Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Barefoot in Paris”: Why Ina Garten is the perfect culinary guide for the Olympics

When the TODAY Show crew — Hoda Kotb, Craig Melvin, Savannah Guthrie and Al Roker — met Ina Garten in Paris over the weekend, the “Barefoot Contessa” gave them each a knit-straw market basket and a set of simple instructions: “You can buy whatever you want, but it has to be finger food.” 

As part of NBC’s presentation of the Paris Olympics, the network elected Garten to serve as the culinary correspondent for the games. Her first assignment was organizing a French picnic in the park for the group, whom she enlisted to help with shopping at the Marché biologique Raspail, the largest open-air organic market in France. 

After a few lingering shots of the market’s delicacies, ranging from potato pancakes to airy croissants, and some perfunctory, but heartwarming banter (like when Melvin asked Roker, “Why is the cheese so much better in Paris?” only for Roker to respond, “Because it’s Paris!”), Garten gathered her guests at a small, white table surrounded by lush grass. “There’s a park here you can just hang out in,” she said. “And that’s what the French do, they love their lives. They work so they can have a life. We just work all the time!” 

This led Garten to an anecdote about attempting to buy coffee to-go in Paris, a request often met with confusion, if not subtle derision, at local cafes. “They’ll say, ‘Why do you want to have a coffee to-go? Sit, relax,’”Garten explained. Yet, if customers persist, cafe employees will often employ a certain level of malicious compliance, filling a paper cup — with no lid — with espresso right up to the rim, ready to be spilled. Garten says the message is clear: “Next time you’ll sit down.” 

It’s a short story, but one that demonstrates a simple truth embodied through Garten’s decades of culinary work: To better understand a country’s food is to better understand a country’s culture, which is an attitude that’s admittedly refreshing as some elements of the Paris Olympics have already suffered getting lost in translation.

Take, for instance, the Opening Ceremony itself. Even beyond global questions of whether the tableau of bedazzled drag performers shown during the event was meant to mock or belaud the Last Supper  (Thomas Jolly, the ceremony’s theatrical director, says neither, and that the display was obviously intended to evoke a feast of the Greek gods on Olympus), NBC commentators Peyton Manning and Kelly Clarkson have been criticized for their lack of expertise in interpreting the festivities. 

“The gamble by executives — an attempt to draw a broader audience with the inclusion of the Season 1 “American Idol” winner and the Pro Football Hall of Famer — was a fine idea in the boardroom,” wrote Chris Bumbaca, a sports journalist for USA Today, in his analysis of the opening ceremony. “In practice it could not have gone worse.” 

Bumbaca went on to describe Manning and Clarkson’s contributions, which were offered alongside those of Olympics host Mike Tirico, as “distracting at best and brutal to listen to at worst.” 

“Olympics fans watching at home aren’t tuning in to hear a talk-show host (Clarkson) and football analyst (Manning) discuss things outside of their spheres of influence,” he concluded. 

We need your help to stay independent

Paris, however, is right within Garten’s sphere of influence. The city is a key part of her personal life, as well as the catalyst for her professional transformation into “The Barefoot Contessa.” In speaking on the podcast “Dishing on Julia,” released in conjunction with HBO’s Julia Child series, Garten describes the first time she and her husband, economist Jeffrey Garten, visited France. They brought a tent, all kinds of camping gear, a tiny camping stove and $5 a day for food. “We couldn’t afford to go to a restaurant,” Garten said with a laugh. “I had to go to the markets and buy food and cook in the tent, and that’s where I learned about French markets.” 

There, Garten said, she found peaches that tasted like peach jam, a kaleidoscopic array of cheeses and crispy, handmade French baguettes. All in all, a real departure from a trip to an American supermarket.  “That was an era, in 1971 — it was like Wonder Bread,” Garten said. “You couldn't even get a freshly baked loaf of bread.” 

After spending four months in France, Garten became “enamored” with French food. Upon the young couple’s return to the United States, she bought both volumes of Julia Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.” 

“That was really the beginning of my culinary education, my self-education,” Garten said. 

In the decades since, Garten has consciously introduced American audiences to the best parts of French cooking, while also dispelling some long-held misconceptions about the cuisine and culture. “Americans think of French food as fancy food, and it’s true that some French food is elaborate and formal,” Garten wrote in her seminal 2004 book, “Barefoot in Paris.” 

She continued: “But there are so many kinds of French food.What I love is simple, country French that is easy enough to make every day but special enough to serve for a party. So that’s what this book is all about.” 

"I’d always go to the street markets and I wished I had an oven, so I could just take a chicken home and roast it."

While many viewers of “Barefoot Contessa,” Garten’s beloved television series that ran for 19 years on the Food Network, associate the host with her now-iconic kitchen in the Hamptons, Garten has also maintained an apartment in Paris for nearly 25 years, something that she actually began wishing for the very first time she and Jeffrey toured the city, camping tent in tow.  When I used to go there just on vacation for a week, I’d always go to the street markets and I wished I had an oven, so I could just take a chicken home and roast it,” Garten said in a 2012 interview with Fodor’s.

Garten’s apartment is, fittingly, right off of Boulevard Raspail, which hosts the same market the TODAY Show crew visited with Garten. 

“It’s called Le Marché Biologique. Three times a week I go to the Boulevard Raspail market. It goes from Cherche-Midi to Rue de Rennes. Biologique means organic,” Garten said. “On Sundays, it’s an organic market. There’s a guy who makes potato pancakes. They have all the produce and cheese and everything you can imagine in a market, including an American guy who makes muffins.” 

She continued: “It’s great because there’s everything you could possibly want for giving a dinner party within a few blocks, and I love to give dinner parties in Paris.” 

The Ballerina Farm furor explains why people love being childless cat ladies

Scenes from Hannah Neeleman’s life look downright appealing. Would I love to skippity-skip into my backyard and harvest fresh eggs for my morning omelet? You bet! I’d also happily cook it up on my $30,000 Aga range and complete the look – I’m sorry, meal — with toasted homemade bread spread with freshly churned butter.

The eight children under 12 she can keep. Please don’t take that the wrong way — kids are terrific if you want them. Not everybody does. A recent Times of London profile of Neeleman, the face of Ballerina Farm, makes it sound like she was built for that job. At first.

The profile opens with a scene of “how does she do it” heroism, in which the reporter recounts Neeleman’s extraordinary journey from giving birth to her youngest  – “a one-push baby,” she says  –  and competing in a pageant 12 days later.

By the end of the story, the writer has pulled back the curtain a bit on the Mormon couple’s hyper-successful small-scale lifestyle influencer brand built on YouTube, TikTok (where, as @ballerinafarm, she has a 9.1 million-strong following) and Instagram (where 9.4 million monitor her posts).

The slender, blonde, telegenic GOP fantasy we see in the Neelemans’ social media feeds has hired help with the house cleaning — but no childcare beyond an instructor who homeschools the older kids. They can afford a nanny or five, mind you. But her husband Daniel didn’t want any in the house.

That means Neeleman has to cart her homegrown baseball team along as she does all the grocery shopping on top of milking her livestock and collecting eggs – in a new apron that Daniel got for her birthday, instead of what she wanted, which was plane tickets to Greece.

That video shows her dancing happily as she puts on another garment to help with her chores. What we don’t see is the toll all this takes on Neeleman, who her husband admits “sometimes gets so ill from exhaustion that she can’t get out of bed for a week.”

The Times’ profile of the Neelemans was published shortly after JD Vance was announced as Donald Trump’s pick for vice president, prompting the resurfacing of many recordings in which he blamed society’s downfall on childless adults.

The most famous is his 2021 comment on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” where he disparaged “childless cat ladies” for “wanting to make the rest of the country miserable too.” But even in 2020 he happily told a conservative podcaster that childless members of the so-called “leadership class,” were “more sociopathic,” further opining that the “most deranged” and “most psychotic” people on what was once Twitter were also child-free.

Before The Times profile, Neeleman drew the fury of all types of detractors on X, Instagram and TikTok – people without kids, but also other mothers who resent her serene portrayal of home-keeping and child-rearing. I get it. In a recent video Neeleman says she's going to make a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch. This is before we watch her make the cheese, bake the bread and whip up the butter from fresh cream, along with preparing an acorn squash and sweet potato soup and roasting some fish. Her skill is undeniable.   

Being one of those “childless cat ladies” getting under Vance’s skin, however, I’d like to thank her and Megan Agnew, the Times reporter who journeyed to Utah to see what she’s all about.

For the record, Neeleman seems very happy with her "Green Acres" life. Her story also explains why so many adults – women, and men – have chosen to forgo having children. Simply put, our country makes it a lot more affordable to raise cats than to rear one child, let alone eight.

I’d also be lying if I said that was the only reason my husband and I share our lives with two of nature’s zaniest comics instead of a herd of small humans. I am the youngest of five children with a mother who did her best to do it all, and all by herself, only to collapse and be hospitalized in the effort. I took that lesson to heart.

My husband and I built our lives in a city far away from our families, taking assistance from relatives off the table. Strike two. We also like sleeping in and doing whatever we want with our schedules.

Mainly, though, it’s about the cost. Cats require kibble, distractions from destroying your furniture, litter box maintenance and affection. Raising kids guarantees a six-figure lifetime price tag, with parents struggling to afford the best education for their children, along with health care, food and housing.

The manufactured fuss over tradwives and childless cat people is the latest version of a recurring argument.

Hannah Neeleman seems to have all that figured out. All she had to do was surrender her prima ballerina goals for homesteader cosplay, and her voice to let her husband do the talking for her. But like other famous “tradwives,” a label she softly rejects, the Neelemans’ fantastic life is only possible by the grace of extreme wealth and a staff.

Daniel’s billionaire father owns JetBlue Airlines. He grew up in a Connecticut suburb but dreamed of a farming life out West. Neeleman went to Julliard with dreams of dancing professionally, giving that up to single-handedly repopulate a small town in Utah, make all the family meals from scratch and, as their videos and the Times article reveal, rarely has a moment to herself. 

Agnew describes two of her children “literally swinging off her long golden hair” and one that clings to her bosom for every moment of the four hours she spends with the family. Many read such descriptions and sigh wistfully, wishing they had that life – those children filling a large home on unspoiled acreage. That dream sells Ballerina Farm's meat, along with accessories like “jour” aprons (imported), salt blends (also imported), forager clogs (yes, also imported) and sourdough starters (that Neeleman actually makes in her kitchen and pack into expensive but also Instagram-cute Weck jars, which are also imported).   

What they’re doing is only a shade or two removed from what nepo baby Gwyneth Paltrow achieved with Goop, or the home and hearth Nirvana that Chip and Joanna Gaines expanded from a renovation TV show into a full-blown multimedia brand. The main difference is that TV audiences never watched Joanna go through labor in her bathtub or slapped her with the Queen of the Tradwives label.

“We’re co-CEOs,” Daniel tells the Times reporter, who describes a 328-acre farm that employs three people full time, along with more than 40 others at their warehouse and office, and a creative director handling their website. But again: no childcare.

The Neelemans’ home state served as a case study for a Pro Publica feature from early this year as a state whose conservative lawmakers have long left working parents to fend for themselves:

A larger proportion of Utahans live in areas with few or no licensed child care facilities than in any other state, according to a 2018 analysis of census and licensing data by the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the most recent available. A 2020 report by the state’s Office of Child Care found that Utah’s childcare capacity was meeting only 35% of its needs.

The story goes on to list Utah legislators’ resistance to funding out-of-home childcare solutions in the state with the highest percentage of children, contributing to parents leaving the workforce and care providers having to let employees go or shut down.

We need your help to stay independent

Utah is just one example of a nationwide problem. A recently released study by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, an economic policy research group, found that women are responsible for much of the increase in the overall labor force participation rate over the past five years.

Federal subsidies deserve some credit for making child care more accessible, especially a $24 billion pandemic aid package designated to ease the pandemic’s burden on the childcare industry. Since that expired last September, however, more working mothers face familiar difficulties in balancing their careers and caring for their children. 

Progressives have been crying out for a comprehensive childcare solution for years only to have funding proposals blocked by Republicans and other conservatives. You know, the same people blaming our lower birth rate on a culture of hedonistic kitty cuddlin’.

In fairness, the Neelemans do not pass judgment on others’ life choices in the Times’ article, save for sharing their unsurprising anti-abortion views. They are Mormon, after all. But they’re also doing something many child-free cat ladies and cat daddies can relate to on a scale that suits them – growing food, making butter, harvesting eggs.

Nearly every city dweller with or without a backyard chicken coop dreams of more space. Everyone who isn’t wealthy would love to trade in their financial worries and stifling jobs for something they love to do.

Being half of a childless cat couple makes it possible to hold a full-time job while leaving time to grow tomatoes and make jam from our figs, along with cleaning and cooking, all of which is possible because my husband helps with all of it.

I’ve also been alive for long enough to recognize the manufactured fuss over tradwives and childless cat people as the latest version of a recurring argument. In the late ‘90s and Aughts, it was dubbed the Mommy Wars; the 2010s produced the “Lean In” backlash followed by Girlbosses pitted against college-educated women opting out of the rat race to sell macrame plant hangers on Etsy or whatever. 


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


These arguments keep reviving because they give smarmy politicians and pundits female stereotypes to play against each other without anybody stepping up to solve the underlying issues.

“My first ambition, after the ballerina dream got ditched, was to avoid becoming the heroine of 'Marjorie Morningstar,' a 1955 bestseller I read as an adolescent, in which Marjorie dreams of becoming a Broadway actress but instead winds up living a mundane life on Long Island as Mrs. Milton Schwartz, housewife and mother of three,” wrote Tracy Thompson in a 1998 Washington Post essay. “. . . And then one day I found myself living in Washington with a job that entailed staying at home and spending a lot of time dealing with baby vomit and dirty diapers. Is it any wonder that few people thought of what I did as important anymore? And how could I blame them?”

Thompson goes on to decry a culture that claims to value motherhood, “but in fact what we value is jobs with power and paychecks . . . We say men and women are free to swap roles, that greater involvement by men would solve some of the child-care problems, but unwritten rules of the workplace penalize fathers who take extended parental leave, and stay-at-home dads are considered weird.” 

Ballerina Farm opts out of all that because its creators can afford to, even as they leave open the question of whether this life is truly what its namesake creator wants. Neeleman and her husband answer those concerns with a recently posted video in which she reassures the public that this is the world she and her husband created, “and I couldn’t love it more.” I feel the same way . . . about my calm and manageable life with cats.

Elephant rumbles can be indicative of mentorship and bonding, a study finds

When scientists study elephant communications, they often focus on females, and for seemingly good reason: Previous research had found that only females were socially integrated enough for individual members to engage in complex communication.

A new study in the journal PeerJ demolished that assumption, however, and in the process revealed to scientists that elephants in general are far more intelligent than previously believed.

"Each individual contributes their say in the form of a barbers quartet."

To learn this, the American researchers recorded the rumbles of elephants during the June-July field season at the Mushara waterhole in Namibia's Etosha National Park in 2005, 2007, 2011 and 2017. While elephants are best known for their loud trumpeting, their more nuanced and complicated communications are believed to occur during their "low rumbles." By analyzing the "low rumbles" of herds of male elephants grazing and drinking at the Mushara waterhole, scientists learned that specific noises corresponded with the members moving from one location to another. More intriguingly, the researchers pinpointed specific male elephants who would initiate these calls (usually the elderly mentor males within those groups), with other individuals picking up that call at specific points.

"These ritualized let’s go rumbles made by the most socially integrated males really make my heart sing," study co-author, Dr. Caitlin E O'Connell-Rodwell from Stanford University, told Salon. "Why? Because young males grow up in a highly social environment within family groups, where they have 24-7 opportunities to play and reinforce bonds either their brothers and cousins. Once they leave their families at the age of 12-15, they suddenly find themselves in a whole new social situation — alone until they can forge ties with other independent bulls within the population."

Like any human who wanders into a strange environment, one of their biggest concerns is not finding a friendly face. After all, just like an unfamiliar group of humans may not include amicable individuals, young elephants who can no longer live with their mothers are not guaranteed a welcoming new home.

"This isn’t always straightforward, and often older males aren’t so interested in dealing with these socially needy young males," O'Connell-Rodwell said. "But a few of the older, social bulls like Kirk, Shaka and Kelly do have an interest in taking these young males under their wing. And a clear sign of this intention is to invite the younger males to follow them when they leave the waterhole." That is where the "low rumble" signaling "let's go" comes into play.

"The invitation takes the form of a 'let’s go' rumble, the same vocalizations that dominant females use to coordinate the departure of a large family," O'Connell-Rodwell said. "The initial rumble is responded to in a highly coordinated, synchronized fashion, where each individual contributes their say in the form of a barbers quartet."

By establishing that male elephants literally tell each other when and how to leave certain locations, O'Connell-Rodwell and her team contributed a new and important finding to the field of elephant research.

"Male elephants use vocal coordination to trigger action within tightly bonded groups," O'Connell-Rodwell said. "This has never been documented and has a number of implications for a much richer male elephant society than previously thought."


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


"These ritualized let’s go rumbles made by the most socially integrated males really make my heart sing."

The PeerJ study on male elephants comes on the heels of a long string of research shedding light into elephant intelligence. A June study in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution revealed that elephants have distinct sounds to refer to specific individuals, essentially an analogue for human names. Using AI technology to decipher elephant communications, the scientists explained that their machine could translate elephants calls based on their "acoustic structure, regardless of how similar the call was to the receiver’s vocalizations. Moreover, elephants differentially responded to playbacks of calls originally addressed to them relative to calls addressed to a different individual."

Similarly, a study published in May in the journal Communications Biology found that elephants form complex "sentences" through their various rumbles, ear flags, trunk rubbings and other actions. When elephants release sex pheromones, start randomly tooting or begin rubbing against each other, this is not chaotic or random behavior.

"We also found that elephants greet by appropriately targeting visual, acoustic and tactile gestures at their audience depending on the audience's state of visual attention," Vesta Eleuteri, a PhD student at the University of Vienna's Department of Behavioural and Cognitive Biology, told Salon at the time. "For example, if we're in a noisy bar and I want to tell you 'let's leave' and you are looking at me, I might use a visual gesture, but if you are not, I might touch you. The ability to target visual gestures was previously shown from captive elephants towards a human. So finding this capacity between elephants, although quite expected for people who know elephants, was also novel."

O'Connell-Rodwell's research also underscored the rich inner lives led by elephants.

"Elephants have individual characters and intentions, and they coordinate their 'voices' in a way that is suggestive of individual expression of art and music, and perhaps even whimsy," O'Connell-Rodwell said. "But I may be showing my hand here regarding the results of our follow-up paper so perhaps I shouldn’t elaborate at this time, and focus on the results at hand. Male elephant society is steeped in ritual." O'Connell-Rodwell unpacked this in greater depth in her book "Elephant Don," and urges elephant conservationists to focus on protecting these elderly bulls.

"Mentorship is critical for young male elephants, and they depend on those few elders and young adults that are so inclined to take them under their wing and look after their wellbeing both physically and psychologically," O'Connell-Rodwell said.

Elon Musk’s X suspended “White Dudes for Harris” account after record-breaking fundraising call

Elon Musk's social media platform X suspended the “White Dudes for Harris” account after the group raised over $4 million for Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign in a single fundraising call on Monday night.  The account was blocked for “violating our rules against evading suspension,” according to a screenshot shared with The Washington Post.

The account was reinstated Tuesday morning.

White Dudes for Harris is a recently created group that calls on a privileged demographic to Vice President Kamala Harris: white men. In 2020, 60% of white men voted for Trump; the group was created to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen in 2024.

The group’s Zoom call on Monday night followed similar calls from other demographics for Harris, attracting over 190,000 viewers and raising more than $4 million. The three-hour call featured speeches from actors Jeff Bridges, Mark Ruffalo and Mark Joseph-Gordon Levitt, among other entertainment moguls.

Several “white dudes” up for consideration to be Harris’ running mate also attended the call, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters.

"This is the start of something special and we couldn't be more proud to be in this fight with you," the account posted on X after the call but before it was suspended. 

The group submitted a complaint to X but had no other communication with the platform.

“We hosted the event, and it was wholesome and a bunch of dudes being earnest, getting inspired and excited. And suddenly we realized the [X] account had been suspended and we had no idea why,” organizer Ross Morales Rocketto told The Post.

For some craft beer drinkers, less can mean more

My summers have always been packed with travel – trips to Europe for work and play, and, most recently, a road trip across the American West. At the end of a sweltering day of activities, I’d routinely wind down with some social drinking.

In recent years, though, I started to notice a shift. Beer lists had grown to include more and more low-alcohol options.

Whether I was in Braunschweig, Germany, a suburb of Salt Lake City, or at home in Central Texas, I found myself no longer forced to choose between the likes of Stella Artois or Miller Lite if I wanted something that wouldn’t put me under the table. Now I could expect to find a bevy of local or national options with an alcohol by volume, or ABV, in the 4% to 5% range – below the 5.9% average of a craft beer and well below the 7% India pale ales that had been flooding the market.

I even started seeing more nonalcoholic beers like Heineken 0.0, which was first released in Europe in 2017 and then in the U.S. in 2019.

It seemed to me that low- and no-alcohol beers were becoming much more popular, but I wasn’t sure. So like a good scholar, I decided to look to the data to find an answer.

In a 2020 study I conducted with my colleagues at Texas State University, we looked at industry literature and social media mentions, popular media articles and changes to alcohol regulations. We found that there is, in fact, a growing interest in consuming – and improved technology for producing – beer with less alcohol.

 

The rise of big ‘small’ beer

Beer has a complicated history in the U.S. Prior to the industry consolation that is the contemporary norm, small, local breweries dotted the country. Prohibition devastated the industry, but, when it was repealed in 1933, there was a period of rebirth.

Although brewing and the consumption of alcohol did not completely stop during Prohibition, overall consumption was drastically reduced. Any drinking that did take place was driven behind closed doors.

However, the repeal of Prohibition returned alcoholic beverages to the public arena. As alcohol restrictions and regulations were loosened or removed altogether, the volume of production rose rapidly.

Over the course of the 20th century, technological innovations – ranging from improvements to the pasteurization process, to better transportation infrastructure, to advancements in packaging engineering – allowed breweries to scale up their operations.

It was during this period that American brewers like Budweiser uncovered an untapped market for light-colored, low-ABV beer.

To this day, the U.S. is known for its bland macro brews: Budweiser, Miller and Coors. But despite that long history – or perhaps because of it – the country’s craft beer industry has exploded over the past couple of decades.

In 1983, there were 14 craft brewers in the U.S. In 2000, the Brewers Association counted 1,566 craft breweries. By 2020, the number had swelled to 8,884.

What brewers have dubbed the “craft beer revolution” is characterized by its sophistication and specialization; craft brewers have traditionally produced a dizzying array of brands and styles, moving the market toward “bigger” – meaning bolder, stronger – brews.

This has led to a paradox. Large-scale producers became known for brewing “small” – low in alcohol and, ostensibly, low in flavor – beer. Meanwhile, smaller breweries became known for making “big” – more flavorful, higher in alcohol – beers.

 

Changing times, changing tastes

While among most beer aficionados, heavy, high-alcohol beer is still popular, demand for lower-alcohol or nonalcoholic options is rising.

The Brewers Association highlights a shift toward “mindful drinking,” indicating that consumers are increasingly keeping an eye on the carbohydrate, gluten or alcohol content of their drink of choice. In fact, two-thirds of drinkers say they take into account one or more of these attributes when drinking.

Meanwhile, more Americans are “sober curious,” insofar as they are willing to take a short break from drinking or choose to abstain from alcohol altogether. These individual choices are part of an overarching social shift making, as NPR put it, “teetotaling trendy.”

There’s long been the cultural belief that only people recovering from alcoholism drink nonalcoholic beer. In our study, though, we found that people were increasingly drawn to nonalcoholic beers for a number of reasons.

Someone may be allergic or intolerant to alcohol, taking a medicine that contraindicates alcohol consumption, or have religious or personal preferences that tend toward abstention. Others want to retain the ability to be responsive or responsible for later activities, like serving as a designated driver, operating heavy machinery or being “on-call” for work.

Making lower-alcohol beer more palatable

Low-alcohol beer in the U.S. long has suffered from an image problem – namely, the perception that low- and no-alcohol brews taste bad. (And, let’s be honest, many do.)

An ad for Budweiser depicts a psychic over a crystal ball with a Budweiser bottle in it.

Budweiser has pulled off what some might call an act of wizardry: a low-alcohol beer produced in huge volumes with a relatively inoffensive taste. Jim Heimann Collection via Getty Images

That’s because the brewing process can be especially complicated for low- or no-alcohol ferments, which has made it difficult to brew high-quality, low-alcohol beer that tastes good. Some even say that Budweiser isn’t given nearly enough credit for brewing a consistent, relatively palatable, low-alcohol product at such a big scale.

But in recent years, several studies have been dedicated to improving the production protocols and flavor of low-alcohol beer. Although brewing is an ancient art, it has also shown impressive adaptability as times and technology have changed.

 

The state of the art

Combine the better taste with low-alcohol beer’s real or perceived health benefits, and there’s a real niche developing for the style.

That doesn’t mean standard-alcohol – and even high-alcohol – beers are going anywhere anytime soon. Among craft brewers and craft drinkers, IPAs remain the most prominent beer style by far: Over 2,000 brands make and sell them.

Yet the craft brewing industry is increasingly aware of these shifts in drinker preferences and the social benefits of moderating alcohol intake. Recent trends toward appreciating beer with no or low alcohol make space for moderate or nondrinkers to participate in the craft beer movement.

Now, thanks to the work of food and fermentation scientists, the creativity of brewers and the willingness of consumers to keep experimenting, the list of options that have lower-than-average alcohol and that are actually tasty is growing.

German beer giant Beck’s nonalcoholic lager and Athletic Brewing’s Run Wild nonalcoholic IPA are just two examples of how breweries large and small are trying to tap into the nonalcoholic beer market.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Meanwhile, most craft brewers now offer some kind of “session beer” – so called because, thanks to their lower alcohol content, they’re suitable for longer drinking sessions. Sales of session IPAs, for instance, increased 199% in 2015.

Even beyond session IPAs, lower-alcohol brews across styles – gose, Helles lager, Kölsch, saison, and pilsner – are increasingly visible, available and popular in both pint and print, which is just another way of saying that, now more than ever, you can readily find a low-alcohol or nonalcoholic brew in your glass or on your screen.

Colleen C. Myles, Associate Professor of Geography, Texas State University

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

Project 2025 director quits as part of “ridiculous” effort to distance the far-right plan from Trump

Paul Dans, the director of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 blueprint for a GOP administration to overhaul the federal government and implement right-wing policies, is stepping down from his role — to much crowing from Donald Trump's campaign. The former president had run away from his embrace of the Heritage Foundation amid a wave of backlash, but despite his campaign's claims that Dans' departure marked the project's "demise" that should be "greatly welcomed," the architect of the whole agenda says it's not going anywhere.

“When we began Project 2025 in April 2022, we set a timeline for the project to conclude its policy drafting after the two party conventions this year, and we are sticking to that timeline,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a statement released to several news outlets, adding that Project 2025 had "completed exactly what it set out to do: bringing together over 110 leading conservative organizations to create a unified conservative vision, motivated to devolve power from the unelected administrative state, and returning it to the people. This tool was built for any future administration to use.”

Trump wasn't always so shy about his connections to the Heritage Foundation: his campaign press secretary stars in a Project 2025 recruitment ad; his former White House chief of staff promised on-camera to hand-deliver a Heritage Foundation policy blueprint for a second term; and Trump himself praised the Heritage Foundation's efforts at a 2022 dinner hosted by the think tank.

"This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America," he said at the time.

Hundreds of former Trump administration officials have contributed to the project's 900-page document, which lays out a vision for purging tens of thousands of civil servants, severely limiting access to abortion and birth control, pinning social services to "biblical" values, passing massive corporate tax cuts, and dismantling federal labor, housing and environmental protections. Many of them, including former Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson and former White House Deputy Chief-of-Staff Rick Dearborn might return to Trump's direct orbit if he is elected president again.

As Trump's improving prospects for a second term in office sent Republicans giddy, his allies' statements took on a bolder tone, with Roberts boasting that they were "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." But growing public attention on the once-obscure project invited a slew of attacks from Democrats and negative press. Amid polls showing that most Americans disapprove of Project 2025 the more they learn more about it, Trump's campaign seized on Dans' exit to reiterate the former president's apparent disavowal of the project.

“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way,” the campaign said in an emailed statement.

The statement also seemed to imply that Trump or his allies had a hand in the leadership change.

“Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you," it continued.

We need your help to stay independent

Roberts told WRAL host Vince Coglianese in an early July interview that he's not offended by Trump's statements seeking to distance himself from Project 2025, noting that regardless of the former president's public comments, the "overlap is tremendous" between the Heritage Foundation document, the Republican Party platform and the policy agenda on Trump's own campaign website. "So no hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025 about the statement because we understand Trump is the standard bearer and he's making a political tactical decision there," Roberts said.

Many experts have noted their essential agreement with Roberts. "Project 2025 has become inconvenient for the Trump campaign but it has produced nearly all the policy it was ever going to & owns the central personnel database in the conservative movement," wrote New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan in a post on X. "Trump doesn’t yet have a functioning transition team & will likely need its resources."

Former Republican political consultant Stuart Stevens, meanwhile, told MSNBC host Symone Sanders that Trump crowing over Dans won't help in the way he thinks it will. "Donald Trump is proving that he doesn't have anything to do with Project 2025 by firing the head of Project 2025, it's really ridiculous," he said.

Trump's re-positioning is also be further complicated by his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, who boasts deep ties to the Heritage Foundation and publicly praised elements of Project 2025. On the same day Dans' exit was announced, The New Republic and the Associated Press reported that Vance wrote the forward to the upcoming book, "Dawn's Early Light," a manifesto by Roberts that, according to his publisher, provides a path for Americans to "take back their country."

"The Heritage Foundation isn’t some random outpost on Capitol Hill; it is and has been the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump,” Vance wrote in the forward.

But Trump may have picked Vance precisely because of those connections, even if he and the GOP might be feeling some buyer's remorse. "He just looked at everybody in America who's qualified to be Vice President legally, he picked the guy who's the biggest supporter of Project 2025, JD Vance," Stevens said. "So, you know, I would say this is the policy equivalent of 'I didn't inhale' and I just don't think that anybody's gonna buy it."

“We’re about to make history!”: Megan Thee Stallion rallies “Hotties for Harris” in Atlanta

Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign is almost as red hot as resident Hottie in Charge, rapper Megan The Stallion.

In a vibrant rally on Tuesday evening, the vice president tapped the Houston rapper to join her on the campaign trail in Atlanta. Megan, dressed in a cropped Democratic blue suit, performed a medley of her hits from "Body" to "Savage." 

“We’re about to make history!” she told the crowd.

The rally featured not only Megan but also Atlanta rapper Quavo, former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Georgia Senators Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, The Hollywood Reporter reported.

During the quick but fiery set, the Grammy-winning rapper affirmed her support for Harris, alluding to Harris's advocacy for protecting women's productive rights.

"I know my ladies in the crowd love their body. And if you want to keep loving your body, you know who to vote for,” she said.

The rapper has been a vocal proponent of abortion rights in the past. When Roe v. Wade was repealed by the Supreme Court in 2022, the rapper called out lawmakers and politicians at the Glastonbury Festival in the U.K. 

“You know it wouldn’t be me if I didn’t take a second to call out these stupid a** men." She rallied the crowd to say, “My body, my motherf***ing choice!”

Also, in 2020 Megan galvanized her young fans to register to vote, urging people to sign up for More Than A Vote, a coalition of Black entertainers fighting systemic voter suppression through education and empowerment.

After Megan had performed her last song "Savage," the rapper urged the crowd to “make some noise for Ms. Harris, our future president. Let's get this done, hotties. Hotties for Harris," Reuters reported.

Following Megan's performance, Abrams spoke to the crowd and Quavo unexpectedly made a surprise appearance. He told the audience that his support of Harris is connected to his determination to "the gun violence issue.” The issue is personal to the rapper because his nephew and Migos member, Takeoff, was killed in a shootout in Houston in 2022.

“The one thing I learned about working with Vice President Harris is she always stands on business,” Quavo said.

We need your help to stay independent

During Harris' speech, she countered Republican and Donald Trump's immigration and border talking points,  “As my friend Quavo would say, he doesn’t walk it like he talks it,” she said, in reference to Migos’ song "Walk It Talk It."

Harris elaborated that the momentum in the race against Trump is shifting: "[He] is feeling it." The crowd of about 10,000 people began to cheer her viral campaign slogan "We are not going back."

With less than 100 days until the election, the potential Democratic nominee noted Trump's refusal to debate her. Harris pointed out his platform is against women's reproductive rights and threats to democracy shown in Project 2025. 

“He won’t debate me, but he and his running mate sure have a lot to say about me. As the saying goes, ‘If you got something to say, say it to my face," she concluded.

“Trump is shaking”: The View hosts think Trump is “scared” that JD Vance has become a big liability

"The View" host Whoopi Goldberg on Tuesday made a case for why she feels sorry for former President Donald Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio.

“This poor guy. I feel so bad for him,” she said, referring to a recent report from the Washington Post that Vance privately admitted that Vice President Kamala Harris' presumptive Democratic nomination is a “political sucker punch” to the Trump campaign.

Speaking to Republican donors ahead of a rally in Minnesota over the weekend, Vance reportedly shared that Harris could thwart team MAGA's best-laid plans, which largely hinged upon President Joe Biden's remaining in the race. 

“All of us were hit with a little bit of a political sucker punch,” Vance told GOP donors, according to the report. “The bad news is that Kamala Harris does not have the same baggage as Joe Biden, because whatever we might have to say, Kamala is a lot younger. And Kamala Harris is obviously not struggling in the same ways that Joe Biden did."

"Love ’em or hate ’em, everybody has an opinion about Donald Trump and Joe Biden after the past eight years. But Kamala Harris, people don’t really know," the conservative senator said. 

“Remember how Mr. T used to pity the fool? Well, I pity this man,” Goldberg added. “I pity him, because he’s had a very bumpy roll-out so far, and here he is, once again saying one thing in public and another thing in private. So, how much of a liability is this guy becoming?”

 “I think Trump is shaking," co-host Joe Behar concurred. "He’s like, ‘I picked the wrong guy, what do I do?!’ He’s scared now.”

We need your help to stay independent

Host Sara Haines then shared a clip of Vance's friend from Yale Law School, Sofia Nelson, speaking to CNN and noting that Trump's VP pick is a "chameleon" who has altered his beliefs on "literally every imaginable issue."

Nelson, a transgender public defender, aired a trove of telling email exchanges she had with Vance from mid-2014 through early 2017. Vance in the correspondence refers to Trump's “racism” and defines him to be a “morally reprehensible human being,” per the New York Times.

“He is bereft of morality, he’s bereft of empathy. He’s got a spine, it’s just not a good one,” Goldberg argued.

“Look, you know what you got to do…," she concluded, speaking to "The View"'s audience. "You can choose to vote. Lots of people don’t get to vote. You have the right to vote. It is your birthright, don’t toss it away.”


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


Vance has separately drawn public ire for a past comment he made in which he generalized that women without children are "childless cat ladies" while also speaking in direct reference to Harris. During a 2021 appearance on former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson's show, Vance claimed that these women “want to make the rest of the country miserable too."

The GOP senator has since tried to walk back the remark. During a sit down with Fox News' Trey Gowdry on Sunday, Vance claimed that rather than criticize people who choose not to have children, he had instead been trying to call out the left's perceived "anti-child and anti-family" agenda. 

“The left has increasingly become explicitly anti-child and anti-family, and they encouraged young families not to have children at all over concerns of climate change, and they suggested people having children are somehow being selfish, when being a parent is the most selfless thing that you can do,” Vance said. “This is not a criticism and never was a criticism of everybody without children — that is a lie of the left. It’s a criticism of the increasingly anti-parent and anti-child attitude of the left."

Latest polls show Harris taking over Trump nationally, gaining ground in swing states

Vice President Kamala Harris has erased former President Donald Trump’s lead in key battleground states, with the two candidates now locked in a statistical dead heat, according to the latest Bloomberg News/Morning Consult polling.

Harris was backed by 48% of voters to Trump’s 47% across all swing states. The vice president is ahead in four battleground states, while Trump leads in two.

It’s a significant improvement for Democrats, who were down an average of 2 points in swing states prior to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race.

Since Harris took over as the presumptive nominee, she’s overtaken Trump in Arizona and Nevada and more than doubled Biden’s lead in Michigan, where she currently leads Trump by 11 points.

Trump has a 4 point lead in Pennsylvania and a 2 point lead in North Carolina. The two candidates are tied in Georgia. Apart from Michigan and Pennsylvania, all results are within the margin of error.

The Trump-Harris matchup has attracted a wealth of new voters, with one-third of swing state voters saying they are more likely to vote now that Biden is out. Almost two thirds of Black voters said they are more likely to vote in November. 

Separately, a YouGov poll commissioned by The Economist and released Wednesday found Harris leading Trump nationally by 46% to 44%. A week ago, per YouGov, Trump was leading Harris 44% to 41%.

Though momentum has picked up significantly for Democrats, some have warned that the Harris campaign is in a “honeymoon phase” and that it will show up in the polls. 

“I would call it a honeymoon phase,” Steve Sisolak, a former Democratic governor of Nevada, told The New York Times. “We’ve got to keep the energy going. You got it started, now you’ve got to keep it going. It’s going to be a challenge for everybody.”

In the ten days since Biden dropped out, the Harris campaign says it has raised over $200 million and the vice president has attracted record-breaking attendance at rallies across the country. Harris is expected to pick her running mate on Monday and the two will begin campaigning in key swing states, sources told CBS.

“Say it to my face”: Kamala Harris dares Trump to debate her

Vice President Kamala Harris dared Donald Trump to face her in the next presidential debate while campaigning in Atlanta on Tuesday. 

"He won't debate, but he and his running mate sure seem to have a lot to say about me. Well, Donald, I do hope you'll reconsider to meet me on the debate stage because, as the saying goes, if you got something to say, say it to my face," Harris said at her largest rally to date. 

Trump has tried multiple times to back out of a debate with presumptive nominee Harris, even though his campaign already committed to a second presidential debate, which is scheduled for Sept. 10.

On Monday, Trump told Fox News host Laura Ingraham he doesn’t want to debate Harris because people "already know everything.” After being pressed for a more clear answer, Trump said he would “probably” debate Harris, but could “make a case for not.”

The comments have prompted Harris’ team to argue the former president is “scared” of a debate.

“It’s clear from tonight’s question-dodging: He’s scared he’ll have to defend his running mate’s weird attacks on women or his own calls to end elections in America in a debate against the vice president,” Harris spokesperson Ammar Moussa told the Associated Press. 

Tuesday's rally was Harris’ first visit to Georgia since Biden’s announcement on July 21. Nearly 10,000 people attended the rally, which featured performances from artists such as Megan Thee Stallion and Quavo.  The vice president told attendees that though they are “the underdogs,” the “momentum is shifting” in the election, with Georgia playing an important role as a battleground state.

In 2020, Biden barely edged out Trump to win the state. The vice president hopes she can do the same. 

"I am very clear: The path to the White House runs right through this state. You all helped us win in 2020 and we are going to do it again in 2024," Harris said. 

As of Tuesday, Harris had cut Trump’s prior 2% lead in battleground states, accord to the latest Bloomberg News/Morning Consult survey. Across all swing states, Harris is now backed by 48% of voters to Trump’s 47%, a statistical dead heat. 

In Georgia, both candidates are backed by 47% of voters.

“It’s designed to eliminate unions”: Project 2025 lays out the GOP plan to undermine organized labor

In the early days of the American labor movement, company bosses, alarmed at a surge of employees demanding higher wages and safer working conditions, cooked up a plan to hamstring their opposition. To create a false sense of worker empowerment, corporations set up so-called company unions dominated by management types, providing workers with relatively cheap concessions — like pool halls, recreation centers and free or discounted company products — while guaranteeing that any real decisions over pay and benefits remained in corporate hands.

That ended in 1935, when Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and banned company unions. All labor organizations would now have to be freely elected by the workforce, without interference from above. Since then, American unions have successfully fought for 40-hour workweeks, the end of most child labor and other protections that are now enshrined in law. The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans shrunk considerably in the years after the NLRA passed, before growing once more as unionization declined in the 1970s and 1980s.

While labor advocates seek to revitalize union membership and pressure governments to pass labor-friendly policies as a means to increase workers' bargaining strength, Republicans hoping to regain full control of government in 2024 have plans to "fix" the labor movement by targeting those unions, which they characterize as unaccountable and inefficient. Former President Donald Trump's first administration took measures that labor experts say are tantamount to union-busting, while Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill introduced the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act in 2022, which would repeal NLRA's Section 8(a)(2) and other rules meant to keep unions independent and capable of bargaining effectively. Section 8(a)(2), which lays out what constitutes unfair labor practice on both ends, expressly prohibits unions that have been "assisted or controlled" by the employer.

That companies would suddenly act in good faith after being given even more power is a far-fetched proposition, Ellen Dichner, a former NLRB chief counsel during Barack Obama's presidency, said in an interview.

"The idea that a committee formed by the employer is going to respond in any meaningful way to the concerns of workers, especially if those concerns impact wages, hours and working conditions, is not based on reality," she told Salon. "Workers have no guaranteed meaningful voice in these committees."

Although the TEAM Act did not become law, Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's right-wing policy template with fingerprints from over 140 former Trump administration officials, calls for the bill's revival in the next Congress. According to the text of Project 2025, permitting "formal worker–management cooperative organizations," and allowing petitions that decertify a union and trigger a fresh election to be filed at any time, would provide workers with greater choice over how they are represented.

Alexander T. MacDonald, a labor and employment attorney who has spoken favorably about employer-worker unions, argued Republicans are just responding to a lack of enthusiasm for organized labor.

"Labor representation in this country right now is at 6% of the private sector workforce, which suggests to me that something's going wrong with the labor movement," he said. "People are not choosing unions, for whatever reason. And one reason might be that there's been not been a whole lot of incentive on the part of incumbent unions to improve their services."

But many union representatives and labor relations experts argue that lower unionization is a product of Republican policies designed to hamper organized labor, such as "right to work" laws that allow workers to reap the benefits of collective bargaining without paying dues. They maintain that, whatever the rhetoric around company-led unions, Republicans are simply seeking to give bosses more power over workers.

"It's designed to eliminate unions as an independent and free entity that deals with employers, that sits across the table from them, and bargains with them," AFL-CIO advocacy director Jody Calemine told Salon, emphasizing the need for a binding contract that a union can enforce. "If you don't have binding contracts, if you don't have an independent voice, then essentially the company controls how any of these discussions will play out."

GOP proposals to encourage management-worker cooperation operate on the assumption that both parties are capable of working harmoniously to reach common goals. Such an assumption seems far-fetched, when companies like Starbucks, Amazon and SpaceX, as well as institutions like the University of California system, routinely engage in legally dubious tactics designed to manipulate or scare workers away from unions, including firing pro-union employees, conducting surveillance, spreading misinformation and pitting members against each other. After the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that enforces labor law, ruled against several of those companies for violating federal statutes, some of them filed lawsuits aimed at having the NLRB declared unconstitutional. Federal courts have already ruled in favor of those companies in a number of cases and limited the NLRB's sway in the process.

We need your help to stay independent

The illusion of power in company-run committees, Calemine added, would be used to persuade workers that "they don't need an independent unit, they don't need this union that's coming in trying to organize, since they already have a voice or whatever you want to call it in this TEAM Act committee meeting."

Collective action by unions has been the primary, and perhaps only recourse for workers to bargain for their rights; the existence of "cooperative" groups where company leaders have partial control would allow them to bypass traditional unions on bargaining issues and split workers by favoring some groups over others. The adversarial model of post-1935 management-worker relations that the GOP wants to reverse is based on the principle that the objectives of employers and union members are fundamentally in conflict—union members want higher salaries and improved benefits, while corporations have mandates to pursue maximum profit.

"This change would be asking corporations to voluntarily accept a different mandate or balancing a mandate of maximizing profit with cooperating with workers," said Stephanie Luce, the Chair of the Department of Labor Studies at the City University of New York. "I don't want to say that labor management cooperation could never happen. But it's pretty far fetched. And it has to be under the kind of ideal scenarios in which the management has a very explicit commitment to cooperation and has set up some guardrails to make that possible."

Current NLRB rules do permit some company-run employee participation programs, as long as they do not touch issues related to work conditions or other bargaining subjects covered by the NLRA. Other purposes, like brainstorming or facilitating employer-employee communication, are allowed. Proponents of the TEAM Act, claiming that their bill would protect those already-protected programs, saw their efforts to pass the bill thwarted by a presidential veto in 1995 and opposition by the Senate's Democratic majority in 2022. 

The TEAM Act may breathe yet if the GOP gains full control of the federal government in the 2024 elections. But even without the cooperation of Congress, the Trump administration was able to enact policies that stalled union elections and gave company management more time to campaign against union recognition; restricted workers' ability to picket their subcontractors; and made it easier for employers to fire workers for speaking up for better pay and working conditions. The Biden administration subsequently reversed most of those rules.

Trump's record on labor during his first term is a sign that any promises he and his allies make are not to be trusted, Elena Lopez, a senior legislative specialist at the Communications Workers of America, said in an interview.

"It's all fantasy," Lopez said. "If you look at what their proposals actually say in detail, it's all about empowering the company."


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


Project 2025 also proposes to make it far easier and quicker to decertify a union by repealing the contract bar rule, which currently blocks employees from filing a decertification petition for a three-year period after after a bargaining agreement has taken effect. After that period has elapsed, employees typically have a 45-day window to file a petition before the union signs another three-year contract. Proponents of repeal say that this process is a woefully inadequate mechanism to holding unions accountable.

"There's this famous saying that antitrust law is supposed to be good for competition, but not for competitors. You can imagine why incoming unions wouldn't like this. You gotta work harder, right?" said MacDonald, the employment attorney who has been critical of unions in their current form. "And ultimately, that can lead to more or better services, that's more representation and more people choosing what suits them best."

Supporters of keeping the contract bar rule say that it's rich for writers of Project 2025 to preach about workers' autonomy when they're also trying to legalize company unions. The real point, according to Harvard Law School professor Benjamin Sachs, is to "destabilize labor relations" under the guise of employee choice.

"You don't protect dissenting voices by giving people the right to call an election any day. That would be like saying, if a president is elected on day one, we can have another election on day two, and a third election on day three," Sachs said. "Elections last for a certain period of time, and then we can have another election. That's a logical rule that gives unions and management the chance to bargain workable collective agreements. It gives workers the chance to make a choice and have their choice respected for a reasonable period of time, and then if workers want to revisit that choice, they have an option to do so at the end of the contract."

If a union is decertified, the contract they negotiated with management would no longer be in effect. And following the divide and conquer playbook of company unions, management could try to make sure this happens as much as possible. "Employers could easily approach a few dissatisfied employees and promise some benefits in return for starting a decertification process," said Luce.

Trump has sought to convert union members, a traditionally Democratic constituency, to his side by claiming to support workers and railing against immigration and trade policies that he says are depriving them of jobs. But even if Republicans celebrate favorable signs, like Teamsters Union president Sean O'Brien praising Trump at the Republican National Convention, union leaders are working to convince rank-and-file members that Trump and Vance are nothing but false prophets who will ruin them all.

"We're showing our members that the conservative promise, as they call it, is really about empowering companies and employers over the everyday needs of working people," Lopez said.

Trump’s attempted rebrand of Project 2025 is failing

The Trump campaign issued a very weird statement yesterday disavowing the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 — again. As campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita point out, they've been trying to get them to shut up for some time:

President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way, Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.

The Trumpian threat at the end was a nice flourish but they do mean it. The professional campaign's frustration with the group has been obvious ever since the Democrats jumped on the 900-page manifesto and made it into another Trump-branded product. No matter how hard the Trump campaign tried they couldn't get people to stop talking about Project 2025. 

No matter how hard the Trump campaign tried they couldn't get people to stop talking about Project 2025. 

Trump has personally tried to distance himself from the project, calling it "appalling" and "extreme" at different times and claiming he didn't know anything about it, even though his own running mate, JD Vance, has extensive ties to the organization and has even written the foreword to Heritage President Kevin Roberts' upcoming book, Dawn's Early Light, Taking Back Washington to Save America. As has been thoroughly documented, most of the people associated with Project 2025 are Trump administration alumni, such as his former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, trade adviser Peter Navarro, White House adviser Johnny McEntee and former Director of Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought. In fact, one report showed that 31 of 38 authors and editors of the 900-page tome had been on Trump's team at one time or continue to be. This is not surprising since Trump and his MAGA movement have devoured what was once the conservative movement of which The Heritage Foundation was a founding institution. Conservatives are MAGA now or they are no longer relevant. 

Wiles' and LaCivita's statement was issued in reaction to the news that Paul Dans, the person who was in charge of producing the "Mandate For Leadership" governance guide, announced that he was leaving the project in August. Dans' departure was immediately interpreted to mean that the Trump people had engineered his ouster and had successfully gotten the Heritage Foundation to back away from it.

But is that really the case? 

The 900-page "Mandate for Leadership" is already written. In fact, it was largely finished over a year ago when we first started talking about it. It's all over the internet. The producers of the document are MAGA movement operatives and it is a MAGA document whether Trump wants to claim it or not. Certainly, the Harris campaign is not going to let him off the hook:

Project 2025 is on the ballot because Donald Trump is on the ballot. This is his agenda, written by his allies, for Donald Trump to inflict on our country. Hiding the 920-page blueprint from the American people doesn’t make it less real – in fact, it should make voters more concerned about what else Trump and his allies are hiding.

Trump is running around pandering to every constituency and donor group, promising anything and everything in order to get reelected. And most of what he's promising is in Project 2025 — except for the third rail issue of abortion, which he fatuously insists he's "solved" by having it go back to the states, claiming that's what everyone on all sides always wanted. That is, of course, absurd. But pretty much everything else from policies on law enforcement to trade to education and immigration are all listed on his own Agenda 47 website with very little to distinguish them from Project 2025, except for the level of detail. In other words, they see Project 2025 as a branding problem, not a substance problem. The media needs to be much more careful to explain that. 

The "Mandate for Leadership" guide is only part of Project 2025. The other component is the vast personnel database that a new Trump administration will use to staff the federal government once they implement "Schedule F", an executive order that strips federal civil service protections from workers allowing them to fire thousands of federal workers and replace them with Trump loyalists. There is no doubt that this is a Trump initiative since they first wrote Schedule F during his administration. This database is as much a part of Project 2025 as the manifesto. 

We need your help to stay independent

Trump has every intention of implementing its vision. It's his vision, too. Not only would it be terrifying and dangerous, but it would also be dangerously incompetent. That wouldn't be the first time. As I noted back in 2016, when it became news that since Trump had no experience in government he was relying on the Heritage Foundation during his transition, it has a very poor record when it came to staffing a government. As the Washington Post reported over 20 years ago, Heritage was instrumental in one of the most disastrous policies of the Bush administration:

They had been hired to perform a low-level task: collecting and organizing statistics, surveys and wish lists from the Iraqi ministries for a report that would be presented to potential donors at the end of the month. But as suicide bombs and rocket attacks became almost daily occurrences, more and more senior staffers defected. In short order, six of the new young hires found themselves managing the country's $13 billion budget, making decisions affecting millions of Iraqis.

Viewed from the outside, their experience illustrates many of the problems that have beset the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), a paucity of experienced applicants, a high turnover rate, bureaucracy, partisanship and turf wars.

[…]

For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their résumés at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank.

This epic debacle was documented in the book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrasekaran which revealed that the Bush administration had decided they wanted ideological litmus tests for the people who were going to build the new Iraq government from the ground up. Among the criteria were questions like whether were they "pro-life" and if they believed in unfettered gun rights, none of which had the slightest relevance to the jobs at hand. 

It appears that if Trump wins in November they're going to try it again, only this time they're experimenting on their fellow Americans. And they still have clearly learned nothing from all their previous humiliating failures.

“Most extreme white supremacists ever”: Project 2025 contributors have a history of racism

At least five authors of the right-wing Project 2025 plan for a second Trump term a history of racist writing or white supremacist activity, according to an analysis by USA Today.

Project 2025, the 900-page transition plan from The Heritage Foundation, presents a radical, conservative vision for the American government, one that shifts power away from “Leftist elites” and the “deep state," according to its website

“One of the things that you see when you read Project 2025 is not just the racist dog whistles, but some ideas that were exactly lifted from some of the most extreme white supremacists ever,” author and historian Michael Harriott told USA Today.

Among the authors found to have racist connections in USA Today’s analysis is Richard Hanania, who wrote white supremacist essays under a pseudonym for years, an investigation by The Huffington Post previously revealed. 

In his writings, Hanania, who is a visiting scholar at the University of Texas, said he supported eugenics and forced sterilization of low-IQ people, who he wrote were mostly Black.

Former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, has connections to Hanania, referring to him as a “friend” and “really interesting thinker” in a 2021 podcast interview. 

Corey Stewart, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2018, is another Project 2025 contributor who has long been associated with white supremacy. A champion of “protecting” the Confederacy, Stewart has described his role in politics as “taking back our heritage.” 

 “That flag is not about racism, folks, it’s not about hatred, it’s not about slavery, it is about our heritage,” Stewart said at a 2017 speech in Virginia, defending the Confederate battle flag. At the same event, he called Virginia “the state of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.”

Another contributor, Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, wrote in an anonymous essay that the “ceaseless importation of foreigners” means the U.S. population grows “less Republican” and “less American” every year, according to reporting by USA Today. 

Other contributors found to have ties to racist writings include Stephen Moore, who joked about Trump “removing the Obamas from public housing” when he took office, and Jason Richwine, who in his PhD thesis argued that Latino immigration should be limited based on intelligence levels, USA Today reported. 

“No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against,” Moore wrote.

Among other demands, Project 2025 calls for the dismantling of diversity initiatives, a crackdown on immigration and disbanding the Department of Education. In recent weeks, Trump has sought to distance himself from the radical manifesto.

Biden’s bid to fix a broken Supreme Court: It’s time to get political

On Monday, President Joe Biden unveiled a package of reforms targeting the United States Supreme Court. That package included a proposal to amend the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court’s recent decision granting the president of the United States immunity from criminal prosecution for acts undertaken in their official capacity.

Biden dubbed that proposal “The No One Is Above the Law Amendment.” He said, “It would make clear that there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.” 

A White House statement explained that the amendment Biden wants adopted “will state that the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.”

An article in The Hill rightly notes, “When the nation’s high court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgment is virtually final, and decisions can only be altered with a constitutional amendment and a new ruling.”

Yet prospects for passage of Biden’s proposed amendment are bleak, with House Speaker Mike Johnson saying that it would be “dead on arrival” in the House of Representatives. Johnson's response could hardly have come as a surprise to the president or anyone who regards the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States as a constitutional abomination.

But Biden was right to propose the amendment. He was right to say that it would be consistent with “our Founders’ belief that the president’s power is limited, not absolute. We are a nation of laws — not of kings or dictators.” 

We need your help to stay independent

He was right to offer the American people the chance to exercise their ultimate authority over the Constitution and its meanings.

And the president's desire to amend the Constitution to correct the court’s presidential immunity decision is also consistent with our history. Several times in the past the Constitution has been changed to overrule a Supreme Court decision.

Before looking at that history, let me say a little bit more about what Biden is proposing.

The president is building on an effort that began last week when New York Congressman Joe Morelle, the top Democrat of the Committee on House Administration, first introduced his own version of a constitutional amendment to undo the presidential immunity decision. Like Biden, Rep. Morelle was unsparing in his criticism of the Court.

“Earlier this month,” Morelle said, “the Supreme Court of the United States undermined not just the foundation of our constitutional government, but the foundation of our democracy. At its core, our nation relies on the principle that no American stands above another in the eyes of the law.” 

“I introduced this constitutional amendment,” Morelle continued, “to correct a grave error of this Supreme Court and protect our democracy by ensuring no president is ever above the law. The American people expect their leaders to be held to the same standards we hold for any member of our community. Presidents are not monarchy, they are not tyrants, and shall not be immune.” 

The amendment Morelle introduced states that “No officer of the United States, including the President and the Vice President, or a Senator or Representative in Congress, shall be immune from criminal prosecution for any violation of otherwise valid Federal law, nor for any violation of State law unless the alleged criminal act was authorized by valid Federal law, on the sole ground that their alleged criminal act was within the conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority of their office or related to their official duties.” 


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


It exempts Senators and Representatives who are protected by the so-called Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. That clause states, “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” 

Morelle’s amendment also tries to clarify the limits of the president’s pardon power. “The President,” it says, “shall have no power to grant a reprieve or pardon for offenses against the United States to himself or herself.” 

More than 40 Members of Congress are co-sponsoring Rep. Morelle’s constitutional amendment, including such well-known figures as Representatives Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Rashida Tlaib. So far, no Republicans have signed on.

In the Senate, Democrat Mazie Hirono has released a discussion draft of the text of an amendment like Biden’s and Morelle’s.

These proposals are just the latest in many uses of the amendment process to deliver a rebuke to the Supreme Court. Such uses go back almost to the founding of the country itself.

Reviewing that history, law professor John Orth explains there are “two ways to reverse a U.S. Supreme Court decision by constitutional amendment. The first type of amendment may reverse the decision by instructing the Court on the proper construction of a particular provision, as in the case of the Eleventh Amendment.”

That amendment, which was adopted in 1795, states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” It was adopted to overturn Chisholm v. Georgia, which allowed a citizen of South Carolina to sue the state of Georgia to recover a debt.

As Orth explains, since the adoption of the 11th Amendment, “much has been made of the phrase ‘shall not be construed.’ The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase to mean that the Amendment was intended to restore the original understanding of the grant of federal jurisdiction rather than to alter or amend the text.”

The second way to reverse a Supreme Court decision is to pass an amendment altering or adding to the constitutional text rather than just changing the construction of an existing provision. The example Orth gives is the 16th Amendment.

Adopted in 1913, that amendment reversed an 1895 Supreme Court decision holding that a federal income tax was unconstitutional. It, Orth observed, “provided express constitutional authorization for a tax on incomes.” 

The amendment supported by Biden, Morelle, and Hirono would fall into the second category. It would join such other corrective amendments as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, passed in the wake of the Civil War, both of which reversed the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision by abolishing slavery and granting citizenship to freed slaves.

Recently, the 24th Amendment overruled the Court’s 1937 decision in Breedlove v. Suttles that upheld the constitutionality of the poll tax. And in 1971, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in both state and federal elections. It overturned a Supreme Court decision, Oregon v. Mitchell, that said Congress had no authority to set the voting age in state elections.

Each of these amendments is evidence of why, as Harvard’s Jill Lapore argues, “The Framers believed that ‘No single article of the Constitution is more important [than Article V the provision allowing for amendments] because if you couldn’t revise a constitution, you’d have no way to change the government except by revolution.’” 

And what Biden is now proposing is an important reminder that the final authority over the meaning of the Constitution rests with the people of the United States, not nine people in black robes who sit on the Supreme Court. Whatever happens to the efforts to use the amendment process to undo the presidential immunity decision, that is a lesson worth remembering.

Kamala Harris is wise to target JD “Cat Lady” Vance — the GOP’s “incel platform” repels voters

For his political opponents, Donald Trump offers a target-rich environment: his criminality, his bigotry, his "bleach those lungs"-levels of ignorance, and, of course, his overall weirdness. At first blush, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, seems less vulnerable. Vance can speak in complete sentences without rambling about sharks or electrocution. Unlike his boss, Vance is fully literate and capable of writing grammatical sentences without random capitalizations. Vance has not been convicted of any crimes, and he even looks relatively normal, especially compared to the makeup-caked Republican candidate with an elaborate combover. If one accused Vance of smelling like body odor mixed with ketchup, most people would not believe it. 

Vance was a poor pick as running mate for this reason, and yet Trump's choice was its own "ecstatic truth," revealing how deeply screwed up MAGA is about sex and gender.

And yet, the fledgling presidential campaign of Vice President Harris is lampooning Vance nearly as often as they're going after Trump, and in the same terms: Vance is "weird." In particular, the Harris campaign has thoroughly lambasted Vance for his love of the tedious misogynist trope of the "cat lady." Vance has repeatedly insulted women who have not given birth by saying they're "miserable" and attacking cats, which are popular pets with people of all genders and parental statuses. He's defended these comments by claiming "the left" is "anti-child" and "anti-family," even though all evidence shows that children are happier when they're born to parents who want them. He even tried to joke that he's "got nothing against cats," which the Harris campaign correctly pointed out means that he is still standing by his denigration of people who have no biological children. 


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


In addition to the willfully childless, Vance attacked stepparents like Harris and adoptive parents like Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg in his list of "miserable cat ladies." This is a fixation of his, as evidenced by a 2020 clip that was unearthed Tuesday, in which he said "people who don’t have kids at home" — which describes most people under 25 and over 55 — as "more sociopathic." 

Putting Vance on the defense over this is smart for many reasons, including the fact that childless people, stepparents, and adoptive parents have a right to vote, whether Vance likes it or not. It also fits with the "freedom" and "not going back" messages of the Harris campaign by underscoring why Trump and Vance oppose reproductive rights. But it's also helpful because it reminds voters that Trump has a long history of appealing to a deeply unpopular constituency: gross men. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted on Twitter, "It’s an incel platform, dude. It’s SUPER weird."

Vance, 39, married a decade ago and isn't an incel, which is internet slang for a subclass of misogynists who identify as "involuntarily celibate." But his odd "cat lady" rhetoric ties him to a larger far-right fringe defined by their regressive and downright strange attitudes about women, dating, and family life. Incels are one piece of it, but there are also groups like the Proud Boys, "men's rights activists," and "tradcaths," who claim to be reviving "traditional" Catholicism. What binds these groups together is faith in an imaginary past where both men and women happily and unquestioningly submit to repressed sexuality and rigid gender roles.

This is undoubtedly a fantasy version of history and Vance's adherence to it confirms the Democratic charge that MAGA is "weird." It's not just that most modern Americans don't have a "Leave It To Beaver" lifestyle. Most Americans understand that "Leave It To Beaver" was a silly TV show, not reality. Most Americans understand that innovations like no-fault divorce, which Vance has denounced, acceptance of premarital sex, and LGBTQ rights were responses to pre-existing needs of real human beings, and that whatever social upheavals they may have caused were minor compared to the drastic reduction of human suffering. 

One doesn't need to be deeply immersed in the MAGA subcultures of "tradcaths" or "incels" to grasp who Vance is speaking to in these clips: Men who, because of their own personal or romantic failures, have been radicalized towards an ideology so far to the right that it's fascistic. Over the years, Trump has relied heavily on this community of under-sexed nerds, angry divorced men, and dudes with an array of hang-ups to fuel what is now nine full years of presidential campaigning. Trump's close ally Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., even said as much recently, telling Newsmax that the GOP can afford to lose female voters because they're picking up new male voters with this politics of resentment. By picking Vance, who speaks fluent Internet Weirdo, Trump appeared to be shoring up his pitch to this base of aggrieved men.

Trump's own sexual promiscuity and frequent divorces can sometimes lull voters into complacency, as they tell themselves that he can't really support all the radical anti-sex and anti-woman policies he's embraced. But he personally chose Vance, making it that much harder to run away from the entirely correct charge that Trump has aligned himself with people who have extreme, authoritarian dreams of controlling the sex lives of Americans down to the minute details. For instance, the group behind Project 2025, which is set up to be the agenda of a Trump White House, proudly tweeted about their goals of "ending recreational sex & senseless use of birth control pills." Trump has many close allies that use the term "recreational sex" to slander the private lives of nearly all Americans, straight and queer, married or not. 

We need your help to stay independent

As Melissa Ryan wrote at Ctrl Alt Right Delete, Vance is deeply entrenched in a "neoreactionary" movement that "calls for the fall of democracies and a return to monarchy and aristocracy." Vance was propped up financially and politically by tech investor Peter Thiel, who has questioned whether women should have the right to vote. Thiel has also backed pseudo-intellectual Curtis Yarvin, who Vance has quoted, and who called slavery a "natural human relationship" akin to "that of patron and client." Vance himself has floated proposals to water down the votes of women and single people by giving "parents" — mostly fathers in practice — an extra vote per child. This odd proposal shares DNA with the Christian fundamentalist notion of "household voting," in which a father does the voting for everyone else in the home. It's another backdoor effort to terminate women's suffrage. 

In the days following Vance being named running mate, a silly meme exploded across the internet, falsely claiming that he had written about having sex with a couch in his book "Hillbilly Elegy." The person who concocted this rumor meant it as a joke and, as far as I can tell, everyone who has repeated it also means it as a joke. Even though no one believes the couch story is literally true, the meme spread like wildfire. As the guy who wrote the joke told Business Insider, he was inspired by filmmaker Werner Herzog's concept of "ecstatic truths," which can both be technically false but "make some essence of the man visible." In this case, the "essence" of Vance is that he's got some weird and inhumane views on human sexuality and gender relations. He was a poor pick as running mate for this reason, and yet Trump's choice was its own "ecstatic truth," revealing how deeply screwed up MAGA is about sex and gender.

Or, as the Harris campaign Twitter account wryly put it, "JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women."

“The savior of Israel”: Antisemitism expert on what Trump’s “good Jew and bad Jew sorting” signals

In the West, historically and in the present, white supremacy, racism, and antisemitism (which are interrelated concepts) have been used to attack and undermine real democracy. Donald Trump and the other neofascists and fake right-wing populists and “conservatives” are experts at using these weapons.

These weapons are used to divide and conquer by creating unfounded fears and anxieties among white Americans that Black and brown people, Jewish people, Muslims or some other marginalized group is going to take away “their country”. From before the founding to the present, that strategy has enabled policies that actually hurt the majority of white people in America. In that way, the psychological wages of whiteness have been toxic on both sides of the color line. As President Lyndon Johnson famously observed in a conversation with journalist and great truth-teller Bill Moyers, “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

The Age of Trump, is proof, again, of how that emotional training and conditioning has been so highly damaging to American society and politics.

Public opinion and other research show that a large percentage of (white) Republicans, are willing to end American democracy if it means that (white) people like them are not the most powerful and dominant group. Other research shows that racism is one of the most powerful determinants of party identification where those white Americans who are more likely to harbor anti-Black and anti-brown animus are much more likely to identify with the Republican Party. White Americans who identify as Democrats, by comparison, are less likely to have such animosity.  

"Balancing the pro-Israel and white supremacist camps is no easy feat, and explains the casual antisemitism meant to message his base that he’s still with them."

Racism, white supremacy, and antisemitism are also a key component in how neofascists and authoritarians use conspiracy theories (and disinformation and misinformation) to undermine reality and truth as part of their revolutionary campaign to end democracy. For example, a majority of Trump supporters and Republicans believe in the “great replacement theory” that Democrats and white liberal elites are “importing” Black and brown people to “replace” white Americans. This is a lie: White people are the dominant and most powerful and privileged group of people in the United States. They are in no way imperiled because of their “race.” Moreover, the great replacement theory is antisemitic and draws upon the framework of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the lie that there is a cabal of Jewish people who secretly control the world. The QAnon conspiracy theory, popular amongst a portion of the MAGA base, is also based upon the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Trump and his forces’ antisemitism and white supremacy also includes such blatant behavior as the repeated use of such tropes and themes in their communications (for example, the fixation on “globalists” and Democratic Party donor George Soros, who is a Holocaust survivor), embrace of right-wing hate and other extremist groups, and support for and enacting public policies that deny the historically unique crimes that the Jewish people have suffered such as the Holocaust. Donald Trump has repeatedly channeled Adolf Hitler and the Nazis with his threats to purify the blood of the nation by eliminating “the vermin” and other human pollution.

In an attempt to further sound the alarm about the role of antisemitism and white supremacy in the Age of Trump and the American and global antidemocracy crisis, and specifically how his authoritarian regime will further unleash such antidemocratic values and forces if Donald Trump were to take power in the 2025 Election, I recently spoke with Sharon Nazarian, a distinguished leader in the fight against antisemitism and hate worldwide. Nazarian previously served as the Senior Vice President of International Affairs at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), where she directed global efforts to combat antisemitism and promote social justice and human rights. She continues to sit on the board of the ADL.

Nazarian's extensive academic and philanthropic background includes a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Southern California and the founding of the Younes and Soraya Nazarian Center for Israel Studies at UCLA, which is dedicated to exploring Israeli history, culture, and society.

This is the second part of a two-part conversation.

The increase in antisemitism and white supremacy in the Age of Trump and the global democracy crisis is not coincidental. This is critically important and the mainstream news media and the country’s responsible political class have, for the most part, not emphasized this dynamic enough. When the first Trump administration omitted the specific suffering and crimes against the Jewish people in the Holocaust that was a reflection and warning of so many other horrible things to come in the Age of Trump. Of course, there was Charlottesville, mass shootings and other violence by white supremacists, and Jan. 6 where neo-Nazis and Kluxers and other white supremacists overran the Capitol. How were you making sense of these events in real time?

In my assessment, the US Jewish community was transformed from a safe and secure community upheld by Jews around the world as a paragon of successful integration and acculturation, to what I would describe as a vulnerable and insecure community today. That transformation took place over six years, with five watershed crises: Charlottesville, Tree of Life, Jan. 6 insurrection, May 2021 Israel-Hamas conflict and 10/7.

With each of these crises came a step toward the normalization and weaponization of anti-Jewish hatred.

The QAnon conspiracy theory, which is embraced and amplified by Donald Trump and across the right-wing media echo chamber is also deeply antisemitic as well. It is part of a much larger conspiracist imagination that includes the so-called “great replacement theory”, which is also antisemitic given its origins in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the lie that Jewish people are part of a secret cabal that runs the world who are conspiring against “white people” by using black and brown people to do their bidding. For decades, these vile lies were largely fringe and marginalized in the United States. Now they are increasingly mainstream.

All of this is part of a much larger and much more dangerous politicization of American Jews and Judaism in general. The conspiracy theories you mention have also collided with far-right politicians across the planet aggressively trying to court Jews away from liberal and pro-democratic candidates. It’s a very strange environment we are currently living in, and one that remains more dangerous today for Jewish peoples across the West than at any point since World War II. At no point in modern history have so many conspiracy theories, so many contradictory disinformation streams and so many active manipulations of the state of Israel come together. It must also be said that when populist and anti-democratic politicians give Israel a bear hug based on their religious convictions, it is incumbent on those of us who know better, to reject such affiliation. We should always be cognizant that healthy democracies are the only political systems that afford minorities true protection and safety. And those who portend to support and advocate on Israel or Jewish people’s behalf who don’t embrace democratic values as the core of their beliefs threaten the very system that we now know affords us safety and security.

At times I feel like we are in a simulation run amok. Donald Trump is literally channeling Hitler with threats about racial purity, “vermin”, and poisoned blood. Trump admires Hitler and other tyrants. He and his propagandists also use explicitly Nazi rhetoric about the “lugenpresse” or “fake news” and how he is going to punish free speech and dissent. Concentration camps and mass deportations. Trump and his propagandists and other agents have repeatedly trafficked in antisemitism with their claims that there are “good Jews” and “bad Jews”, “loyal Jews” and “disloyal Jews”. This is old school antisemitism and white supremacy. Yet, there seems to be so much denial about the obvious. Why are we still litigating these matters?

"That’s why Trump is able to divide and conquer using fear and intimidation of Jews and playing to evangelical and Christian End Times ideology."

We are still litigating these questions because the conspiracies around Jews and Judaism still have deep meaning and utility for those who want to bend democracies to their breaking point. I have to underscore what an important point you make though with regard to the “Good Jew” and “Bad Jew” sorting. This is a classic populist playbook built on polarization and fracturing targeted communities. Given that Jewish Americans have historically voted Democratic, Trump has found a way to put his finger on the Achilles heel of a Jewish community witnessing the denigration of the only Jewish and democratic state. Through his divisive and manipulative tactics, he is attempting to position himself as the savior of Israel at a time when progressive democrats have labeled Israel as the villain in the Israel-Hamas war. Rebranding Hamas as the face of post-colonialist resistance plays perfectly into the hands of Trump's Christian pseudo-saviors pandering to Jewish fears and anxiety. That’s why Trump is able to divide and conquer using fear and intimidation of Jews and playing to evangelical and Christian End Times ideology. Balancing the pro-Israel and white supremacist camps is no easy feat, and explains the casual antisemitism meant to message his base that he’s still with them.

What are some of the main errors that the American mainstream news media continues to make in its coverage of antisemitism in the Age of Trump and the global democracy crisis?

I think the biggest mistake being made is not covering it. In my travels over the past few months, I’ve been struck by how little mainstream press is covering this topic. There seems to be a real fear, or real insecurity among press around how to cover antisemitism in a way that goes past just the facts of attacks and talks more broadly about clear patterns, the scale of the patterns taking place, the mix and complexity of the ideological underpinnings of current day antisemitism, their interaction with one another, such as we are witnessing what I call the horseshoe effect of extreme right and extreme left/Islamist narratives coming together, mimicking one another, borrowing memes and videos from one another. This is taking place in America of course, but it’s happening elsewhere too. In Germany, the President of the Technical University of Berlin was caught liking social media posts that contained swastikas and the press barely covered it. This is a country where the use of the symbol has been banned and is punishable, where the shadow of the Holocaust created attempts to legislate antisemitism out of their society and even there, they are having this issue. I hate to say it, but we’re losing.

As noted by many leading historians, given the obvious parallels between the rise of Nazism in Germany and the fall of that democracy and what is happening in the United States with an aspiring dictator and convicted felon Donald Trump and the neofascist MAGA movement and its forces, why is there so much reluctance among the mainstream news media and political class to make those connections and explain to the American people why we are facing an existential danger? What about learning from the errors and tragedies of the past so as not to repeat them in the present?

We must be extra careful with comparisons of any modern-day phenomenon to Nazi atrocities committed during WWII. That being said, looking for patterns of strategy and tactics used to dehumanize a targeted community the way the Nazis did can be instructive and an effective mechanism to raise the alarm bells. The better we understand the Nazi playbook, the better we can warn against similar strategies and tactics being used by those sowing hatred in our societies today.

6 things to know about Stephen Nedoroscik, the Clark Kent of American pommel horse

On Monday night, Team USA's men's gymnastics team earned their first medal — a third-place bronze — for the first time since George Bush was in the Oval Office. While the long-awaited medal moment spoke to the combined talents of the five-person team, it was Pommel Horse Guy's efforts that propelled them to the podium. 

Unlike his teammates, Stephen Nedoroscik was the only member of the group to qualify for a single event at the Olympics, the pommel horse, a notoriously difficult event that requires athletes to continuously balance and swing their bodies atop an apparatus with two handles using only their hands (and impressive core strength) to support themselves. 

The pommel horse wasn't the only place Nedoroscik gained momentum, however. The 25-year-old quickly found major internet appeal where social media users and Olympic fans homed in on his pre- and post-competition antics, which largely included dozing off on the sidelines until his event turn. "OUR ROMAN EMPIRE," wrote NBC Olympics' official Instagram account, alongside an image of a seemingly snoozing (or is it meditating?) Nedoroscik, a reference to the internet trend that went viral in 2023.

Here are a few things you should know about the internet's latest Olympic obsession.

01
He's an electrical engineer

Originally from Worcester, Massachusetts, Nedoroscik studied electrical engineering at Penn State University, where he also competed in gymnastics. His profession — and bespectacled appearance — earned him the title of "nerdy" from fans across social media. 

 

After being named to the Olympic team in June, Nederoscik told press that it had long been on his radar to qualify for the Games. “When I was very, very young people would tell me, ‘One day you’re going to be an Olympian!’ ” he said, according to NPR. “Back then I was just a dorky little kid. And now look at me — I’m a dorky adult, going to the Olympics.”

 

Author John Green chimed in on X/Twitter, happy to report that "Stephen Nedoroscik just struck a blow for nerds everywhere. Beautiful."

 

"People who aren't nerds don't understand how long we've been waiting for an electrical engineer from Pennsylvania to [sic] POMMEL THE HELL OUT OF A HORSE," Green added in a separate tweet.

 

02
He enjoys solving Rubik's cube puzzles

To hear it in Green's own words, "To truly understand Stephen Nedoroscik's nerd credentials, you need to know that he is in Paris for the Olympics and posting to his insta story about solving a Rubik's cube in under 10 seconds."

 

 

Nedoroscik, a seeming Rubik's cube aficionado, took to his Instagram account ahead of his team competition to get some cubing time in. “It’s stress relief,” he said told TODAY on Tuesday. “Sometimes I make the excuse that it’s good for wrist rehab, too.”

 

CNN reported that Nedoroscik's personal record for solving a Rubik's cube is 8.6 seconds. The outlet also noted that he dabbles in other forms of puzzling, as well. After a gymnast friend put him on to "killer sudoku,"  Nedoroscik became the 43rd person in the world to solve a sudoku puzzle that claimed to be the "world's hardest."

 

03
He's been compared to Superman and Ken

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Pommel Horse Guy!

 

Nedoroscik was quickly dubbed the "Clark Kent" of the Games, a reference to Superman's alter ego with a lackluster bespectacled disguise. Clips of the athlete ostensibly napping during other apparatus events took place went viral. Once it was his turn, he whipped off his glasses to demonstrate his mastery of the skill, secured the medal and returned to the sidelines.  

 

"I'm a goofy guy with glasses on, but as soon as I take them off I'm locked in," Nedoroscik told TODAY.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/C-DB3VbR6Zp/?hl=en

 

Separate from super-hero coded references, the internet also found a way to liken Nedoroscik to Ken, whose job in the "Barbie" movie was infamously just "beach." Given that the Olympian quite literally had one job to perform, it's an apt comparison. 

 

 

04
He relies on feel, not sight while competing
According to CNN, Nedoroscik has an eye condition called strabismus, or cross-eyes. He shared with TODAY's Hoda Kotb that he even competes with limited vision, choosing to forgo the goggles he once wore during collegiate gymnastics.
 
“I don’t even really see when I’m doing my gymnastics,” he said. “It’s all in the hands. I can feel everything.”

 

05
His signature ear tug is an homage to his grandfather

While speaking on the TODAY broadcast, Nedoroscik tugged on his ear, a special movement he shared was a signal between him and his grandfather, who passed away last year. His “dziadziu," (which means "grandfather" in Polish) served in World War II and was Nedoroscik's "idol."

 

“I’ve kept the tradition up, and now it always means, ‘Hey,’ to everyone that I love,” the gymnast said. “When I was at Penn State, that was the thing that I did whenever I was on TV to say, ‘Hey, Dziadziu.’”

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/C-C98P7xosx/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again

 

06
There's a Lois Lane to this Clark Kent

Tess McCracken, Nedoroscik's long-term girlfriend of eight years, was present to watch the moment her boyfriend became a viral sensation and Olympic medalist all in one. “I was so lightheaded from screaming that I almost fainted,” the 26-year-old told NBC in a phone interview. 

 

 

McCracken, who met Nedoroscik at Penn State, described him as “goofy guy” who is “really lighthearted” and “always sees the bright side of things.”

 

“Blowing up on the internet has been such an unexpected side effect of this whole adventure,” she added. “I have people like tagging me, calling me ‘Lois Lane.’ I’m like, ‘OK, I’m not going to be mad about it.’”

 
 

American moms feel like Kamala Harris “gets” them

When Judy Schramm, a mother of five who lives in Fairfax, Virginia, heard Vice President Kamala Harris was running for president, she felt “so excited.”

“I wasn't expecting to be,” Schramm said. “I have been feeling so down over the past few years seeing the country sliding backward and watching women lose one right after another.” 

But Harris's bid for president has given Schramm “faith” in American politics again. “I didn't realize how down I had been until I felt hope again,” Schramm said, adding that the talk of Harris not being a “real mom” is “nonsense.”

“My stepdad was every bit as much my parent as my mom and dad,” Schramm said. “The point is that she ‘gets’ it, and JD and Trump don't.”

Indeed, despite the intense focus from the right on the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris doesn’t have any biological children of her own — although she is a stepmom — many American moms could care less. In fact, for the first time during this election season, many women with children, like Schramm, feel more energized and more hopeful about the 2024 election than ever before. In part, it's because they see Harris as a candidate who understands American mothers' unique challenges. It's also because they see her as someone who has used her platform to promote clear policies that would help with issues that are crippling American mothers, like a lack of affordable childcare and no paid parental leave. 

“Kamala Harris has been one of the first and only politicians to center issues relevant to moms,”  Daphne Delvaux, an employment attorney and founder of The Mamattorney, told Salon. “In her 2019 campaign, she proposed a bill that would align the school and the workday, and otherwise provide access to childcare; she also ran on a six-month paid leave plan, the longest paid leave proposal to date.”

The proposed plan Delvaux referred to was The Family Friendly Schools Act which would have extended the school day three hours during the school year, from 8 a.m. to 6 in the evening. It would have also authorized $1.3 billion annually to allow more children to access summer programming. For working parents, paying for childcare and juggling schedules, especially in the summer, is a major challenge. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, childcare costs for one child take up between 8 percent to 19.3% of the median family income — and that’s if it’s available to a family in their region. An estimated 51% of people in the U.S. live in a “childcare desert,” which the Center for American Progress defines as a place that has either no childcare providers or few options.

We need your help to stay independent

Delvaux said when President Biden and Donald Trump were asked about childcare during the 2024 presidential debate, it was a very disappointing moment for mothers in America. 

“They bickered back and forth about their golf game and talked about who was the worst president,” Delvaux said. “It was offensive and infantile, especially as the moms were all trying to figure out childcare during summer break.”

Delvaux added that mothers in America are tired of seeing their issues be constantly “ignored.”

“Mothers have been subjected to attacks on IVF, reproductive limitations, and countless insensitive comments,” Delvaux said. “Moms also saw the Build Back Better bill, which had a paid leave proposal, crash and burn in Congress due to GOP opposition.”

But many see that Harris has been consistent in her approach to supporting American mothers. While in office, she introduced the Momnibus Act, which addressed maternal mortality, morbidity, and disparities in the United States. She also hosted a Maternal Health Summit, the first White House “day of action” focused on maternal health. She even met workers in the summer 2022 who were helping to deliver infant formula during the formula shortage. 

Harris and President Biden announced a Maternal Health Blueprint with a goal to make the U.S. the best country in the world to have children.

"We feel hopeful that immediately after taking over the Democratic nomination, VP Harris publicly spoke about the need for paid leave and affordable childcare, and how that is a key part of her policy platform."

"We have appreciated that she has specifically shined a light on the need to improve Black maternal health outcomes in America," Erin Erenberg's, founder and CEO of Chamber of Mothers, told Salon. "We feel hopeful that immediately after taking over the Democratic nomination, VP Harris publicly spoke about the need for paid leave and affordable childcare, and how that is a key part of her policy platform."

Nora Brathol, a mother of a 9-month-old in Wisconsin who conceived her son in vitro fertilization (IVF), told Salon she sees Harris representing a “freedom” of how her son can choose to live his life in the future. “I'm looking forward to a future where my son where my son can decide who to love, how to build a family, or if to start one, and what he wants to be,” Brathol said. 

Many mothers who spoke to Salon mentioned that Harris’s support of reproductive rights is an important issue to them. Despite trying to position himself as someone who is family-focused, as Salon previously reported JD Vance and Trump are a massive threat to the future of abortion access and reproductive rights. Despite advocating for parents, Vance once said that universal daycare is a “class war against normal people” and has called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. At the same time, he has described himself as “pro-life as anyone” and someone who wants to “save as many babies as possible.”

Shannon Bonardy, a mother of two and member of Mothering Forward in Florida, told Salon Harris understands what’s at stake because she’s a woman.

“She has the body parts that the government is trying to control,” Bonardy said, adding that her family is multi-racial, Black, Indian, and Asian. “My daughter can have somebody to look up to, and hopefully see a woman finally that looks like her.” 

Indeed, many reproductive rights advocates see Harris as a candidate who supports a “holistic strategy” to removing multiple layers to accessing healthcare. In other words, it’s not just about restoring access to abortion care. 

“It also requires policies that protect voting rights, economic security and prosperity, affordable child care and housing, and our ability to pursue and pay for higher education,” said Regina Davis Moss, President and CEO of In Our Own Voice Action Fund said in a statement. “All of which Vice President Harris is fighting alongside us to secure.”

Tracy Wemett, who was a “lifelong Reagan Republican” until 2016, told Salon she relates to Harris as a “bonus mom” herself, as in “someone who did not have biological children of her own but who loves my stepchildren as my own.”

“There are plenty of women like me, people like me, who appreciate the way she and her husband have navigated their blended family,” Wemett said. “Kudos to them; perhaps they can help with our own country’s ‘blended’ family? We sure need that right now.”

“You don’t know about art or history”: Jodie Sweetin on Olympics remarks like Candace Cameron Bure’s

The Tanner sisters from "Full House" are bickering, and this time it's not about cereal or the TV remote.

Jodie Sweetin has responded after her TV sister and co-star Candace Cameron Bure said that a particular part of the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony served to "blaspheme and mock the Christian faith." 

Conservatives like Bure, Rob Schneider, Elon Musk and House Speaker Mike Johnson all took issue with a tableau that featured drag performers, dancers and actors lined up against a long table. Later, French actor and singer Philippe Katerine descended onto the table from a giant silver food platter as the Greek god Dionysus. Right-wing critics said the performance mocked Leonardo da Vinci's most popular work, "The Last Supper."

In two Instagram stories, Sweetin seemingly made a dig at Bure. In one post, Sweetin wrote, "Tell me you don’t know about art or history without TELLING me you don’t know about art or history" with a video attached mocking people who misinterpreted the opening ceremony.

Also, to clear up the confusion with the performance, Sweetin explained in her Instagram story the history of the feast of Dionysus.

"The drag queens of the Olympics were re-creating the feast of Dionysus, not 'The Last Supper.' And even if you thought it was a Christian reference — what's the harm? Why is it a 'parody' and not a tribute? Can drag queens not be Christian too?" Sweetin stated.

“Extreme”: FBI says Trump shooter may be behind “antisemitic and anti-immigration” posts

The 20-year-old man who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump appears to have posted “antisemitic and anti-immigration” posts on social media as a teenager, a senior FBI official told a U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

The FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate told senators at a joint hearing of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees that while investigative teams are still trying to verify the account, it seemed like Trump’s shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks’ posts on social media championed “extreme” views that supported “political violence.” 

Abbate explained that if the account belongs to Crooks, it is “important to share” this information that reflects on the "shooter’s potential motive and mindset,” and later added that “while the shooter is dead, our work is very much ongoing and urgent."

Abbate also mentioned that Crooks had visited the rally site six days ahead to plan his attack. He told the Senate committees that the 20-year-old visited the site on July 7 for about 20 minutes in what the FBI claims was a reconnaissance visit, USA Today reported.

Acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe  — who replaced the agency's former director Kimberly Cheatle after she failed to satisfactorily answer the committee’s questions — appeared alongside Abbate. Rowe told the Senate that he visited the rally site and climbed onto the roof that Crooks fired from.

"What I saw made me ashamed," Rowe said. "As a career law enforcement officer, and a 25-year veteran with the Secret Service, I cannot defend why that roof was not better secured."

The former president was shot at on July 13 with an AR-15-style rifle during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. While Trump narrowly escaped death, with a wound to his right ear, the subsequent bullets intended for him killed one rally attendee and injured two others. 

Investigators described Crooks as a loner whose social network was limited to immediate family members. 

“These were just little kids”: Taylor Swift on fatal knife attack at Swift-themed dance class in UK

Taylor Swift has issued a statement following a fatal knife attack at a dance class that left three children dead in the United Kingdom.

On the musician's Instagram, she wrote, "The horror of yesterday’s attack in Southport is washing over me continuously, and I’m just completely in shock."

"The loss of life and innocence, and the horrendous trauma inflicted on everyone who was there, the families and first responders," Swift said. "These were just little kids at a dance class. I am at a complete loss for how to ever convey my sympathies to these families."

The dance and yoga class that highlighted Swift's music, resulted in a total of 11 others injured with five children and two adults in critical condition, The BBC reported. British police have arrested the 17-year-old suspect on suspicion of murder. It is undetermined what the motive for the attack was but the Merseyside Police said that they do not believe it is a terror-related incident. 

British media have reported that Swift's fans have organized a fundraiser for the victims and their families. According to the JustGiving donation page, Swifties have currently raised £225,653 of the £13,000 goal from 14,372 supporters. The donations will be sent to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital to support "the families affected by the tragedy in Southport, and raising funeral funds for the three young Swifties who have tragically passed," the donation page stated.

“Recipe for disaster”: Experts issue warning after Elon Musk shares fake AI video of Kamala Harris

X owner Elon Musk's reshare of a manipulated, faux campaign ad for Vice President Kamala Harris on social media last week raised alarms because he did not disclose that the clip, which parroted rightwing takes about the likely Democratic nominee, was a parody. But experts warn that the move illuminates AI's potential to further embed distrust of election institutions in among voters ahead of the 2024 election.

Musk reposted the manipulated video of Harris to X on Friday night. The clip, which used much of the same imagery from her first presidential campaign ad, featured a new voice-over that appeared to be digitally altered to sound like Harris.

“I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate,” the voice says in the clip. "I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I'm both a woman and a person of color, so if you criticize anything I say, you're both sexist and racist."

The video goes on to say Harris doesn't know “the first thing about running the country" and dubs Biden the "ultimate deep state puppet," while maintaining the vice president's campaign branding and splicing in authentic clips from past Harris speaking engagements. 

The viral video underscores the potential for AI-generated images, audio and videos to spread political misinformation even as they attempt to poke fun through parody or satire, an issue compounded in a highly contentious election year and by Americans' waning trust in the nation's electoral process. While Musk's post is far from the first to spark controversy, it's a sign of what role AI deepfakes can play — and how far they can reach — in sowing doubt as voters prepare for November, according to Mekela Panditharatne, senior counsel at the NYU Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government department. 

"It emblematizes this period where we are seeing the burgeoning spread of generative AI and its impact on elections and the information environment," she said, noting that similar deepfakes have become more common in the past year. While deepfakes predated the rise of generative AI, the latter allows for deepfakes to "spread in a way that is much faster," while making it "easier and cheaper to produce more sophisticated looking and sounding content." 

Because the information environment is very polarized, recognizing parody in a clip like the one Musk shared can vary greatly from observer to observer, even for content that may seem "quite realistic but should be reasonably" understood as parody, Panditharatne said. Content that might be easily or quickly understood to be parody by one type of audience may not be perceived as such by a different audience, "especially if the content feeds into their preconceived notions of what a candidate is like" or their personal politics. 

Oren Etzioni, a University of Washington professor emeritus of computer science and the founding CEO of the Allen Institute for AI, told Salon that the Harris deepfake ad, "to the naked eye," was "surprisingly well done."

While frequent X users who saw the clip could click through to the original post and see the original poster disclose it was a parody, Etzioni said that with more than 130 million views, some users are bound to see Musk's post, which only includes the caption "This is amazing" with a laughing crying emoji, and believe it to be "informative" if not "genuine." 

That dynamic creates a disinformation problem that's four-pronged, he explained. First, more and more Americans consume part if not all of their news from social media, which allows "true fact" to live "side-by-side with falsehoods." The second is in the way people "tend to be visual animals" and react in a "very visceral way" to what they see, and the third is in the ease with which individuals can create "doctored or fabricated images, video and audio that prey on that."

We need your help to stay independent

"Now that combination means that anonymous users can create something that looks real and is fake, that looks compelling, but it's not true," said Etzioni, who also founded TrueMedia.org, a nonprofit that seeks to curb the proliferation of online deepfakes and disinformation by offering a free, online fact-checking tool. "Then when you couple that with the last nail in the coffin, which is having somebody with a wide audience and with some of his own credibility, like Elon Musk, sharing that without any warning, that's a recipe for disaster."

Generative AI deepfakes both inside and outside the U.S. have previously threatened to influence voters either through humor, misinformation or a combination of both, according to The Associated Press. Fake audio clips circulated in Slovakia in 2023 portrayed a candidate hatching a plan to rig an election and increase the price of beer days before the vote, while a political action committee's 2022 satirical ad spliced a Louisiana mayoral candidate's face onto an actor who portrayed him as an underachieving high schooler. 

Harris' former running mate has also been a frequent victim of the technology. Earlier this year, a deepfake robocall using Biden's voice urged voters in New Hampshire to skip the state's Democratic primary, and just last week, a deepfake video of his campaign withdrawal announcement appeared to show the president cursing out his critics.  

"The potential spread of content that disruptively depicts candidates or officials in ways that manipulate people's perception of those candidates and officials, that undermine the election process itself — that is a very troubling prospect," Panditharatne said, explaining that the risk for viewers of the content to be misled is greatest in the period immediately after the deepfake goes live. 


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


In addition to creating potential misrepresentations of officials, malevolent actors can also exploit generative AI to create deepfakes to bolster vote suppression by way of deceptive depictions of election officials and crises at polling sites, and manufactured obstacles to voting among other examples, which could further erode the nation's trust in electoral institutions, she said.

"That growing lack of trust in institutions and authoritative sources and information is generally a problem for elections and democracy, and the advent of generative AI and deepfakes exacerbate that issue," Panditharatne argued.

Etzioni and Panditharatne said they encourage voters to view content that evokes an emotional response with an appropriately critical lens, use or reference a credible fact-checker to verify the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the content they encounter, and engage authoritative sources of information like legitimate news media and official election office websites, in order to stay abreast of accurate information ahead of November. 

While Congress has yet to pass legislation regulating AI as it's used in politics, more than one-third of state legislatures have authorized laws of their own around the use of AI in campaigns and elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. These laws, Panditharatne said, reflect First Amendment protections over parody and satire, while working to curb potential election disinformation.

To aid in slowing the spread, Etzioni also recommends tagging political videos that have been manipulated by AI as such, which would allow viewers to engage with altered media from a more informed perspective. According to the AP, social media companies, like YouTube, have created policies with respect to sharing generated and manipulated media on their platforms. 

X also boasts a policy on manipulated media barring users from sharing "synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm ('misleading media')," with some exceptions made for satire and memes so long as they do not cause “significant confusion about the authenticity of the media.” 

Some users questioned whether Musk in making the post violated his platform's own policy, while participants in X's "community notes" feature, which works to contextualize if not correct posts, suggested labelling Musk's repost. As of Tuesday, however, no label has been added. 

The chance that generative AI will have an impact on the election — and the resources that adversaries or malevolent actors will have to create this kind of content — grows as election day nears, Etzioni warned. 

"The closer the election is, the more effort they will put into it," he said. "I think that we need to be both vigilant but also prepared." 

Team USA women’s gymnastics earns gold medal in team competition

The women of Team USA's gymnastics team have struck gold in Paris. On Tuesday, Simone Biles, Sunisa Lee, Jade Carey, Jordan Chiles and Hezly Rivera won the artistic all-around event at the Summer Olympics, reclaiming the gold after a silver-medal performance at the Tokyo Games in 2021. The U.S. women bested Italy's and Brazil's respective second and third-place titles after scoring a 171.296. 

The win marks 27-year-old standout Simone Biles' eighth gold medal, meaning she has now become the most decorated American Olympics gymnast of all time. Per NBC, she was previously tied with former Olympic gymnast Shannon Miller at seven gold medals.

While the squad succeeded in all four apparatuses — with only one major error when Chiles fell while mounting the beam with a front pike salto — it was Biles' final floor routine that clinched the victory, earning her a score of 14.666. After facing a bout of the "twisties" in Tokyo, which led to her dropping out of the competition entirely, Biles' Paris performance so far has been a story of redemption. 

 

JD Vance said people without children are “more sociopathic” in newly unearthed interview

Republican vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, who has drawn widespread blowback over remarks targeting "childless cat ladies" previously attacked people without children in a series of emails and podcasts uncovered by CNN's KFile.

Vance in a clip from a conservative podcast recorded in November 2020 said that childless Americans, especially those of the “leadership class,” were "more sociopathic" and made the country “less mentally stable” than those with children. He added that the “most deranged” and “most psychotic” commentators on X/Twitter typically don’t have children.

Later, in August 2021, Vance’s Senate campaign sent fundraising emails referring to the “radical childless leaders in this country,” following his appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight" on which he made disparaging comments about “childless cat ladies.” These very comments seem to have come back to haunt the senator.

A month later, in September, Vance posted on X that “cat ladies…must be stopped” in response to a report that showed that a higher percentage of Americans are abstaining from having children in fear of climate change. The next month, he wrote, “Our country’s low birth rates have made many elites sociopaths,” CNN reported.

While the Ohio senator maintained that his comments were “sarcastic” in a recent interview on Megyn Kelly’s podcast last week, CNN’s KFile identified that this has been a persistent pattern of rhetoric for Vance. 

“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment. I’ve got nothing against cats,” Vance told Kelly. He added that he wasn’t trying to insult people without children and merely highlighting Democratic policies that he claimed have become ”anti-family” and “ anti-child” despite the Democrats' efforts to codify a Child Tax Credit that has widespread opposition from Republicans.

Vance spokesperson, Taylor Van Kirk, told CNN “As [Senator Vance] has clearly stated, he was talking about politicians on the left who support policies that are explicitly anti-child and anti-family.” 

“The media can obsess over it all they want, but he’s not going to back down when it comes to advocating for policies that protect parental rights and encourage people to have more kids,” Kirk added.