and destructiveness. Still, they seemed to share common fundamental threads.

Examples of American interference in the governance of foreign countries via coups, regime change, and other ploys are commonplaces of our modern history. Among the best known would be the replacing of a number of democratically elected leaders like Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with the Shah (1953), Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz with Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas (1954), Chilean President Salvador Allende with General Augusto Pinochet (1973), or Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in a U.S.-backed coup (2009). In other words, we’re not talking about a few one-off mistakes or a couple of dumb wars.

In truth, there has been an endless supply of such U.S. interventions around the globe: invasions, military coups, soft coups, economic sanctions, secretly funding candidates of Washington’s choice, the fueling of existing conflicts, you name it and it’s probably happened.

Take for example our neighbors in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. I honestly don’t know if there is a single nation in Latin America that hasn’t fallen victim to a U.S. intervention of some sort: Argentina (1976), Bolivia (1971), Brazil (1964), Cuba (1961), El Salvador (the 1980s), Grenada (1983), Haiti (2004), Honduras (1980 and 2009), Panama (1989), Paraguay (1962), Peru (1968), Suriname (the 1980s), Uruguay (1973), Venezuela (the present moment). Maybe Costa Rica was spared?

Venezuela is a particularly interesting case because for 20 years — three consecutive presidencies — Washington has unsuccessfully supported multiplecoup attempts, levied crippling illegal economic sanctions, and engaged in other types of tricks to topple former president Hugo Chávez and the current President Nicolás Maduro. Coincidentally, in January 2019, former President Trump recognized Juan Guaidó, a member of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as that country’s president. Guaidó had declared himself president after he didn’t like the results of an election (not unlike Mr. Trump two years later). 

Looking across the Pacific Ocean, don’t forget about the wars we engaged in that ravaged Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, or about Washington’s support for Suharto’s 1965 military coup in Indonesia.

And, of course, who doesn’t remember what happened (and continues to happen) in the Greater Middle East from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria, Yemen, and Iran, among other places? In the last nearly 20 years, Washington’s never-ending Global War On Terror has created a level of death, destruction, and displacement difficult to comprehend, though Brown University’s Costs of War Project has done a superb (if grim) job of trying to quantify it all.

And what I listed above is anything but comprehensive. The point is that, generation after generation, Americans have been directly or indirectly involved in or exposed to such rogue behavior, a type of interference that had already long become part of our national fabric by the time it made it to the Capitol.

End the Tradition

To be sure, this has been a bipartisan pattern, as the administrations of president after president, Democrat and Republican, engaged in it.

Even if we were to take the position that some of those interventions were somehow legal, moral, or necessary, the behavior itself has become completely normalized as a crucial go-to option for any president. It’s also worth noting just what types of nations have typically been targeted for such interventions — usually vulnerable states with weak economies and frail institutions. Whether democracies or dictatorships hasn’t seemed to matter. The populations of such countries have, however, almost invariably been nonwhite. Putting aside the obvious illegality, immorality, and even cowardice of picking on vulnerable nations, such acts historically have probably exacerbated the role of jingoism and xenophobia, as well as cultural and racial superiority in this country, just the sort of thinking so evident on January 6th. This behavior breeds disunity and hate.

When it came to overthrowing other governments, our presidents regularly peddled obvious and verifiable lies, broke or disregarded laws (domestic and international), and freely used violence and intimidation to gain power and profit, seldom being held accountable in any fashion for any of it. However such methods were to come home someday, what happened on January 6th should still be a wake-up call, forcing us all to see what it means when this signature American approach to foreign policy is used against our own democracy.

The Capitol insurrection should be (but hasn’t yet been) treated as a vivid reminder of the way this country’s foreign policy has undermined the American system, too. I see it as a form of “blowback,” to use the CIA term popularized long ago by Chalmers Johnson.

In some fashion, at least, it undoubtedly influenced the behavior of former president Trump and his followers, explaining why they believed it was a viable option to use force at the Capitol to stop democracy in its tracks. Based on our history, it was a strategy long deployed elsewhere without remorse or fear of repercussions in order to get what American leaders wanted.

What once might have seemed improbable for our democracy to suffer suddenly became a reality, one that had long been experienced by so many other peoples at our hands. And if changes aren’t made, it won’t be the last time either.

In his Inaugural Address, President Biden appeared willing to tackle many of the big challenges that our country now faces. He spoke with a kind of clarity, kindness, inclusion, and sanity that had been missing of late. Specifically, he addressed the needs of this nation:

“Much to repair. Much to restore. Much to heal. Much to build. And much to gain…. To overcome these challenges — to restore the soul and to secure the future of America — requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy: Unity… Uniting to fight the common foes we face: Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence. Disease, joblessness, hopelessness.”

President Biden also talked about the dangers of big lies and “alternative facts,” saying:

“There is truth and there are lies. Lies told for power and for profit. And each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders — leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation — to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

No doubt President Biden’s concerns do need to be addressed in this time of troubles for us all and I believe he genuinely meant what he said. From the pandemic to inequality, there are obviously domestic issues, driven by developments inside our own borders that need serious attention.

However, any efforts to achieve such goals domestically will ultimately fail if those unsustainable contradictions outside our borders persist. If President Biden’s calls for unity are to produce tangible and lasting results, what’s needed is a holistic approach that extends to America’s behavior abroad.

In the past, even when President Trump spoke of calling a halt to our endless wars and interventions, the pattern continued. There always seemed to be some reason that made the next act of pillaging “necessary and appropriate.” This time, of course, I hope that the president and his staff will indeed have the courage to break with tradition, but based on the recent airstrike Biden ordered in Syria, a country his boss helped to ravage while he was vice president, what’s probably needed is an organized and vocal demand from the American people.

Since it’s clear that our executive branch has the unchecked power to illegally command insurrections here at home, invade and destroy vulnerable nations at will, relentlessly slaughter and displace families, starve foreign peoples through economic sanctions, foment coups abroad, handpick leaders for other countries with impunity, and send American troops to die for “lies told for power and profit” against manufactured “foes,” then it’s also legally within its power not to do any of that.

Perhaps exercising the power, authority, and responsibility to stop the illegal, unlawful, and immoral behavior around the globe could prove a major first step toward the president’s goals of unifying both our nation and a shared global community.

Copyright 2021 Kevin Tillman

Kevin Tillman, who works in the software industry, joined the U.S. Army with his brother Pat in 2002 after the attacks of September 11th. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. This is Kevin’s first TomDispatch piece.

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

Two women come to Matt Gaetz’s defense, say sex and drug-fueled parties did not involve minors

Two unnamed women have come forward to provide details about a string of drug- and alcohol-fueled house parties partaken by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in Orlando. 

According to a CNN report, which interviewed two female guests who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the male partygoers consisted of a “who’s who of local Republican officials.” Women were reportedly asked to put away their cellphones upon arriving for fear of the night’s activities being recorded. The two women interviewed also alleged that alcohol and various drugs, like cocaine and ecstasy, were distributed to attendees. 

Gaetz, who was known to behave like a “frat type of party boy,” was often seen taking recreational drugs in the form of pills, the women said. Many of the parties took place just after high-power political functions, but some were subtler affairs. “No one ever wants to stop partying, stop drinking, once you’ve had a few glasses of champagne in you,” one of the women told CNN.

Digital transactions often occurred between guests. At least one woman who attended these parties was the recipient of hundreds of dollars in digital payments. One of the women interviewed by CNN said that she received payments for sex, but declined to reveal who the money was paid by. She also said that Gaetz’s associate, Joel Greenberg, a former Seminole County currently facing 33 counts including child sex trafficking, directed payments to her. But she never received money from Gaetz directly. 

One of the women told CNN that she came forward because the Justice Department’s investigation of Gaetz over child sex trafficking does not square with what she observed of the congressman at various functions. Neither of the women interviewed could recall seeing anyone that looked underage. 

According to a New York Times report from Tuesday, Greenberg, who is reportedly cooperating with investigators and is likely to strike a plea deal, confirmed to authorities that he and Gaetz had multiple sexual encounters in exchange for cash or gifts. Greenberg is said to have been on “websites that connect people who go on dates in exchange for gifts, fine dining, travel and allowances” through which he met women he introduced to Gaetz. 

Last week, the Daily Beast reported that Gaetz may have transferred $900 in Venmo payments to three young women via Greenberg. One of the women was eighteen years old at the time the payments were made. 

Investigators are also scrutinizing a trip Gaetz took to the Bahamas with various friends and young women, which CNN reported last week. The probe is looking into whether Gaetz was provided with travel, escorts, and campaign donations by several Florida associates in exchange for political favors. 

Congressman Gaetz has vehemently denied any allegations that he paid for sex or had a sexual relationship with an underaged woman. Gaetz has furthermore alleged that the accusations brought against him are part of an elaborate extortion scheme carried out by an ex-DOJ official seeking $25 million from his family. 

In a Washington Examiner op-ed last week, Gaetz delivered an emotional appeal to make his case. “My personal life is and always has been conducted on my own time and my own dime. Consensual adult relationships are not illegal,” he wrote. “Although I’m sure some partisan crooks in Merrick Garland’s Justice Department want to pervert the truth and the law to go after me, I will not be intimidated or extorted. The battle for America’s future demands gladiators, and I am going to keep getting back up and fighting, every single day.”