Help keep Salon independent

“Bad genes”: In latest racist attack, Trump says immigrants are genetically inferior

Donald Trump on Monday claimed that immigrants are predisposed to becoming murderers because they have “bad genes," a racist claim belied by studies showing immigrants actually commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans.

“Many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States,” the former president said in an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” 

“You know, now a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now. They left, they had 425,000 people come into our country that shouldn’t be here, that are criminals,” Trump continued.

The GOP nominee's comments on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" are just the latest in a string of lies from the Republican candidate attacking immigrants, the most outrageous of which is that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating pets.

Trump has had a long obsession with genes and bloodlines, often citing superior genetics as a reason for success long before he got into politics. 

At an anti-immigration rally in 2020, he told the predominantly white Minnesota crowd that they have “good genes.” 

“You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe?" Trump said. He went onto reference the “racehorse theory," an idea popularized in Nazi Germany that suggests selective breeding can improve a country’s performance. 

In 2023, Trump said immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” echoing language used by the Nazis.

Harris pushes back on GOP’s “childless” attacks in “Call Her Daddy” interview

Vice President Kamala Harris finally shot back at the GOP's criticism for her not having biological children, calling the comments "mean-spirited," in an interview on the wildly popular podcast "Call Her Daddy."

“This is not the 1950s anymore. Families come in all kinds of forms,” Harris told host Alex Cooper on Sunday.

The Vice President was specifically referencing comments from Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, R-Ark., who said in September that her three children “keep her humble,” while Harris has “nothing to keep her humble."

“I don’t think she understands that there are a whole lot of women out here who, one, are not aspiring to be humble,” Harris said. “Two, a whole lot of women out here who have a lot of love in their life, family in their life and children in their life. And I think it’s really important for women to lift each other up.”

While Harris does not have biological children, she is the stepmother to her husband Doug Emhoff's children, Cole and Ella. She's frequently said how much being a stepmother means to her and that's its one of the most important roles in her life.

“We have our family by blood and then we have our family by love. And I have both,” she told Cooper.

Trump campaign adviser Bryan Lanza condemned Huckabee Sanders' comments in a CNN interview, calling the role of stepmother a "tough job."

Huckabee Sanders backtracked in a statement on Sunday, claiming that she was not criticizing Harris for not having children, but for her policy stances. 

 “I would never criticize a woman for not having children, the point I was making and that Kamala Harris confirmed by her own admission is that she doesn’t believe our leaders should be humble, which explains her arrogant claim that she alone can fix our nation’s problems after spending the last four years making them worse," she wrote.

Republican vice presidential candidate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, himself faced harsh criticism earlier this year for having called Harris and other women in politics "childless cat ladies."

Harris said the GOP's attacks on childless women were “mean-spirited.”

Call Her Daddy is the most listened to podcast among women in the United States, according to Spotify. Much of the 40-minute interview focused on women’s health and reproductive rights, a topic Cooper has covered in previous episodes. 

Harris, who has done relatively few media appearances since becoming the Democratic nominee, is set to appear on various shows this week including, “60 Minutes,” Howard Stern’s “The View,” and “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert. Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, will appear on Jimmy Kimmel on Monday.

“Let me just stop you right there”: Dana Bash calls outs Trump’s Hurricane Helene lies

CNN Host Dana Bash wouldn’t let Lara Trump dodge her questions about her father-in-law’s baseless claims about FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene in an interview on Sunday. 

At a campaign rally in Michigan lat week, former President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Vice President Kamala Harris had redirected FEMA money for hurricane relief to house “illegal migrants.” 

“They stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season,” Trump said. The former President also claimed impacted families were only being offered $750 in federal assistance.

“Why is he spreading misinformation in a crisis like that and does that concern you about your fellow North Carolinians and how and whether they can get help?” Bash asked Lara Trump

The Republican National Committee co-chair tried to flip the criticism to Harris, reiterating Trump’s lies that impacted families are receiving little help from FEMA while the country spends millions on the “migrant crisis that Kamala Harris was responsible for stopping.”

“Let me just stop you right there,” Bash interrupted. She clarified that the $750 given to families by FEMA is just a “first-step” to help families cover essential costs and emergency supplies, but there is other funding available.

The fund is called “Serious Needs Assistance” and is “an upfront, flexible payment to help cover essential items like food, water, baby formula, breastfeeding supplies, medication and other emergency supplies,” the FEMA website reads. Individuals and families can still receive funding “for temporary housing, personal property and home repair costs.”

Lara Trump ignored Bash’s correction. 

“They are out of money in terms of hurricane relief,” Lara Trump said. “We have another hurricane heading towards Florida right now. But they have said that there is no money right now. Why don‘t they have anything in order?” (House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday he would not appropriate more money for FEMA until after the election).

Bash pressed on.

“It is bad there," she said. "But my question is about the misinformation, particularly the notion that they are moving money to, you say, undocumented migrants, which FEMA says flatly is not true.”

“You have migrants being housed in luxury hotels in New York City,” Lara Trump interrupted, claiming that money being used to house migrants could be redirected to impacted North Carolinians. 

“That’s a separate tranche of money,” Bash responded, visibly annoyed.

In 2024, Congress appointed $650 million to house migrants and that money was transferred from the US Border Services and Protection to FEMA to administer the program, called the Shelter and Services Program. That money is entirely separate from FEMA’s disaster relief funds. 

“These claims are completely false,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told The Washington Post. “As Secretary Mayorkas said, FEMA has the necessary resources to meet the immediate needs associated with Hurricane Helene and other disasters. The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is a completely separate, appropriated grant program that was authorized and funded by Congress and is not associated in any way with FEMA’s disaster-related authorities or funding streams.”

Hurricane Helene tore through Florida, Georgia the Carolinas and Tennessee at the end of September and has quickly become one of the country's most costly and devastating hurricanes, leaving over 220 people dead.

“I’m sick and tired of this crap”: Officials debunk Trump’s “truly dangerous” Hurricane Helene lies

Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed lies about immigrants since at least 2015, so when a hurricane devastated large swathes of the southeast last month, killing over 200 people, he predictably sought to blame the disaster on Democrats and undocumented immigrants.

At first, what CNN described as the Republican candidate’s “barrage of lies and distortions” centered on claims that President Joe Biden was denying aid to red states, refusing to even take their calls.

“He’s been calling the president, hasn’t been able to get him,” Trump said last week, referring to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican who soon clarified that Biden had, in fact, called him.

“He offered that if there’s other things we need, just to call him directly,” Kemp said, adding that he’s had a “great relationship” with FEMA, which has deployed nearly 7,000 personnel and provided upwards of $137 million in assistance to survivors of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene.

Trump, fact-checked but not dissuaded, would go on to refine his lie, pivoting from claimed “reports” that deep-red portions of the south were being denied aid to claiming no would be getting any assistance because the money was all gone — spent, as it turns out, “on housing for illegal migrants.”

“They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank,” the 78-year-old told his followers.

Here Trump was referring to a program, authorized by Congress, that does indeed provide grants to help local governments and aid agencies provide housing for people seeking asylum. As The Washington Post noted, that program is administered by FEMA but not with money for disaster relief: the Republican-led House of Representatives authorized an entirely separate pool of money.

The only reported case of money being pulled from FEMA to cover the costs of housing and detaining immigrants? It occurred in 2019, when Trump was president and his administration yanked a total of $271 million from the Department of Homeland Security, including $155 million from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, to address a surge in asylum applications.

So when Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a member of the Republican House leadership, claimed last week on Facebook that Democrats “drained FEMA to give handouts to illegal immigrants including dangerous criminals,” she knew that she was referring to a program authorized by the Republican-led chamber in which she presides. When she added that “there isn’t enough left for the Americans left devastated by Hurricane Helene,” Stefanik — silent in 2019; present for votes authorizing the program in 2023 and 2024 — likewise knew she was lying to spread fear and sow division.

We need your help to stay independent

The cynical and wrong response to this deluge of stuff-we-made-up is to claim that such dishonesty is the norm, the world of politics being the refuge of scoundrels. But that’s low-info nihilism masquerading as sophistication. Trump’s GOP has embraced lying, shamelessly, to the point that the conscious lie is now a point of pride.

When Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, admitted that he was telling made-up slanders of Haitian immigrants, he did so without apology, boasting that he is willing to “create stories” to get at a purportedly deeper truth (immigrants: bad). As with the Republican Party’s dump-truck of falsehoods about election fraud, the fact that people believe shameless lies from cynical liars is then cited as reason to keep the discussion going: people believe things that are simply not true and now we, as public officials, must validate their concerns.

Fact-checks are just another manifestation of liberals being triggered, while a willingness to spread conspiracy theories that one doesn’t even believe shows commitment to the MAGA cause and the underlying truth that the cause is good and just. Out in the real world, though — off Facebook, away from Fox News and far removed from X — these lies have real consequences.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” Aaron Ellenburg, sheriff of Rutherford County, North Carolina, told The New York Times, referring to claims spread by Trump ally Laura Loomer, a self-styled white nationalist who openly celebrates the killing of migrants, about FEMA supposedly taking hurricane-damaged property from Republicans and giving it to elite business interests looking to mine it for lithium. Ellenburg said he’s had to spend days debunking the misinformation, which continues to be spread by elected Republicans (Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., recently suggested that a shadowy “they” used a top-secret weather machine to create a Category 4 storm). “I’m sick and tired of this crap.”


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


FEMA now has a regularly updated section on its website debunking viral claims spread by Trump and associates, including the assertion that it’s now “in the process of confiscating Helene survivor property.”

Speaking Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell described the Trump-Vance disinformation campaign as “frankly ridiculous” but also “truly dangerous.” Thousands of federal employees working to provide aid to hurricane survivors are being smeared as part of an elite plot to displace red-blooded Americans with foreigners and lithium mines.

Part of the danger is that Republicans, either actively spreading the lies or answering to a base that believes them, may be unwilling to provide aid for hurricane victims going forward. If FEMA is merely a tool for Democrats to replace white Americans with non-white immigrants, why should we give it any more money?

Dozens of GOP lawmakers voted against the last FEMA appropriations bill. Now House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., isn’t so sure he’ll hold such a vote again anytime soon, despite the Biden administration warning that the huge toll from Helene could make FEMA run out of money before hurricane season is over. Johnson, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said he’ll wait until after the election before considering any such request.

“The thing about these hurricanes and disasters of this magnitude is it takes a while to calculate the actual damages, and the states are going to need some time to do that,” he said.

According to Republican leaders, then, FEMA is running out of money for real, GOP-voting Americans — but we will have to wait and see if Trump wins in November before we appropriate any more. In the meantime, the party will continue to lie, with Trump again claiming Monday on his website, Truth Social, that “almost all of the FEMA money” had gone “to Illegal Migrants.”

Neither conspiracy theories nor politicians lying is a new thing in America, but it would be a mistake to conclude that nothing has changed since 2016, when one of the two major political parties was taken over by a man that who took fringe falsehoods and made them his entire platform.

As Mekela Panditharatne, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, told Business Insider: "It's not necessarily unusual for emergency situations to be breeding grounds for mis- and disinformation.” What is new, however, is the extent of it — party leaders sharing lies on platforms run by fascism-curious billionaires — and, she said, “I don't think it's a coincidence that it's so close to a very consequential national election."

Ted Cruz challenger Colin Allred narrows gap in Texas Senate race — but can he win?

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.


WASHINGTON — Democrats are closing the gap in their uphill campaign to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, with polls showing improvement for Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred and national Democrats’ spending in the race a month ahead of Election Day.

For the first time this race, Allred pulled ahead of Cruz in a statewide poll last month, and he continues to poll within a margin of error with Cruz. National Democrats announced Texas would be included in a multi-million-dollar ad buy last week. Allred is consistently outraising Cruz, bringing in more than $1 million in a day twice in the third quarter.

Allred has also built a bipartisan coalition, securing the support of both his party’s left-wing bigwigs and prominent Republicans who have soured on Cruz. This week, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both encouraged voters in Texas to turnout for Allred. Former U.S. Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who both were on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, have endorsed Allred.

Independent race ratings groups have taken notice. Cook Political Report shifted its rating for the race from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican” on Tuesday. Inside Elections shifted its rating from “Likely Republican” to “Lean Republican” last week.

“Allred’s unique coalition of voters, the resources and work of his campaign, and Cruz’s weaknesses all put the Texas Senate race in play,” Allred campaign manager Paige Hutchinson wrote in a memo Tuesday. “There is more work to do as we continue sharing Allred’s message, mobilizing our supporters and reminding voters what they don’t like about Cruz – but the Allred campaign is entering the final weeks of the race in the strongest possible position to secure victory.”

An uphill fight

Allred still has a challenge ahead of him. He is running against one of Republicans’ best known and best funded candidates in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat into statewide office in more than 20 years. Cruz is one of the most adored candidates among Texas conservatives along with Gov. Greg Abbott, while Allred has had to battle his low name recognition outside of Dallas all cycle.

And at the top of the ticket, former President Donald Trump continues to poll ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris in Texas. That could give down-ballot Republicans a leg up, though Allred has higher approval in the state than Harris and has strategically kept the presidential campaign at a distance.

None of the positive developments for Allred are unexpected within Cruz’s camp. Cruz has acknowledged he elicits exceptional resentment among Democrats across the country, who have been pouring money into the Texas race. Allred has been blanketing the state in ads for months to increase his name recognition, while Cruz, who is nearly universally known, has preserved a healthy war chest to unleash more ads closer to Election Day.

Democrats had spent $37 million in aired ads ahead of mid-September, whereas Republicans had spent $12 million, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact.

Cruz has said for months that he would run a competitive race, dead set on not repeating the surprisingly close challenge by former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2018. O’Rourke came within 3 percentage points of unseating Cruz in that race.

“Ted has been running like he's 5 points behind since the day he got in the race, even though he's been five or 10 points ahead,” Sen. Steve Daines, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said this summer. “That's exactly the kind of candidate you want to have for senator running for reelection.”

A worthy competitor

Still, Allred has made considerable progress since earlier in the cycle. He was often polling double digits behind Cruz around the primaries last spring. Most major polls since August now show Allred within 5 points of Cruz, with one Morning Consult poll in late September having him 1 point ahead of Cruz. Allred has gone from only 60% of Texans being able to form an opinion about him in August to 75%, according to a late-September poll by Public Policy Polling.

Allred also has money on his side. He closed out the second quarter with $1.2 million more than Cruz including their official campaigns and associated PACs, though that total also includes money raised for other candidates. By their main campaign committees alone, Allred outraised Cruz by more than $14 million by the end of the second quarter. The third quarter — when political fundraising usually increases exponentially — closed at the end of September, and candidates will disclose their fundraising Oct. 15.

Earlier in the cycle, it was unclear how committed national Democrats would be in supporting Allred’s run. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee picked Texas as one of its top flip targets this year, but a long roster of difficult-to-defend incumbents were higher priority for the group, including in Montana and Ohio. The DSCC has been pouring money into Montana in particular, where Sen. Jon Tester must fight an independently rich Republican opponent Tim Sheehy in a state that Trump won by more than 16 points.

But in a fresh sign of interest, the DSCC announced a multi-million dollar investment in Texas last month, including an ad focusing on abortion access. Democrats and pro-Democrat groups also placed $6.3 million in reservations for new advertisements in the race at the end of September, according to AdImpact.

The money going to Texas is largely a testament to the DSCC’s wealth relative to its Republican counterpart. Democrats enjoyed a cash infusion after Harris took over the presidential ticket this summer. The party still is prioritizing its incumbents, and will likely not be diverting from Montana to push for flip opportunities, no matter how promising.

“Democrats are fighting like hell for their incumbents,” said Tory Gavito, president of Democratic donor network Way to Win. “This is not a zero-sum game.”

Texas’ scale could work to the advantage of the state’s Democrats when it comes to advertising. Montana, with a population of a million, has a much smaller media market than Texas, with more than 30 million people.

“One more ad on top of millions of ads in a state like Montana, where the media markets are slim or slimmer than here, does have diminishing returns in terms of impact,” Gavito said.

How has Texas shifted?

Cruz’s campaign has been able to lean on the dominance of conservatism in the state. The state voted for Trump with a margin of more than 5 points in 2020. The Harris campaign is not viewing Texas as a battleground this cycle, focusing instead on more easily attainable swing states.

Cruz’s attacks on Allred have portrayed the congressman as aligned with the most progressive wings of the party, noting he has voted faithfully with his party’s leadership when it was in the majority, though Allred is running as a moderate Democrat.

But as demographics in the state shift with a growing moderate, diverse and suburban population, both candidates are making plays for the center. Cruz launched a group of Democrats for Cruz in the spring, and Allred announced a coalition of Republicans for Allred with Kinzinger on Wednesday.

“They're calling it the Kamala effect,” O’Rourke said last week during a campaign stop with Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff. “Young people are getting registered to vote in record numbers.”

Since O’Rourke’s near victory in 2018, Republicans have won by larger margins in statewide races, including by nearly 10 points in the 2020 race between Sen. John Cornyn and Democrat MJ Hegar. O’Rourke lost his 2022 gubernatorial race against Abbott by 11 points.

Even if Allred doesn’t win, the movement to make Texas competitive could be a positive indicator for Democrats amid a bleak trend over the last six years, Gavito said.

“Success is not Colin’s win or loss,” Gavito said. “Success is the state moving forward and the electorate shifting.”

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/04/allred-closes-gap-against-cruz/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

New rule could allow election skeptics on Georgia county election boards to exclude decisive votes

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

An examination of a new election rule in Georgia passed by the state’s Republican-controlled election board suggests that local officials in just a handful of rural counties could exclude enough votes to affect the outcome of the presidential race.

The rule was backed by national groups allied with former President Donald Trump. It gives county boards the power to investigate irregularities and exclude entire precincts from the vote totals they certify. Supporters of the rule, most of whom are Republicans, say it’s necessary to root out fraud. Critics, most of whom are Democrats, say it can be used as a tool to disenfranchise select buckets of voters.

An analysis by ProPublica shows that counties wouldn’t have to toss out many precincts to tip the election if it’s as close as it was in 2020, when Trump lost Georgia by less than 12,000 votes. Based on tallies from that year, an advantage of about 8,000 Democratic votes could be at risk in just 12 precincts in three counties under the new rule, the analysis found. There are 159 counties in Georgia.

A judge is expected to decide soon whether the rule will stand.

The three counties — Spalding, Troup and Ware — voted for Trump in 2020. But each has small yet significant concentrations of Democratic votes clustered in specific precincts. All three also have local election boards that have become stacked in recent years with partisans who’ve voiced support for the false claim that Trump won the 2020 election or have cast doubt on the integrity of the election process.

In Spalding, about 40 miles south of Atlanta, a man who is now county election board chair had previously alerted Trump’s attorneys to what police later determined was false evidence of voter fraud. More recently, he has tweeted that President Joe Biden is a “pedophile,” made sexually degrading comments about Vice President Kamala Harris and, this August, accused a top state elections official of “gaslighting” for saying there was no evidence of fraud in 2020.

In Ware County, in the southeast corner of the state, the election board chair is tied to far-right groups and has called democracy “mob rule.” In Troup County, which borders Alabama, the election board chair maintains that debunked “statistical anomalies” in the 2020 vote still haven’t been explained.

The legality of the rule was debated on Oct. 1 during back-to-back bench trials for two lawsuits. One was brought by the Democratic National Committee and others against the State Election Board, seeking to invalidate the rule. The other was brought by a Republican local board member against her county, the Democratic National Committee and others, seeking a judgment that she had the discretion not to certify election results.

During the trial, Judge Robert McBurney said to the lawyer representing the Republican board member, “You have very successfully pulled me down an intriguing rabbit hole about, well, maybe you could certify some of the votes, but not all of the votes.”

The boards’ new power is the culmination of ground-level efforts in Georgia that began the day Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. After Trump lost — and after Georgia’s Republican secretary of state rebuffed his demand to “find” him the 11,780 votes he would have needed to win — GOP state legislators launched an effort to reshape county election boards, paving the way for removing Democrats and stacking them with Trump backers. Boards are supposed to administer elections in a nonpartisan manner, and some of these changes broke with the norm of having equal numbers of Republican and Democratic members, plus an independent chair to break ties.

The legislature also removed the secretary of state as head of the State Election Board and replaced members of the board — stacking it, too, with Trump partisans. At an August rally in Atlanta, Trump praised three of them by name, calling them “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.” The three board members did not respond to requests for comment.

With the addition of its newest member, the state board was able to do in August what the previous iteration of it wouldn’t: Pass rules giving the county boards unprecedented power.

What’s more, the rule allowing county boards to exclude specific votes was secretly pushed by Julie Adams, a leader of a group central to challenging the legitimacy of the American election system. That group’s founder joined Trump on the call in 2020 during which he pressured the secretary of state to hand him victory.

Adams, a Fulton County election board member, was the plaintiff in one of the two lawsuits. She did not respond to requests for comment or a list of detailed questions.

The State Election Board and attorneys representing parties in both lawsuits did not comment.

A lawyer representing the Democratic National Committee referred ProPublica to the Harris-Walz campaign. “For months, MAGA Republicans in Georgia and across the country have been trying to lay the groundwork to challenge the election results when they lose again in November,” deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks said in a statement. “A few unelected extremists can’t just decide not to count your vote.”

During one of the bench trials, Richard Lawson, a lawyer for Adams and the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank aligned with Trump, argued that county board members should have the authority to exclude entire precincts’ votes if they find something suspicious.

A lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, Daniel Volchok, warned that board members making “individual determinations about if a ballot is fraudulent or otherwise should not be counted” is “a recipe for chaos.”

“It is also a recipe for denying Georgians their right to vote.”

Spalding County has for years played a prominent role in Trump supporters’ efforts to challenge election results.

In 2020, Trump’s allies trying to overturn the election quickly realized that the weakest points in America’s election system are its thousands of counties, where the day-to-day work of running elections is done. Previously unreported emails and messages show that one of the first places they targeted was Spalding County.

In the days after the election, Ben Johnson, the owner of a tech company who in 2021 would become chair of the Spalding County election board, began tweeting repeatedly at a team of lawyers challenging the election results on behalf of Trump, including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, a ProPublica review of his deleted but archived tweets found. Johnson also advocated on social media for overturning the election. The Daily Beast reported in 2022 on other Johnson tweets, including one suggesting that Wood investigate claims of election fraud in Spalding County.

About two weeks after the election, a hacker emailed Wood and others to say that that he and another operative were “on ground & ready for orders” near Spalding County, outlining in a series of attachments how they were seeking to acquire voting machine data to prove the election was stolen in Spalding and another Georgia county. (Wood previously told ProPublica, “I do not recall any such email” and that he did not give the hacker any orders, though he did say he recalled the hacker “leaving one night to travel to Georgia.” The hacker did not previously respond to requests for comment.)

Messages obtained by ProPublica show that about an hour later, the operative messaged the hacker: “Woot! We have a county committing to having us image” voting machine data.

The hacker and operative were able to help their allies access voter machine data elsewhere, which became a central pillar in a long-running conspiracy theory that voting machines were hacked. That theory was key to justifying attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In Spalding County, however, their plan fell apart after the secretary of state made clear in a memo that accessing such data would be illegal. “Our contact wants to give us access, but with that memo it makes it impossible,” the operative wrote, without “her getting in a lot of trouble.”

After Trump’s loss, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a massive bill “to comprehensively revise elections” in response to “many electors concerned about allegations of rampant voter fraud.” And Republican state legislators began writing bills to revamp local election boards, one county at a time. Since 2021, the reorganizations of 15 boards have brought a wave of partisan Republicans, ProPublica found.

As a result of the 2021 reorganization in Spalding, the election board lost three Black Democrats. Three new white Republicans became the majority — including Johnson, who became chair.

In 2022, after news outlets reported that Johnson had supported the QAnon conspiracy theory on social media, he tweeted an open letter emphasizing that he “took an oath to serve in the interests of ALL eligible voters of Spalding County” and “There’s no room for politics in the conducting of Elections.”

Since then, Johnson has continued to share social media content questioning the integrity of Georgia’s elections.

Reached by phone, Johnson said, “I don’t want to talk to any liberal media” and “You’re going to spread lies.” He did not respond to a detailed list of questions subsequently sent to him.

The new rule says that if there are discrepancies between the number of ballots cast and the number of people recorded as having voted in a given precinct, “The Board shall investigate the discrepancy and no votes shall be counted from that precinct until the results of the investigation are presented to the Board.” If “any error” or “fraud is discovered, the Board shall determine a method to compute the votes justly.”

Minor discrepancies between the number of voters and ballots are not uncommon. For instance, ballots can become stuck in scanners, voters can begin filling out a ballot and then stop before submitting it, or election systems can be slow to update that a provisional ballot has been corrected.

In counties like Spalding, Ware and Troup — with Republican-leaning boards and at least a few Democratic-heavy precincts — the conservative majority has the power to determine how to “compute the votes justly.” At the trial and in court documents, Democratic lawyers argued this could mean not certifying Democratic votes, with one arguing in a brief that county board members “will attempt to delay, block, or manipulate certification according to their own political preferences” by invoking the rule “to challenge only certain types of ballots or returns from certain precincts as fraudulent.”

Democratic voters in many conservative rural counties are packed into a small number of precincts. In 2020, Spalding had five precincts with Democratic majorities, which provided about 3,300 more votes for Biden than Trump. Troup had five such precincts totaling about 3,000 such votes, and Ware had two such precincts totaling roughly another 1,600 votes.

Troup County removed two Black women and two men — all Democrats, one said — from its elections board when it restructured in 2021, shrinking the board from seven to five members.

“They definitely wanted us off the board,” said former member Lonnie Hollis, who is worried the new board will behave partisanly this election. She said Republican officials in Troup have connections to the state party.

The board’s new chair, William Stump, a local banker, said that he believes Troup got its vote totals right last presidential election but that “there were some fairly significant statistical anomalies” elsewhere in Georgia.

“It didn’t pass the smell test,” he said. Stump recently appeared at a GOP luncheon in LaGrange with State Election Board member Janelle King, whose ascension to the board cemented its MAGA majority and enabled the passage of the rules.

Stump said he was at the luncheon, where the GOP handed out Trump gear, to answer questions about the election process. “We don’t have, I don’t think, outwardly partisan folks on the board,” he said. “Everybody’s concern is to get the numbers right and get them out on time.”

When Ware County reconstituted its election board in 2023, it removed two Black members who were Democrats and installed Republican Danny Bartlett as chair. Bartlett, a retired teacher, served as executive director of the Okefenokee chapter of Citizens Defending Freedom, a Christian nationalist group the Southern Poverty Law Center calls “anti government” and “part of the antidemocratic hard-right movement.”

Bartlett also started a Facebook group in 2022 called Southeast Georgia Conservatives in Action that asks potential members. “Are you ready to take action against the assault upon our country?” Bartlett sought to raise money for the group through a raffle that offered as a grand prize a “Home Defense Package” that included $2,000 worth of guns, gear and a “Patriot Pantry 1-week Food Supply Ammo Can.”

Bartlett did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Carlos Nelson, Ware’s elections supervisor, said he opposed the board’s restructuring but said that Bartlett hasn’t gone along when conservative activists have demanded measures such as hand-counting ballots. “He has been a really good chair,” said Nelson, who is a Democrat. He said he didn’t know about Bartlett’s outside political affiliations but that they were “totally different from his participation on the board.”

Shawn Taylor, one of the Black board members who was removed, said she’s concerned that the new election leaders are too partisan and may try to sway the election results.

“These MAGA Republicans are putting things in place to try to steal the election,” she said, adding she did not think all Republicans supported those attempts. “I believe that it’s going to cause major conflict within a lot of these counties.”

The Ware County commission in July removed a new conservative election board member, Michael Hargrove, who had complained about the “Biden/Harris Crime Syndicate” on social media, after he entered a polling site’s restricted area during spring elections and got into a confrontation with a poll worker. Hargrove said in an email that he “had, as an Elections Board member, EVERY right to be in that location at that time. Any other issue related to that event is juvenile nonsense.”

His replacement, Vernon Chambless, is a local lawyer who told ProPublica that he believes Trump should have been declared the winner in 2020. “We’re going to make sure that everything’s kosher before we certify,” he said.

Alex Mierjeski, Amy Yurkanin, Mollie Simon, Mariam Elba, Kirsten Berg and Doris Burke contributed research.

Republicans are drowning in Donald Trump’s lies

I happened to spend some time with a highly intelligent 17-year-old over the weekend who's taking AP Government and is keenly interested in the election. She's following all the polling and the punditry and knows the ins and outs of the battleground map better than most adults I talk to. And she said something that struck me because I hadn't really considered it before. We were talking about the vice-presidential debate and she found it odd that it was so civil. She kept waiting for something to happen. And I realized that there are millions of people for whom Donald Trump's brand of demagogic politics is normal. They are either young like this person and have literally grown up in this era of bad feelings or they are those for whom politics wasn't of interest until Trump came along. That's a lot of people who don't know that it isn't supposed to be this way.

Granted we have had more spirited arguments in televised political debates than the one we witnessed last week between JD Vance and Tim Walz. But we never had the kind of debates like those that Donald Trump has participated in since 2016. It's also true that we never had election campaigns like Donald Trump's presidential campaigns and we certainly never had a presidency like his. You have to wonder, is this going to be the way it is going forward even after he's gone?

It's hard to imagine that it will be exactly the same. Trump is sui generis. But what has the next generation of GOP leaders learned from him that can be used for their own ambition? I imagine there are many things but I think there is one very clear lesson: You can lie with impunity.

Some of the new GOP leaders, like Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, have obviously discovered that if they lie with a congenial look on their faces, there is no limit to how much they can get away with. Politicians have always lied to some degree, of course. In the past, we used to call it spin because they would not dare to just lie outright and essentially tell the voters that they shouldn't believe their own eyes or depend on their own memories. But what we are seeing today is a major shift in what is acceptable in politics — and it goes way beyond Trump.

Vance does not have a naturally pleasant personality but he discovered in that debate that if he didn't crudely disparage "childless cat ladies" or accuse Haitian immigrants of eating pets, he could lie flagrantly about the past and his plans for the future as long as he kept a smile on his face. Consider that he congenially but blatantly lied about having said that he favored a national abortion ban, that Donald Trump had saved Obamacare, that carbon emissions aren't the main cause of climate change (suggesting that climate change is "weird science") and that Chinese imports raised the cost of consumer goods. That's not spin. It's an assault on reality. Those lies and more went unchecked and I would guess that millions of people watching believed him because he said them with such a pleasant tone.

Out on the stump Vance plays to the MAGA crowd, but he's just as dishonest. One of his favorite lines is “They couldn’t beat him politically, so they tried to bankrupt him. They failed at that, so they tried to impeach him. They failed at that, so they tried to put him in prison. They even tried to kill him.” Whichever persona he assumes, attack dog or affable colleague, the lies are the one consistent feature of his speeches.

Another up-and-comer, Mike Johnson, ever the reasonable sounding fellow, has become adept at MAGA lying. Just this weekend he went on Fox News and said that the federal response to Hurricane Helene is a failure.

That's a lie and he knows it. You can ask any of the Republican governors and local officials in the affected area and they will say that the feds have been on the ground since before the hurricane hit and have been excellently coordinating the massive response.

We need your help to stay independent

In the past one would have expected this sort of thing from the likes of Florida gadfly Rep. Matt Gaetz but not the Speaker of the House. This kind of blatant falsehood is now completely normal among Republicans. Johnson, like Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, sat for a Sunday show interview over the weekend and refused to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election. 

They are spreading these lies on social media and television and are backed up by Trump's eager endorser Elon Musk and a massive disinformation campaign. The Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in Indiana, for example, shared a fake image to blast the Biden administration's handling of hurricane relief, writing on X that "it doesn't matter if this image is AI-generated or real."

Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who was once a respectable conservative and considered a strong candidate for president. Today he sounds like a Russian trollbot going the truther route on what he falsely called "the fake" September jobs report:

The last two reports have been revised up, but that is beside the point. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is a non-partisan agency. Rubio knows this. He is lying.


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


Republicans do this reflexively now, without any fear of repercussions from their voters, some of whom actually respect them for doing it while those poor souls who actually believe what they're saying give them money and take their lives into their hands. There is no price to be paid for dishonesty and evidently they believe they have something to gain.

This didn't start with Donald Trump, although he's the first one to turn a profit from it. This really started back in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich and the primer written by Republican strategist Frank Luntz called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" for Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC. A few years later we were lied into the Iraq war by the Bush administration. New York Times Magazine published an article in 2004 by reporter Ron Suskind who interviewed a senior administration aide, presumed to be Karl Rove, also known as Bush's Brain:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' […] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

I'm not sure Rove thought it would devolve into an orgy of lying about everything, distorting even their own concept of reality, but that's where we are now. (Thanks a lot Karl.) Perhaps it was inevitable that a celebrity demagogue and pathological liar would take the mantle of "history's actor" and turn it into political World Wide Wrestling but the consequences of this little experiment are dire.

We owe it to my young 17-year-old friend to do everything we can to turn this country back into a reality-based community. No society can function swimming in deceit and corruption for very long. And right now we are drowning in it. 

What are you unintentionally teaching your kids about money?

Have you had the talk with your kids… about money?

Many adults feel unprepared to broach the subject of personal finance with kids because we never received a useful financial education ourselves.

A lot of advice for parents asks you to teach kids certain financial habits, like saving, investing and dealing with debt. But this isn’t different from asking parents to teach kids the birds and the bees — if you didn’t learn it, you can’t teach it with confidence. For the details, rely on financial education resources, and don’t be afraid to learn together with your kids.

It’s not important that you be an expert in financial education. What’s important is that you start the conversation. Avoiding money talk leaves kids to draw their own conclusions, likely from incomplete information.

“Kids are always watching and learning from their parents,” said Melinda Wenner Moyer, a science journalist and author of "How to Raise Kids Who Aren’t A**holes." “From the time they’re babies, they are essentially little social detectives. They want to understand how the world works and how they should act.”

Similar to other taboo subjects like race, sex and death, money is part of life whether you talk about it or not. Kids in your life will pick up on your relationship with money and develop habits based on their interpretation of it.

“Kids are always watching. Seriously, always,” said early childhood expert Janice Robinson-Celeste. “They’re like little sponges, soaking up every conversation, action and even the unspoken stuff, like body language or the vibe in the room. We might think some things go over their heads, but they pick up on way more than we realize.”

If you’re not talking with kids about money, here are some unintended messages they might be picking up:

We need your help to stay independent

Message #1: Money is shameful

“When parents talk to kids about money, they communicate to kids that money isn’t a shameful or taboo topic,” said Wenner Moyer. “It makes them more comfortable discussing the subject with others.”

Avoiding the topic reinforces the belief that money is shameful, laying the foundation for the shame our culture places onto how people earn and spend money as adults.

“Kids are often being exposed to these topics anyway, through their peers, the media and overhearing conversations,” said Wenner Moyer. ”So if we don't talk to them about these issues, all we’re doing is ensuring that the information they’re getting is incomplete and sometimes woefully inaccurate.”

Message #2: Money is scary

Your kids probably pick up on your money stress, even if you don’t mention it, the experts said.

“If [kids] see parents spending frivolously or constantly stressing about finances, they might adopt those habits or anxieties themselves,” said Robinson-Celeste.

Talking about the financial challenges your family faces can offer kids context and help them understand your money moves. Leaving issues unspoken lets them only feel the fear you exhibit, which could leave them feeling like dealing with personal finances is necessarily scary.

Message #3: People get what they deserve

“Kids often make unfortunate inferences about money and inequality if parents don't provide them with accurate information,” said Wenner Moyer.

Research shows that even young children pick up on markers of wealth and use those to draw conclusions about a person’s competence, popularity and work ethic. If you don’t provide the context about systemic and structural inequalities, those observations can lead them to believe everyone who’s wealthy has earned their wealth and vice versa.

“These ideas ultimately cause kids to accept inequality as fair,” said Wenner Moyer, “especially when they’re on the privileged end of it.”

Message #4: Men are better with money 

Wenner Moyer shared that studies find parents talk to boys about money at a younger age than they do with girls. They continue to talk about money more with boys throughout their childhoods. Other research shows that boys tend to be slightly more proficient in financial literacy, and women are twice as likely as men in adulthood to have negative feelings about money.

“Because of this, the conversations parents have with their daughters about money are especially important,” said Wenner Moyer.

Like every other way we embed gender norms in children, subconsciously favoring your sons over your daughters in money talk can not only leave girls less prepared for money management but also set them up as adults to believe they’re less competent with money than the men in their lives.

The intelligent conversation we’re not having on immigration

Heading into November, Donald Trump’s rhetorical strategy on the economy is simple: Insist it is doomed, blame it on Kamala Harris and tie everything back to immigration. 

The Trump campaign’s thematic simplicity — fact-free, lowest-common-denominator forward — appeals to uneducated voters. Insulated from the truth by complicit right-wing echo chambers, his base enjoys the Kool-Aid as Trump insists the sky is falling. 

Trump and Vance harp about a doomed economy because they need the economy to be doomed, but economic indicators aren’t cooperating with their spin. Personalized income is up, post-COVID inflation is down, the GDP is stellar and U.S. stocks keep reaching all-time highs: the S&P 500 has surpassed its own record a staggering 31 times since January 2024.

Immigration grandstanding is blocking real progress

If Trump’s perfidy on the economy is galling, his lies about immigration are criminal. 

In February, voters outside the Fox News bubble watched as Trump wrecked a bipartisan border bill, just to preserve immigration for his presidential campaign. After falsely claiming that immigrants were raping, murdering and killing Americans with fentanyl, he threatened any member of his own party who tried to fix the problem. Overnight, Trump became chief enabler to the chief “criminals” he claimed were killing Americans, and his base didn’t even hear about it as Fox News called President Biden an “accessory to murder.”

After Trump destroyed the border bill, over the following seven months, he failed to craft a thoughtful alternative. Trump now says he will round up millions of immigrants, assign each of them an individual serial number, encamp them in detention centers and simply deport them. 

Setting aside the Holocaust-adjacent visuals, the worst byproduct of Trump’s ignorant and sloppy “solution” is that it makes intelligent, targeted immigration proposals ever more elusive.

Americans have wanted immigration reform for decades

Surveys show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Congress to fix immigration, and yet, immigration reform has failed for decades. 

Significant immigration and border proposals introduced in 2001, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2021 and 2022 all failed, largely due to Republican opposition. Who can forget the “Gang of Eight” U.S. senators (four Republicans and four Democrats) who crafted a comprehensive proposal to fix immigration 10 years ago, only to watch it die under the leadership of Republican House Speaker John Boehner?

We need your help to stay independent

The proposal would have provided the kind of industry-specific, thoughtful approach we needed then, and still need now. It would have given tech and science employers greater access to urgently-needed engineers and foreign graduates with advanced degrees. It included a merit-based review system to award more green cards based on the nation’s needed skills and education. It created a legalization plan for undocumented immigrants already living and working in the country. 

The immigration bill Trump killed this year would have done even more. As Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah put it to CNN, “(T)he fact that [Trump] would communicate to Republican senators and congresspeople that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it is … really appalling.” 

Effective immigration policy is key to growth 

Last year, Republican governors correctly cited the country’s economic dependence on immigrant labor, describing job vacancies that were hurting the U.S. economy. “In meaningful ways, every U.S. state shares a border with the rest of the world, and all of them need investment, markets and workers from abroad.” 


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


Trump’s one-size-fits-all all immigration policy ignores this economic reality.  Many employers, in many regions, are desperate for workers.  Labor-intensive industries like construction, landscaping, health care and farming rely on immigrant labor to stay in business. Farmers in particular rely on migrant laborers to work with livestock and harvest field and orchard produce in sweltering heat. Two years ago, the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association begged Congress to expand their accessible labor pool with immigration, complaining that the American dairy industry needs immigrants to address “an acute national labor crisis,” that “would soon worsen.”

It was no different this year in Springfield, Ohio, where CEOs were desperate to attract migrant workers. After a successful effort by the city’s leadership and the Chamber of Commerce to attract new industries and businesses to Springfield, there was an acute labor shortage. Haitian immigrants, whom employers have described as having an outstanding work ethic, began arriving to take jobs in Springfield’s warehouses, manufacturing and the service sector.  Springfield’s CEOs, pleased with their hardworking habits, urged their Haitian employees to encourage other Haitians to join them.

Trading economic reality for political gain, Trump and Vance falsely accused those excellent workers of eating America’s pets. The migrant workers, their employers and the entire Springfield community are now in danger

On Wednesday, in front of supporters in Traverse City, Michigan Vance stuck to the ‘Harris caused it, immigrants did it, and Trump will fix it’ rhetorical formula anyway: “[I]f we want to allow American citizens to afford a home again, we’ve got to start by deporting the millions of illegal aliens that Kamala Harris let come into this country.” 

Here’s a counter-formula for the Harris camp: Trump lies, Vance amplifies, their thirst for power is dangerous.

 

Trump’s MAGA emails are increasingly erratic

The presidential election is next month. Donald Trump is feeling the pressure. He planned on running against President Biden and not Kamala Harris. Since becoming the party’s nominee, Harris has closed the gap with Trump and is now leading in the national polls. Harris is tied with Trump in the key battleground states. The election is still one of the closest in modern American history; however, it is not the cakewalk it likely appeared to be when the summer kicked off.

For Donald Trump, the results of the 2024 presidential election are deeply personal. Although the Supreme Court has made Trump a de facto king who, despite his felony convictions, will be above the law if he takes back the White House, for now, he must navigate the reality that he could be sentenced to prison for the rest of his natural life if convicted in even one of the three remaining criminal trials that await him after the election.

There is also the narcissistic injury that he is experiencing at the very thought of being defeated in the election by a Black woman. Trump was symbolically castrated before an audience of tens of millions of people by Harris when she defeated him during their first debate in September. To lose the presidential election would be devastating for Trump’s ego. He has already announced that he will leave the country if he loses on Election Day.

Instead of the so-called “issues,” Trump and his surrogates have decided to embrace what CNN’s Stephen Collinson describes as a “feral political offensive”: In essence, nothing is off limits in Trump’s campaign to take back the White House.

As I chronicle these last weeks until the election, I keep returning to the visual of Trump as Robert Mitchum in his iconic role as Rev. Harry Powell in Charles Laughton’s 1955 film “The Night of the Hunter," his knuckles tattooed with the words “love” and “hate." With the election a month away, Trump is now more angry and more rageful, flexing his muscles, spittle coming out of his mouth as he becomes even more feral in his attacks on Harris and his other “enemies.”

On the other hand, Trump, the political cult leader and master manipulator, is continuing to love-bomb his followers. His campaign's fundraising emails call supporters friends, beg for their counsel and claim Trump will make any sacrifice for them — even his life. This is transactional, of course: Trump wants more money from his MAGA people.

Trump also plays the complementary role of being a dark, twisted and cruel therapist who knows how to trigger and pressure his MAGA people’s and other followers’ pain points. But, unlike a kind and responsible therapist, Trump offers no catharsis or healing. Instead, Trump, like other demagogues and fascists, is a sadist. This is the “hate” in Trump’s love/hate strategy. The result is that Trump’s MAGA people and other followers are left perpetually unbalanced, wound up for action and waiting for their Dear Leader to unleash them upon “the enemy.”

In an especially sinister move — even by Trump’s vile standards — the corrupt ex-president is using his propaganda emails to target and incite violence and hatred against nonwhite “illegal immigrants,” refugees and other non-citizens. In an email sent last week, Trump told his followers: “Don’t let anyone view your screen." The fundraising email is styled as some type of secret message, an “eyes-only” communication akin to the ones sent to intelligence operatives — or perhaps something lurid that could get them in trouble if others were to see it.

Trump’s “secret” email begins:

OFFICIAL VERIFIED 2024 CITIZENS SURVEY

Friend,

Our official Trump Records indicate that you have not completed your Official 2024 Citizens Only Survey!

Survey ID:

Response: MISSING

COMPLETE SURVEY

In order to ensure victory in 2024, we need our polling to be 100% up-to-date, so your response is VERY IMPORTANT to President Trump.

Friend, our country needs you in this fight!

Trump, whose campaign and authoritarian political project is based upon racism and nativism (and crushing any opposition to him and the MAGA movement), is emphasizing the distinctions between friend and foe, the “verified citizens” and those who are not. This message cannot be properly understood outside of Trump’s Hitlerian threat and promise to “purify” the nation’s “blood” of human “vermin.”

We need your help to stay independent

In a recent conversation, historian Rickard Frankel warns how Trump and his agents’ ethnic cleansing campaign will likely expand beyond “illegal aliens” and “unverified citizens” to include all other “enemies” of Trump’s regime:

[T]he idea that Trump is focused solely on deporting undocumented immigrants is absurd. His stormtroopers will round up anyone they decide does not belong in this country, whether they’re citizens or not. This is also something the Nazis did even before the 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship. Only months after coming to power, the Interior Ministry stopped naturalizing Jews arriving from Eastern Europe and soon after that, they began removing the citizenship of Eastern European Jews who were granted citizenship between 1918 and 1933. Whatever their status, Trump means to remove anyone who does not fit within his particular vision of the American national/racial community.

To that point, Trump’s fundraising email continues:

“I’ve registered my campaign’s Official Citizens Only Survey in YOUR NAME.

I promise that your responses will be kept completely confidential from the WOKE MOB, so this is your chance to be completely honest with me.”

Trump asks for demographic information and political beliefs of his followers to weed out the “verified citizens” from the enemy Other.

Are you an AMERICAN CITIZEN or an ILLEGAL ALIEN?

If you are an “illegal alien” you are told to “end survey immediately.”

The screening process now complete, Trump then asks his followers if he should “conduct the largest deportation plan in history.”

Trump continues his process of determining friend and foe, “MAGA American” and the dangerous enemy Other, by targeting the LGBTQ community, and specifically transgender people:

Are you male or female?

MALE

FEMALE

INSANE

Inevitably, Trump turns his attention to Kamala Harris, accusing her of being some type of “commie” or “socialist." In reality, Harris is a member of the elite capitalist class, a former prosecutor and the vice president of the United States. Trump’s fundraising email then warns that the country will become a living hell (“doomsday”) if Harris becomes president. Trump presents himself as the alternative, a protector and martyr who took a bullet in an assassination attempt to protect his MAGA people and the country. Trump then asks his followers for more money.

An image then appears on the screen of Trump with his fist in the air and a fascistic proclamation from the Great and All-Powerful Leader:

I am Donald J. Trump. FEAR NOT!

I will always love you for supporting me.

Unity. Peace. Make America Great Again.


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


At a rally in Pennsylvania over the weekend, Trump escalated his apocalyptic rhetoric and attacks on Harris. Trump is now claiming that Harris is “mentally disabled,” that she should be impeached for non-existent crimes, and is essentially guilty of murder because she is somehow responsible for the killings and other crimes being committed by non-white migrants, refugees and “illegal aliens.”

In total, Trump and his surrogates are continuing with their years-long project of emotionally training and conditioning the MAGA people and other members of the “conservative” movement and right-wing into political extremism and violence. The language used in Trump’s speeches in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, his fundraising emails and his communications more broadly are almost textbook stochastic terrorism.

Research by political scientists and other experts has repeatedly shown that this process of radicalization has been remarkably effective, with a significant percentage (millions of people) of Trump’s MAGA followers and other members of the right-wing now supporting and being willing to participate in armed violence against Democrats and “liberals” to put Trump back in power and to “protect” “American values” and “the American way of life.”

In a powerful new essay, Robert Reich reflects on the role of hate in the Age of Trump and the country’s democracy crisis:

The word “hate” has become Trump’s signature utterance.

During the presidential debate, he claimed that President Biden “hates” Harris, that Harris “hates” Israel and also hates Arabs. After Taylor Swift endorsed Harris, he posted “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT” in capital letters.

Hate is the single most powerful emotion Trump elicits from his followers. Hate fuels his candidacy. Hate gives Trump’s entire MAGA movement its purpose and meaning.

Trump’s closest allies are magnifying Trump’s hate….

Those who wield hate for personal ambition are among the vilest of human beings.

How to deal with the hate that Trump and his enablers are fueling?

We must call them out for what they’re doing. We must vote against the haters now running for office, from Trump on down, and urge others to join us.

The American mainstream news media (and especially the elite, agenda-setting news media) have mostly continued to normalize and “sane-wash” Trump’s escalating threats of violence and his feral political strategy. For example, Trump’s emails where he incites violence and radicalizes his MAGA people are rarely if ever discussed. The mainstream media also appears to have lost interest in Trump and Vance’s racist conspiracy theory hate campaign against the Black Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio. These terrorist threats against the Haitian community, and Black and brown people more broadly in Springfield, are no longer novel, the “new” in the “news,” even as the danger to lives and safety continues.

Trump is honest, transparent and direct in his plans to cause harm and suffering through a campaign of revenge and retribution against both his personal “enemies” and those deemed to be the enemy of the MAGA movement and his New America. If Donald Trump defeats Harris in the election and then takes power next January, becoming the country’s first dictator as promised, the American people, their news media and other leaders cannot say they were not warned. Once again, as it has been true throughout the Age of Trump, they live, and you sleep. Please wake up. You are almost out of time.  

One year after October 7: A return to forever

Palestinians in Gaza began running, again, on October 8, 2023. “We Palestinians are always running,” Suheir Hammad writes in the poem Silence from her collection, "Born Palestinian, Born Black." “Where do we go?” One day after the deadly Hamas attack in Israel, the Israeli government warned and directed Palestinians in Gaza to leave targeted areas. Nowhere in Gaza was safe. One year after Hamas’ massacre, much of Gaza is reduced to rubble. 

According to Gaza’s Ministry of Health, over 41,000 Palestinian civilians (16,500 children) were killed in Israeli attacks with thousands buried under the rubble. Others estimate the death toll to be higher. American medical professional volunteers, in a letter to President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, conservatively estimate the death toll — from attacks, famine, disease, etc. — at over 118,000 people or 5.4% of Gaza’s population. Other estimates are even higher. Additionally, over 96,000 people were injured from Israeli attacks and 10,000 people are missing. According to the UN, the WHO and the Palestinian government, 80% of commercial facilities, 85% of school buildings, and more than half of all homes are either heavily damaged or destroyed and less than half of all healthcare facilities are functional. 

This is genocide. This is genocide on top of settler colonialism, occupation and apartheid. South Africa recognized it. That’s because South Africa was an apartheid state for 46 years, preceded by racial segregation laws. South Africa charged Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with committing genocide in Gaza following Hamas’ attacks. The ICJ “mandated Israel to end its occupation, dismantle its settlements, provide full reparations to Palestinian victims, and facilitate the return of displaced people.” Despite the ruling, Israel continues to lay waste to Gaza, where Hamas continues to hold hostages captured one year ago on Oct. 7, 2023. 

South Africans weren’t the only ones to recognize the settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide of the Zionist government of Israel. African Americans recognized it as well. From el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz to James Baldwin to SNCC to the Black Panther Party, many Black freedom fighters and intellectuals alike recognized the injustices laid upon Palestinians since 1948, and have worked to see those injustices end. After his own reflection and reconsideration, Ta-Nehisi Coates now joins that tradition. 

We need your help to stay independent

Coates, a renowned writer and social critic, has recently promoted his new book, "The Message," in several intriguing interviews, some contentious. Coates, no stranger to criticism over his previous views from the left and the right, anticipated criticism surrounding his evolved views on apartheid and genocide in Gaza. In his book, Coates shares that he once held views on Palestinians and wrote in ways that “reduced people, diminished people, erased people.” A major reason, apart from having the ignorance of one without first-hand knowledge, while no excuse, was a default deferral to the white institutional space that permitted his ascendence to public intellectual. 

Coates’ critique of this genocide places him squarely in the Black Radical tradition.

According to his testimony, white writers surrounded Coates; the norm for most Black writers in mainstream spaces. Coates befriended and admired many of them. Some had previously written on Israeli-Palestinian conflicts and from that, Coates “derived a sense that comprehension of conflict was a matter of knowledge, not morality.” 

He writes: “I felt the great hand of luck in my life, and I was now, miraculously, surrounded by people who knew real things about the world — journalists who had covered civil wars and had been evacuated from war zones and knew the correct use of words like ‘internecine’ and ‘sectarian.’ I felt my deep ignorance of the world beyond America’s borders and, with that, a deep shame.”

The conventional wisdom dominating mainstream media pundits and politicians alike is that Israel has the right to exist and the right to defend itself — effectively with impunity. 

Backed by their news reports, security briefings, trips abroad and meetings with curated dignitaries as “evidence” of their so-called knowledge, those who disagreed were cast aside as ignorant. A majority of Americans now disagree with Israel’s genocide in Gaza. “Knowledge” of the conflict seems to matter more than the morality of the matter. Whataboutism and bothsidesism are tactics utilized to dismiss moral calls to end genocide. 


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


Coates was wise to anticipate criticism of his evolved views. In one of his first televised interviews with CBS “This Morning,” Coates was met with the familiar trope that the “conflict” is complicated, along with whataboutisms and bothsideisms. Anchor Tony Dokoupil even suggested that Coates’ new book would be cheered by terrorists. But Coates’ feet touched the ground in Gaza and the West Bank. Coates spoke with Palestinians and Israelis; including those who changed course after working for the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Coates experienced occupation — although a visitor — reminiscent of the apartheid conditions forced upon African Americans in the United States when told by a soldier he had to declare a religion to clear a checkpoint. Coates took the opportunity to see the world AND the people in it. His response in the interview was straight-forward:

The country of Israel is a prime example of such a state [an ethnocracy], where half the population exists on one tier of citizenship, while everyone else, including Palestinian Israeli citizens, is relegated to a lower tier… As the child of someone who experienced the horrors of Jim Crow, I am deeply troubled by this system… Why do we support a system that denies basic rights and freedoms to half its population? Why is it OK to prioritize the interests of one group over another? These are the questions that I grapple with throughout this book, and they are essential to understanding the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict… I have a [very] moral compass about this and again perhaps it's because of my ancestry either apartheid is right or it's wrong it's really simple either what I saw was right or it's wrong. 

Lost in the vitriol surrounding Coates’ moral clarity on Palestine is the clarion call to Black writers in "The Message," that now is not the time to shrink from the tradition of which our vocation is a part — the Black Radical Tradition. Maybe that — the fear of and desire to destroy the Black Radical Tradition that is responsible for making America freer than it originally was — is the stem that grounds criticism of Coates here.

But Coates is in good company with the truthtellers of today, including Angela Davis and Michelle Alexander. He’s also in good company with those who’ve resigned from the Biden Administration. He’s had less contentious interviews, like those with Jon Stewart and Chris Hayes. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of criticism likely to come Coates’ way.

Honestly, it’s already here

Coates’ critique of this genocide places him squarely in the Black Radical tradition and in opposition to many white liberals, and conservatives, alike. It places him in the company of the many truthtellers of the Black Radical Tradition. Although it’s not a job one seeks. Truthtellers of the tradition are so used to running, like Childish Gambino; asking themselves, like Hammad, where do we go?

A return to forever? Have we ever actually been?

Can we trust polling data? Experts break down how this data works and why it matters

With less than a month to go before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, some polls show the race is essentially neck-and-neck for both candidates. Although Vice President Kamala Harris is consistently polling ahead of former President Donald Trump in the national popular vote, those same polls show the two candidates effectively tied in the seven swing states which will decide the election in the Electoral College: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

"I think sort of extra-legal activities are definitely something that polls cannot account for."

It is at this point that public trust in polling itself begins to break down. If an observer assumes that current polling as a science is basically reliable, one can look at rigorous probabilistic forecasts at sites like Fivethirtyeight.com or The New York Times, both of which currently project Harris eking out an electoral college victory of 276 to 262. Yet in the last two presidential elections, polls have made small but crucial errors that undercut their accuracy. Given that on both occasions the errors understated Trump's support, the Republican nominee and his backers often accuse the pollsters of having a deliberate bias.

Yet for most polling agencies, these errors were not only accidental, but a nightmare come true. In an industry with a business model that literally depends on being able to make accurate predictions, pollsters want nothing less than to be wrong while the whole world is watching them, regardless of which candidate benefits.

The problem facing pollsters is that the science behind their craft relies on an ever-shifting set of variables. While in 2016 pollsters believe they inadvertently under-sampled low-propensity voters — who turned out in unusually large numbers for Trump — in 2020, an even more unpredictable confounder emerged: the COVID-19 pandemic. The public health crisis caused "the largest forced behavior change in modern American history, affected everything, including polling," according to Chris Jackson, senior vice president at the polling firm Ipsos. Because most of society was so disrupted by the virus, especially as social distancing was practiced, it became more challenging to contact and interview people in ways that were unprecedented — and therefore not fully understood.

"I think that goes from everything to who was home to answer phones, to how people were early voting, to the sort of political lean of early voting, especially with Trump discouraging Republicans from using mail-in vote," Jackson told Salon. "All of those things were complicating factors in doing good quality public opinion polls."

In terms of Trump's meddling, it's important to recall that he also undermined the post office to kneecap mail-in voters out of fear it would favor his Democratic opponent, then-former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump also generally cast doubt over the legitimacy of any election result that did not declare him to be the winner, while actively encouraging voter suppression from Republicans and further sowing chaos into voter behavior patterns.

"I think sort of extra-legal activities are definitely something that polls cannot account for," Jackson said. "You actually see this more in research in other countries, particularly in semi-legal democracies where the government does actively interfere with the vote in a somewhat significant way."

While Jackson doubts that this type of interference could account for the entire 8 million vote gap between the popular vote margin of victory polls anticipated for Biden and the actual results, he acknowledges that it could have been an important factor. Another variable is simply that the type of person who votes for Trump was, temperamentally and economically, less inclined in 2020 to answer polls.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


"If there is any sort of Republican sort of futzing with things, it's at the front end, messing with registration, making it where people are not eligible to vote, it's not messing with the actual counting or tabulation of the votes."

"It created biases in sample composition (survey responses) because certain types of people were more likely than others to be sequestered in their homes, sitting on Zoom calls or whatever, and potentially somewhat bored,"  David Barker, division director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation, told Salon. "Those people were disproportionately 'knowledge economy' professionals — i.e. Democrats."

Overall, Barker believes a number of possible factors could cause the 2024 polls to understate Democratic support, foremost among them the desire to overcorrect from understating Republican support in the last two cycles. Additionally, the pollsters could be underestimating Latino support for Harris "because Latinos who respond to survey invitations are more likely than other Latinos to be part of families who have been U.S. citizens for multiple generations, and (relatedly) they are more likely to speak English as a first language or to be fully bilingual. Spanish-only Latinos are less likely to be included in survey samples."

Finally, Barker expressed concern that the polls may underestimate turnout by Democratic constituencies because "the Harris campaign has more resources and a better ground operation than the Trump campaign does. That may pay dividends in terms of disproportionate turnout."

This is not to say that there are not also factors which could understate the level of support for Trump for a third consecutive cycle. Just like the last two elections, Barker said the polls could fail to capture enough white working class voters and/or underestimate those voters' propensity to turnout. In that scenario, the 2024 election will likely go the way of its two predecessors, with Trump flipping the so-called "blue wall" swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin as well as previously pro-Biden states like Nevada, Arizona and Georgia to win both a popular majority and by 312 to 226 in the Electoral College.

Alternatively, if the polls are unintentionally understating Harris' support, Harris could get as much as 52 or 53 percent of the popular vote, retain all of the swing states that Biden won and add North Carolina (which Trump won in 2016 and 2020) to the Democratic column for a 319 to 219 Electoral College victory.

It would not require major polling errors to create either of these dramatically different outcomes, just a few quirks in how the pollsters misjudged this year's electorate. As Jackson was quick to point out, pollsters' jobs are especially complicated because they are not only trying to predict the behavior of the millions of Americans who vote — they also must predict the behavior of the millions of Americans who choose not to vote.

"It's important to remember that when we talk about an election's results, people will oftentimes say such as in 2020 that Biden got 51% of Americans voting for him, and Trump got 47% of Americans voting for him, but that's not accurate," Jackson said. "Actually Biden got 32% of Americans voting for him, and Trump got 29% of Americans voting for him. The rest didn't vote." This means that when analysts think about an election, they have to account for the millions of Americans who are eligible to vote but for various reasons choose not to show up.

We need your help to stay independent

"That is a big, complicated thing because you're trying to measure people's behavior and sometimes people don't even know their own behavior," Jackson said. "They're going to say, 'Yeah, I'll totally go vote,' but then Election Day comes along and their kid's sick or something else and they have to deal with it, so they don't vote. It's a very complicated puzzle and there's always a lot more support out there for a candidate than actually is registered on Election Day."

In spite of all this uncertainty, America's elections are still not able to be "rigged," at least not in the manner claimed by Trump. Although chicanery happens on a local level, Jackson observed that the unwieldy and labyrinthine nature of America's electoral system serves as a built-in protection against outright election theft.

"We've done a lot of work talking with the people administering the election at the local level, and honestly, because our system is so messy and complicated, it's actually hard to tamper with at any sort of scale because it is essentially administered by 5,000 individual county clerks across the country, each one of which is basically sort of running their own system," Jackson explained. "If there is any sort of Republican futzing with things, it's at the front end, messing with registration, making it where people are not eligible to vote — it's not messing with the actual counting or tabulation of the votes."

“Much worse than we thought”: Harris attacks Trump using Jack Smith Jan. 6 filing in new ad

A new ad from the Harris-Walz campaign hits Donald Trump on the latest revelations in the Jack Smith election interference case.

The ad, titled "Bombshell," focuses on Trump's alleged reaction when he heard that then-Vice President Mike Pence was endangered by a pro-Trump mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Using snippets from the 165-page filing released earlier this week, the ad says that Trump's actions on the day were "worse than we thought." 

The ad continues with headlines about the report before noting that current running mate JD Vance — who has refused to say whether Trump had lost the 2020 election — is much more likely to fall in line with any possible election subversion schemes.

"Next time, there will be no one to stop him," the ad reads as an image of Pence is replaced by Vance. 

The section of Smith's report that served as inspiration for the ad lays out an incredibly callous response to the rioting and violence of January 6 by then-president Trump.

"Upon receiving a phone call alerting him that Pence had been taken to a secure location, (redacted) rushed to the dining room to inform the defendant in hopes that the defendant would take action to ensure Pence's safety," Smith wrote in the report. "Instead, after (redacted) delivered the news, the defendant looked at him and said only, 'So what?'"

While Trump's team has decried the filing as full of falsehoods, his attorneys will not have to respond to the filing until after Election Day.

Opera on the brink: Can new compositions return the art to its popular roots?

On January 2, 1958, a minor official at the Rome Opera House bore the thankless task of announcing bad news to the audience: Maria Callas had left the building. The legendary soprano, stricken by illness, would no longer perform in the title role of Vincenzo Bellini's "Norma" before an esteemed assembly that included the President of Italy.

The audience responded with a cascade of boos, jeers and whistles (skip to 7:40 in the video) that quickly overpowered the official's entreaties for calm. Over the next several hours and into the next day, furious Romans scrawled "WE DON'T WANT CALLAS IN ROME!" or "VIVA TEBALDI!" over posters advertising the ruined opening night, in tribute to Callas' great Italian rival. Outside Callas' accommodation at the Hotel Quirinale, truncheon-wielding policemen tried in vain to disperse a mass of shouting demonstrators, while on the floor of the Parliament, government deputies proposed a motion that would ban Callas from singing in all state-owned theaters.

Opera houses today need not worry about setting off a riot — they're too busy worrying about their performances not drawing enough attention among the public, even now with the inclusion of subtitles. In a time when opera companies need to generate new excitement over an art form whose audience is skewing old, white and rich, slumping ticket sales caused by that very demographic crisis ensure that they have to make increasingly difficult budgetary choices over what could amount to life-saving treatment.

New compositions should embody what operas always have been: moving, relevant, and at times, revolutionary

The vast majority of opera performances and recordings in the last hundred years or so have been compositions from before that time — Giacomo Puccini, who died in 1924, is perhaps the last person to create operas that are performed nearly every season at large theaters. As performances outdistanced the date of composition with each passing year, opera began to resemble an attempt at historical preservation rather than a dynamic art form. The solution, then, to opera’s short reach might appear obvious: companies should commission and support new operas to recreate the same kind of excitement and anticipation that saw people humming "La donna è mobile" (from Giuseppe Verdi’s "Rigoletto") in the streets, if perhaps just shy of provoking a riot.

But newness alone is not adequate, some leaders in the opera world would say, and the cautionary tales of past failed premieres seem to prove. They argue that to attract a wider audience and retain artistic value, new compositions should embody what operas always have been: moving, relevant, and at times, revolutionary.

Los Angeles Opera President Christopher Koelsch hates the word “relevant” (it’s so hackneyed, he says), so he phrased the idea without it. A good opera “speaks to something specific about the human condition, and isn’t just some dull, remote, inscrutable museum piece,” he told Salon. “There needs to be emotional immediacy.”

Koelsch found emotional immediacy in the works of Carla Lucero, a composer and librettist who wrote "La Tres Mujeres de Jerusalén" (“The Three Women of Jerusalem”) under commission by the Los Angeles Opera. The Spanish-language opera, which premiered at Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in 2022, sees the Passion of Christ through the eyes of three unnamed, often ignored women who weep for Jesus on his way to crucifixion — an idea that sprung from conversations between Lucero and Stacy Brightman, then the company’s Vice President of Education and Community Outreach, about the traditional stations of the cross.

Jesus does not physically appear on stage, so the story's focus is on the ordinary people sharing their compassion when confronted with the evil of empire, in the same vein as Puccini's humble bohemians or Ruggero Leoncavallo's commedia performers. But humanity need not be limited to mortal beings; operatic music is powerful enough to express soul-shaking despair and ardent ecstasy among the Germanic gods of Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle as well.

“At its inception, opera was a work for the people — it reflected their everyday life, their challenges, their defiance of power and the social order. Even for the ones that were based on mythology, the characters that are mythological, there were situations and experiences that still resonated very strongly and reflected our own world,” Lucero told Salon. “Comedies like The Marriage of Figaro — especially comedies — were some of the most subversive pieces, and conveyed its messages in a very clever way that often barely escaped censorship.”

"We can’t dumb down the audience."

"Le Nozze di Figaro," an opera by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, is based on an eponymous play that was indeed censored first in France and then in the lands of the Habsburg emperor. Both opera and play distill class warfare down to the aristocratic household, where two just-married servants foil the lecherous count’s scheme to exercise jus primae noctis — right of the first night — on the wife. The censors of Emperor Joseph II, an enlightened despot, approved the libretto by Lorenzo Da Ponte only after he and Mozart removed all explicit political references that came from the play, including a climactic speech inveighing against the privileged nobility.

A couple of revolutions later (including one that claimed the head of Joseph II’s sister), the choral "Va, Pensiero" (also known as “The Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves”) from Verdi’s "Nabucco" became a rallying anthem for nationalistic Italians, who sought to throw off the Austrian yoke and saw kindred spirits in the Jews under Babylonian captivity. Like with "Figaro," the subject matter is not explicit, but even though composers nowadays do not face the same censorial challenges as Mozart and Verdi, Lucero deems it artistically wise not to get too didactic anyway.

“We can’t dumb down the audience. We have to continue as composers of opera in the 21st century to move people, and you don’t do that by forcing in things that don’t naturally fit into the story,” she said. “Once you get didactic, that’s it. You’ve lost them.”

Another potential mistake for composers is to create music driven purely by highbrow intellectualism or a desire to experiment past the point of viability. This tendency, which peaked in the second half of the 20th century, found little headway with audiences, according to Metropolitan Opera General Manager Peter Gelb. "Opera and classical music as a whole seemed to hit a kind of dead end with music that was too academic and not able to strike a chord emotionally or intellectually," he told Salon. "They didn't provoke the kind of questions that people were looking for in their circumstances."

Not striking a chord is perhaps a better-case scenario for an intellectual/experimental opera gone wrong — in 1964, an audience in Florence found the dissonant music of Alois Haba's "Matka" so painful, like someone "spitting out a mouthful of rusty nails," that they began walking out by the end of the first scene.

The discomfort wrung out by clashing sounds and uneven pitches can effectively convey moments of tension, distress or violence in an opera. But it has often been overdone, Lucero explained. "I believe there's a place for dissonance in all kinds of music. I use it myself. But if it's consistently dissonant, and there seems to be really no connection with the story and the singers and the orchestra, it just becomes a mental exercise. It's like mental masturbation," she said.

Some operas from the late 20th century, like "Peter Grimes," "The Rake's Progress" and "Dialogues of the Carmelites," have survived in 21st century repertoires. But many others with more abstract storytelling and unconventional musical structures "often alienated those who loved the traditional stories and sounds," said Cory Lippiello, the Director of Artistic Programs at the Lyric Opera of Chicago. "It’s not like there was a lot of community outreach to teach people and prepare them for what they were about to hear. On top of that, many of these operas were both extremely difficult to sing, and extremely difficult to produce technically."

On the other end of the spectrum is the perception that an opera doesn't mean anything at all. In 1966, the Met premiered Samuel Barber's "Antony and Cleopatra," a Shakespeare-inspired spectacle that was panned by the New York Times as an "artifice with a great flourish masquerading as art," producing music that "abounded in declamation and pageantry" but failed to explore the subject — love between a man and woman — and couldn't be saved by Leontyne Price singing at the peak of her powers.

We need your help to stay independent

Barber's "Antony and Cleopatra" never saw the light of the Met's starry chandeliers again, but under Gelb's leadership, the venerable opera company has been reserving an increasingly spacious part of its seasonal repertoire for newly composed and commissioned operas. While some older operas are considered timeless, Gelb, who has already pushed the envelope on non-traditional (some might say groundbreaking) productions early in his tenure, stressed the need for newer works to help "provide stimulating, artistic answers and offer solace and relief from the troubled world in which we live."

"Puccini and Verdi and Mozart were writing operas that dealt with the issues of their time," he said. "The same principle exists for newer operas that we commission and put on stage."

In its 2023-2024 season alone, the Met featured four operas that had never been performed there before, and two — "Fire Shut Up in My Bones" and "The Hours" — that had their world premieres in 2019 at the Opera Theatre of St. Louis and in 2022 at the Met, respectively.

"Fire Shut Up in My Bones," the work of jazz trumpeter Terence Blanchard and writer-director Kasi Lemmons, was the first opera by a Black composer or librettist to reach the Met stage. It's also adapted from a 2014 memoir by a Black author, Charles M. Blow, who retold his upbringing in rural Louisiana fraught with emotional turmoil, largely devoid of parental affection and tormented with the harsh echoes of sexual molestation. The story, conveyed from an adult perspective but described as if it was being lived in the moment, needed a composer and librettist who could command the powers of the operatic art to fully capture its audience.

By most accounts, they succeeded. Adult Charles and 7-year-old Charles ("Char’es-Baby") are performed by different singers, who sometimes share scenes as the former attempts to warn his younger self of dangers yet unperceived. Blanchard and Lemmons also revive an old operatic device by creating a dual spirit-like character — Destiny and Loneliness — to accompany the corporeal roles and haunt Charles wherever he goes. The music itself blends jazz, blues and gospel music, creating a compositional voice the New York Times described as "dominated by lushly chromatic and modal harmonic writing, spiked with jagged rhythms and tart dissonance."

A similar kind of narrative-chronological challenge accompanied the Chicago Lyric Opera-commissioned "Proximity," which is actually a collection of three one-act operas in the style of Puccini's "Il trittico" ("The Triptych") that each deal with an illness in society — gun violence, environmental destruction and alienation induced by technology. Rather than the operas following each other in sequence, the scenes are interspersed like a revolving door to convey them as interconnected facets of the modern existence.

"A piece about alienation might feel very trifling next to a piece about gun violence in some ways," said Yuval Sharon, who directed the original production. "The pieces are all much stronger when they are shuffled around, not treated like separate, discrete issues. It's all meant to be a little bit looser and a little bit less reliant on an argument spanning 30 to 45 minutes at a time."

Sharon also directed a diptych: "The Comet / Poppea," a juxtaposition of Claudio Monteverdi's 1643 opera "L’incoronazione di Poppea" ("The Coronation of Poppea"), which dramatizes the ascent of a debauched Roman empress to the top of a debauched society, and the world premiere of "The Comet," an opera composed by George Lewis and based on W.E.B. Du Bois' eponymous short story about a Black man and white woman who seem to be the only survivors of a comet crash. Both stories end with a downer — Poppea and Nero get everything they want, and it turns out that even a catastrophic cosmic event that destroys most of Earth can't quite destroy racial segregation.

The two doomed, cynical worlds begin divided by a turntable, but unfold simultaneously as the stage's rotation draws the stories together, evoking the "double consciousness" Du Bois described as Black individuals simultaneously perceiving how they view themselves and how society views them.

Adherents of opera say that a great opera is unlike any other kind of art.

"'The Comet' and 'Poppea' are stories about power, the former about white power, the latter about the power of Rome and the potential power of women, but also the power of deception and intrigue and plotting," Lewis told Salon. "The opera, in structuring itself around America and Rome, invites a dialogue between those two societies that are often compared to each other in decadence and decay." In promotional materials for the diptych, Sharon writes that the "unexpected harmony to be discovered in juxtaposition" and "its ability to invite a contemplation of both timely and timeless struggles" provide a justification of opera's "radical potential."

Adherents of opera say that a great opera is unlike any other kind of art. The music, flowing between the words and beyond them, and the unamplified voice, pushed to the edge of its range, heightens the storytelling and "envelops the audience with a very visceral kind of consciousness, where there's a symbiotic connection to the characters on stage," said Lippiello. "You can lose yourself and live vicariously through the characters, and yet also connect deeply with the emotions you carried into the theater and are now being shared with the music and the story." Unlike musical theater, Lucero added, most operas after the 18th century feature continuous music without the interspersed dialogue, helping people "remain fully embedded in the performance."

Lippiello acknowledges that opera can be "a little surreal" for first-time listeners and watchers — after all, the performers are singing their thoughts and feelings to one another, which people don't usually do in real life. But even if it's not the most naturalistic art form at first glance, she argues, "an art form like opera is more true to life because it surfaces the very real interior lives of human beings in music and song . . . with that human element in mind, I think that — regrettably — people sometimes aren’t prepared to hear operatic voices because they are accustomed to popular music that is produced and corrected and amplified."

The consciousness of an audience weighs heavily on directors and production designers who frame operas new and old with their stage instructions, sets and costumes. In the Met's production of "Grounded," a 2023 opera about a female fighter pilot who is forced by pregnancy to operate a drone remotely, the production team led by dramaturg Paul Cremo and producer Michael Mayer used projections to convey the surveillance of a drone, making a specific decision to avoid photorealism.

"There's something about watching projected video that can disengage you or make you passive as an audience member to some degree, whereas if those projections are slightly more abstract, then you have to have to be engaged a little more," Cremo told Salon. "It gets you to focus on the live performers and the human story that's being told, because the technology is really just there to serve, not overpower."

The bulkiest and most elaborate productions typically require the space offered by an opera house's main theater, and operas often do provide spectacle on a grand scale. But an increasing number of opera houses are now organizing productions in smaller venues, especially newer operas that have not yet been grafted into the audience's imagination as something destined for the biggest stage. Part of it comes down to raw financial calculation — the economics of maximizing the possibility for revenue dictate that the most reliably popular productions remain in the big theater, while the newer prospects that are yet untested or draw a more selective crowd begin on the alternative stages.


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


Those fledgling operas, of course, are staged with the hope that they will eventually soar to a greater height — many works now deemed classics, Lippiello noted, only became popular several decades after they premiered, even when few expected them to become popular. In the case of Georges Bizet's "Carmen," the composer died thinking his creation was a dismal failure; now it is one of the most-performed operas in the world. American bass Samuel Ramey performed a version of its Toreador Song on "Sesame Street."

For some productions like "Factotum," a smaller venue is not only suitable, but artistically preferable. The Chicago Lyric Opera staged this commissioned work, which updates Giaoachino Rossini's "Il Barbiere di Siviglia" ("The Barber of Seville") to a Black barbershop in Chicago's South Side, at the 1,500-seat Harris Theater, less than half the capacity of the Lyric's auditorium.

"It's a more intimate space, where the action is right up close and the audience can feel like they're in the barbershop and neighborhood," said Lippiello. "The story and the music itself was great for the Harris Theater, and honestly might have been dwarfed by this big gold proscenium with 3,500 seats."

More pertinent to the need to expand audiences is the simple fact that more venues create more room for people to watch the opera live. And many people open to watching opera but also intimidated by the old-age magnificence of an opera house might be more comfortable starting their journey in a theater free of elitist connotations.

"I would go into these classrooms, and these kids and their families were very reluctant to even step foot in an opera house, because they felt like they didn't belong." Lucero recalled. "It's really important that the curtain is pulled back from opera, demystifying what the process is and the many talented people who put so much time and energy and their talents into making an opera."

Some now-famous operas were originally made for the "common" theater and for common people, including Mozart's "Die Zauberflöte" ("The Magic Flute"), a fantastical "sing-play" that was also the composer's last completed work. And now, people anywhere can watch recorded operas on their computer screen, or for a more thrilling experience, at a movie theater that broadcasts The Met Live in HD (with subtitles, of course.)

There's evidence that new operas are overturning old conceptions and drawing in a wider audience.

The relative obscurity of this kind of information compared to dominant narratives of opera as an inherently elite and inaccessible diversion, and Lippiello's earlier allusion to the lack of outreach stunting the potential of some promising operas, is why most large companies have now set up education and community outreach programs. "Not a lot of people have sustained contact with an opera company, and so the desire is to really scramble the message about what opera is and who it's for and what stories it tells," said Koelsch, the Los Angeles Opera chief.

Many of those programs help obtain discounted or free tickets for students and other groups who might not otherwise have the means to attend a performance, part of a "de-elitification" of opera that Lippiello says is essential for the art to thrive. "If we stop being precious about who gets to tell the stories we produce and where and for whom, stop policing how people should behave when they attend a classical concert, be more open to what kinds of sounds constitute opera, we can see the future of opera is right here waiting for us," she said.

There's evidence that new operas are overturning old conceptions and drawing in a wider audience. For the 2023-2024 season, the Met saw an influx of 85,000 first-time ticket buyers, a record for the 141-year-old company, with 25% of those tickets being purchased for one of the six newer operas featured alongside a dozen older, more established and usually more well-known colleagues. If the Met data is an indication that those operas are team players in drawing revenue, ticket buyer data from the Los Angeles Opera paints an even more favorable picture — 36% of their first-time buyers attended a "contemporary" opera, and 45% (with some overlap) went to "off-Grand" performances that took place outside the main auditorium at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.

But what those statistics represent is just one encouraging step in the arduous, decades-long effort to bring opera back to the people where it belongs, if they will have it. An equally difficult task to spreading the gospel is, in Gelb's phrasing, "converting" first-time audience members into full-time opera lovers who come to performances again and again, stan for their favorite "barihunks" and argue over which Rigoletto sang the best high A (or in Sherrill Milnes' case, high B) in the opera's final, tortured notes. Or, perhaps, several years from now, they'll instead be arguing over which baritone/barihunk had the best high A in an opera no one knows about yet.

“This is bad policy”: Walz tears into GOP abortion bans on Fox News

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz stopped by Fox News on Sunday to push against Republican-backed abortion bans.

In an interview with "Fox News Sunday" host Shannon Bream, Walz called the rollback of abortion rights since the Dobbs decision "bad policy."

"They may see this as an election issue. We see it as a right of women to make their own bodily decisions," Walz said, pointing to recent deaths of women in Texas and Georgia who were delayed in seeking medically necessary procedures due to state-level restrictions. 

“The real issue here is women being forced into miscarriages, women being forced to go back home, get sepsis, potentially die,” Walz said. "Maternal mortality rates in Texas have skyrocketed off the charts because of this. This is bad policy."

As governor, Walz signed a sweeping protection of abortion rights into law in January 2023. The codification of the right to an abortion was meant to preempt any further attempts at restrictions from the Supreme Court. 

“To Minnesotans, know that your access to reproductive health, and your right to make your own health care decisions, are preserved and protected,” Walz said at the time of the signing. “And because of this law, that won’t change with the political winds and the makeup of the Supreme Court.”

Speaking on Fox News, he shared that the Harris administration would seek to restore the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade. 

"The vice president and I have been clear, the restoration of Roe v. Wade is what we're asking for," he said. "This is a woman's right to make her own choices."

Nearly ten years since his victory, Chef Jeremy Ford reflects on “Top Chef” and his career since

Back in 2015, "Top Chef: California" aired, featuring challenges filmed all throughout the state. Chef Jeremy Ford was crowned the victor, besting Chef Amar Santana (who would then return to compete in Top Chef: World All Stars just last year), after a highly competitive season also featuring "fan favorite" Chef Isaac Toups, along with some other favorites, namely Chefs Karen Akunowicz, Marjorie Meek-Bradley and Carl Dooley.

Ford won the first elimination challenge (as many eventual "Top Chef" winners tend to do), followed by further QuickFires and elimination challenge wins prior to his crowning in the finale. His "Top Chef" journey was pretty linear, starting with vigor, sliding into the middle-of-the-pack as the competition wore on and then emerging towards the end of the competition as an intrepid, talented chef with clear-cut vision and insight into all things food, flavor and dish composition. 

Now, almost ten years after filming, Ford oversees two restaurants — including The Butcher's Club and the Michelin-starred Stubborn Seed in Miami — and has also recently opened his own farm, Ford Farms, which is now producing much of the fresh produce that he uses in his dishes at his restaurants. 

Salon Food had the opportunity to speak with Ford about his balancing fatherhood and restaurant life, his time on "Top Chef," what led him to farming, how food and cooking initially captured him and more.

Chef Jeremy Ford, winner of Season 13 of "Top Chef" and owner of the restaurant Stubborn Seed.Chef Jeremy Ford, winner of Season 13 of "Top Chef" and owner of the restaurant Stubborn Seed. (Grove Bay Hospitality Group)

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

Can you tell me about Ford Farms? What led to your wanting to get into farming? 

It actually kind of started as a different idea. I pulled the permits and plans to build a test kitchen at my house because it's difficult to create recipes when I'm at the restaurant — there are a million and one things to be done and questions to be asked, so I designed a test kitchen in my backyard. It started off in a very creative place, but then it grew to why it would be so small? It kind of drew me to, how can we do this with more space? And then the rabbit hole began. We started searching for properties and it started at two acres, then four and now we are at five. 

It gave us the opportunity to creatively design food, growing vegetables and fruits. Then it eventually led to us thinking — let’s do a full-on farm. Fast forward to 10 months, now we’re planning on having chickens in the coming months and then pigs as well. 

Do you use produce from the farms at Stubborn Seed and The Butcher's Club? 

We’re using the produce at Stubborn right now. Farmers in Miami typically stop farming around in the summer or even earlier and take a three month break because it's so hot. We’re still growing because we’re like why not? Let's see what happens.

Pests are amplified by a thousand during the summer time and we’re getting to the point now where our focus is going to shift out of growing, fertilizing and adding nutrients to finishing up our event space.

We're getting ready to plant about 100 fruit trees [like] mango, lychees, jackfruit, sapadilla, sapote. We’re going to really go nuts with the tropical fruit trees. So we’re changing gears and getting that going.

The last 10 months have been really great. We learned what worked and what didn't work. We were able to supply the restaurants with quite a bit of produce and we were able to stop ordering commercial produce. We supplied our own tomatoes, herbs, flowers and garnishes. We did a great job considering we had zero experience. 

This year we’ll be able to supply more to the restaurants, popping up at farmers markets to get the name and brand out there more as well. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


How would you differentiate between your restaurants? 

They’re very different. The Butcher’s Club is more of a steakhouse/raw bar. At The Butcher’s Club, it’s more family-friendly, you can come with your kids. There’s something there for everyone.

Stubborn Seed is tasting menu-forward. It's a whole experience. At Stubborn, you sit down and you let us take you on a journey. But both restaurants do speak to the same seasonality focus. And our chefs at both restaurants are always trying to learn and push forward. 

Congratulations on Stubborn Seed Las Vegas. How are you preparing for that opening? Will you be traveling a lot between Miami and Vegas? How do you plan on balancing that with the farm, the restaurant and your personal life and fatherhood? 

That's going to be really tricky to be honest. I'm going to learn as I go. I've reached out to some of my mentors that work with a lot of restaurants. I've talked to Dean Max about that a lot. Stubborn Seed is a very distinct restaurant that is hands on and requires a lot of focus. It’ll be hard for me to let go. 

Every restaurant I've been a part of I think about that balance. I go through phases of worry, but once my great team is out there in Vegas it'll be easier. You just have to remember to take a deep breath and go day by day. There are always good days and bad days. You just have to find a way to come to some sort of balance.

Facetime helps a ton when I’m out of town. I FaceTime the family a lot. This is the career I chose and I knew it was going to take me for a ride, but I’m super excited for the journey and what’s next.

Exterior of the restaurant Stubborn SeedExterior of the restaurant Stubborn Seed. (Grove Bay Hospitality Group) 

For those unaware of your journey since winning "Top Chef," can you break it down for them? 

After my win, I came back to Miami and partnered with local restaurant group, Grove Bay Hospitality Group, to open Stubborn Seed back in 2017. We built such an incredible team there and in 2022 when the Michelin Guide announced its first stars in Florida, Stubborn was awarded one star. 

In late 2021, I opened The Butcher’s Club at the PGA National Resort in Palm Beach Gardens. And now, the plan is to open Stubborn Seed Las Vegas later this year!

Top Chef was some time ago at this point for you, but of course, I have some questions about your experience. To start, how was it overall? Highlights? Lowlights? 

The great connections I made with the other contestants was one of the biggest takeaways for me. I had the opportunity to compete with some of the best chefs in the country. We’re seeing the entire team from that season are some of the best chefs out there, you see James Beard Award winners, Michelin Starred restaurants. It was such a great experience to work with and network with everyone. It’s great to see how everyone is doing in different parts of the country and having those relationships. 

Seeing Padma [Lakshmi] or Tom [Colicchio] love one of my dishes was also definitely another highlight. I won a lot of challenges, but there were times where I almost got eliminated too. Low moments were missing my family. I was gone quite a long time so it was tough not seeing them. 

Competing was definitely a rollercoaster of emotions. It was great to see myself grow. Working in tough conditions and putting food out in 20 minutes is a nightmare, but I found out what I was made of and it launched me to where I am today. 

It was great seeing you for a moment in the Fish Boil episode on the most recent season of "Top Chef". How was that for you? 

I loved seeing Kristen [Kish] in her new role. She did it so well and brought such a fresh, new vibrant vibe for a show that's been around for 20-plus years. She was made for it and it was great seeing her thrive in that role. It was fun to help the contestants and do some shopping for them too. 

On season 13, do you think there was a particular standout dish that really sealed the deal for you? 

Yes, the dinner that we did in San Francisco was my personal favorite. There was a restaurant that had been there for many, many years that closed, Fleur De Lys. We got the chance to reopen it and cook there — I thought it was the coolest thing to experience. Keller was there. It was an awesome night. Hearing from him in his own dining room, being there in that environment and working to have him say the menu we put up was something he would put on his own menu was so rewarding. 

Of course, Chef Buddha Lo is the only US winner to have won the crown twice. If another "All Stars" were to be planned, would you be open to competing? 

No, I don't think so. I'm pretty much retired from the competition world.  I did "Fast Foodies" and "Iron Chef," helping some friends of mine. My focus now is more on my restaurants, building my team and the farm.

What was the biggest lesson or takeaways you gleaned from competing in — and winning — "Top Chef"?  

Before going on the show I was very scared and not as confident as I probably should have been and I think after going on and going through the ups and downs of the entire process it molded me into and shifted me. It pushed me to know that there's more to be done. The learning never stops.

I was 30 years old at the time and that kind of reopened my spirit to keep pushing. It definitely was a driving force with everything that has come from me.

What stands out for you as a formative moment that got you into cooking or food at large? 

When I was growing up, I would visit my grandmother that lived in the south. She was from Gainesville and she would always make fried chicken on Sundays. I loved eating there. She would make Southern-style food, so like fried stuff, mac and cheese and I loved to help her. The love for it started very young.

My mother was adopted and found her biological mother out on the West Coast. She was an Italian woman and was an amazing cook. She had a garden and cooked out there, she was a huge influence for me. 

What would you say are your three most used ingredients? 

That's a tricky one. We go through a lot of olive oil, chives and Maldon. 

We need your help to stay independent

What’s your biggest tip for cutting down on food waste? 

I actually just bought this food recycler, The Mill. It looks like a trash can, but it can compost anything you put in it from your house and breaks it down. That will be the next step, trying to incorporate more at the restaurant. Right now I'm testing it out. 

A plate of Crudo on a black table, from the restaurant Stubborn Seed.A plate of Crudo on a black table, from the restaurant Stubborn Seed. (Grove Bay Hospitality Group)How do you practice sustainability in your cooking and in your restaurants?

We're always looking to practice sustainability at the restaurants. 

We’re always conscious of what’s overfished, not using proteins that are on the red list. We have the capabilities if our local fisherman doesn't have something line caught or super sustainable we’ll reach out to other sources.

Buying from local farms too, we try to buy as local as possible. Real sustainability is not wasting, being smart about your purchases and working with local farmers. 

Retaining the Michelin star at Stubborn Seed for three years is amazing — congratulations! What do you attribute that success to?

I don't think retaining it has anything to do with one specific person, it has to do with the entire team. We've had chefs and managers come and go in between that time and we've now proven that with the changes and promotions of other chefs that were still able to hold the recognition.

The entire team when they come on board they understand the level in which we do things. Our consistency and the quality of product we do the best we can considering all the factors — labor is high, cost of goods has gone up — and trying to balance all those things and create a fair environment. 

“Harrowing”: Trump describes assassination attempt during return to Butler

Donald Trump returned to the site of his near-assassination in Butler, Pennsylvania for a rally on Saturday night and discussed the moment he was grazed by a bullet in detail. 

After a memorial to Corey Comperatore, the rally attendee who was killed when 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on the rally in July, Trump rolled out some purple language about the "harrowing" moment.

“For 16 harrowing seconds during the gunfire, time stopped as this vicious monster unleashed pure evil from his sniper’s perch, not so far away," Trump told the crowd

The former president trotted out a now-familiar line: that God had intervened to save his life during the shooting. 

"By the hand of providence and the grace of God, that villain did not succeed in his goal," Trump said. “Did not come close. He did not stop our movement. He did not break our spirit.”

Crooks, a registered Republican, was killed by return gunfire. Trump praised the Secret Service agents who protected him with their bodies immediately after the gunfire began. 

"They were on top of me so fast, and there was not even a moment of doubt in their minds,” Trump said. 

In the weeks since, the head of the Secret Service has resigned and the agency released a report that admitted to multiple failures during the first rally in Butler. Trump's injury during the shooting inspired a Vietnam veteran to gift the former president his Purple Heart during a rally on Friday. The vet, identified only as Dwight, said that he was moved by Trump's reaction in the moment — when he returned to the microphone to say "fight, fight" with agents draped on him — and that he could think of no one more deserving. 

For kids with long COVID, “back to school” often means not returning at all

In January 2022, Jennifer Robertson’s now 11-year-old son, Fergus, developed long COVID, a condition in which the symptoms of COVID-19 linger for months or even years. Due to his symptoms, he missed nearly six weeks of school after his first infection. He’d be in and out of the classroom for the rest of the school year.

Robertson never knew how her son would feel day to day. After three months of daily fever spikes, red eyes, and chest pains, the family pulled him out of their school to be homeschooled for a year. There was hope when he returned to in-person school last year at a private, and more flexible, school.

But then he caught the virus, again. This year, as many kids returned to school, Fergus returned to home education. Robertson told Salon in a phone interview that this is to “both to catch him up on things that he needed help with or missed and to try to avoid the non-stop repeat infections that come from school."

But additionally, the lack of COVID-19 precautions in schools is a deterring factor to sending him in-person. “We feel we will never heal from this as long as schools have no ventilation, open windows, air purifiers, and policies that children and staff can come to school while actively positive with COVID," Robertson said, adding that she and her family feel “forgotten” as the 2024 school year begins.

“The days, months, and years are rolling by with no precautions from school,” Robertson elaborated. “All the while more children join families like ours every day, due to complete and utter negligence from those around us and the authorities who have the power to change things for the better.”

Robertson and her family are based in the United Kingdom, but the lack of coronavirus protections in educational settings follow an international trend. In 2022, schools across the United States started to relax their masking policies, making them “optional.” Today, seeing a kid wearing a mask in class is a rarity.

"Schools must make it safe for all children that attend, whether they currently suffer from long COVID or not"

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed their guidance earlier this year, now suggesting people treat COVID like other respiratory illnesses, such as flu and RSV. That means when a kid is sick with COVID, they no longer have to stay home in isolation for five days. All they have to be are fever-free for 24 hours. The change in guidelines eased concerns about absenteeism, which became a significant worry during the pandemic. Research has found that chronic absenteeism, or missing at least 15 days of school in a year, affects academic outcomes. However, the relaxed approach in schools and society is leaving kids with long COVID behind. 

“Schools must make it safe for all children that attend, whether they currently suffer from long COVID or not,” Robertson said. “Many children are potentially just one more infection away from developing the debilitating effects of long COVID.” 


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


A study published in February 2024 estimated that up to 5.8 million children have long COVID. Recently, some health experts declared this a public health crisis among the pediatric population. In a more recent study, led by the National Institutes of Health’s RECOVER Initiative, researchers asked caregivers to tell them about the symptoms that their children or teenagers had been experiencing more than four weeks after a COVID infection. For some children in the study, that meant their symptoms lingered for three months after their infection. For others, it was up to two years. 

For many kids with long COVID, returning back to school means not attending school at all. 

“That’s because of the severity of the illness that they are living with, and also, in part, the lack of flexible and hybrid opportunities there are for education,” Sammie McFarland, the CEO of Long COVID kids, a UK-based, international non-profit that advocates for families and children with long COVID, told Salon. “In education, one of the biggest challenges is for educators to understand long COVID, and without that understanding, it makes it very difficult for there to be a good home and school relationship.”

For children with long COVID, McFarland told Salon she sees a lot of “breakdown” between schools and families due to the lack of understanding about the condition, which she believes stems from poor public health messaging. The impact is significant on the children themselves who want to be in school and miss their previous school lives. 

“The children tell us they miss their community, they miss being part of their school life, they miss their friends, and they miss feeling included,” McFarland told Salon. “The whole education system is really set up to achieve, and when the young person is not able to do that because health challenges take over, there's an enormous sense of loss, grief and disappointment.”

For many kids with long COVID, returning back to school means not attending school at all.

Long COVID Kids has put together a series of recommendations for educators to better accommodate children with long COVID. The recommendations include educators being flexible when health needs take priority over education. When children with long COVID are out of school, the organization recommends that educators maintain contact with the children and facilitate a sense of belonging to give kids a sense that they will be welcome back when they return. In the school, they recommend flexible timetables and providing kids with long COVID a calm environment when they need a break to rest. 

Alternative school options have been a saving grace for many long COVID families. Laura Covington’s son Matthew, who lives in Virginia, contracted the virus in January 2021. At first, his symptoms were mild. But a month later, Matthew started having chest pain, a rash, and body aches. At first, his school was understanding about his condition. But towards the end of that school year, Covington said, the school told him that his regular absence was a disruption. That was one of the few reasons they left that school. Today, he attends an outdoor school. 

“These kids are outside 60 percent of the day in all kinds of weather,” Covington said. “And that was favorable for Matthew, just mitigating the risk of any of the germs that typically float around schools.” 

We need your help to stay independent

When Salon spoke to Covington, they were on day 26 of the school year. However, Matthew had only attended for three and a half days. However, it’s not a problem for the school, Covington said. 

“They've really worked around his medical needs as well as his social and emotional growth,” Covington said. “And I think that's really important for schools to do, and we recognize that a lot of schools, especially public schools, are not doing that.”

But some are stepping up. For Robin Scott, based in California, she has been able to find a school that is accommodating to her daughter, Katie. After she and her family got infected with COVID in August 2021, Katie was in and out of the emergency room. Blood tests showed she had elevated markers for MIS-C, a rare but severe illness that can occur after a COVID infection. For the rest of the school year, the five-year-old struggled with various symptoms causing her to be in and out of school. Today, the third grader is in a supportive educational environment, Scott said. 

“Our school has been amazing,” she said. “Having that relationship with the school has been huge for my peace of mind, and for Katie's well-being, and she's got friends that are super supportive of her and understanding.”

Neuroscience is exploring how your brain lets you experience two opposite feelings at once

Countless parents across the country recently dropped their kids off at college for the first time. This transition can stir a whirlwind of feelings: the heartache of parting, sadness over a permanently changed family dynamic, the uncertainty of what lies ahead – but also the pride of seeing your child move toward independence. Some might describe the goodbye as bittersweet, or say that they’re feeling mixed emotions.

In that scenario, what would you do if I asked you to rate how you felt on a scale from 1-9, with 1 being the most negative and 9 the most positive? This question seems silly given the circumstances – how should you rate this blend of bad and good? Yet, this scale is what psychology researchers often use to survey feelings in scientific studies, treating emotions as either positive or negative, but never both.

I’m a neuroscientist who studies how mixed emotions are represented in the brain. Do people ever truly feel both positive and negative at the same time? Or do we just switch quickly back and forth?

What emotions do for you

Scientists sometimes define emotions as states of the brain and body that motivate you toward or away from things. People typically experience them as either positive or negative.

If you’re walking in the woods and see a bear, your heart rate and breathing accelerate, giving you the urge to flee – likely helping you make a decision that keeps you alive. Many scientists would label that reaction as the emotion of “fear.”

Similarly, warm feelings around loved ones make you want to stay around them and nurture those relationships, helping strengthen your social network and support system.

This approach-and-avoid view of emotions helps explain why emotions evolved and how they affect decision-making. Scientists have used it as a guiding principle when trying to figure out the biology behind emotions.

But mixed emotions do not fit into this framework. If opposite biological systems inhibit each other, and if emotions are biological, you can’t experience opposites in the same moment. This reasoning would mean it’s impossible to hold two opposite emotions at once; you must instead be flipping back and forth. Ever since scientists proposed the first theories on the biological foundations of emotion, this is how they’ve conceptualized mixed emotions.

Untangling the biology of mixed emotions

Mainstream methods for measuring feelings still treat positive and negative as opposite sides of a spectrum. But researchers find that study participants commonly report mixed emotions.

For instance, people across cultures experience some feelings, such as nostalgia and awe, as simultaneously positive and negative.

One research group found that volunteers’ physiological responses – such as heart rate and skin conductance – display unique patterns during experiences that are both disgusting and funny, compared with either category separately. This implies that disgusted and amused reactions are indeed occurring simultaneously to create something new.

In a seemingly contradictory finding, research that used functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to study brain responses to disgusting humor did not find a pattern of brain activity that was distinct from plain disgust. The brain states of people reporting being both disgusted and amused seemed to reflect only disgust – not a unique pattern for a new mixed emotion.

But fMRI studies generally rely on averaging brain activity across people and time. The heart of the question – experiencing truly mixed emotions versus fluctuating between positive and negative states – concerns what the brain is doing over time. It is possible that by looking at the average brain activity across time, scientists end up with a pattern that looks a lot like one emotion – in this case, disgust – but are missing important information about how activity changes or stays the same second-to-second.

Mixed emotions in the brain

To dig in to that possibility, I ran a study to see whether mixed emotions were related to a unique brain state that held steady over time.

While in the MRI machine, participants watched a bittersweet animated short film about a young girl’s lifelong pursuit, with her father’s support, to become an astronaut. Spoiler alert: Her dad dies. After scanning, those same subjects rewatched the video and labeled the exact times they had felt positive, negative and mixed emotions.

cartoon man and child embrace on left, four stylized brains on right with various splotches of red and blue

Researchers looked for brain areas with above average (red) or below average (blue) activity during moments in Taiko Studio’s ‘One Small Step’ that elicited mixed emotions. Taiko Studios and University of Southern California Dornsife Office of Communications

My colleagues and I discovered that mixed emotions didn’t show unique, consistent patterns in deeper brain areas like the amygdala, which plays an important role in quick responses to emotionally important items. Strikingly, the insular cortex, a part of the brain that connects deeper brain regions with the cortex, had consistent and unique patterns for both positive and negative emotions, but not for mixed ones. We took this finding to mean that regions such as the amygdala and insular cortex were processing positive and negative emotions as mutually exclusive.

But we did see unique, consistent patterns in cortical regions such as the anterior cingulate, which plays an important role in processing conflict and uncertainty, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is important for self-regulation and complex thinking.

These brain regions in the cortex that carry out more advanced functions appear to represent much more complex states, allowing someone to truly feel a mixed emotion. Brain regions such as the anterior cingulate and ventromedial prefrontal cortex integrate many sources of information – essential for being able to form a mixed emotion.

Our findings also fit with what scientists know about brain and emotional development. Interestingly, kids do not begin to understand or report mixed emotions until later in childhood. This timeline matches up with what researchers know about how development of these brain regions leads to more advanced emotional regulation and understanding.

What happens next

This study revealed something new about how complex feelings are formed in the brain, but there is much more to learn.

Mixed emotions are so interesting, in part, because of their potential role during important life events. Sometimes, mixed emotions help you cope with big changes and turn into cherished memories. For example, you may experience both positive and negative feelings when your friends throw a big going away party before you move to another city for your dream job.

Other times, mixed emotions are an ongoing source of distress. Even if you know you should break up with a romantic partner, that doesn’t mean all the positive feelings you have about them automatically go away, or that a split won’t bring some pain.

What leads to this difference in outcome? Might these differences have to do with how the brain represents these mixed emotional states over time? A better understanding of mixed emotions might help people make sure these kinds of strong feelings become cherished memories that help them grow, instead of a distressing goodbye they fail to get over.The Conversation

Mixed feelings elicited unique neural activity in particular areas of the brain.

Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and America’s long history of racist disinformation

In the spring of 1892, Ida B. Wells had had enough. The 29-year-old Memphis editor was sick of reading about the lynchings of Black Americans and angry about the bogus excuse often used to justify them: fraudulent claims of sexual assault — “the same old racket,” as she called it. “Nobody in this section of the country believes the old thread-bare lie that Negro men rape white women.”

And so she set out to convince other Americans. Wells collected data for hundreds of cases, investigated dozens herself and even hired private investigators, and carefully tracked and catalogued how those cases were reported. What she found was a concerted newspaper campaign of false propaganda that encouraged lynching and then excused or covered it up.

Wells muckraked the failings of the press, in other words. And her exposés of racist lies form a crucial part of the history of disinformation in America.

That’s not the way I originally conceived such a history, though. In trying to chronicle media malpractice in America for a book, I expected to cover infamous hoaxes, such as the New York Sun’s batmen-on-the-moon series in 1835 or the New York Herald’s fictitious zoo escape of 1874, which featured rampaging grizzlies and bloodthirsty panthers. I also anticipated writing about conspiracy theories, like the various “Satanic panics” and QAnon, along with notorious examples of partisan deception, whether in the 1790s or today. But in doing the research, I kept seeing cases like Wells’ critique, and that changed my entire frame of reference.

The most consequential part of the history of disinformation in America, it soon became obvious, isn’t the episodic lying driven by pranking or profit. Instead, it’s the longstanding “bipartisan” myths that have targeted marginalized groups: women, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ communities, labor unions, the poor and others. These lies have proved far more enduring and much more lethal.

Disinformation about Black people is one of the oldest traditions in America. It turns out that, for centuries, what white people have said and written about communities of color was false, fantastical, unfair and often self-contradictory.

This is evident in the many oxymoronic myths spread about African Americans. One of the first of those was that slavery was benign and enslaved persons were generally well-treated. Why, then, did so many try to escape, protest or revolt? Other lies asserted that Black people weren’t as smart or chaste or hardworking as white people, even though many examples to the contrary abounded, and even though the entire Southern plantation economy was sustained by forced labor under the most brutal conditions.

For generations after slavery, white writers routinely disparaged the Black family, claiming it wasn’t as strong or as wholesome as their own. They called African-American men “beasts,” portraying them as dangerous predators barely able to contain their impulses to rape, pillage and kill. This was the infuriating hypocrisy that drove Wells to set the record straight. She was perhaps America’s first great investigative journalist.

But the lies didn’t end in the Jim Crow era. They persisted through the 20th century, rearing their heads anytime racists needed to push back against the progress of civil rights. And they had many skillful practitioners.

For centuries, what white people have said and written about communities of color was false, fantastical, unfair and often self-contradictory.

Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett was one of the most convincing liars of his day. In the wake of the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, he gave a televised speech announcing his intention to fight the ruling. Barnett insisted that no school in the state would integrate — and couldn’t be forced to, he claimed, because Mississippi’s sovereign power superseded the federal government’s.

That’s not what he told the public, however. “Of course I know interposition is invalid,” he admitted. “I’m bluffing. But you wait and see. I’ll bluff the Justice Department into backing down.”

Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus also practiced doublespeak. After reversing his public position on segregation several times, he snapped to reporters: “Just because I said it doesn’t make it so.”

That same lack of truthfulness becomes clear in the media's sensationalistic coverage of drug use. Long before the manufactured myth of the “crack baby” epidemic of the 1980s, which was altogether unsupported by evidence, many newspapers in the early 20th century peddled the narrative that cocaine was the African-American drug of choice. “Negro cocaine fiends” was a fearsome trope the press loved to brandish, even though the vast majority of cocaine users then were white. For too many editors, the combination of Black criminality and exotic substances was a potent elixir, something that Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger exploited in his openly racist public relations strategy and selective enforcement. Anslinger was one of the greatest con men of that century, and racist canards were his stock in trade.

We need your help to stay independent

Disinformation about people of color never disappeared. It has flourished on talk radio, on Fox News and on websites like Newsmax and Breitbart, which for a time featured a “Black Crime” menu option and regularly traffics in stories about “illegals,” the “border crisis” and “migrant crime.” Outlets with no journalistic ethics don’t just happen to dabble in these fictions; they bank on them. Disinformation is part of their business model.

Into this fraught media ecosphere strolled Donald Trump. From his “birther” conspiracy theory, alleging that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, to his insults targeting Muslims, Mexicans, Black Lives Matter activists and others, Trump milks racial animosity regularly, hawking lies about people of color at nearly every rally. He, too, is a kind of racketeer.

His attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris often descend to insults about her identity — that she’s not Black or too Black or in some way not sufficiently American — but mostly they lump her in with the myths so often told about African Americans, essentially that they’re deficient in some way and thus not equal to white citizens.


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


Only in America can a white man convicted of multiple felonies try to paint a Black former prosecutor as a criminal. Only in America can a trust-fund heir with numerous bankruptcies and an endless list of lawsuits accuse a former McDonald’s employee of privilege. Only in America can a “businessman” with financial ties to the Russian mob suggest others are corrupt.

When Alexander Hamilton contemplated recruiting African-American soldiers to fight in the Revolutionary War, he recognized the resistance that would ensue from many white people. As he lamented, “The contempt we have been taught to entertain for the blacks makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason nor in experience.”

Those delusions die hard. Too many white Americans today still fail to see clearly, and continue to chase phantoms instead of reality. If Ida B. Wells were alive today, she’d be fighting for facts and challenging the dishonest schemers. So should we all.

Climate change-fueled heat wave sets records in California and Arizona in October

October is traditionally associated with cool autumn breezes, but a heat wave fueled by climate change in the West is defying that expectation by continuing to shatter temperature records. According to a recent post by the National Weather Service, a record high temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Phoenix, Ariz. on Wednesday, breaking a 28-year record for the city.

Similarly temperatures in Yuma, Arizona broke a 28-year record, reaching 112 degrees Fahrenheit, while more than 50 other heat records were broken throughout the American Southwest on that same Wednesday. Overall at least 125 locations from the Rocky Mountains to the West Coast have broken temperature records since the start of the month.

The heat has persisted through the week, with the National Weather Service issuing an excessive heat warning for much of California, Arizona and Nevada.

“Climate change is causing the length of the heat season to increase and is making… fall heat waves like this more frequent,” Kristina Dahl, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told CNN. “If we continue to warm the plant by burning fossil fuels, late-season heat waves like this will become much more common.”

Dahl added that she is particularly concerned about wildfires: "Dry heat like this essentially sucks moisture out of plants and turns them into dry tinder for a wildfire should a spark ignite."

Dahl's observation has been echoed by other scientists. Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Salon in April that "the long term changes in climate are already having effects on the probabilities of some extreme events (heat waves, intense rainfall, soil moisture drought, etc.)"

“The Apprentice” is an accurate origin story of Donald Trump’s “wannabe fascism”: historians

"The Apprentice" is the movie that Donald Trump does not want you to see, and it is easy to understand why. Despite taking creative liberties with the source material, historians tell Salon the new film that documents Trump's rise to political celebrity is accurate in its most important assertion: Trump was groomed for power by Roy Cohn, one of the most sinister lawyers in our nation's history.

The notion that legality and ethics are irrelevant and that the raw power wielded by society's status quo should alone determine who wins and loses has always been fundamental to far-right politics. Both in real life and in the film, Cohn summed up the most effective way to implement this philosophy with three rules for succeeding in politics, business and the law: (1) Attack, attack, attack, (2) Admit nothing, deny everything and (3) Always claim victory.

"Like Trump, Roy Cohn delighted in flouting the law and getting away with it."

Born into a wealthy and politically well-connected New York family, Cohn took to the cause of anti-communism in the late 1940s, eventually winning a job over a young Robert F. Kennedy as chief counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. McCarthy was a political celebrity in the early 1950s for his melodramatic, viciously personal and often baseless attacks against thousands of Americans. He insisted without proof that a communist conspiracy had infiltrated every level of the American political, media, academic and business communities, tapping into the more legitimate fears of communism sparked by America's Cold War with the Soviet Union. He was so influential that two presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, quaked under fear of incurring McCarthy's wrath. McCarthy and his many followers went after marginalized communities from liberal idealists to impoverished union activists to Jews and homosexuals.

Those last two groups are notable because Cohn was himself both Jewish and gay, yet evinced an odd inability to see how the bigotries he cultivated against others like him reflected on himself. Cohn ruthlessly took charge of McCarthy's Senate work (McCarthy himself did little work besides orating as he struggled with a desperate alcohol addiction), earning great power in the process. Despite being later disgraced for abusing his position to help a friend (and possible lover), Cohn remained a prominent and politically influential attorney in New York City, a role he still had by the time he began to mentor Trump in 1973.

As "The Apprentice" accurately emphasizes, one cannot accurately comprehend the magnitude of the Cohn-Trump relationship without all of the aforementioned historical context. Although only indirectly acknowledged in the movie's narrative, it is nevertheless brought to the fore in the first scenes showing Cohn helping Trump beat back a federal investigation. As the heir to a real estate empire built by his developer dad, Fred Trump, we meet a young Donald (played by Sebastian Stan) as he is on the hook for an investigation into racial discrimination in his housing projects. Cohn (played by Jeremy Strong) argues for white supremacy as a cornerstone of the free enterprise system. It is the first of many political issues that Cohn and his acolytes (like Roger Stone) discuss with Trump, always from the vantage point of the far right: "Welfare queens," trade deficits, fighting Communists, avoiding business regulations

"Even though myself I'm not so sure that McCarthy and Cohn were fascistic, it's clear that what Trump learned from them eventually led to what I think is his 'wannabe fascism,'" Dr. Federico Finchelstein, chair of the history department at the New School for Social Research and author of "A Brief History of Fascist Lies," told Salon. "The idea that Trump is a fascist relates to his own kind of very basic, intuitive understanding of politics," which certainly puts him in contrast with ideologically well-read students of fascism like Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. "At the end of the day, it went back to a very kind of intuitive and really violent and narcissistic understanding of their own leadership." This intuition involves serving the interests of the powerful while pandering to the various hatreds of those among the powerless who can be easily manipulated. Inevitably, this type of thinking is hostile to widespread public education and effective democracies.

"Anti-democratic views were eventually part of the ferment for Trump's development as a kind of fascist situation, which of course ends in January 6," Finchelstein said, adding that he doubts Trump has any deeper "theoretical" underpinnings to his fascist beliefs beyond superficial support for the ideas already popular among his far right base. Like Cohn, Trump saw far right-wing politics first and foremost as an avenue to personal advancement. In this sense, Trump's refusal to accept the democratic system's verdict after losing the 2020 election was the most Cohn-like thing he could have done.

We need your help to stay independent

It also raises a simultaneously alluring and horrifying hypothetical scenario: What if Cohn, who was born in 1927, had not contracted AIDS and died in 1986? If he had lived to be 100 and therefore worked for Trump (who conceivably would have wanted Cohn's legal services, regardless of their later falling out), could Cohn have helped put Trump over the top and pull off his attempted coup to stay in power?

"I want to say he would be desirous of that, but I don't think he could have," says Christopher Elias, Assistant Professor of American Studies at Carleton College and author of "Gossip Men: J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and the Politics of Insinuation." Elias admitted that he felt this way more because of his bedrock faith in the soundness of American democracy, and acknowledged he was not entirely certain this was true. Unlike the comically inept and uninformed attorneys who aided Trump with his coup plot, Cohn was brilliant both in his knowledge of the law and his practical knowledge of where to exert painful pressure on weak points to gain power.

"He would've been right there with [former New York City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani and whoever else is pushing Trump to try to get [Vice President] Mike Pence to overturn the election," Elias said of Cohn. "That's a hundred percent going all the way through. Use every single legal or semi-legal or illegal advantage to your total advantage. And hell, now thanks to the Supreme Court, we know a bunch of it was 'legal,' even though it wasn't." Elias characterized Cohn as a man with more brains than the rest of Trump's legal team put together but concluded that he (Elias) has a "perhaps misplaced" faith in the durability of America's democratic institutions to withstand such assaults. Yet even Elias concedes that Cohn would have made things very dangerous for democracy's future. As an example of why, one need only look at his role in getting the death sentence for Ethel Rosenberg, who had been convicted of playing a minor role in an espionage spy ring and whose death would leave her children orphaned (their father, Julius, had played a much larger role in the conspiracy). Both in the film and in real life, Cohn bragged about coercing Judge Irving Kaufman to sentence her to execution despite widespread outrage that the sentence was excessive.

"I don't know if it's true, but Cohn claims he did, and to some degree I believe him," Elias said. "He probably put his thumb on the scales as much as he could. He definitely had a backchannel to Kaufman." In addition to hating the Rosenbergs for being Communists, Elias speculated that he "probably [thought she] brings a bad name to certain Jews in Roy Cohen's eyes, this belief that she was in that kind of Brooklyn socialist gang." While Elias did not characterize this as Jewish self-hatred, it certainly bespoke an awkwardness that Cohn felt in his own skin as a Jew. Yet this was nothing compared to his self-hatred as a gay man; Cohn regularly insisted that he was so powerful that he could never be accurately classified as gay, but was simply a man who happened to sleep with other men. Unlike his discomfort with being a Jew, Cohn's disconnect over his identity as a gay man wound up taking a literally deadly turn for him after he was diagnosed as HIV positive. As "The Apprentice" accurately depicts, the diagnosis effectively ended the once-close friendship between Trump and Cohn. Trump even fumigated his property in Mar-a-Lago after Cohn visited for a birthday dinner shortly before his death. Ironically for Cohn, that bigotry toward LGBTQ people was another hallmark of the far-right worldview he taught Trump.


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


"These politics of xenophobia and of hatred of diversity, of people that are perceived by one fascist as different, that is a key element of fascism, perhaps the classic fascism," Finchelstein said. "The enemies were different, but the logic of enemy and the logic of demonization and dehumanization certainly is similar to previous fascist attempts." Cohn taught Trump that many in the public will support someone who is corrupt as long as they share the same hate for the same groups of people. Cohn eventually floundered because his status as a closeted gay man unsuccessfully hiding an AIDS diagnosis made him one of the targets instead of an asset. Soon after that he was dead, and Trump has never once publicly evidenced sadness at his loss. Nevertheless, as "The Apprentice" correctly shows, Cohn molded Trump into the man he is today throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with his fingerprints all over his protege decades later.

"Trump followed Cohn's rules to the letter: when you're guilty of something deny it, and turn the accusation against the accuser, even if they are innocent; and most of all, to always seek 'revenge,'" said Rick Perlstein, a historian and journalist. "It's a direct link to the days of Joseph McCarthy."

Perlstein added, "Like Trump, Roy Cohn delighted in flouting the law and getting away with it. My favorite example was his response when Roger Stone asked how he could win the endorsement for Ronald Reagan of New York's corrupt Liberal Party, which by 1980 was neither liberal nor a party, just the extension of the will of a corrupt man named Raymond Harding. Cohn told Stone to give him a suitcase stuffed with $100,000 in cash. The biggest lesson Cohn may have imparted to Trump, however, was not just how to succeed by being crooked, but that if you did it brazenly enough, you could be welcomed into the bosom of Manhattan society, like Cohn was." (The author, who previously interviewed Stone about his support for Trump and defense of McCarthyism, reached out to him for comment about the movie and did not receive a reply.)

If one equates social success with winning no matter the cost, then the most important skill a person can possess is the capacity to manipulate others. This was the force of attraction that drew Trump and Cohn to each other, with the latter mentoring the former on how to hone those aptitudes into a fine art.

"Trump sees in Cohn access to power in somebody who's willing to do anything to get ahead, and I think Cohn probably sees the exact same thing in Trump," Elias said. "Somebody who's willing to do anything to get ahead. And as Kamala Harris taught us at the debate a couple weeks ago, Donald Trump is very, very easily manipulated."

When Salon reached out to the Trump campaign with detailed questions about the disturbingly accurate history in "The Apprentice," the reply was a statement filled with dramatic denials and threatening counterattacks.

“This garbage is pure fiction which sensationalizes lies that have been long debunked," said communications director Steven Cheung. "As with the illegal Kamala witch-hunts, this is election interference by Hollywood elites right before November, who know that President Trump will retake the White House and beat their candidate of choice because nothing they have done has worked. This ‘film’ is pure malicious defamation, should never see the light of day, and doesn’t even deserve a place in the straight-to-DVD section of a bargain bin at a soon-to-be-closed discount movie store, it belongs in a dumpster fire.”

Elias is not surprised that Trump's team is doing this sort of thing. It's what Cohn taught Trump to do — and why, if nothing else, Elias suspects that if Cohn's soul is still aware of the larger world, it may be very happy with how things turned out with Trump.

As Elias said, "He is dancing in a shark-skin suit in his grave right now." 

Fake QR parking codes are the latest scam: How to detect them

As technology evolves, so do scams. The methods become simpler and more ingrained into how we normally operate in the world, and that is pretty scary. This one is not so much “I’m a foreign prince and can you hold onto this $10,000 for me?” as it is doing a normal thing in a normal way – and being fooled. What and who can you trust?

I was out for dinner the other night with some girlfriends in downtown Los Angeles. We parked next to the restaurant at a $10 garage. The credit card machine declined my friend’s first card, but there was a QR code posted above it, which seemed like an easier and legitimate option. Or was it? Fortunately we didn’t have to learn the hard way, her second card worked.

I’ll back up. Any driver who has spent any time in an urban or even a suburban area is probably going to pay for parking at some point. When meters and parking lots won’t take coins or cash, it’s down to a card or your phone to pay. While most of us are used to casually tapping our smartphone on the console at the grocery checkout or flashing our code scanner to connect with our digital payment option, you may want to hold off doing that in the wild. Especially if you’re in a situation where there’s nobody staffing the lot.

That’s because scammers are posting fake QR codes that direct your money to their accounts. It’s a trending method that takes advantage of people’s confidence in a system of electronic money transfers that are, for the most part, easy and safe.  

James E. Lee, chief operating officer of the Identity Theft Resource Center, says that since the pandemic, people have relied on QR codes as a key part of touchless transactions.

“Because we mostly encounter them in places with high trust, we don’t question their authenticity. In reality, the QR code may be easily replaced and directed to a fake website,” he said.

Double trouble?

Lee said the QR code scams are generally run by locals who can physically access the site to place the image in a convenient place. Not only are they collecting money, but they may also collect information that can later be sold. 

“Gangs in urban areas are increasingly expanding into identity crimes because they are easy to commit, you can make a lot of money in a hurry, and generally, no one shoots at you, unlike when you are selling drugs,” Lee said.

So in addition to being separated from their money, the victim is also on the hook for whatever penalty the parking area imposes for nonpayment. But, Lee says, “they have a built-in defense if they can prove the QR code has been compromised.”

We need your help to stay independent

I asked Lee if it should be up to the parking lots to keep their sites supervised—after all, if there were someone there, it would be more difficult to post a fake code. But he takes the perspective that the lot owners are, in essence, a victim as well since their equipment is being vandalized and their revenue stolen. You’ll see this scam in government agencies and their vendors as well, he said. 

How to detect a fake QR code

The first thing to look for is an obvious sticker pasted over the real one, or a janky sign posted next to the real payment portal. If you see that, take the extra step and use a card if there is a kiosk or meter that accepts them. If there’s an attendant, you can ask about the legitimacy of the code (but of course, maybe that person is a fake too, like the guy who broke into a New York city garage and collected cash from unsuspecting folks who wanted to park there.)

Lee cautions: “If you proceed, remember it’s easy to fake a website and create a payment form. Make sure the website the QR code takes you to is real before entering any information.”

Finally, Lee says, if something doesn’t pass the smell test, find another place to park.

“QR codes are just one of many transaction tools, and we all need to be more comfortable with questioning their authenticity,” he said. “Just like unsolicited texts or DMs from friends that are out of character (‘Hey, I just made a lot of money buying crypto!’ when they’ve never even mentioned money previously), just trusting a QR code, link or text is risky. Taking a moment to check if they are real and walking away if they are not can save a lot of time, stress and money later.”

 

 

 

 

“Escalation dominance” and the new nuclear threat: We face more than 1,000 Holocausts

Everything is at stake. Everything is at stake with nuclear weapons.

While working as a nuclear war planner for the Kennedy administration, Daniel Ellsberg was shown a document calculating that a U.S. nuclear attack on Communist countries would result in 600 million dead. As he put it later: “A hundred Holocausts.”

That was in 1961.

Today, with nuclear arsenals vastly larger and more powerful, scientists know that a nuclear exchange would cause “nuclear winter.” And the nearly complete end of agriculture on the planet. Some estimates put the survival rate of humans on Earth at 1 or 2 percent.

No longer 100 Holocausts.

More than 1,000 Holocausts.

If such a nuclear war happens, of course we won’t be around for any retrospective analysis. Or regrets. So candid introspection is in a category of now or never.

What if we did have the opportunity for hindsight? What if we could somehow hover over this planet? And see what had become a global crematorium and an unspeakable ordeal of human agony? Where, in words attributed to both Nikita Khrushchev and Winston Churchill, “the living would envy the dead.”

What might we Americans say about the actions and inaction of our leaders?

In 2023, the nine nuclear-armed countries spent $91 billion on their nuclear weapons. Most of that amount, $51 billion, was the U.S. share. And our country accounted for 80 percent of the increase in nuclear weapons spending.

The United States is leading the way in the nuclear arms race. And we’re encouraged to see that as a good thing: “escalation dominance.”

But escalation doesn’t remain unipolar. As time goes on, “Do as we say, not as we do” isn’t convincing to other nations.

China is now expanding its nuclear arsenal. That escalation does not exist in a vacuum. Official Washington pretends that Chinese policies are shifting without regard to the U.S. pursuit of “escalation dominance.” But that’s a disingenuous pretense. What the great critic of Vietnam War escalation during the 1960s, Sen. William Fulbright, called “the arrogance of power.”

Of course there’s plenty to deplore about Russia’s approach to nuclear weapons. Irresponsible threats about using “tactical” nukes in Ukraine have come from Moscow. There’s now public discussion — by Russian military and political elites — of putting nuclear weapons in space.

We should face the realities of the U.S. government’s role in fueling such ominous trends, in part by dismantling key arms control agreements. Among crucial steps, it’s long past time to restore three treaties that the United States abrogated — ABM, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and Open Skies.

On the non-proliferation front, opportunities are being spurned by Washington. For instance, as former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman wrote in September: “Iran’s Ayatollah has indicated a readiness to open discussions with the United States on nuclear matters, but the Biden administration has turned a deaf ear to such a possibility.”

That deaf ear greatly pleases Israel, the only nuclear-weapons state in the Middle East. On Sept. 22, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said unequivocally that Israel’s pager attack in Lebanon was “a form of terrorism.” The U.S. keeps arming Israel, but won’t negotiate with Iran.

The U.S. government has a responsibility to follow up on every lead, and respond to every overture. Without communication, we vastly increase the risk of devastation.

We can too easily forget what’s truly at stake.

Despite diametrical differences in ideologies, in values, in ideals and systems, programs for extermination are in place at a magnitude dwarfing what occurred during the first half of the 1940s.

Today, Congress and the White House are in the grip of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.” In a toxic mix with the arrogance of power. Propelling a new and more dangerous Cold War.

And so, at the State Department, the leadership talks about a “rules-based order,” which all too often actually means: “We make the rules, we break the rules.”

Meanwhile, the Doomsday Clock set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is now just 90 seconds away from apocalyptic midnight.

Six decades ago, the Doomsday Clock was a full 12 minutes away. And President Lyndon Johnson was willing to approach Moscow with the kind of wisdom that is now absent at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Here’s what Johnson said at the end of his extensive summit meeting with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in June 1967 in Glassboro, New Jersey: “We have made further progress in an effort to improve our understanding of each other’s thinking on a number of questions.”

We need your help to stay independent

Two decades later, President Ronald Reagan — formerly a supreme Cold Warrior — stood next to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and said: “We decided to talk to each other instead of about each other.”

But such attitudes would be heresy today.

As each day brings escalation toward a global nuclear inferno, standard-issue legislators on both sides of the aisle keep boosting the Pentagon budget. Huge new appropriations for nuclear weapons are voted under the euphemism of “modernization.”

And here’s a sad irony: The few members of Congress willing to issue urgent warnings about the danger of nuclear war often stoke that danger with calls for “victory” in the Ukraine war. Instead, what’s urgently needed is a sober push for actual diplomacy to end it.

The U.S. should not use the Ukraine war as a rationale for pursuing a mutually destructive set of policies toward Russia. It’s an approach that maintains and worsens the daily reality on the knife-edge of nuclear war.

We don’t know how far negotiations with Russia could get on an array of pivotal issues. But refusing to negotiate is a catastrophic path.

Continuation of the war in Ukraine markedly increases the likelihood of spinning out from a regional to a Europe-wide to a nuclear war. Yet calls for vigorously pursuing diplomacy to end the Ukraine war are dismissed out of hand as serving Vladimir Putin’s interests.

That's a zero-sum view of the world. A one-way ticket to omnicide.

The world has gotten even closer to the precipice of a military clash between the nuclear superpowers, with a push to green-light NATO-backed Ukrainian attacks heading deeper into Russia.

Yes, the Russian war against Ukraine violates international law and “norms,” as did U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But real diplomacy with Russia is in the interests of global security.

Consider what John F. Kennedy had to say, eight months after the Cuban missile crisis, in his historic speech at American University: “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy, or of a collective death wish for the world.”

That crucial insight from Kennedy is currently in the dumpsters at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

And where is this all headed?

Daniel Ellsberg tried to alert members of Congress. Five years ago, in a letter that was hand-delivered to the offices of every senator and House member, he wrote: “I am concerned that the public, most members of Congress, and possibly even high members of the Executive branch have remained in the dark, or in a state of denial, about the implications of rigorous studies by environmental scientists over the last dozen years.” Those studies “confirm that using even a large fraction of the existing U.S. or Russian nuclear weapons that are on high alert would bring about nuclear winter, leading to global famine and near extinction of humanity.”

In the quest for sanity and survival, isn’t it time for reconstruction of the nuclear arms control infrastructure? Yes, the Russian war against Ukraine violates international law and “norms,” as did U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But real diplomacy with Russia is in the interests of global security.


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


And some great options don’t depend on what happens at the negotiation table.

Many experts say that the most important initial step our country could take to reduce the chances of nuclear war would be a shutdown of all ICBMs.

The word “deterrence” is often heard. But the land-based part of the triad is actually the opposite of deterrence — it’s an invitation to be attacked. That’s the reality of the 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles that are on hair-trigger alert in five Western states.

Uniquely, ICBMs invite a counterforce attack. And they allow a president just minutes to determine whether what’s incoming is actually a set of missiles — or, as in the past, a flock of geese or a drill message that’s mistaken for the real thing.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry wrote that ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world” and “they could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”

And yet, so far, we can't get anywhere with Congress in order to shut down ICBMs. “Oh no,” we’re told, “that would be unilateral disarmament.”

Mistaking a false alarm for a nuclear-missile attack becomes more likely amid the stresses, fatigue and paranoia that come with the protracted war in Ukraine and extending war into Russia.

Imagine that you're standing in a pool of gasoline, with your adversary. You’re lighting matches, and your adversary is lighting matches. If you stop lighting matches, that could be condemned as “unilateral disarmament.” It would also be a sane step to reduce the danger — whether or not the other side follows suit.

The ongoing refusal to shut down the ICBMs is akin to insisting that our side must keep lighting matches while standing in gasoline.

The chances of ICBMs starting a nuclear conflagration have increased with sky-high tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. Mistaking a false alarm for a nuclear-missile attack becomes more likely amid the stresses, fatigue and paranoia that come with the protracted war in Ukraine and extending war into Russia.

Their unique vulnerability as land-based strategic weapons puts ICBMs in the unique category of “use them or lose them.” So, as Secretary Perry explained, “If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them. Once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.”

The U.S. should dismantle its entire ICBM force. Former ICBM launch officer Bruce Blair and Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote: “By scrapping the vulnerable land-based missile force, any need for launching on warning disappears.”

In July, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a letter signed by more than 700 scientists. They not only called for cancellation of the Sentinel program for a new version of ICBMs, they also called for getting rid of the entire land-based leg of the triad.

Meanwhile, the current dispute in Congress about ICBMs has focused on whether it would be cheaper to build the cost-overrunning Sentinel system or upgrade the existing Minuteman III missiles. But either way, the matches keep being lit for a global holocaust.

During his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Martin Luther King Jr. declared: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”

I want to close with some words from Daniel Ellsberg’s book "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner," summing up the preparations for nuclear war. He wrote:

No policies in human history have more deserved to be recognized as immoral, or insane. The story of how this calamitous predicament came about, and how and why it has persisted for over half a century is a chronicle of human madness. Whether Americans, Russians and other humans can rise to the challenge of reversing these policies and eliminating the danger of near-term extinction caused by their own inventions and proclivities remains to be seen. I choose to join with others in acting as if that is still possible.