Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The Secret Service director should be fired

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee on Monday to answer questions about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump was a disaster. The 27-year veteran of the agency was obstructive and defensive bordering on contemptuous in answers to questions from members of both parties. She frequently refused or failed to answer many of them. 

Cheatle’s testimony came after she made an appearance on the floor of the Republican National Convention last week, where she was cornered by four Republican senators, including Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. The senators fired angry questions at her demanding how the Secret Service, the agency she heads, had failed to protect the Republican candidate for president just days before. She did not answer their questions and stood there like a robot whose motherboard had shorted out.

In one of the few questions she answered at the congressional hearing, Cheatle denied that the Trump campaign had requested additional protection for the Butler rally.

At issue, of course, was the near-miss assassination attempt by a 20-year-old lone gunman on Donald Trump at an outdoor rally on July 13. By now, dozens of diagrams and aerial photographs have been published showing the line of sight the shooter had from the rooftop of a nearby agricultural building to the rally stage. The distance was estimated at 150 yards, an easy shot even for a shooter with limited rifle training. The shooter was said to be using an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle made by Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services (DPMS) bought by his father in 2013.  DPMS was one of the first civilian manufacturers of rifles based on the military’s M-16 rifle. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, (EFGS) a gun control group formed after the school shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, a DPMS AR-15 rifle was used in the mass shooting in San Bernadino, CA, in 2015.  Fourteen people were killed and 22 were wounded in that shooting.

DPMS was bought by Palmetto State Armory, a gun manufacturer that has specialized in mass-marketing AR-15-style rifles to the public. The company currently has a “Christmas in July” sale on its website, offering e-kits that can be used to assemble so-called “ghost guns” to get around federal firearms regulations, in addition to any number of already-manufactured models of AR-15s.  In the past, the company has posted images of children holding AR-15s on its Facebook page with captions reading, “Raise them right!” and “This is what we do!” according to EFGS. Palmetto Arms AR-15s were used in mass shootings in Jacksonville, Florida, and St. Louis, Missouri. An AR-15 manufactured by the Lead Star Arms company, which is sold by Palmetto Arms, was used in the Convent School shooting in Nashville, Tennessee.

These are military-style, highly accurate rifles that can be fitted with a scope.  While it is not known at this time if the shooter in Butler was using a scope, they are available for sale on many gun company websites and can be bought without a background check. 

Secret Service Director Cheatle has so far provided no answers for how an untrained 20-year-old shooter got within 150 yards of a presidential candidate who was under Secret Service protection. After the shooting on July 13, it was reported that the building roof onto which the shooter was able to climb without being seen by the Secret Service was “outside the perimeter” set up by the Secret Service for the event. Why the perimeter was set up by the Secret Service so that it excluded an obvious place a shooter could use to fire a rifle from has not been explained.

Just to give you perspective, saying that the shot that grazed Trump came from “outside the perimeter” is like a military unit taking fire in combat from a sniper calling “no fair!” because they had not scouted the firing position used by the sniper. 

We need your help to stay independent

Protecting the president or a presidential candidate should be a military-style operation. Safety perimeters should be established to take in all locations a sniper could use to the maximum effective range of a high-powered rifle. Many sniper-style rifles are effective at more than 1,000 yards, and the .50 caliber Barret sniper rifle, which is commercially available on the open civilian market, has been used effectively in combat at ranges of up to 1,800 yards, just slightly more than a mile.

There have been reports that requests by the Trump campaign for more Secret Service protection at certain events were denied by the Secret Service. In one of the few questions she answered at the congressional hearing, Cheatle denied that the Trump campaign had requested additional protection for the Butler rally.

There have also been leaks from inside the Secret Service and from former officials and officers that the agency is understaffed and underfunded.  If that is indeed a problem with the agency tasked with protecting presidents and presidential candidates, there is an easy solution: Congress can pass more funding and mandate higher staffing levels and provide more money to train more Secret Service agents.

One of the problems cited after the Trump shooting by critics of the Secret Service has been the diverse responsibilities of the agency, which is not only tasked with protecting the president, vice president and candidates, but is also tasked with investigating financial crimes such as counterfeiting U.S. currency and wire fraud. Until 2003, the Secret Service was part of the Treasury Department. After 9/11, the agency was put under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. Some critics of the agency said that too much money was being spent on its investigative law enforcement responsibilities and not enough on its executive protection functions. The agency, among other tasks, is assigned to protect not just the person of the president and the vice president but the White House complex, the vice-presidential residence, the Treasury building and all foreign diplomatic missions in Washington D.C. That is a lot of land and people.  In recent years, several people have been able to climb over the fence surrounding the White House and make their way closer to the building itself, in one case, all the way to the entrance under the front portico, before being discovered and arrested by the Secret Service.


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


The word “incompetence” comes to mind here. Surely the attempt on former president Trump’s life is an example of Secret Service incompetence and should result in the resignation or firing of Director Cheatle.  The Secret Service is the one federal agency with no margin for error in the execution of its job. The life of a president or candidate is either safe, or it’s not.  In the case of former president Trump, his life was not safe. The Secret Service failed its most profound and important responsibility, to keep the former president out of harm’s way.

There has already been a flotilla of excuses and reasons about how and why the shooting in Butler happened.  The Secret Service has pointed the finger at local law enforcement, which it says had responsibility over the agricultural building that was “outside the perimeter” established by the Secret Service. Local law enforcement officials have said that they reported a “suspicious person” near that building to the Secret Service well before the rally started.  Civilians have reported that they told Secret Service and local law enforcement officers about the suspicious character, and they allege that they were ignored by both. There are even videos showing the shooter stretched out with his rifle atop the building.

Anyone can point a finger. The problem is that finger-pointing didn’t stop the bullets that nicked Trump’s ear and killed one person attending the rally and seriously wounded two others. If the Secret Service needs more agents in its details that protect the president, vice president, their families, and others, then they should re-train and re-assign agents from within the agency who have other tasks like financial investigations.

There is a presidential campaign in full swing. If the Secret Service cannot accomplish that job fast enough, then President Biden should authorize backup by National Guard soldiers from whatever state political rallies are to be held in.  Infantry National Guard soldiers are trained in defending perimeters. They can be deployed to defend at distances unreachable by Secret Service agents at their present staffing levels. If Vice President Kamala Harris or candidate Trump wants to use an outdoor venue in an area that is too dangerous to be defended by the Secret Service as augmented by local law enforcement and whatever National Guard forces that may be assigned to the task, then the campaigns should be told that the venue will not work and to choose someplace else.  Not even presidents are given free rein to do whatever they want when it comes to Secret Service protection – witness Trump’s attempt to get his Secret Service detail to drive him to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That request, or order, or whatever, was denied.

In the meantime, the situation with the Secret Service when it comes to its protection tasks is untenable.  A change is necessary, and it should begin at the top.

The simple reason why Kamala Harris has Donald Trump running scared

It was mere moments after President Joe Biden announced he would not run for re-election when the new narrative of the 2024 election snapped into place: The prosecutor vs. the criminal. Vice President Kamala Harris got Biden's endorsement immediately and, despite all the wishcasting articles from political journalists longing for a dramatic Democratic convention fight, it appears the party is swiftly lining up behind the former senator from California. Her jobs before getting to Washington D.C., as a prosecutor, San Francisco district attorney and California state attorney general, drew the most attention. The hope is that Harris will dust off those prosecutorial skills to make the case that Donald Trump, with his 34 felony convictions and endless other court cases involving criminal behavior, is not fit to be president again. 

Trump enjoys committing pretty much every type of crime, from siccing a murderous mob after his former vice president to epic levels of business fraud, so there's a cornucopia of options for Harris to choose from. But a Harris ad from the 2020 campaign went viral online for one simple reason: It forefronts his long history of sexually assaulting women.

"She prosecuted sex predators," the ad reads. "He is one." 

The message is simple and has only become more inarguable in the four years since. Back then, Trump was facing accusations from over two dozen women and was caught on tape bragging about his sexual crimes. Since then, his sex crimes have been adjudicated in court. Journalist E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for rape and for lying about it after the fact and in 2023, a jury found him liable for sexual assault and defamation to the tune of $5 million. He kept lying about it, so she sued again, this time getting an additional $83 million. In the post-verdict court filings, the judge repeatedly used the word "rape" to describe the nature of the crime. In Trump's actual criminal trial, the convictions were for campaign finance fraud. That said, the trial featured testimony from adult film actor Stormy Daniels about a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. While denying it was rape, Daniels described the sex as unwanted, saying, "He was bigger and blocking the way" and suggesting she only had sex with him to escape the situation. 

So no surprise Harris went straight for this issue again in her coming-out-as-candidate speech Monday. "I was a courtroom prosecutor" who went after "predators who abused women," she told the crowd. "So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump's type."


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


As I reported from Milwaukee, it's not just Trump anymore. The entire GOP has leaned hard into toxic masculinity and often overt misogyny. The Republican National Convention was a grotesque display of both. The convention stage was a traffic jam of men who had been violent towards women or made excuses for violence starting with the nominee himself. Ultimate Fighting Championship president Dana White, who praised Trump as being a master of the "tough guy business," had previously been filmed slapping his wife. 

In 2021, Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, denounced women for leaving abusive husbands. The same year, he also decried allowing rape victims to abort their pregnancies, claiming all pregnancies should be forced to term, "even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient." Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson also spoke. In the past, he has argued that raping underage girls is less bad if the rapists marry them first, and complained about rape shield laws that protect the identity of victims. 

This is part of the Trump campaign's strategy of shoring up support among younger men by appealing directly to the Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson fanboys. The tactic runs the risk of backfire. If female swing voters learn how much the GOP is built on apologia for sexual violence, focus group information suggests it will turn them away from Trump. With Biden as the nominee, there was a real chance this issue would stay on the back burner. Even though he was the author of the Violence Against Women Act in the 90s, Biden has proved incapable of making Trump's sexual violence a defining issue. He's tried, even using the word "rape" to describe Trump's behavior. But Biden's overall problems communicating got in the way of this message. 

Harris, however, is not hobbled by the issues with talking that plagued Biden in the end. More than that, sexual violence is an issue that she can speak about with a level of authority that Biden — really, most male politicians — never could achieve. Her gender is only part of it. As she often discusses on the campaign trail, Harris got her start in criminal law by working in the sex crimes division of Alameda County. She spent years talking about these hard issues in a court setting, and it shows in the way she strikes a deft balance between sensitivity and frankness when speaking about sexual violence. I recommend watching this co-interview she did on MSNBC with Hadley Duvall, a child sex abuse survivor who has been speaking out about abortion rights. Harris tells the story of her high school friend who told her that her stepfather was molesting her. "I said to her: ‘you have to come live with us. I called my mother and my mother said, ‘of course she has to come stay with us.’" 

Similarly, Harris was roundly praised for her performance during the contentious Senate hearing when Christine Blasey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape during his confirmation hearing to join the Supreme Court. Harris demonstrated that she speaks of this issue with compassion and candor that puts victims at ease. 

We need your help to stay independent

These skills will make it possible for Harris to do what Biden just couldn't: Call out Trump's sexual violence and the GOP's complicity, in a way that will hopefully keep the issue in the news. 

But this ability will matter just beyond lambasting Trump for his personal violence. Having a candidate who can talk about this without squirming or tripping over words is especially important in a race where abortion is a central issue. Ten states have passed abortion bans that have no exceptions for rape victims. The news is still peppered with stories of underage rape victims being forced to travel out of state or worse, give birth to a rapist's child. The Republican vice presidential nominee wants a national standard of forced childbirth for rape victims. Having a candidate who can speak about the horrors of this in an experienced and concise manner may matter a lot. 

Trump and his team aren't hiding their full-blown panic that Biden dropped out. They're scared for many reasons. Their entire campaign could be boiled down to "Biden is too old," and now it's Trump who is the old and incoherent guy in the race. But I suspect it's also because Harris could blow up their strategy to turn out young male voters. The campaign obviously hoped they could send misogynist signals to certain kinds of young men, without female swing voters noticing. And it probably would have worked with Biden at the top of the ticket, unable to draw attention to what Trump is doing. Harris won't have that problem. She can do one interview and speech after another where she reminds female voters that Trump is a sexual predator and that he and his team would ban abortions, even for rape victims. With her background, she may be in a better position to push this issue than any other potential Democratic nominee could have been. 

Aftermath of Trump’s assassination attempt: Republicans’ blindspot exposed

After the failed assassination of Donald Trump there was no shortage of political sermonizing and benign rhetoric calling for nonviolence and peaceful coexistence between the two major parties as though “turning down the rhetoric” was some kind of bipartisan quandary. Nothing could be further from the political truth. This is an entirely one-sided Trumpian phenomenon as shown by nearly a decade of data, including most recently by the “apocalyptic language” used at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

In the immediate wake of the assassin’s attempt on the life of the insurrectionist-in-chief, Trump’s vice president pick, JD Vance, posted on X that Joe Biden’s campaigning rhetoric had “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.” The 39-year-old rookie senator representing Ohio for the past 18 months certainly is no exception to the toning down of the toxic rhetoric characteristic of the Trumpian MAGA party.

Missing from this Trumpian clown show in Milwaukee was the only living Republican president, Donald Trump’s former vice president, and members of his Cabinet. Though we did hear from Hulk Hogan, Kid Rock, and Tucker Carlson. By the way, where were the military officers who worked with President Trump during his administration? Well, none of this brass would give the time of day to the treasonous commander-in-chief.

Although the RNC nominated and confirmed their presidential and vice presidential candidates for 2024, the every four years get together seemed much more like a revivalist celebration than a traditional party convention with some kind of policy-defining agenda. Not that the third Trump presidential campaign requires or needs one. Project 2025 has laid out the authoritarian agenda beginning on day one of a second Trump administration. Even as the dictator-in-waiting has been trying unsuccessfully to distance himself from the plan.

Moreover, Trump and his party are not about doing anything positive for the average person or the environment. Based on the record of their previous four years in office, they oppose health care, child care, educational debt relief, climate change, regulation and infrastructure development. Previously, they appropriated huge tax reductions for the wealthiest corporations and Americans while, at the same time, growing the largest national debt in U.S. history. 

Trumpians are primarily concerned with restricting human rights and individual freedoms for the marginalized masses; specializing in social harm, scaremongering, and xenophobia. Their signature campaign promise has been to defeat an imaginary invasion of criminal immigrants and to carry out the largest mass deportation program since the 1950s. At the beginning of the year, Boss Trump and his congressionally organized sycophants killed the largest bipartisan immigration bill since the 1980sbecause they all agreed that it would look good for Biden and take the issue off the political table leaving nothing else for Trump to run on. 

As Aaron Blake wrote on July 16 for The Washington Post, “dark rhetoric reigned” for the second night running as the “GOP’s purported effort to turn down the volume ran into” the Trumpian thirst for blood and the fact that both human cruelty and “red meat sells” best. In a few words, Trump’s revivalist cult is also about sadomasochism in everyday life. On that evening, things were kicked off with Gov. Jim Justice (R), a U.S. Senate candidate from West Virginia who warned that the nation would “become totally unhinged if Donald Trump is not elected in November.” 

Welcome to George Orwell’s world of 1984. Since Trump became president in 2017 doublespeak has been playing 24/7 on large and small screens alike.

Following Justice, conventioneers were treated to a pre-recorded video where Bernie Moreno, a U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla) and Trump were all condemning Democrats because they are “destroying the country.” Once again we have a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

Meanwhile, the Trumpian movement for both lawlessness and disorder has been operating across institutional arrangements to deconstruct them ever since Trump lost the unrigged presidential election in 2020 and after he was not impeached for a second time because Republican senators placed individual and collective power above their oaths of office to the U.S. Constitution. Following Trump’s four criminal indictments, the so-called party of law and order, which it mythically never was, ramped up full-time attacks on the rule of law and American democracy by way of demonizing rhetoric, polymorphous weaponization, and mafioso-like intimidation.  

Also speaking on the second night of the convention was the last contender left standing in the 2024 Republican primary for president, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. During her campaigning for the nomination Haley told the voters that Trump was too focused on his own grievances and vendettas to lead the country. She also repeatedly called out the former president, as someone who didn’t respect the military, didn’t know right from wrong, and surrounded himself in chaos. 

According to Vanity Fair, Haley further maintained that Trump was “unhinged,” “diminished,” “mentally unfit” and that he needed to take a “cognitive test.” On top of Trump “not being qualified” this time around, she pointed out that he was a “sexual abuser” who could not “win a general election.” Then, the first and only woman governor of South Carolina concluded that making Trump the Republican Party’s nominee for president would be “suicide for our country.” Having come home to roost so she will hopefully have a political future, Haley told Republicansvoters that she and Trump agreed on keeping America safe from the Democrats who have “moved so far to the left that they’re putting our freedoms in danger.” And “for the sake of our nation, we have to go with Donald Trump” because a unified GOP is essential for saving our country.

We need your help to stay independent

Meanwhile, both before and after the attempted assassination there has not been enough serious examination of the unified and collective discourse surrounding the GOP leadership of hateful speech, verbal violence, intentional lying, and fraudulent behavior – all in deference to and defense of an insurrectionary traitor and a likely dictator-in-chief if he is elected once more.

This ironical rhetoric, oratorial nonsense, and pure poppycock has continued unabated for the past 42 months with little, if any, MAGA remorse, disillusionment or introspection — even after a failed assassination nearly killed their recalcitrant leader.

One would think that at least a few of these minions instead of capitulating to Trump and humiliating themselves over and over before anyone with half a brain might be saying to themselves, “what goes around comes around.” Other henchmen could be thinking about their own karma and how they may not be as lucky as Teflon Don.

Less philosophically and more analytically, there has been sparse discussion among the talking heads related to Trump’s “grooming for violence” launched during his first campaign in 2016. Presently, we find ourselves in the ninth consecutive year of such violence propagation. Worse yet, this type of emotionally charged violence has been sanctioned and normalized by several “unconstitutional” MAGA Supreme Court rulings, which among other things have concluded that Trump is a King, if not the Messiah. Hence, Trump cannot be disqualified from seeking the presidency for manufacturing an insurrection and he cannot be criminally prosecuted for committing treason against the United States. 

All of this legal madness underscores the absurdity, hypocrisy, and arrogance that was on full display by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who with a straight face told the conventioneers: “We in the Republican Party are the law-and-order team.”

Oh really? Johnson was one of the chief architects and organizers of the fake electors scheme and the conspiracy to steal the 2020 presidency from the American people. 

The speaker, who was unknown at the time, rounded up 146 of his House Republican colleagues who all refused to certify Joe Biden as president simply because they did not like the outcome of what Trump’s “fixer” and Attorney General William Barr, election officials in each of the 50 states, and Federal agencies overseeing election integrity have asserted was the most secure presidential election in U.S. history.


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


On day three of the GOP convention, The Bulwark crew described the evening’s theme as foreign policy caving to Vladimir Putin wrapped around the acceptance speech of JD Vance for vice president. For those that may not know, like so many Republican leaders Vance not too long ago was a Never Trumper who had referred to former president Trump as “America’s Hitler” before he was born again. Today, the Republican vice presidential candidate is a MAGA politician on steroids with extremist views on abortion, the border, and the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

With respect to women, Vance articulates that they should remain in marriages with their violent and sexually abusive husbands. Trump cynically selected Vance to be his underboss or consigliere because he thought the vice president to be along with his bogus notions about impoverished people and woke culture would shore up the white male working class misogynist vote.    

Pivoting to the Trumpian mindset at the convention, Amanda Marcotte reporting from Milwaukee for Salon wrote, “Republicans are riled up by the shooting,” but “they don’t seem especially bothered about almost losing their leader.” As a matter of fact, “Trump nearly getting killed is making the crowd inside Fiserv Forum palpably giddy. Watching Eric Trump speak about the attack Monday night was startling, as he seemed more stoked to rev up the crowd than be upset over the violence inflicted on his father.”

As for concern about the death of one of their MAGA husbands and father of three children, the life-changing injury to another supporter, and the two other persons who were shot. Well, in the MAGA world beyond the token prayers they have become collateral damage for the greater good of Trumpism. Not unlike the deaths or injuries of the police resisting the assault on the Capitol or the aftermath of the attack on the rule of law and American Democracy where hundreds of MAGA rioters were incarcerated, they have all become Trumpian collateral damage. Except, those folks who broke the law and stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6  have also been viewed as righteous “patriots” in a war against a tyranny of an elite minority who Trump has promised to pardon should he be elected to a second term.  

Yet there was the conspicuous absence of any discussion of the kind of weapons used in the attempted assassination. Nor was there any conversation about the dire need for “gun reform” such as prohibiting the mass consumption or sales of “weapons of war” like the AR-style semiautomatic rifle owned by Thomas Mathew Crooks father. Who lent to his 20-year-old son on the day of the shootings for allegedly target practice as he had done several times before. 

There were several other conspicuous issues omitted by all of the speakers – call these the missing elephants in the GOP’s political circus  —  that should be noted before I turn to the assassin’s likely motive. I am referring to the absence of any mention or discussion of abortion, women’s reproductive rights, and the former president’s three appointed justices to the Supreme Court.

Still, Mark Leibovich on site and reporting for The Atlantic stated that people were jarred by the assassination attempt. “But now that a few days have passed since the shooting, there’s a sense of divine intervention, like Trump has been touched by God. This seems to have stoked an almost spiritual allegiance to him” and an “even greater sense of confidence” and entitlement.

And this sense of electoral inevitability has been reinforced by the presidential election betting odds where Trump extended his position as the favorite after the assassination attempt just as the Republican National Convention was kicking off. These odds in the betting markets began “shifting right after the CNN debate between the president and the former president on June 27.

However, after Trump’s rambling, meandering, boring, bizarre, divisive, and narcissistic acceptance speech, assuming that the oddsmakers were watching the lethargic con man and gaslighter at work, then I have renewed confidence that by the time you read this the betting markets will have already begun shifting away from Trump and toward Biden’s endorsed replacement candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.. 

What I especially like about this new likely matchup between Harris and Trump is that it pits a prosecutor who knows how to use the rules of the game versus a street-fighting criminal who will use every dirty trick in the book as well as a corrupt MAGA Supreme Court.

Speaking of which I also like how U.S. Senator Harris cross-examined Trump’s three appointed justices during their senate confirmation hearings. Plus Kamala is a woman and a person of color. What more could this democratic republic need or want from the next president of the United States?

In other words, I believe that the current betting favorite, Donald Trump, could very well become the third favorite presidential candidate to lose since 1866. I now believe that by the time people start early voting a couple of months from now that Trump will no longer be the favorite. 

Before Thursday night and Trump’s embarrassing speech, Marcotte had reported that the Democratic voters were “the ones who are fretting, both from fear of backlash and opposition to political violence that Republicans do not share.” And while these feelings were already starting to wane by the end of the convention, I believe that the fear of backlash from the attempted assassination will all but disappear shortly. 

Although the situations in Brazil and the United States are not identical, they are similar enough to make some comparisons. I am referring to the failed attempt on Jair Bolsonaro’s life from a stabbing wound to his back while on the campaign trail in 2018. At the time, many politicos in that country thought that his recovery period was an asset and served to insulate the far-right candidate from public scrutiny which they believed helped to propel him to the presidency in the fall of that year. Four years later he also lost his re-election and while hanging out at Mar-a-Lago with his autocratic buddy, his political party was engaging in another failed coup modeled after Trump’s. Six months later Bolsonaro faced legal accountability from an uncorrupted Electoral Court that barred him from “running for office again until 2030 after a panel of judges concluded that he abused his power and cast unfounded doubts on the country’s electronic voting system.”

Reproductive rights are under attack using online data. These tools help people protect themselves

In a post-Roe landscape, pro-abortion advocates have been ringing alarm bells about digital abortion surveillance. As previous cases had shown, like when Meta turned over chats between a mother and daughter, digital communications can become evidence used in prosecutions against women obtaining abortions and those helping people access abortions. This can include messages between friends and family, internet searches, data shared with mobile apps and location data. In Texas, a man used text messages to file a wrongful death lawsuit against three women he alleged helped his ex-wife terminate a pregnancy.

The concern extends beyond messaging apps, too. Anti-abortion advocates have been pushing efforts to make abortion patients’ data publicly available despite confidentiality laws. 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) introduced legislation this year that would require the Veterans Administration to provide quarterly reports on the number of abortions performed at VA hospitals and by affiliated providers. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS Act), a bill that would create a federal database for pregnant people nationwide. In Texas, one of the most restrictive abortion states in the country, lawsuits may be filed against “aiders and abettors,” which could include people who drive someone to obtain an abortion. In short, anti-abortion advocates are weaponizing technology to push an agenda eroding reproductive rights.

To protect oneself, those in the data privacy world recommend deleting period-tracking apps. Still, greater concern lies with apps like Facebook Messenger, or Google, which has been called a “uniquely dangerous tool.”

To combat this growing surveillance landscape, Tom Subak, former chief strategy officer at Planned Parenthood, teamed up with Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood, to create Charley, a private, secure chatbot that provides up-to-date, accurate information about abortion options in every zip code in the U.S. Salon connected with Subak about the current state of abortion surveillance and how pregnant people in the United States can keep themselves safe amid so much technology. 

Can you tell me about the story behind Charley and how you and Cecile Richards created it?

When the first most serious restrictions started to get put in place, pre-Dobbs in Texas, Cecile gathered a small group of us together and said, “This is the beginning; it's going to get worse, and it's going to get worse not only for Texas, but for states all over the country, and let's see if there's something we can do.”

"Their behavior changed dramatically during and after the Dobbs decision, which was when people began to look for abortion pills in numbers we had never seen before."

So what we looked for was, most importantly, what was the greatest need and the greatest need that we could contribute given our extensive experience and background. We had done a lot of online work together while we were at Planned Parenthood, and so what we looked at was whether or not abortion seekers' behavior was changing online so that we might be able to help abortion seekers.

In particular, [we focused on] the growing number of states that were either restricting or outright banning abortion, find the abortion care that they were looking for. And we found a couple of things, some surprising, some not surprising. But the short version is their behavior changed dramatically during and after the Dobbs decision, which was when people began to look for abortion pills in numbers we had never seen before. Actually, since Dobbs, there's been a 41 percent increase in searches for abortion pills. Abortion pills were the breakout search and cost was the other one. We found people were looking for answers to the following: How do I get abortion pills and can I afford them? That's really what we set out to do with Charley.

Can you elaborate on the privacy aspect and how it can be a secure platform for people seeking this information? 

From the beginning, we said that this would be a privacy-focused, privacy-forward effort. And the privacy aspect of it was for the users. A lot of times you hear privacy and security, and sometimes that's all about the provider. 


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


We went so far as to work with partners that were based in the EU so that the data, the small amounts of data that we collect, but don't retain, even the small amounts of data that we hold on to for a brief period were being held in Ireland and Germany and not in the United States. 

We collect the absolute smallest amount of user data as we can, which is just location and last menstrual period, it's all we need to be able to provide the service that we're providing. 

As I said earlier, we don't retain data for any purposes, and we don't do any tracking, even for analytics purposes. There's just a bunch of default practices these days in the digital space that they when intended or not, when you add them all up, it creates a trail of the user's behavior. And we wanted to put an end to that, and it was harder than we thought it would be because of this sort of default for tech these days. We want to know as little as we can.

I know surveillance is a huge concern right now. People often note the famous 2022 case in Nebraska when Meta turned over chats between a mother and her daughter in an investigation of an abortion. How, in your opinion has abortion surveillance changed since Dobbs? 

How much abortion surveillance, the actual activity of surveillance, has changed? I don't think we know. How much is it a concern? We do know, and that is it’s something that everybody should be concerned about, I think, in a growing way.

We live in a landscape where, at one point, immediately after Dobbs, maybe we were concerned about if the state was going to sort of figure out that you were looking for an abortion. We now live in a time when states are criminalizing the actual possession of medication abortion, [such as] Louisiana. So I think there's more reason than ever for abortion seekers, abortion patients and abortion providers to be worried. But there are also things people can do to protect themselves as best they can be protected from that kind of surveillance. 

In May, Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) introduced the MOMS Act, a bill that would create a federal database for pregnant people nationwide. What concerns you the most about legislation like this, in which pregnancy-related data could be collected at the federal level? 

We should all be concerned about data being collected by state and federal governments. And we should be concerned especially about health care data being collected.

There are all sorts of good reasons to collect health care data in an anonymized or aggregated way, so that we can run good public health programs at the federal level and the state level. We just learned this lesson in the starkest possible way during the COVID pandemic, but when it comes to requiring the collection, storing and ultimately handing over someone’s most personal health information, that just should be an absolute nonstarter. Legislation or not, bad actors at the state level and perhaps at the federal level, but certainly at the state level, are going to try to get individuals information to criminalize what should be absolutely permissible health care decisions and health care access by folks in all 50 states.

It’s a scary thought, and one that really just not only shouldn't be tolerated, but I think, is one that Americans of all stripes can agree on: the less data that the government is collecting about our health care decisions, the better.

What has surprised you the most about technology's role in the post-Dobbs landscape? 

Search remains the primary way that abortion seekers go online to look for information. There is still a tremendous search volume for abortion generally and specifically different types of abortion access. That is still the case, and it is more so the case than ever. 

And we've been heartened to see just how many tech startups have come forward to get into the provision explicitly of abortion care. And that’s a development that was almost unthinkable, even pre-Dobbs. Ineedana.com is terrific, and then PlanCPills.org is amazing. 

Are you concerned about the rise in crisis pregnancy centers and the misinformation they spread? 

Crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs, have been a thorn in the side of abortion patients for a very, very long time, but I think more now than ever because they're funded better now than they were, with a tremendous influx of state funding that is going directly to them. There's more of them now than there ever were, close to 3,000 across the country.

We need your help to stay independent

They're there, and they're certainly online. They put a lot of effort into their online presence. But interestingly, the larger issue, and something we're working very hard on solving, is if you search for “abortion” or “abortion pill” or the variations, the top 10 search results that you're going to get — none of them provide an easy path or an obvious path to pills by mail — even if you're searching in Florida. You're not going to get an easy path to pills by mail. 

What you are going to get is a lot of news stories, because abortion is in the news, and the news stories don't typically provide pathways to getting an abortion. And you're going to get a lot of information sites that have never-ending amounts of information from the CDC or Kaiser, great partners, right? But a lot of information, but also not pathways. What you're not necessarily going to see are CPCs. 

You might see them in your local results, but we have a bigger fish to fry, and the bigger and those bigger fish are, we have got to make sure that resources like Charley, Ineedana.com and PlanCPills.org are front and center for the abortion seeker who is looking for information about abortion from a banned or restricted state, in particular if they choose and qualify for pills by mail.

White rice with side dishes isn’t really “traditional” Japanese food. So where did we get this idea?

At first glance, Netflix's popular Japanese animation Delicious in Dungeon is a strangely food-obsessed dungeon-crawler fantasy tale.

Upon a closer look, however, it reveals itself as a striking parody of the popular "gourmet genre". The series invites us to think critically about how food traditions are created and conformed to.

It also reminds us that food is highly political and that the "culinary nationalism" we see around the world – and particularly in Japan – is more complicated than most people realize.  

            

A culinary high fantasy

Delicious in Dungeon was initially released as a comic book in 2014, before being adapted for TV by Japanese animation studio Trigger. Its distribution by Netflix this year has given the seinen (meaning "youth") anime a global audience.

Despite being a dungeon crawler, the series has an unusually explicit focus on food. Our group of heroes must keep themselves fed while on their epic quest. Specifically, they must embrace (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) danjon meshii: slaying monsters and eating them.

The show's creators use a range of visual and narrative tropes borrowed from the Japanese "gourmet" genre. Typically, works in this genre (including books, movies, shows, comics and more) feature a careful discussion of ingredients, a demonstration of their preparation and an evaluation on the final product.

The order in which this happens can vary depending on the specific work. For example, the popular Netflix show Midnight Diner typically provides the full recipe at the end of each episode.

Although the ingredients and method of preparation shown in Delicious in Dungeon are … unusual … the show still follows this pattern to a T. Whether the characters are making a mandrake and bat meat kakiage, or a basilisk egg omelette, they discuss the ingredients, prepare the meal and react as they eat it.

Even the characters who are the most uncomfortable with having to eat monsters have moments of eye-watering happiness when they taste the delicious flavors.

            

Conversations about food

By talking explicitly and consistently about food taboos (such as "must you eat the monsters you kill?") and food values (such as "food should be shared with others"), Delicious in Dungeon draws our attention to a number of ideas that usually hide beneath the surface.

What is "natural" to eat? Why are some food practices considered taboo? And who gets to decide?

Our "foodways" – our cultural and social practices regarding the creation and consumption of food – are where community, connection and in-group/out-group dynamics are formed.

Food is constantly at the centre of battles of authenticity, tradition and values (never mind issues of scarcity and sustainability). As described by Japanese literature academic Tomoko Aoyama in her book Reading Food in Modern Japanese Literature:

the seemingly simple and ordinary may turn out to be surprisingly complex, once we pay attention to it […] Food has been discovered, invented, classified, and scrutinised, as well as enjoyed, consumed and devoured.

Policing tradition and authenticity

Since the early 2000s, various arms of the Japanese government have been on a quest to define (and protect) "authentic" Japanese food.

One eyebrow-raising example was a 2006 program created for the certification of authentic Japanese restaurants outside Japan. It has since been largely replaced by Japan's non-governmental, non-profit Organisation to Promote Japanese Restaurants Abroad and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries promotion of businesses that use Japanese ingredients.

Perhaps the most significant change in Japanese food tradition was the successful UNESCO Intangible Heritage bid of 2013, which saw washoku enshrined as a "traditional dietary culture".

The term washoku ("wa" meaning Japanese and "shoku" meaning food) emerged during the modern Meiji period (1868–1912) to describe food from Japan alongside a sudden influx of European foods. But it was an everyday term of no special significance; there was no uniform opinion of what "Japanese" food was.

After the bid, a previously undefined range of food practices carried out by millions of people was reduced to a single meal which includes a serve of white rice with multiple side dishes.

Washoku is essentially an "invented tradition" that was only recently awarded cultural significance and repackaged for an international audience. As Japanese culinary scholar Eric Rath explains:

Washoku is an idealised dietary lifestyle focusing on food popularised from the 1960s onwards, meant to impress audiences outside Japan and guide domestic eating habits.

In fact, many elements of modern Japanese cuisine didn't become mainstream until the past 100 years. For instance, the vast majority of Japan's population rarely ate pure white rice before the 1950s. It was the rice rationing of the wartime government that introduced white rice into people's daily fare.

Before this period, there was massive variation in food practices and the types of food eaten depended on the region and climate. Generally speaking, however, a "traditional" Japanese diet from pre-modern times included single-pot meals combining millet and barley (sometimes mixed with rice) and local vegetables.

Another example of a dish considered purely Japanese, but which isn't, is ramen.

Ramen was developed in the early 1900s by Chinese immigrants in Japan, to serve to blue-collar workers. It underwent several changes and adjustments before it became the rich dish we know and love today.

 

Eating with your eyes

Regardless of the historical reality, our shared imagination of "Japanese food" continues to thrive in fictional worlds and the gourmet genre.

Netflix in particular has engaged with the genre through older hits such as Midnight Diner and more recent releases such as The Makanai: Cooking for the Maiko House.

A number of novels translated from Japanese to English such as The Kamogawa Food Detectives by Hisashi Kashiwai can also be understood as part of this trend.

When we see the characters in Delicious in Dungeon debate how to best prepare their dishes, or gasp in pleasure at the wonders on their palates, we're actually seeing a parody of the gourmet genre and a critique of culinary nationalism.

So the next time you encounter the words "traditional" next to food, you might want to ask yourself: what is this person trying to sell me – and why?

 

Laura Emily Clark, Lecturer in Japanese, University of New England

 

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

Ohio Republican calls for a “civil war” to save the country if Trump and Vance “lose this one”

Speaking at a Trump rally on Monday, Ohio state Sen. George Lang said the country might need a "civil war" if Republicans lose in November, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported.

Lang, speaking alongside Vance at the latter's first solo rally since securing the Republican nomination, said the GOP ticket is are the "the last chance to save our country politically”.” 

“I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country. And it will be saved, it’s the greatest experiment in the history of mankind,” Lang said.

The rally comes after President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race and offered his endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee. 

Since Biden’s announcement, the Trump campaign has pivoted to depicting Harris as someone who lied to the public about Biden’s condition.

At the same Ohio rally, which took place at Vance’s former high school, Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno echoed the GOP’s message, saying that "Democrats looked the other way as they put an incapacitated man in the White House,” NPR reported.

Vance too accused Harris of lying about Biden’s condition, Politico reported. 

“Kamala Harris lied about it, my Senate Democratic colleagues lied about it, the media lied about it,” he told the crowd of familiar faces. “Every single person who saw Joe Biden knew that he wasn’t capable of doing the job. And for three years, they said nothing until he became political dead weight.”

 

 

Chicago’s finest: An enthusiast’s guide to where to eat, stay and play in the Windy City

I don’t remember the first time I visited Chicago or even when I fell in love with the city. Born and raised in Milwaukee, just 90 minutes away by Amtrak or a similar-length car ride, Chicago has been the big city I need to keep me from moving right back to my beloved Brooklyn. It just has a special flavor, with its Midwestern charm, rivers and Lake Michigan — and, of course, big-city food. 

I’ve spent countless birthdays in the city (as a Capricorn, what else is there to do but live my best life in Chicago?). Even this winter, the snow and record low temperatures couldn’t dully my getaway. 

If you’re headed to Chicago, be prepared to be surprised in all the best ways. Here are just some of the hotels I stayed at, restaurants I enjoyed, and things I did while in Chicago over the last year or so — and I’ve been around. So, use this to inspire your itinerary to this midwest destination.

Where to Eat

Esmé— Experiential dining, the likes of which Esmé specializes in, has my name written all over it. While the food is certainly the main focus, your experience at Esmé is designed to be so much more than that. It’s almost likely you’re stepping into a unique art museum, where you participate and enjoy the art — which covers the wall, informs the plates, and fuses with the food — creating a narrative that you won’t forget anytime soon. If you’re a frequent Chicago visitor, the menu and the artist change quarterly, so you’ll have a completely different experience the next time you dine, if you so choose. 

Frontier—I’m always appreciative of a restaurant that does vegetables just as well, or in this case, even better, than their meat offerings. At Frontier, their smoked carrot salad, which is topped with smoked goat cheese, mint, dill, Za'atar, lemon and pistachios, is magical. You’ll just have to try to appreciate it fully. Frontier offers wild game options, including a venison cheese steak, smoked and braised elk shanks and BBQ boar mac and cheese. Whole-animal dinners, which must be ordered in advance and serve a crowd, include options like alligator, antelope, goat, wild boar and free-range American pigs. 

El Che Steakhouse— At the heart of El Che is a wood-burning oven on which everything on the menu is cooked. You’ll find a nice selection of top-grade steaks, including the well-loved ribeye, New York strip and filet, as well as a 48-ounce porterhouse and an American Wagyu flank steak. The sides are imaginative; think beef fat fries offered alongside mushroom polenta and Japanese purple potato. The Argentinian-inspired steakhouse stands out in all the right ways amongst the bustling Chicago steakhouse scene, with top-notch customer service and flavors that are perfectly balanced and perfect for a summer evening. 

We need your help to stay independent

Brasero—Another concept by Chef John Manion of El Che, you won’t want to miss Brasero while visiting Chicago. The whole red snapper was super flavorful and flaky, the steak was perfectly cooked, and the cocktails were really great, too. Pro tip: If you’re usually a steakhouse girly, head to Brasero and order the wagyu picanha, cooked over house-made charcoal. It’s truly a fantastic cut of meat that can be harder to find, and the rest of the menu will let you enjoy a little variety while still getting your steak fix. Brasero is fantastic. I can’t wait to dine again.

Shaw’s Crab House — For a truly “old school” or “proper” seafood restaurant, complete with white tablecloths and all the classics — from oysters to a grand seafood tower, and, of course, seasonal crab, lobster, and fresh fish — you’ll want to dine at Shaw’s Crab House. And they have sushi, too, along with more traditional, steakhouse-evocative side dishes, like lobster mac and cheese, sauteed spinach and crispy brussel sprouts. Definitely worthy of a special occasion dinner and dress to impress.

Demera Ethiopian Restaurant— First of all, don’t skip the Sambusas! They’re simply divine and a worthy start to a delicious meal. There are five fillings to try: lentil, spinach, beef, chicken, potato and carrot, but we do not regret getting the combination plate featuring one of each. 

For our main dish, we shared a combination plate with stews and vegetables, including all my favorites, like doro wat, a Berber spiced chicken served with an egg, quosta, stewed spinach with garlic and onion, and yemisir wat, red lentils cooked in the same Berber sauce as doro wat. 

If you typically avoid vegetarian cuisine when eating out, Demera is a great place to try it again. The vegetable dishes are just as good, and sometimes better, than the meat counterparts. 

Heritage Restaurant and Caviar Bar—For the caviar connoisseur and newbie, Heritage Restaurant and Caviar Bar is a must when in Chicago. The low-key restaurant has a come-as-you-are dress code, and its staff is incredibly knowledgeable. They’ll guide you through the menu, make suggestions and ensure that your experience is exactly what you’re hoping for. While caviar is certainly the main attraction, the food itself is a must-try, too, as it is both imaginative and quite tasty.

Juno—Whenever I’m in Chicago for my birthday, you can bet that Juno is on my itinerary. Located in Lincoln Park, Juno has wonderfully fresh sushi with a selection of both traditional and inventive bites. I’m partial to the individual cold-smoked bites of yellowtail and salmon. Presented covered by a cloche, you’ll first indulge in the smoke as the dish is revealed before enjoying the two spoonfuls of goodness. But the signature nigiri, dressed to drive the unique flavors of each variety of fish home, is a close second.

Juno now offers omakase, a set tasting menu of 20 bites, including appetizers, nigiri, sashimi, warm plates and dessert. I find it to be a surprisingly more budget-friendly approach to dining at Juno if you’d like to try a little bit of a lot of different things. Personally, it’s not my preference as the restaurant simply excels in raw preparations, and I intend to fully indulge when splurging on dinner.

Juno is expensive, but you’ll leave dreaming of every single bite and planning your next visit. Be sure to buy a bottle of their soy sauce on your way out to uplift your meal the next time you order takeout. 

Lawrence Fish Market — Not ready to splurge for Juno, but want a wonderful, yet budget, alternative? That would be the Lawrence Fish Market — spectacular in its own way and perfect for feeding a crowd or satisfying your munchies. The cash-only establishment usually serves its sushi to-go, although there is a small dine-in area, and you can order your platter via phone so it’s ready to go when you arrive. Offering both the classics available at most sushi spots, as well as more luxurious options like o-toro, Japanese uni, sweet shrimp and octopus, there is not a single thing that’s not fresh and delicious. 

Where to Stay

The Viceroy—There really isn’t anything that you won’t love at the Viceroy. Views as far as the eye can see, fantastic customer service and the best couples shower I’ve seen in at least the last year, hands down! Located in the Gold Coast and just moments from the Magnificent Mile, the Viceroy boasts an 18th-floor rooftop pool with city views. There’s free WiFi throughout the building. The Viceroy is definitely a luxury splurge, but if you’re in town for a little romance or celebrating a special occasion, it would certainly add to your experience in the Windy City. 

The Fairmont—The views from our room at the Fairmont were fantastic. The hotel is located relatively centrally, just over a block from the Chicago River on one side and Millennium Park on the other. Customer service was top-notch and the bed was comfortable. I’m not sure if there was construction or something else going on, but we were woken up really early due to noise, so if you’re easily woken, consider bringing earplugs to ensure a restful sleep. 

The Gray—The shower was fantastic! I also really liked the room layout and the modern rooms in contrast to the ornate lobby and elevator areas. Located minutes from Union Station, it was a convenient location given we arrived by train, but it seemed a bit far from everything we were doing that weekend. The Gray hosts a free evening social hour between 5 and 6 p.m. and also offers complimentary coffee and tea in the morning. For dog owners, this hotel is particularly attractive, given pets are allowed at no additional charge.

Things to Do

Newport Theater — If you love a good show before dinner or are a connoisseur of burlesque, you absolutely must check out the Newport Theater. From the outside, Newport Theater might not look like much, but walk through the door and up a flight of stairs to a lovely theater with a bar and more comfortable seating than you’ve probably come to expect. With multiple shows on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, as well as some weekday offerings, there’s a performance for everyone’s taste and availability. I’ve been to quite a few shows at this point and recommend Newport Theater to just about anyone who will listen to me, so you’re in for a treat. 

Shedd Aquarium—Perfect for a cold, hot or rainy day, the Shedd Aquarium offers hours of fun, all protected from the elements. The aquarium offers multiple encounters available for visitors at an additional fee, including the Beluga, Sea Otter and Sea Lion “meet & greets.” For a different spin on a romantic night out, check out Shedd’s Jazz and House Party nights for the 21-plus crowd. 

Shot of Art — Have you gazed longingly at dozens of videos of fabulous fluid or spin art? Well, now you don’t need to get paint all over your home to make it happen! Make Shot of Art a stop on your Chicago itinerary. The painting studio allows you to select a project — or make it a date and choose a few different projects — and a style of art (fluid, spinning, etc) along with a canvas to create your dream abstract art. An artist will walk you through every step of the process, ensuring that you leave confident that the art you create is everything you were hoping for. It takes a few days to dry, so be prepared to pay for shipping, which you can only do by phone after the painting is dry.

Aroma Workshop—I’m a sucker for workshops of all kinds, so the perfume-making experience at Aroma was right up my alley. It’s a fun experience that leaves you with a lovely gift to yourself that reminds you of your trip to the Windy City. For a perfect date night experience, make perfume for each other instead of for yourself. Choose between a variety of scents blended to create your own unique fragrance. 

Color Factory—The Color Factory is an oddly satisfying experiential “art museum” of sorts. You move from room to room, with new colorful exhibits and experiences in each. The 90-minute experience is self-guided and perfect for adults and kids alike. We especially enjoyed the photography stations, where a timed camera allows for in-action shots around the Color Factory, which you can claim and download online for no additional charge. Hot Tip: Place your phone above the camera to simultaneously record video if that’s your jam.

Why the stinky durian really is the “king of all fruits”

There's little else in the food world that brings about as much social turbulence as the durian. This so-called "king of all fruits" is considered a delicacy across its native Southeast Asia, where durian season is currently in full swing.

Global interest in the pungent food has also grown considerably in recent years. But despite this, the durian continues to be loathed as much as it is lauded. What's behind its polarizing nature?

 

Loved and loathed in equal measure

The international market for durians grew 400% last year. This is mainly due to China, where demand has expanded 12-fold since 2017.

And although heavy rain and heatwaves have resulted in lower yields, the projected growth for 2024 looks promising.

But not everyone is a devotee. The durian often becomes a prickly topic in my conversations with friends in Southeast Asia – with family members clashing over its loud presence in the kitchen.

Durian is even banned in various hotels and public spaces across Southeast Asian countries. In 2018, a load of durian delayed the departure of an Indonesian flight after travelers insisted the stinky cargo be removed.

The fruit's taste and smell are notoriously difficult to pinpoint. One article touting its benefits describes its odor as a rousing medley of "sulfur, sewage, fruit, honey, and roasted and rotting onions".

 

Cultural and historical perspectives

Regardless of its divisive qualities, the durian has a central role in Southeast Asian cuisine and cultures. For centuries, Indigenous peoples across the region have sustainably grown diverse species of the fruit.

At Borobudur, a ninth-century Buddhist temple in Java, Indonesia, relief panels depict durian as a symbol of abundance.

In Malaysia, it's common to find courtyards full of durian trees in people's homes. These trees are cherished, as they provide generations of family members with food, medicine and shelter.

The durian also features in creation stories. In one myth from the Philippines, it's said that a cave-dwelling recluse named Impit Purok concocted a special fruit to help an elderly king attract a bride. But when the king failed to invite him to the wedding party, the furious hermit cursed his creation with a potent stench.

In the West, the durian was first recorded and observed in the early 15th century by Italian merchant and explorer Niccolò de' Conti. De' Conti acknowledged the fruit's esteem throughout the Malay archipelago, but considered its odour nauseating.

Early Western illustrations of the fruit can be found in Dutch spy and cartographer Jan Huygen van Linschoten's book Itinerario (1596). The author remarks that the durian smells like rotten onions when first opened, but that with time one can acquire a taste for it.

Another scientific account comes from the 1741 book Ambonese Herbal, by German botanist Georg Eberhard Rumphius. Rumphius identified the fruit's tough outer skin as the source of its pungency, noting how the people of Indonesia's Ambon Island had a habit of disposing of the noxious rinds on the shoreline.

 

A fruit of contradictions

In Southeast Asian film and literature, the durian exerts a powerful yet contradictory effect on the senses. Director Fruit Chan's film Durian Durian (2000) homes in on these polarizing tendencies.

Set in Hong Kong, the film traces the transformation of the characters' attitudes towards the durian. While the fruit incites revulsion at first, it eventually becomes an object of affection among the family portrayed in the film.

This acceptance of the durian doubles as an analogy, reflecting the family's acceptance of one of the main characters' life as a sex worker.

In contrast, the Singaporean film Wet Season (2019) by Anthony Chen highlights various traditional views of the fruit. For example, the illicit affair between a teacher and her student calls attention to a persistent belief in the durian's ability to arouse sexual desire and boost fertility (although any aphrodisiac benefits remain scientifically unproven).

A number of literary works also probe the durian's cultural complexity. Singaporean poet Hsien Min Toh's poem, Durians, opens by referring to the fruit's "unmistakeable waft: like garbage and onions and liquid petroleum gas all mixed in one".

At the same time it frames the durian tree as a canny being, as it never allows falling fruit to harm the vulnerable humans spreading its seeds on the ground below.

US poet Sally Wen Mao attends to the enigma in her poem Hurling A Durian. She notes how on one hand the fruit nurtures desire, while on the other it purges memory like a poison. Mesmerized by its perplexing allure, the poet inhales its penetrating scent and strokes its rind until her fingers bleed.

 

The future and conservation

Although 30 species of durian are known to science (and more continue to be identified), only one species, Durio zibethinus, dominates the global market. Unfortunately, the growing demand for this one type is causing harm by displacing native forests, flora and even Indigenous communities.

In Indonesian Borneo, or Kalimantan, oil palm plantations threaten durian diversity by leaving less room for diverse species of durian to be cultivated. This imperils the cultural practices and beliefs linked to the durian tree.

It also impacts all the other animals that rely on the fruit. Elephants, orangutans and many other endangered fauna relish the durian, while bats and other pollinators help sustain its diversity. As such, effective conservation efforts must engage meaningfully with local people and species.

Perhaps, if past depictions of the durian helped shape its reputation, then new depictions could help conserve this king among fruits.

 

John Charles Ryan, Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Business, Law and Arts, Southern Cross University

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

“The lawsuits will lose”: Legal experts pour cold water on right-wing threat to sue over Harris nom

Legal experts say they're confident that lawsuits filed over the potential placement of Vice President Kamala Harris atop the Democratic ticket will fail — and said campaign finance lawsuits will wind up tangled up in legal battles that won't be settled until after the election.

President Joe Biden's announcement Sunday that he will no longer run for re-election in November set the political world in a tailspin. 

Even before Biden's announcement, Republicans had already vowed to file lawsuits over such a move, which they argue subverts the democratic process and ballots cast by primary voters.

“I think in states where it can be contested, I expect that it will be, and they’ll have an interesting battle on their hands,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said on ABC News Sunday.

Johnson added: “I think they would run into some legal impediments in at least a few of these jurisdictions.”

And a June Heritage Foundation memo laid out a plan for "pre-election litigation" that could "try to block a presidential candidate from withdrawing."

Northwestern Law professor Michael Kang told Salon that Biden withdrawing from the race "at this point in the year is basically unprecedented, so some of the legal questions raised are untested."

Specifically — some Republicans and legal experts have raised questions about the legality of Harris taking over campaign finance funds. Republican FEC chairman Sean Cooksey on Sunday tweeted a campaign finance regulation that says contributions "should be either returned" to donors or "redesignated" if a candidate doesn't end up running.  

But legal experts see little chance of any lawsuits going anywhere — and say that Republican critics lack legal or factual basis or standing for their complaints.

"I think this amounts (yet again) to a considerable amount of noise without any real prospect of legal consequence," UCLA Law professor Justin Levitt told Salon. "There will be political consequences, and messaging consequences, and those may well driving the filing of lawsuits. But there’s no way that the lawsuits actually stop VP Harris from getting the nomination or getting on the ballot, and next to no way that they stop her from using any of the funds already raised for Biden."

He said he expects lawsuits over the matter — in part because lawsuits filed chiefly for messaging or fundraising are common.

Paul Smith, a Georgetown Law professor and senior vice president at the Campaign Legal Center, said nothing bars the Democratic party from nominating Harris and getting her on all state ballots.

"Biden was never the formal nominee," Smith told Salon. "The Convention has yet to occur."

Smith said that means any lawsuit seeking to invalidate Harris' nomination or keep her from the ballot would "fail quickly on the merits."

"Standing probably would not be the main issue," Smith said.

Legal experts say lax Democratic party rules have always offered substantial flexibility for candidates who drop out. 

"It doesn’t violate any laws for a political party to nominate a presidential candidate, and it turns out you’ve got to present a plausible claim that a law has been broken in order to win a lawsuit,"  Levitt said.  "Not only are political parties supposed to nominate candidates for office, they’ve got First Amendment protection to do exactly that."

Levitt also pointed out that unlike with primaries for other officers, no voters within a state get to decide a presidential nomination unilaterally.

"Primary voters for presidential primaries are really just choosing delegates to a national convention," Levitt said. "The party sets the rules for those delegates. The Democratic Party has (for years now) said that its delegates are pledged, but not bound – they’re free to vote their conscience. Normally, that means voting for the candidate who wins the primary for any given state. But if that candidate dies, or drops out, they can vote for whomever they wish."

Kang said that internal party rules posed the main obstacle to replacing Biden if he didn't agree to step aside.

"Those would no longer restrict the delegates from nominating Harris now that Biden has agreed to step aside," Kang said.

Levitt says no part of those rules violates any law that Republicans, or anyone else, could sue over.

"But also, even if you assume there are voters who can show injury, injury by whom?" Levitt said. "And what’s the remedy? Voters have no right to force Biden to accept the nomination."

Levitt pointed out that all of the states' laws for who gets on the ballot for president as based on who gets the nomination at the convention. 

"There are conceivable legal issues with a candidate dropping out after a convention," he said. "But before? Nope."

We need your help to stay independent

Florida State University Michael Morley said because Biden "has not yet been certified to any states as the Democratic Party's nominee, he does not need to be 'replaced' on any general election ballots."

"State laws and deadlines concerning 'replacement' of candidates are inapplicable here," he told Salon. "Moreover, the fact that President Biden happened to win a presidential preference contest — a primary or a caucus — in a particular state is irrelevant to whether he appears on the general election ballot there. There are any number of reasons why the candidate who wins a state's presidential preference primary might not go on to be that party's ultimate presidential nominee."

Morley said at the end of the day, there's no substantial basis for a court to prevent the Democratic Party from having someone other than Biden appear on the ballot as its presidential nominee. 

Stetson University College of Law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy agreed, saying: "The Democratic Party has freedom of association rights under the First Amendment to choose their standard bearer. The Republicans being mad about the new turn of events of Kamala Harris being the likely nominee does not give them standing to sue."

Political and legal observers say that one reason that Biden endorsed Harris was likely to minimize any legal issues with transferring over campaign funds.

Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson told Salon that the "best reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act indicates that there are two people who can tap into the approximately $95 million raised by the Biden Harris campaign. One of them is named Joe Biden, and he is no longer a candidate. The other is named Kamala Harris, and she obviously is."

Smith said the Campaign Legal Center has come to the same conclusion.

"Our analysis is that Harris can immediately get complete access to money raised by the Biden/Harris team," Smith said. "The money was raised for both of them.  Admittedly, there has never been a set of facts just like this, but we think the right answer is pretty clear."

Levinson said though critics may claim the move would be unprecedented — that doesn't mean its lawless, or that a FEC complaint or suit means a genuine legal dispute exists.  

Biden's' campaign committee on Sunday submitted paperwork with the FEC to change its name to “Harris for President.”


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


Levitt said it's "likely entirely lawful" for the Biden-Harris committee to change its name and for Harris to use that funding.

"You’ve got prominent Democratic and Republican campaign finance experts saying the same thing," Levitt said. 

Kang said in his view, Harris can keep the campaign finance money raised by the committee she and Biden registered without Republicans successfully blocking her.

"In the alternative, the committee could transfer the money to the Democratic Party or a Super PAC, but the subsequent use of the money would be limited," Kang said.

Torres-Spelliscy agreed that because Harris is on the ticket, she could presumably take over the Biden-Harris money without limit — as long as there are no debts outstanding.

She told Salon that the FEC allows candidate committees to transfer unlimited funds to a party committee or organization, which would have to report the infusion of cash. 

Levitt said Republicans have "neuter[ed]" the FEC's enforcement capacity — meaning any complaint will likely take months or longer to resolve.

He said that means an unlikely consequence would "only amount to a fine eventually imposed well after the election."

"There’s no realistic prospect of anyone stopping the money from being used before that," Levitt said.

JD Vance owes almost everything to Peter Thiel, a pro-Trump billionaire and “New Right” ideologue

In 2016, JD Vance compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler and now he is the former president’s running mate. Behind the scenes of the Ohio Senator’s transformation from a “Never Trump guy” to the Republican nominee's second-in-command is Peter Thiel, a billionaire venture capitalist and co-founder of Paypal.

From giving Vance a job in Silicon Valley to funding his Ohio Senate campaign  and introducing him to a network of tech billionaires who could give him more money Thiel helped propel Vance into the MAGA-verse and onto the ballot, simultaneously bringing the agenda of the New Right into mainstream politics. The New Right is post-Trump movement of young and elite conservatives that essentially believe federal institutions and current democratic systems have failed the United States and must be dismantled.

Vance was first exposed to Thiel in 2011 while attending Yale Law School. Thiel was giving a talk on campus in which he criticized the hyper-competitive nature of professions like law, arguing that it was connected to stifled technological innovation. In Silicon Valley, Thiel said, too much time was spent on developing mobile phones and software and not enough on developing new energy and transportation systems.

If technological innovation drove prosperity for all, Vance would later write, summarizing Thiel's talk, elite professionals wouldn't feel so competitive "over a dwindling number of prestigious outcomes."

“Peter’s talk remains the most significant moment of my time at Yale Law School,” Vance later wrote in a blog post. Vance wrote that Thiel’s speech made him realize he was obsessed with achievement and winning the “social competition." He began plotting a career outside of law.

Inspired, Vance emailed Thiel. “Stop by my house next time you’re out here,” the investor responded, according to The New York Times

The connection was made.

After Yale, Vance worked just two years in law before heading to Silicon Valley, where he was hired by Frederic Moll, a friend of Thiel’s, to work at Circuit Therapeutics, The Times reported. In 2016, the same year Vance released his memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy” (Thiel wrote a blurb for it), Vance began working at Mithril Capital, a firm co-founded by Thiel. The company is named after a fictional metal from J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."

Throughout Vance’s stint in Silicon Valley, Thiel exposed him to a network of tech tycoons, including David Sacks, who went on to financially support Vance’s political endeavors and lobby for him to become an Ohio Senator and now Trump’s running mate. Sacks recently spoke at the Republican National Convention, where he criticized Democrats in San Francisco and Biden's support for Ukraine.

In 2019, Vance also converted to Catholicism, a move that aligned him with the young, religious crowd of the New Right. In 2020, Vance wrote that Thiel was an original inspiration for his path to Christianity despite previously calling himself an atheist.

“He defied the social template I had constructed — that dumb people were Christians and smart ones atheists,” Vance wrote

Armed with a new faith and a wealth of connections in one of America’s most influential industries, Vance returned to Ohio to start his own venture, Narya Capital (also a "Lord of the Rings" reference) funded by Thiel and former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt.

It was during this time Vance began to publicly transform from a Trump critic to one of his closest allies.

We need your help to stay independent

Back in 2016, Vance made his contempt for the future president well known. Prior to Trump’s election, Vance contemplated whether Trump was “America’s Hitler” in a text to a former roommate and said he couldn’t “stomach Trump” in an interview on NPR. In 2017, Vance called Trump a “moral disaster.” 

Just a few years later, however, Vance publicly embraced Trump, developing a relationship with Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and echoing many of the former president’s absurdities, including that the 2020 election was stolen. 

In July 2021, Vance announced he would run for Ohio Senate, backed by none other than Thiel, who donated over $1.5 million to pro-Trump outfits in 2016. According to reporting from The New York Times, the billionaire orchestrated talks between Trump and Vance and even escorted him to meet with the former president at his Mar-a-Lago residence in 2021. 

Just over a month before the 2022 Ohio Republican Primary, Trump announced his endorsement for Vance. Thiel donated a total of $15 million to Vance’s 2022 campaign, the largest amount ever given to a Senate candidate, according to Politico

“What changed my mind about Donald Trump more than anything is that I saw the corruption in our institutions,” Vance said at a campaign speech in Ohio in 2022, Spectrum News reported. "A lot of what this campaign is about — and a lot of my own thinking about politics is about — is that our institutions are corrupt. We have to replace the people who run them. Some of those institutions we have to destroy. But we need better people in our government."

This rhetoric is in part what led to Vance being dubbed the face of the “New Right," a movement that emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty, as opposed to international cooperation, pairing opposition to abortion and immigration with skepticism of democratic institutions. Though the New Right lacks a clear leader, the movement's ideology has been partly influenced by Patrick Deneen, the author of "Why Liberalism Failed," and right-wing blogger Curtis Yarvin, who has argued that the current system of government should be replaced by one leader who could seize absolute power and "dismantle the whole regime." 

Thiel has been key in bringing the movement to the mainstream. In a 2022 Vanity Fair article, reporter James Pogue wrote that Thiel has become somewhat of a “nefarious godfather or a genial rich uncle” to the young crowd of Republicans.

Along with supporting Vance, he also supported Blake Masters’ Senate run in Arizona, donating $10 million to the former venture capitalist’s campaign. Masters also worked for Thiel in Silicon Valley. 

Thiel has funded and spoken at the National Conservatism Conference, also known as NatCon, an annual gathering for the New Right. It was designed to bring together people who “understand the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation.”

“We see the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race,” the website reads. 

These kinds of ideas have long-marked Thiel, who wrote in 2009 that he doesn’t believe “freedom and democracy are compatible.” 

“I don’t think it’s just about flipping the Senate. I think Peter wants to change the direction of the country,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist told The New York Times of Thiel.

With Vance on the ballot, he may have a way to do so.

“I take it all back”: “West Wing” creator walks back his wild GOP Biden replacement plan

"West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin has backtracked on his suggestion that Democrats should nominate moderate Republican Senator Mitt Romney, Utah, for the 2024 presidential race instead of President Joe Biden.

In a New York Times op-ed published on Sunday, the screenwriter, riffing on how he would write for his drama series, "The West Wing," laid out his "pitch to the writers’ room: The Democratic Party should pick a Republican.

"Nominating Mr. Romney would be putting our money where our mouth is: a clear and powerful demonstration that this election isn’t about what our elections are usually about it, but about stopping a deranged man from taking power," Sorkin wrote.

His suggestion drew considerable frustration from liberal figures. “No Aaron Sorkin, we’re NOT nominating Mitt Romney," tweeted Christine Pelosi, daughter of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Hey Palin-picker Steve Schmidt with replacement fever game show dreams, wake up! Republicans are the party of reality TV; Democrats are the party of reality. And here in reality, 4,000+ Biden DNC delegates get certified today.”

However, on Sunday President Joe Biden also announced that he would be exiting the presidential race and endorsing his Vice President, Kamala Harris, for the Democratic ticket against former president Donald Trump.

Borrowing the X/Twitter account of "The West Wing" cast member Josh Molina, Sorkin tweeted to the world, "I take it all back. Harris for America!”

 

“Star Wars: The Acolyte”: Pain makes a lightsaber bleed – but who causes that pain?

In Star Wars, Sith lightsabers emit a hue of deep red, the color of blood, sin and the reckless human passion that the Jedi say pulls Force-users to the dark side. While the visual and thematic impact of a red lightsaber may be apparent to us, the question of how and why dark side practitioners use red lightsabers in a galaxy far, far away remained unanswered in live-action until the final episode of the "The Acolyte," in which Jedi Master Sol's (Lee Jung Jae) discarded lightsaber turns from blue to red in Osha's (Amandla Stenberg) grip as she descends into grief and rage.

A crystal's corruption comes not from the head, but the seat of one's emotions.

Osha, an ex-Jedi Padawan, had already suffered from the violent loss of her entire family and struggles to keep her roiling emotions in check as Jedi teachings enjoin her to do. When she discovers that it was Sol, her erstwhile father figure, who killed her mother in a fit of misguided intentions, the dark side of the Force surges forth through Osha, choking the unarmed Sol through one hand and bleeding his lightsaber's exposed crystal through the other.

The transformation of Sol's lightsaber draws from material in the "Darth Vader" comic books, which itself is a retcon of the first offscreen explanations of red lightsabers from the age before Disney. After the emergence of various unofficial theories, Star Wars lore established in the 2000s that while the Jedi extracted Force-attuned kyber crystals from natural sources to power their lightsabers, dark-siders, whose alignment cuts them off from those sources, used special furnaces to create synthetic, more powerful red crystals.

The latter practice, regarded by the Jedi as a heretical perversion of nature, underscored the differences between light-siders, who sought harmony with the living Force, and dark-siders, who valued brute strength above all else and foreshadowed the replacement of "a more civilized age" with the techno-fascist Empire.

This concept, along with everything else that wasn't explicitly stated in the original and prequel trilogies, was tossed into the non-canonical ether known as "Legends" when Disney's takeover of Star Wars in 2012 reset the universe's lore. But through "Darth Vader," the writers of the new canon invented a fresh lightsaber theology evocative of the mystical, intangible nature of the Force from the original trilogy; one in which a crystal's corruption comes not from the head, but the seat of one's emotions.

When Vader is reborn in his black armor, he has no weapon on hand but his natural connection to the Force; the Emperor, his new Sith Master, says he must murder a Jedi and take his lightsaber. Vader fulfills that mission, but the crystal within, an inherently light-side object, is not yet bent to his will. To obtain mastery over his prize, Vader goes to Mustafar, the fiery planet where he lost his wife and much of his own body, and pours into it his hatred, sorrow and rage, torturing the crystal with his own pain, corrupting it with his own corruption, until it has shed its natural blue for red.

"Teach it your pain. Teach it your anger," the Emperor advises. "Hear it sing a hymn of darkness. Make it bleed."

Amandla Stenberg as Osha in "Star Wars: The Acolyte" (Lucasfilm/Disney)

Osha receives no such instruction; the ex-Padawan is too immersed in passion to even notice the crystal bleeding until she ignites Sol's lightsaber. Her fall is not an intentional process, but a gravitational pull that she, by losing control of her darkest emotional urges, can no longer resist. The dark side has twisted Osha, and she in turn has twisted a Jedi's weapon into a mockery of its original nature and purpose.

But what is the original purpose of a Jedi lightsaber? Since the first Star Wars film was released in 1977, the Jedi have sought to embody the ideal of self-possessed, morally immaculate Force-users committed to upholding peace in the galaxy. Paradoxically, the lightsaber a Jedi wields is an object that kills, threatens and maims, presumably in service to noble causes, and in "The Acolyte," it is used to rip apart Osha's family in a chaotic situation that for everyone tripping over their own mistaken instincts, might have been avoided.

What is the original purpose of a Jedi lightsaber?

It might be unfair to call Sol trigger-happy when he runs his lightsaber through Mother Aniseya (Jodie Turner-Smith), since witnessing both her and her daughter dissolving into black mist is terrifying for someone who knows nothing of witch-magic. But from the first meeting with the coven to the final confrontation, he has been acting on an impulse fueled by an outsider's suspicion and the hubris of a self-appointed savior, without seeking to understand. Only the Jedi are deemed civilized, and therefore their orthodoxy of the Force should be imposed on others for their own good. To Sol, a ceremonial marking on Osha's twin Mae is not a respected tradition, but a sign of innate evil not to be missed. These markings are customary among many galactic cultures, Master Indara (Carrie-Anne Moss) has to remind him.

Sol does not heed her guidance. Instead of using his ample time to gather information on their customs and ease tensions with an insular community that understandably feels threatened by the sudden emergence of armed intruders, Sol misrepresents the situation to himself and ultimately chooses violence in order to retrieve a child that he feels destined to train in the Jedi ways. His Jedi companions join in the fighting that kills most of the other witches and later participate in a cover-up to Osha and the High Council that pins all of the blame on Mae. Indara may have provided a voice of reason throughout the conflict, but in the end, she still enables the destruction of the entire coven as the mission's leader and helps set Osha on her long march to the dark side.

All the poor decisions that Sol and the Jedi have made up to this point, even if well-intentioned, invokes the mindset and behavior of a colonizer who uses generational assimilation, erasure of identity and rewriting of history to assert power over others. Indara's warning to Sol not to "confuse what Osha wants with what you want" is a relatively small-scale allusion to the final stage of the Jedi Order's evolution, hundreds of years into the future: generals at the head of clone armies and space armadas, blindly serving a corrupt government and supposedly liberating Separatist planets via aerial bombardment like it's 1968.

Osha now has a father figure, at the cost of the family she had always known. Sol trains Osha like all other Jedi younglings to control their negative feelings; unlike the other Masters, however, his training of her depends on the lie that he had no role in her mother's death. Even if some well-adjusted Jedi like Obi-Wan Kenobi can regulate, rather than stifle, their impulses, other Jedi like Osha and Anakin Skywalker suppress their fear and trauma in order to appear in control without actually being in control. The Order's emotional support system, to the extent that wisdom imparted by venerable Jedi Masters can be called that, is at best inconsistent and at worst disastrous — as in the case when Yoda tells Anakin that he must "let go" of everything he fears to lose. (He doesn't.)

Star Wars: The Acolyte Lee Jae-jung and Manny Jacinto in "The Acolyte" (Lucasfilm/Disney)

To the Jedi's credit, their doctrine does not, in theory, insist on the unhealthy collection of emotional debt. Like the lofty political mission that the Jedi strive to uphold, however, their conviction to perfect their connection to the Force is clouded by a rigidity and haughtiness that pays little account for imperfect conditions and what exists outside the Jedi understanding of the world.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. If the Jedi Order left a healthy amount of space for its most troubled members to come to terms with these emotions, or a group of Jedi did not take it upon themselves to act as saviors driven by impulse, or Sol summoned the moral courage to tell the truth before getting cornered, perhaps Osha would have trod a different path. But in "The Acolyte," the collective weight of Jedi mistakes falls on Osha in one catastrophic moment. And while the lightsaber she corrupted wasn’t that pure, metaphorically speaking, in the first place, it could be argued that the Jedi primed the lightsaber for that bleeding.

“He is a real weirdo”: Rachel Maddow says Trump will “regret” picking JD Vance after Biden drops out

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Sunday alleged that Donald Trump's selection of Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, as his running mate may have been a critical misfire after President Joe Biden has bowed out of the presidential race.

On Sunday, Biden announced that he would be dropping out. "It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your president," he wrote in an official letter shared on social media. "And while it has been my intention to seek reelection, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to stand down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as president for the remainder of my term."

In a later post, the president added that he would be endorsing his vice president, Kamala Harris, for the Democratic nomination. "Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year," Biden wrote. "Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this."

Biden's decision to exit the race comes after a flailing debate performance that sowed considerable doubt in his candidacy amongst Democrats. Now, with Biden clearing the way for Harris to take center stage, "you can feel the Democratic Party consolidating," Maddow argued.

"You can feel it coming together. And that momentum — she's gonna be choosing from a position of strength," Maddow said. "The next three and half months are just gonna be lights out in terms of this campaign against Donald Trump. Donald Trump thought that he did not need to worry about winning this election because he thought he was going to be running against Joe Biden."

"Because he thought he didn't really have to compete very hard to win, he picked JD Vance. Someone who isn't going to help him at all," Maddow claimed.

We need your help to stay independent

"He picked JD Vance because he wanted him for governing, not campaigning,” she said. “They picked JD Vance because they thought they had this election in the bag, and Joe Biden did this today, and now it is an absolutely different ball game. JD Vance and Donald Trump are going to lose in November and Donald Trump is going to regret picking JD Vance as his running mate.”

“Any Democrat who can talk about the kinds of issues where JD Vance has taken the kinds of stances … those are not 50/50 issues in this country," the host said, speaking of Vance's extremely hardline approaches to issues like reproductive rights. "They are not 60/40. He is taking the kind of stances that single digits of Americans support."

“You do not need any type of Democrat in particular to prosecute a case against J.D. Vance. He is a real weirdo from a really, really narrow slice of the far right side of the ideological doctrine," Maddow continued. “They picked him because they didn't think he would have to be defending himself at all. Because he thought he didn't need to compete very hard to win, he picked J.D. Vance. He picked someone who's not going to help him at all.”

 

Experts slam “lost opportunity” as disaster film “Twisters” fails to acknowledge climate change

Hollywood's latest weather disaster blockbuster, "Twisters" (a standalone sequel to the 1996 film "Twister"), features plenty of extreme weather — yet it has a somewhat incongruous scorn for scientists who study the weather.

The discordant note is subtle, but at the same time hard to entirely miss. Without spoiling too much of the plot, "Twisters" depicts most of its PhDs and other professional scientists as cynical, selfish, cold and intellectually narrow. By contrast, the movie's fictional YouTubers and amateur storm chasers are overwhelmingly shown as idealistic, compassionate, colorful and far more knowledgeable about science that those stuffy official scientists.

"It’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days."

Despite this attitude of smug superiority toward the scientific profession, "Twisters" doesn't once mention climate change, which may seem bizarre for a weather disaster film in 2024. But that wasn't an accident. As director Lee Isaac Chung told CNN, "I wanted to make sure that we are never creating a feeling that we’re preaching a message, because that’s certainly not what I think cinema should be about. I think it should be a reflection of the world.” 

Given that global heating is one of the greatest existential threats to humanity — a threat linked to increasingly frequent erratic and intense weather, including cyclones and tornadoes — the question is whether any movie about weather disasters can be an accurate "reflection of the world" if it neglects to acknowledge this major piece of humanity's scientific knowledge. Many real-world climate scientists argue it cannot.

"I do think it’s an unfortunate lost opportunity that speaks to the pusillanimous nature of Hollywood these days," Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, said. "The science suggests that we are seeing larger outbreaks and more destructive tornadoes due to human-caused climate change."

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who has published more than 600 articles on climatology, said that if "Twisters" shies away from directly mentioning climate change then it is "flawed." After all, the movie's premise is about a freakish series of tornadoes, and Trenberth is confident that climate change is producing exactly those types of storms.

"Climate change adds heat to the system and especially heats up the ocean," Trenberth said. "A result is about 10 to 20% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Both effects (temperature and moisture) increases add substantially to the instability of the atmosphere with a result of increased convection. This occurs on all scales and adds especially to fuel thunderstorms – and hurricanes."

Supercell thunderstorms harbor tornadoes, Trenberth added, and are especially prone to creating them when they have enough wind shear (sudden shifts in wind direction or speed) that it can be converted into rotation. "This factor is not clearly linked to climate change but the instability is," Trenberth added.

Dr. Twila Moon, the deputy lead scientist and science communication liaison at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), referred Salon to a pair of studies in the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Weather and Climate Extremes. Both articles found that, as humans increase Earth's temperature by emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there is the potential for tornadoes to occur more often and with increased intensity.

"Some recent research suggest potential for increased intensity or frequency of tornadoes, with seasonal and time of day variations," Moon said. "Of course, the geography being considered is important."

Dr. Michael Wehner, a senior scientist in the Computational Research Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was a little more skeptical than his peers. Wehner said that the omission of climate change from "Twisters" is glaring because global heating may be linked to the unusual proliferation of tornadoes in recent years, but the science isn't entirely settled.


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


"I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background."

"There is much about the influence of climate change on tornadoes that is not well understood," Wehner said. "There has been an eastward shift in Tornado Alley? Is that due to climate change? Not clear to me."

Wehner also observed that there are more days than ever with clusters of tornadoes.

"This would appear to me to be consistent with warming, but the evidence is far from complete," Wehner said. "Also, I would expect that the most intense storms would become more intense. While there is a lot of evidence that this is happening for other storm types, the evidence again is far from complete for tornadoes."

Wehner is not alone among his colleagues in questioning the climate change connection to tornadoes.

"I think that it is premature to argue for any link between climate change and changes in tornado activity,"  Dr. Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, said. "Yes, more water vapor in the air can foster stronger convection, but a tornado is a very local feature and requires a very specific set of meteorological conditions, such as the right wind shear."

Some might argue that a movie like "Twisters" — which includes intentionally over-the-top sci-fi absurdities like scientists dissolving a tornado — does not need to include climate change to do its job. Chung implies as much by saying that popcorn flicks like "Twisters" bear no responsibility to do so as long as they are entertaining. Yet there is considerable evidence that movies influence viewers' perceptions of important real-world issues. There is only one Hollywood blockbuster to ever explicitly focus on global warming, 2004's "The Day After Tomorrow," and because it was a box office hit, it had a quantifiable and provable influence on public opinions. 

In his 2007 book "Hollywood Science," Emory University Physics Professor Sidney Perkowitz said that a survey by environmental science and policy expert Anthony Leiserowitz found the film "had a 'significant impact' on climate change risk perceptions, conceptual models, behavioral intentions, policy priorities." Viewed by roughly 21 million Americans in theaters, "the film led moviegoers to have higher levels of concern and worry about global warming [and] encouraged watchers to engage in personal, political, and social action to address climate change and to elevate global warming as a national priority … The movie even appears to have influenced voter preferences."

This potential for cultural influence explains why Hollywood now has the so-called Climate Reality Check, released earlier this year by Colby College’s Matthew Schneider-Mayerson in partnership with the group Good Energy. It holds that movies set in the present or near future, on Earth and in our shared universe, have a public responsibility to mention climate change. If a film both mentions global heating and has a character who acknowledges it, it passes the Climate Reality Check, a distinction earned in 2023 by films like "Barbie," "Nyad" and "Mission: Impossible—Dead Reckoning Part One."

For her part, Good Energy's founder Anna Jane Joyner praised the film despite it not mentioning climate change directly. Joyner argues that its characters still manage to indirectly acknowledge the climate crisis.

"I'm grateful that Twisters acknowledges the climate crisis through the characters Javi [Anthony Ramos] and Cathy [Maura Tierney], who both comment that what they’re seeing is unprecedented," Joyner said. She believes "Twisters" can in its own way spread awareness in a positive manner.

"Our research with the USC Norman Lear Center Media Impact Project found that most viewers believe they care more about climate change than characters in TV and film," Joyner said. "Of the 250 most popular films of the past decade, movies that acknowledge the climate crisis made 10% more at the box office. People want these stories."

Moon added that Hollywood has "both good and bad examples" of scientific accuracy.

"I prefer to shine a light on the areas of progress and long-term investments in getting solid science — including climate science — into entertainment," Moon said. "For example, the upcoming Hollywood Climate Summit or the established Science & Entertainment Exchange. A brief Google search provides many more efforts, too."

At the same time, Moon feels Hollywood can do better, saying that "I’d love to see more entertainment incorporating good climate actions into the background. So the story doesn’t at all focus on climate, but the visuals and context provide cultural examples throughout of how we can live, work and play in climate-friendly and climate-aware ways. Social and cultural change is key to addressing the climate crisis."

These cultural exchanges can even prove prophetic about the climate crisis. "The Day After Tomorrow," for example, shows climate change-caused tornadoes ripping apart Los Angeles, which seemed ludicrous in 2004 but became a terrifying reality in 2023 — as well as, of course, the premise of "Twisters" in 2024. Equally prophetic in its own way, though, was the marketing meeting in which "The Day After Tomorrow"'s creative team learned a shocking fact about how the movie was to be promoted. Co-writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff recalled to Salon last month that when the creators "went in for the very first marketing meeting after we had sold the script," someone on the Fox marketing team said, "Just to be clear, as per Fox's policy, we will not be using the words 'global warming' when we market this film.' I almost spit my water out!"

Global warming has certainly changed in the two decades since that conversation, but apparently Hollywood's squeamishness about fully acknowledging that reality has not.

“Deeply grateful for his service”: Kamala Harris lauds Biden in remarks at White House

Vice President Kamala Harris, delivering her first public remarks in front of the White House as the likely 2024 Democratic nominee, celebrated the achievements of the 2023-2024 NCAA championship teams — marking College Athlete Day — and praised President Joe Biden as a transformational leader.

"Joe Biden's legacy of accomplishments over the past three years is unmatched in modern history. In one term —yes, you may clap," she said, laughing as she acknowledged applause from the audience. "In one term he has already surpassed the legacy of most presidents who have served two terms in office."

Harris did not mention Biden's decision to step aside, saying only that he was too sick to appear himself as he continues to recover from COVID-19. In a brief speech, however, she recalled the time she served as California's attorney general and worked with Biden's late son, Beau, who held the same office in Delaware and told her stories about his father.

"The qualities of Beau revered in his father are the same qualities that I have seen every day in our president. His honesty, his integrity, his commitment to his faith and his family, his big heart, and his love, deep love, of our country," Harris said. "And I am a firsthand witness that every day, Joe Biden fights for the American people, and we are deeply, deeply grateful for his service to our nation."

Biden, along with a significant number of Democratic lawmakers, have endorsed Harris to lead the top of the Democratic ticket, and chatter has already begun over who she might pick as her running mate. So far, no challengers have emerged, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., briefly signaling halfhearted interest before quickly pulling out.

Harris' appearance at the event was already scheduled before Biden announced his withdrawal from the race. Harris welcomed the college athletes to the White House on his behalf.

"In America, tens of millions of people play a sport as a child, and the best of the best grow up to become national champions," she said. "Here today we have seven undefeated teams, eleven repeat champions, and twenty-first time winners … later this month, six of you will represent our nation at the 2024 Olympics in Paris. As members of Team USA you are ambassadors for our nation and we with pride we will cheer you on."

Harris, once Biden’s voice on abortion, would take an outspoken approach to health

Throughout Joe Biden’s presidency, he leaned on the outspoken former prosecutor and senator he selected as his vice president, Kamala Harris, to be the White House’s voice of unflinching support for reproductive health rights.

Now, as Democrats rebuild their presidential ticket just a few months before Election Day, Harris would widely be expected to take an aggressive stance in support of abortion access if she became the party’s new presumptive nominee — hitting former President Donald Trump on an issue that could undermine his chances of victory. Biden endorsed Harris on Sunday when he announced his decision to leave the race.

While Biden sought to keep abortion center stage in his reelection bid, abortion advocates had harbored doubts that the president — a practicing Catholic who has said he is not “big on abortion” — could be an effective standard-bearer as Republican efforts erode access to abortion and other women’s health care around the country.

Harris, on the other hand, became the first vice president to visit a clinic run by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She undertook a nationwide tour focused on reproductive rights. And when Sen. JD Vance of Ohio was named Trump’s running mate, Harris used her next campaign appearance to criticize him for blocking protections for in vitro fertilization.

“Most significantly, Harris would be the face of the drive to protect abortion rights,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, said in an interview before Biden stepped aside. “Abortion access would likely be front and center in her campaign.”

A strong stance on abortion is not the only major contrast to the GOP that Harris offers: She is well versed in health policy. As a child, Harris often accompanied her mother to work on the weekends, visiting the lab where she was studying breast cancer.

While running for president in 2019, she backed “Medicare for All,” a single-payer insurance proposal that established her bona fides as a more progressive voice on health policy. And as California’s attorney general, she fought against consolidation in the health industry over concerns it would drive up prices. 

She stumped for a Biden administration rule setting minimum staffing levels at federally funded nursing homes in April.

“She deserves credit, she’s talked about them on the campaign trail. I don’t see any change there in the priorities on what Democrats want to do on health care if she becomes the nominee,” said Debbie Curtis, vice president at McDermott + Consulting. 

Sixty-three percent of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, based on a poll conducted in April by Pew Research Center.

An intensified focus on women’s health and abortion could help galvanize Democratic voters in the final sprint to the election. Since the three Supreme Court justices named by Trump helped overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, public opinion has turned against Republicans on abortion, even contributing to an unexpectedly poor showing in the 2022 midterm elections.

Thirty-two percent of voters said they would vote only for a candidate for a major office who shares their views on abortion, according to a Gallup Poll conducted in May. That’s a record high since Gallup first asked the question in 1992. Nearly twice as many voters who support abortion, compared with those who oppose abortion, hold that view. 

Sixty-three percent of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, based on a poll conducted in April by Pew Research Center. Thirty-six percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Republicans, in turn, have been eager to distance themselves from their own victory on the issue. Trump angered some members of his base by saying he would leave decisions on abortion to the states.

Regardless, advocates caution that the GOP’s new moderation-by-omission on the issue masks their actual, more extreme stance. Vance has been clear in the past about his support for a national abortion ban. And while the GOP platform adopted during the party’s convention last week may not explicitly call for a nationwide ban on abortion, party leaders’ recognition of “fetal personhood,” the idea that as soon as an egg is fertilized it becomes a person with full legal rights, would create such a ban automatically if the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Those views stand in contrast to those of many Republicans, especially women. About half of Republican women voters think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a recent national survey by KFF. And majorities of women who vote Republican believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or a pregnancy emergency.

If Harris heads the ticket, she would be expected to hammer on those issues in the coming months. 

“It’s been one of if not the main issue she’s emphasized in the last year or two,” said Matthew Baum, Marvin Kalb professor of global communications at Harvard University. “Clearly the Republicans are trying to defang the issue. It’s been a disaster for them.”

It is likely, though, that Republicans would paint Harris’ views on abortion as extremist. During the presidential debate against Biden, Trump falsely claimed Democrats support abortions late in pregnancy, “even after birth.”

Shortly after news broke that Biden had endorsed Harris, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America issued a statement calling out Harris’ record and offering evidence of what is to come. “While Joe Biden has trouble saying the word abortion, Kamala Harris shouts it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president.

Some pollsters have said Harris would have to do more than just campaign against Republican efforts to roll back abortion access to truly motivate voters because so many issues, such as inflation, the economy, and immigration, are competing for attention.

“She has to say she is running for a federal law that will bring back Roe v. Wade,” said Robert Blendon, an emeritus public health professor at Harvard University. “She needs something very specific and clear.”

Harris’ elevation to the top of the ticket would come at a critical juncture in the fight over reproductive rights.

The Supreme Court heard two abortion cases in the term that ended this month. But the justices did not address the merits of the issues in either case, ruling instead on technicalities. Both are expected to return to the high court as soon as next year.

In one case, challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, the justices ruled that the group of anti-abortion medical professionals who challenged the drug lacked standing to sue because they failed to show they were personally injured by its availability. 

But the Supreme Court returned the case to the district court in Texas where it was filed, and the GOP attorneys general of three states — Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri — have joined the case as plaintiffs. Whether the courts accept the states as viable challengers remains to be seen, but if they do, the justices could soon be asked again to determine the fate of the abortion pill.  

The other abortion-related case pitted a federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care against Idaho’s strict ban, which allows abortions when a pregnant patient’s life is in danger — but not in cases in which it is necessary to protect her health, including future fertility.

In that case, the justices apparently failed to reach any majority agreement, declaring instead that they were premature in accepting the case and sending it back to the lower court for further consideration. That case, too, could return in relatively short order.

Harris would also have substantial leeway to talk about what are considered to be the Biden administration’s core health policy accomplishments. These include enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits aimed at helping consumers get health insurance coverage, which were extended through the Inflation Reduction Act into 2025, the $35 monthly cap on copays some patients pay for insulin, and drug price negotiation in Medicare.

“I think she is well positioned. She is core to the administration and will be able to take credit for those things,” said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase.

That said, it may be hard for any candidate to get voters to focus on some of those accomplishments, especially drug price efforts.

While the administration has taken some important steps, “new expensive drugs keep coming out,” Mendelson said. “So if you look at the perception of consumers, they do not believe the cost of drugs is going down.”

Joseph Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, said Harris would likely say the Biden-Harris administration “is already saving people money” on insulin. But she will have to go beyond these accomplishments and double down on drug pricing and other cost issues — not talk solely about reproductive rights.

“She’s got to concentrate, if she wants to win, on issues that have a broad appeal,” Antos said. “Cost is one and access to treatments is another big issue.”

Samantha Young of KFF Health News contributed to this report.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

Fox News melts down over Joe Biden stepping aside and upending the presidential race

President Joe Biden's decision to drop out of the race on Sunday came as a relief to many Democrats but sent Fox News into a frenzy of rage and anxiety. Almost immediately after Biden's announcement, the network's anchors and commentators lined up to call the president's withdrawal from his re-election campaign a threat to democracy  and Vice President Kamala Harris, his likely replacement, a radical out-of-touch liberal with a strange laugh.

"The entire Biden presidency has been a lie," Fox News personality Jesse Watters said, claiming it was now "ending in disgrace."

Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner, argued that the Democratic National Committee was handpicking Harris over the wishes of voters, claiming that "if anybody was afraid that democracy would be upended, we are watching it today."

"Before we preach to anybody else about how democracy in a republic should go, we got to get our straight and the timber crossed," she continued. "All they wanted to talk about leading up from the Biden campaign. Was the threat from Trump for democracy? No, they’re the threat. Look at today. This takes the power out of the hands of the voters."

The reaction is not entirely surprising, since former President Donald Trump's campaign had reportedly seen Biden as a weaker candidate and hoped that he would stay in the race, threatening legal action if he gave way to Harris or another Democratic nominee.

The 2020 Democratic primaries, like most other nominating processes for an incumbent president throughout U.S. history (including that of Donald Trump in 2020), were largely seen as a fait accompli for Biden, with no serious challenges daring to enter the fray. After a disastrous debate performance against Trump and a series of leaks about his mental and physical fitness that turned into a downpour, polls showed Biden losing support among both Democratic voters and the American electorate as a whole, not just party elites.

This didn't stop other Fox News contributors, like former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. from comparing Biden's withdrawal to the Watergate scandal. “For the Democrats to say democracy is on the ballot, that’s hypocrisy now,” he said.

Meanwhile, former Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller's voice cracked as he railed against the Democratic Party for acting like on "oligarchy" and wasting the GOP's money.

"The Republican Party spent tens of millions of dollars running against Joe Biden. Now they've just woke up one morning and said never mind, we're cancelling the entire primary, we're getting rid of our candidate and we're pretending the election has never even happened," he complained, echoing Trump's demands that his campaign be reimbursed for the money it spent running ads against a candidate who will not be on the ballot in November.

We need your help to stay independent

Some Fox talking heads pivoted to attacking Harris, who Biden endorsed to succeed him. Sean Hannity, after declaring that "democracy is dead in the Democratic Party" and calling on Biden to resign and "take his family of grifters back to Delaware," inveighed against Harris as a "radical" on issues such as healthcare, the environment and plastic straws.

"I love my plastic straws, I hate those paper straws," Hannity protested. He then played a video compilation of Harris having fun, suggesting that her laugh was off-putting to voters.

Former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway agreed. "She does not speak well. She does not work hard. She should not be the standard-bearer for the party," she told him.

George Conway, her husband and frequent Trump critic, responded that same evening. "Not everyone can express themselves as eloquently and with such exquisite turns of phrase as Donald J. Trump," he said in a post, presumably with a tone of sarcasm.

Poliovirus detected in Gaza wastewater, posing “ticking time bomb” for public health

Gaza's Ministry of Health announced on Friday that a deadly virus, component poliovirus type 2, was discovered by local scientists in Deir al-Balah's wastewater. Deir al-Balah is one of the largest cities in Gaza. In the aftermath of Israel's war against Gaza, more than 700,000 Palestinians are seeking shelter in the beleaguered region. Now the virus threatens to unleash a public health crisis on top of the existing strain from famine and other diseases.

The virus' presence is a "ticking time bomb," pediatric intensive care physician Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan told Al Jazeera. “Normally if you have a case of polio, you’re going to isolate them, you’re going to make sure that they use a bathroom that nobody else uses, make sure that they’re not in close proximity to other people, [but] that’s impossible" as the region struggles under a military assault, Taj-Hassan explained.

She added, "You have everybody clustering in refugee camps at the moment without vaccines for at least the past nine months, including children who would otherwise have been vaccinated for polio and adults who, in the setting of an outbreak, should receive a booster, including healthcare workers."

Last Tuesday Deir al-Balah's wastewater pumping stations stopped working because they ran out of fuel, due to Israel's ongoing blockade of the region; Palestinians there have had no electricity supplies since Oct. 7th. In a statement, city officials said that “roads will be flooded by wastewater” and “diseases will spread" as a result of the wastewater pumping stations becoming non-operational.

“Nineteen pits and two large reservoirs are unusable in Deir al-Balah,” Ismail Sarsour, an official with the city’s emergency committee, said prior to the release of the statement.

“What will happen to our store?”: Uncertainty still plagues the Kroger and Albertsons merger

Since Kroger and Albertsons, two of the largest grocery chains in the country, announced plans for a merger almost two years ago, Jane St. Louis and her co-workers have been on edge. To assuage federal concerns about creating a grocery monopoly, the companies announced in April they would sell 579 locations of their various respective supermarket chains — including Mariano’s, Food 4 Less, King Soopers, Ralphs and Pick’n Save — to C&S Wholesale Grocers, the largest wholesale grocery supply company in the U.S. and current owner of the Piggly-Wiggly supermarket franchise. 

St. Louis works at a Safeway, one of Abertsons’ subsidiaries, in Maryland and, while she and her fellow employees knew the merger would result in stores being sold, they had no idea which stores would be on the chopping block. 

“You can’t imagine the anxiety we feel every day we come to work,” St. Louis said in a statement issued by a collection of representatives for United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) locals, the unions that represent many of the supermarket employees across the country. “We wonder: What will happen to our store? What will happen to our jobs? What about our pensions? Will I be able to retire after all these years?” 

She continued: “You worry. You worry about your co-workers, your family and your customers. The uncertainty is causing a lot of anxiety.” 

Kroger and Albertsons provided some answers in mid-July when they released the sprawling official list of locations that would be acquired by C&S if the merger were to be approved by the Federal Trade Commission, a reality that began to look less likely when, in March, the FTC sued to block the deal, alleging that it is anticompetitive. By since committing to divesting over 500 locations across the country, the supermarkets are obviously angling for federal approval in response. 

However, a specter of uncertainty continues to shadow the deal, both as Kroger and Albertsons face numerous other lawsuits that are set to hit court later this month — and as community leaders nationwide begin to voice concern over whether their local grocery store would really be left in good hands were the merger to still go through. 

As reported by Progressive Grocer, in February, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court to block the merger. Kroger’s attempts to have the suit dismissed were ultimately unsuccessful and arguments in the Colorado lawsuit will begin on Aug. 12. 

We need your help to stay independent

Similarly, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed an antitrust lawsuit in January in an attempt to block the merger. On April 26, a King County Superior Court rejected efforts by Kroger and Albertsons to dismiss the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial Sept. 16, according to Supermarket News

There’s a risk that courts in both states might simply recommend additional divestiture as the solution, which is one that hasn’t sat well with representatives in Washington State, who, according to the Seattle Times, argue C&S is predominately a wholesaler and may not have the experience to successfully run the supermarkets it is set to acquire in the merger. 

This isn’t a fear that’s unique to the state. 

Since the release of the list, community leaders across the country have started taking tally of whether their local supermarket is one that will be affected in the merger. Representatives from C&S, Albertsons and Kroger have all maintained that no stores will close — and that no employees will lose their jobs or union benefits — as a result of the pairing, however that’s not historically been the case with large-scale supermarket deals like this, including Albertsons’ last merger. 

As a refresher, in 2015, Albertsons wanted to acquire the Safeway brand, but would need to divest nearly 146 stores in order for the FTC to approve the deal (sound familiar?). The supermarket approached Haggen, a comparatively small grocery chain that had 18 stores with 2,000 employees scattered across Washington and Oregon, and offered them a way to explode into a 164-location brand with 10,000 employees essentially overnight. 

Taken by the idea of expanding their footprint into California, Nevada and Arizona, Haggen quickly dropped $1.4 billion for the Vons, Pavilions and Safeways that Albertsons needed to jettison in order for the merger to be approved, but then buyer’s remorse quickly set in. 

Haggen claimed Albertsons sabotaged the deal. Leadership from the company cited a few alleged transgressions; Albertsons, they said, reneged on providing Haggen with proprietary software needed for a smooth transition and purposely left the divested locations understocked so as to start new leadership on shaky footing. They then slapped Albertsons with a $1 billion lawsuit, which ultimately resulted in a $5.75 million cash settlement. 

Six months later, Haggen filed for bankruptcy and closed a total of their 27 new locations, leaving thousands of union employees jobless for months, according to the UFCW. 

However, according to a Kroger representative, the company is confident in its current divestiture plan. 

“The comprehensive divestiture plan with C&S is critical to bringing the meaningful and measurable benefits of our merger with Albertsons to associates, customers and communities across America," the wrote via email.

The statement continued: "The divestiture plan ensures no stores will close as a result of the merger and that all frontline associates will remain employed, all existing collective bargaining agreements will continue, and associates will continue to receive industry-leading health care and pension benefits alongside bargained-for wages. C&S's strong operational focus coupled with its experienced management team and financial resources will position it to successfully operate divested stores for years to come. Importantly, we are committed to working closely with C&S to ensure a seamless transition of ownership for all divested stores and supporting operational infrastructure.”

"Underpinning the entire conversation about the merger is another element of uncertainty, one that is decidedly more ambiguous and complicated, and that is the rapidly changing nature of the grocery landscape."

Underpinning the entire conversation about the merger is another element of uncertainty, one that is decidedly more ambiguous and complicated, and that is the rapidly changing nature of the grocery landscape. Supermarkets in both urban neighborhoods and remote, rural areas are closing and being replaced by dollar and convenience stores. Simultaneously, companies that are already regarded by many as monopolistic, including Walmart and Amazon, are pushing even more steadily into the grocery segment of their businesses. 

This is something Kroger’s chief executive officer, Rodney McMullen, told members of the Senate when he appeared before the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights regarding the merger in 2022. McMullen pointed out that Kroger currently ranks fourth in total revenue among U.S. grocery retailers behind Walmert, Amazon and Costco

A combined Kroger and Albertsons, McMullen argued, will remain at number four. 

“While we firmly believe Kroger offers the best products at the best prices, we acknowledge both Walmart and Amazon have clear advantages,” he said. “Our combination with Albertsons will allow us to more effectively compete against non-union retailers, from Amazon and Walmart to Costco and Aldi.” 

It’s unclear whether the federal courts will take that argument more seriously in light of the recently-released list of locations set to be divested. Kroger and Albertsons will have their first opportunity to test it out on Aug. 26 when the Federal Trade Commission will appear before a federal court in Oregon in an effort to halt the merger — though only temporarily, until the federal regulator can complete a full review of the deal.

UPDATE: This story has been updated with a statement from a Kroger representative regarding the planned divestiture. 

George Conway mocks ex-wife, Kellyanne Conway, for claiming Kamala Harris “does not speak well”

Conservative attorney George Conway called out his ex-wife, Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, after she said Vice President Kamala Harris “does not work hard” following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. 

“She does not speak well, she does not work hard, she doesn’t inspire anyone,” Kellyanne Conway said of Harris on Fox News. “She should not be the standard-bearer for the party.”

George Conway responded by mocking his ex-wife, who served as Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager and then as an aide in Trump’s administration.

“Not everyone can express themselves as eloquently and with such exquisite turns of phrase as Donald J. Trump,” he wrote on X.

Despite being married to Kellyanne Conway for 22 years, George Conway is a staunch critic of Trump. The former corporate litigator first came to public attention when he began criticizing the former president while his wife was working at the White House.

He has has since remained a ferocious Trump critic, last week launching an anti-Trump political action committee called the Anti-Pscyopath PAC.

Before announcing their divorce in 2023, the marriage between the Trump lover and hater was an enigma for many. The New York Times called them America’s “oddest political couple” while Vanity Fair described the Conways’ marriage as “one of the greatest mysteries of the 21st century."

Trump is already trying to back out of a debate with Kamala Harris

Donald Trump is already trying to change the rules for the second scheduled presidential debate after President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race on Sunday. 

The first presidential debate on CNN took place June 27 and was the beginning of the end for Biden’s presidential campaign. The second debate, which the Trump campaign agreed to in May, is scheduled for Sept. 10 and is to be aired on ABC news.

But since Biden has dropped out and is likely to be replaced as the Democratic nominee by Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump is getting cold feet.

“Now that Joe has, not surprisingly, has quit the race, I think the Debate, with whomever the Radical Left Democrats choose, should be held on FoxNews, rather than very biased ABC,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

With the Democratic running mate still unknown, Trump’s own pick, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, has also been hesitant to commit to a debate. Before Biden announced his withdrawal, the Trump campaign said Vance would not debate Harris, HuffPost reported.

Trump has also complained about the Republican Party “having to start all over again” after “spending time and money” campaigning against Biden.

“Shouldn’t the Republican Party be reimbursed for fraud in that everybody around Joe, including his doctors and the Fake News Media, knew he was not capable of running for, or being, President?” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Republicans “completely flummoxed” as Kamala Harris opens with massive fundraising haul

Here’s how the last 24 hours have gone for the Democratic Party: Former President Donald Trump, who would be 82 at the end of a second term, has gone from trolling for more debates with President Joe Biden to trying to wiggle out of one with Vice President Kamala Harris, whose historic bid for the White House so energized the rank-and-file that they’ve donated more than $83 million via the progressive fundraising platform ActBlue since Sunday morning.

“Small donors are fired up and ready to take on this election,” ActBlue said in a statement. Major Democratic donors, such as Netflix cofounder Reid Hoffman and financier George Soros, have already announced they have her back, as has every major potential competitor, from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, dashing some pundits’ fevered dreams of a hotly contested open convention.

It is the GOP now in disarray, Trump surrogates and media allies who had planned for years on running against Biden — old, old, old — forced to improvise attacks against a 59-year-old former prosecutor capable of speaking passionately and cogently about Project 2025 and the planned assault on reproductive rights and liberal democracy.

“She wants to ban plastic straws,” Fox News personality Sean Hannity told his viewers.

Trump himself posted through his own anxiety attack, dashing off multiple complaints that he was no longer facing the 81-year-old Biden, leaving one major party with a candidate whose age and apparent decline is of deep concern to many voters.

“Shouldn’t the Republican Party be reimbursed for fraud in that everybody around Joe, including his doctors and the Fake News Media, knew he was not capable of running for, or being, President?” Trump posted on his website, Truth Social.

Before Biden’s announcement on Sunday, there had been reports that Republicans strongly favored him staying in the race, preferring that the November election be a referendum on his age rather than their own nominee’s criminal convictions and mental health. Those reports appear to have been absolutely correct, the early responses to Harris’ candidacy suggesting that Republicans are going to have a tough time talking about a woman of color in a way that doesn’t repulse swing voters.

We need your help to stay independent

On Sunday night, Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wisc. — who earlier this month spoke about the need to “get America back to, say, 1960” — told a reporter that Democrats had indeed scrambled the race.

“I think it is going to be more difficult to beat somebody who is not Joe Biden,” Grothman admitted. Asked to weigh in on whether the Democrats could go with anyone but Harris, Grothman, inevitably, got weird about it, saying “a lot of Democrats feel they have to stick with her because of her ethnic background.”

For Trump allies, that was actually an improvement. Seb Gorka, a former Trump advisor who longs for the 1930s, referred to the sitting vice president, ex-senator and former California attorney general as a “colored” diversity hire just the other week (“DEI” the new “CRT”: a stand-in for a racial slur).

Republicans will of course throw anything they can at the new presumptive Democratic nominee, whose candidacy will likely be formalized at in a virtual roll call in early August. Inflation, migration and catering to reactionary white male America’s every anxiety about a woman of color leading the country: When the GOP does land on a line of attack, it won’t be an entirely new surprise but talking points drawn from the same old well.

What is clear, at least now, is that Biden putting the good of his party over his personal ambition is not something for which president’s political opponents had planned.

“MAGA seems completely flummoxed by Biden’s withdrawal and quick coalescence around Harris,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted on social media. “But this scenario has been plausible for weeks. What I think is that politicians doing what’s right, rather than acting out of fear and ambition, isn’t part of the MAGA mental universe.”

Joe Biden’s brilliant exit: Democrats get a boost, Republicans left bewildered

July 21, 2024, was one of those "where were you when you heard" days that people will remember for a long time to come. I was online that early Sunday afternoon and I saw the news that President Joe Biden was withdrawing from the presidential race come across my social media feed in real time. A friend texted me "You were right, it wasn't going to happen until the moment it happened." That's what I'd been saying for the past couple of weeks when people would get anxious whenever Biden would say that he was absolutely not dropping out. No candidate would ever say "well, I'm thinking of giving up." They're all in until they're not. 

Since the night of the debate, I was fairly convinced that the Biden candidacy was over. I kept an open mind, thinking maybe he really was just under the weather that night but it had opened the floodgates of concerns that had been out there for a while. The presidency ages everyone who is in it, even the younger ones, and it has clearly taken a toll on Biden. I figured the polls would take a while to show a drop and it was obvious that the media's 24/7 crisis mode would almost certainly have an effect. Reports from behind the scenes this weekend say that Biden was shown polling while recovering from COVID in his Rehoboth, Delaware home that said he had no chance to win. That's when he finally pulled the plug.

Joe Biden has been an excellent president, far exceeding the expectations of many of us.

Everyone I know reported feeling sad when they heard the news. Joe Biden has been an excellent president, far exceeding the expectations of many of us. If time had not caught up with him, as it does with all of us, most Democrats would have been happy to see him continue. But Biden is a tough old bird, a canny political veteran who understands that if he lost the race to Donald Trump his legacy would be utterly destroyed. More importantly, he understands the stakes and knows the country may not survive another Trump term. As much as I'm sure he loathed having to withdraw, in a long life filled with searing personal tragedies, having to drop out of the race for a second term as president doesn't rank among his worst days.

Wisely, he immediately endorsed his Vice President Kamala Harris, as I predicted he would some time ago. Setting aside various logistical complications, Biden needed to take the lead in settling down the chaos and reassure his own loyal voters about the campaign carrying on with his imprimatur. I wasn't sure if the rest of the Democratic Party was going to get with the program but a long string of Harris endorsements from elected officialsstate party chairs and delegates throughout the day quickly indicated that there is no appetite for the kind of open primary free-for-all contemplated by some pundits and strategists. (The unspeakably daft proposal for a "blitz-primary" with events featuring Oprah, Taylor Swift, Pastor Rick Warren and Tim McGraw among dozens of others seems very unlikely now, thank goodness.) 

There is some talk of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the diva who ostentatiously left the Democratic Party just a few months ago, throwing his hat into the ring, backed by some disgruntled conservative donors. And perhaps someone else will decide that this is his moment to shine as well. But for now, the Democrats appear to be forming a consensus that Harris is their best bet under the circumstances. In fact, judging from the monster fundraising through the Act Blue platform for small donors yesterday, enthusiasm is off the charts.

So what do the Republicans think about all this? Surprisingly, they didn't seem to see this coming, which is astonishing. The Atlantic's Tim Alberta, who published a long disturbing piece a couple of weeks ago called "Trump is planning for a landslide win," noted in an update on Sunday that the Trump campaign had convinced themselves the window for Biden to drop out had closed and that the election was in the bag:

Republicans I spoke with today, some of them still hungover from celebrating what felt to many like a victory-night celebration in Milwaukee, registered shock at the news of Biden’s departure. Party officials had left town believing the race was all but over. Now they were confronting the reality of reimagining a campaign—one that had been optimized, in every way, to defeat Biden—against a new and unknown challenger. “So, we are forced to spend time and money on fighting Crooked Joe Biden, he polls badly after having a terrible debate, and quits the race,” a clearly peeved Trump wrote Sunday on Truth Social. “Now we have to start all over again.”

We need your help to stay independent

They seem to have been caught completely flat-footed. Trump was all over his social media platform whining that Republicans should be reimbursed for spending money to run against Biden and running away from debating in September unless the debate will be held on Fox News. The best Sean Hannity could come up with was that Harris wants to take away their plastic straws and is "detested" for laughing:

And Trump's close adviser Stephen Miller pretty much had a shrieking tantrum on Laura Ingraham's show about the Democrats allegedly overturning an election. (Yes, his chutzpah knows no bounds.)


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


It seems that they may not have anticipated that Joe Biden gracefully withdrawing from the race might be seen as an act of selfless patriotism in contrast to their leader Donald Trump, the grasping egomaniac who incited a riot rather than admit that he lost. The contrast couldn't be more vivid. And while the country has spent the last few weeks contemplating the toll the pressures of the presidency took on Joe Biden as he entered his ninth decade of life, starting today similar thoughts about Donald Trump are inevitable. As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC:

Trump's remarkable recent run of political good luck came to an end with a crash. The old man in the race now is Donald Trump, 78 years old and only occasionally coherent, with a record as president that is viewed by historians as the worst in history.

The following ad is from 2019 but it is even more potent today. It's a new race and Trump is now the former president who tried to stage a coup, perpetuated the Big Lie and is a 78-year-old recently convicted of multiple felonies. 

Does Trump have the strength and the stamina to meet the challenge? I wouldn't bet money on it. 

As conservatives advocate for raw milk, creamery owner sentenced to probation after fatal outbreak

Over the past decade, Republicans have ardently stood by raw, unpasteurized milk.

Their biggest victory came last May when the Iowa Legislature passed a bill legalizing the sale of raw milk directly from farms to consumers. Dubbed the “fresh milk bill,” Senate Bill 315 was approved following a 37 to 13 Senate vote, allowing producers to sell raw milk to Iowans, along with raw milk products like cheese, yogurt and ice cream. The bill’s earliest iteration was conceived back in 2008, after Iowa State Senator Jason Schultz visited a local farmer who received a cease-and-desist letter for selling unpasteurized milk to his friends and neighbors. In the wake of Senate Bill 315’s passage, Schultz and many of his Republican supporters celebrated the so-called win. Schultz said he’s waited 17 years for a raw milk bill to clear the Legislature.

However, amid the recent right-wing fervor, a raw milk creamery based in Walton, New York, was found to be the source of Listeria monocytogenes that sickened eight people, killing two of them in 2016. On July 9, Johannes Vulto, the owner of Vulto Creamery, was sentenced to three years probation, a $100,000 fine and 240 hours of community service by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Vulto could have been sentenced to up to a year in prison but agreed to pay a $100,000 fine, according to his plea agreement.

Court documents revealed that Vulto Creamery started producing and shipping raw milk cheese in 2012. Samples of Vulto’s cheese repeatedly tested positive for listeria species between July 2014 and Feb. 2017, ultimately leading the federal court to shut down the creamery in 2018.

Vulto Creamery initiated a recall of its Ouleout cheese on March 3, 2017. Four days later, it expanded its recall to include all soft and semi-soft cheese. All Vulto cheese products were recalled on March 11, 2017. And on April 5, 2017, the creamery destroyed all cheese in its inventory and other returned products from prior recalls.

Upon further inspection of Vulto Creamery, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found several health and safety violations. Vulto employees reportedly didn’t wash their lower or upper arms before submerging them in whey to stir and break up fresh cheese curds. According to FDA investigators, one of those employees had several cuts and abrasions on their arms. Black mold was also found throughout the creamery’s factory. The FDA listed 18 total violations.

The recent case with Vulto Creamery underscores some of the dangers of raw milk consumption. The FDA has advised against drinking raw milk and eating raw milk products — mainly sourced from cows, sheep and goats. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, Campylobacter and other pathogens that cause foodborne illness.

Despite those risks, the pro-raw milk movement has only intensified, even in the midst of a recent outbreak of bird flu among dairy cattle. As of July 8, the H5N1 strain has infected dairy herds in 12 states: 27 herds each in Colorado and Idaho, 25 in Michigan, 21 in Texas, 12 in Iowa, eight in New Mexico, seven in Minnesota, five in South Dakota, four in Kansas, and one each in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wyoming.

Within humans, the consequences of drinking unpasteurized milk from cows infected with bird flu remain inconclusive, although one study suggested that it may be dangerous. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison discovered that mice that were fed samples of milk from a herd of H5N1-infected cows subsequently grew very sick. They said more research is needed to determine whether humans who drink raw milk containing the H5N1 virus would be affected in a similar manner as mice. However, researchers did conclude that H5N1-positive milk poses a risk when consumed untreated.   

Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said consuming raw milk could come with serious health risks.

“There is concern that consumption of unpasteurized milk and products made from unpasteurized milk contaminated with HPAI A(H5N1) virus could transmit HPAI A(H5N1) virus to people; however, the risk of human infection is unknown at this time,” the agency wrote.

However, last month, sales of raw milk were on the rise as the number of bird flu cases increased.

That’s largely due to conservatives decrying both the government and “Big Milk” for allegedly violating their right to consume raw milk, regardless of whether it fueled the human-to-human spread of bird flu. As explained by Salon’s Ashlie Stevens, “It’s an attitude that closely mimics the party’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and the ways in which their members refused to participate in even basic public health and safety measures.” Avoiding the consumption of raw milk has become “the new masking” for Republicans, Stevens added.

Take for example Infowars host Owen Shroyer, who called the FDA a “gangster mafia” that wanted to “make raw milk illegal.” 

“So, now that more people are going to local farms and farmers markets and consuming raw milk, this angers the FDA,” Shroyer said in April. “This angers Big Milk. Say, ‘No, you need to pasteurize milk, it’s a lot less healthy for you.’ See, eventually, they’ll just make it illegal. They’ll just make raw milk illegal. That’s what this is all about.”


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


That same month, right-wing media outlet TheBlaze published an article titled “Blaze News Investigates: The truth about raw milk the government doesn't want you to know: ‘Close to a perfect food,’” which claimed that “the so-called ‘experts’ are not telling you the full story” and that “unfortunately, the potential benefits of raw dairy are a secret to most Americans.”

Conservative youth organization Turning Point USA also promoted drinking raw milk with a plain white t-shirt featuring an image of a cow and the words “got raw milk?” under it.

What will it take for conservatives to realize that prohibiting the consumption of raw milk isn’t merely a “violation” of one’s rights — it’s a safety measure at large? Is it another Listeriosis outbreak? Or is it more dairy cattle infected with bird flu? Science and public health concerns are clearly out the window. So perhaps, the question remains unanswered for the time being.