Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Texas superintendent moved to ban Holocaust books following demands by far-right activists

Bowing to pressure from conservatives, the superintendent of a Texas school district agreed earlier this month to remove 676 books from its libraries, including seminal texts on the Holocaust and antisemitism, according to a report by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

That superintendent, Carol Perez, is now facing her own removal by a board of trustees that recently voted to initiate a separation process on the grounds that her 10-year contract is illegal, clearly violating a Texas law that limits such contracts to five years.

Though the censorship has not been cited as a cause for removal, the decision by the trustees came just weeks after she provoked backlash by immediately surrendering to a demand from right-wing activists to purge "very sexually explicit" and "filthy and evil" books, rather than asking them to go through a formal challenge process first.

The activists, led by a local pastor and outspoken Israel advocate Luis Cabrera, had been pushing the Mission Consolidated Independent School District in south Texas to remove books about gender, sexuality and race; two groups that he is an active member of — Citizens Defending Freedom and Remnant Alliance — also wants to rid libraries of books about the Holocaust.

The campaign against books that offend right-wing sensibilities is one being carried out across the United States, with its most notable successes occurring in GOP-controlled states such as Florida and Texas, where school officials have banned a graphic adaptation of Anne Frank's diary, or Tennessee, where a district removed "Maus," a graphic novel about the Holocaust, from the middle school curriculum. In Iowa, school districts quietly disposed of a slew of Holocaust-themed books and films after lobbying by activists.

In emails that were copied to Gabrera and other local right-wing leaders, activist Martha Garza-Johnson presented Perez with the list of 676 offending books, which included Anne Frank's diary, "Maus," "The Fixer," "Kasher in the Rye" and other works about the Holocaust and the Jewish experience. If their demands were not met, Garza-Johnson continued, she and other activists would crash public school board meetings and read graphic passages from the books out loud.

“We are here to work with you,” she wrote. “We are advocating for our children because we want to protect them from these extremely vulgar and offensive books that have no business in our schools.”

“We will certainly check to see if we have those books to remove them,” Perez responded. “Thank you!”

Mission CISD's deputy superintendent then followed up to assure them that she would “begin working with Library Services to track the books on the system and have them removed from the libraries.”

Although the right-wing activists, with backing from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, have targeted other schools in the region with the same threats, Mission CISD is the only school district to have acceded to their version of demands. It's unknown whether the district followed through on removing the books.

O Canada! “Top Chef” sets its sights northward for season 22, set to air next year

"Top Chef" is going international again, this time heading further north than they have before, to the land of poutine, a bevy of maple syrup, the foods of the First Nations and indigenous Canadians — and "Degrassi," of course.

On both Twitter/X and Instagram, "Top Chef" shared a fun (albeit a bit corny!) clip of host Kristen Kish and judges and producers Tom Colicchio and Gail Simmons "chatting on a FaceTime call" (complete with a requisite Tom hat joke) in which Canadian-born Simmons shows off where she is and Kish quips, "Are you there for a family visit?" Simmons corrects them both, saying that Canada would actually be the setting for the 22nd season of "Top Chef." 

"I'm so excited to show you guys around," she said. "Oh, and by the way, my parents are literally prepping their guest  rooms as we speak, so be forewarned." 

In a statement, Ryan Flynn, the Senior Vice President of Current Production at NBCUniversal Entertainment, said: "When the opportunity to feature Canada for 'Top Chef' Season 22 arose, it was clear that exploring our northern neighbor was a natural choice. Canada's diverse array of culinary traditions, multicultural influences, and distinctive regional specialties will serve as a perfect backdrop for our next batch of chefs competing for the coveted title."

Gloria Loree, the Chief Marketing Officer at Destination Canada, said the show has a legacy of shining the brightest spotlights on unexpected culinary destinations, which is why the country is eager to welcome the production. 

"Canada's culinary identity is rooted in our vast geography, the rhythm of our seasons, and the culture and traditions of our communities; yes that includes maple syrup and so much more," Loree said. "We're excited to see it unfold through the judges, cheftestants' challenges and experiences, and surprise viewers along the way."

While we don't know yet if Season 22 will feature a brand new crop of cheftestants, some returnees or perhaps an entire cast of all-stars, stay tuned to find out. 

Project 2025 shows Trump and GOP are “obsessed” with abortion and “controlling our bodies”: expert

Since Supreme Court justices appointed by Donald Trump helped overturn Roe v. Wade, more than a dozen states have passed total bans on abortion — and twice that number have imposed other limits on reproductive freedom, according to the the Guttmacher Institute. The nine states left with no restrictions have seen an influx of patients crossing state lines for medical care: some 171,000 people in 2023.

If Trump wins in November, there could be nowhere for them to go, at least in the United States. That would mean more women dying: Research suggests maternal mortality would jump 24% if Republicans pass and Trump signs into law a national abortion ban. More children would die too: After Texas imposed its abortion ban, infant deaths increased by nearly 13%, according to a recent study.

Salon spoke with Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes, about the stakes in November and how much worse things could get if Democrats do not retain control of the White House.

What is at stake if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election versus Joe Biden, specifically for abortion rights and reproductive health rights?

Donald Trump and other abortion opponents, the team he has around him, never planned to stop at overturning Roe v. Wade and their assault on reproductive rights is only just beginning. 

They're trying to unilaterally leverage every tool and every government agency to radically change our country and eliminate abortion access nationwide, oftentimes with no input or approval from Congress.

"When they are able to enact policy, they do the most extreme version. And we should expect that at the federal level as well."

So what Trump can do on his own and the folks who are building out his administration, they have named on day one their agenda includes restricting medication abortion, attempting to enforce outdated patriarchal the Comstock Act from 1873 and defund Planned Parenthood and reinstate the global global gap world. These are all things that Trump would do on day one, and that's just beginning.

What do you think the media is missing? Is there something that we don't really see coming, that maybe the Republican Party has planned, that we'll see come into play if Trump wins?

As Project 2025 makes clear, they are obsessed with controlling our bodies and interfering with personal medical decisions. And I think banning abortion is such a key part … “Abortion” is mentioned 199 times throughout the whole document

This is one of their top priorities. I think what's really important is that they won't stop at laws they can pass through Congress. They won't stop at much. Everything's on the table, and they're going to use every tool at their disposal to ensure that abortion access is not available. 

Currently, one in three women do not have access to reproductive freedom because they live in states with bans. There's no state in the nation where they have done anything less than a six-week ban, if not a total ban. When they are able to enact policy, they do the most extreme version. And we should expect that at the federal level as well. That is the way they are governing. 

Earlier this year, Trump seemed to take a more moderate stance, saying that he wasn't going to support a federal ban on abortions, but he was really excited about the statewide bans. Where do you think he really stands?

The anti-abortion movement's ultimate goal is to ban abortion by any means necessary, and Trump's statements about letting states decide, all you have to do is look at the way states are deciding. Anti-abortion politicians ban abortion before you know you're pregnant, and they don't want you to show up in an emergency room to get care if you're a pregnant person and having a miscarriage. 

They want to take over the courts to end that kind of medical care for pregnant people. They're trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers via federal courts in Texas. And so for Trump to say, "Let the states decide," what he is saying is he would like to have a national abortion ban.

We need your help to stay independent

The other day I read something like 58% of Republicans are actually in favor of legal access to abortions. I wanted to kind of run that by you and see if you had any thoughts on what the numbers really look like. 

Generally, across the nation, eight in 10 Americans agree that decisions about abortion should be left between a patient and the provider. Abortion access crosses party lines, it crosses age and gender lines. We see this in poll after poll after poll.

But when you ask the question about who should be making these very important decisions, about the shape and size and ability to have a family, people do not believe that politicians are ever more qualified than a physician and their patients.

How are the red-state bans impacting blue states?

The impact really can't be understated when you get rid of healthcare access to half the country and say that the remaining half has to accommodate. This has been a devastation to reproductive freedom in this country and that is kind of unquantifiable at this moment. People are trying to put data around this, but it is a moving target and as new laws come on the books, as more people need access to care, we're getting more data and learning more. 

The fundamental issue here is that you have a choice for president, and on one hand, you have Joe Biden, who is committed and asked Congress to deliver him a law to protect access in all 50 states to ensure that it does not matter where you live, that you can have access to full reproductive freedom and not have to fear the fact that you are pregnant and worry about the healthcare you're going to receive. 

"It's two polar opposites. If Trump wins, abortion access in this country will continue to be devastated."

On the other hand, you have Donald Trump and his folks who work in his administration, willfully misinterpreting a law from the 1800s that will and could try to ban abortion in every state. It's two polar opposites. If Trump wins, abortion access in this country will continue to be devastated, and it is so essential that Joe Biden returns to office.

If Biden were to win this year, what would you hope are the first few things he can kind of put in place to help kind of build back what we've lost in the last two years with Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Joe Biden has never wavered in his support of reproductive freedom. And as we look forward, one of the most key pieces is the Supreme Court. It is entirely possible that a few of them will retire and no longer serve other terms. What is really critical is that Joe Biden is able to nominate replacements for those justices which would then change the face of the court, and would potentially help us get back to a place where abortion access is protected, but that's the Supreme Court level. Also nominating justices to federal courts is really essential, and he's done tons of that already.

When I think about the Biden administration, and what they're going to do next, a lot relies on our ability to hold the Senate and flip the House. If we have both of those chambers that are dedicated to reproductive freedom, and we have the Biden administration in charge, there’s the possibility of passing a piece of legislation that protects access. 

Yes, that seems like the ultimate trifecta.

We need a trifecta to be able to accomplish that big goal.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Supreme Court dismisses Idaho abortion challenge, allowing doctors to perform emergency abortions

On Thursday, The Supreme Court ruled that doctors are allowed to provide emergency abortions to stabilize a patient’s health and life, meaning Idaho’s near-total abortion ban does not take precedence over a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA.)

The 6-3 opinion included three dissenting Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, while three of the court's conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — sided with the three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The appeal from Idaho was dismissed as "improvidently granted" without considering the core issues in the case, returning it to the lower courts for further litigation.

"Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay," Justice Brown Jackson wrote in her opinion. "While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires."

“This decision is unconscionable," Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement. "For nearly six months, as a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s actions, Idahoans have been denied access to emergency abortion care. While access to emergency abortion care has been restored in Idaho for now, the court had the opportunity today to make clear that the federal EMTALA law protects pregnant patients’ access to emergency abortion care in every state. Instead, the court has kicked the can down the road, leaving access to emergency care for pregnant people across the country under threat.”

The ruling isn't entirely surprising given that the opinion was briefly posted on the court's website on Wednesday, June 26 before being taken down.

This is the second major abortion-related case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard this year, after unanimously voting to reject a challenge to mifepristone access, a common, safe and effective abortion drug.

Shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated EMTALA took priority over state laws. Under EMTALA, hospitals and emergency rooms were required to provide emergency abortions even where there were strict abortions laws — like Idaho and Texas. The Biden Administration even sued Idaho, claiming that the state's near-total ban was in direct conflict with the federal EMTALA law. But the state claimed that there wasn’t a conflict because technically it has a life-saving exception. Then in January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas ruled that emergency rooms aren't required to perform health-saving abortions under EMTALA, which is when the case moved to the Supreme Court.

As Salon previously reported, justices appeared to be split on whether or not Idaho’s near-total abortion ban overrides EMTALA or not during the hearing, which took place on April 24, 2024.

Notably, EMTALA first came to light as a response to hospitals turning away uninsured pregnant people in active labor. Congress passed the law in 1986 and specifically included provisions mandating federally funded hospitals to accept a patient in active labor even if she doesn’t have insurance. President Ronald Reagan signed it into law. The purpose of EMTALA was to establish a nationwide baseline of emergency care that everyone is entitled to, regardless of where they live or their medical condition. Congress even included a preemption clause that said if any state law conflicts with EMTALA’s requirements, EMTALA overrides the state law.

“Through EMTALA, Congress protected the ultimate power of every pregnant person to decide what's best for themselves, their health and their pregnancies, including if that means ending the pregnancy,” Carrie Flaxman, a senior advisor at Democracy Forward, said at a press conference after the oral arguments in April. “And so the notion that the same language that was used to expand EMTALA’s protections for pregnant people somehow now carves them out of the law’s full protections defies logic.”


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


Legal experts have repeatedly told Salon that if the Supreme Court ruled that EMTALA doesn’t cover life and health-saving abortions, it would essentially make pregnant women “second-class citizens” in America’s emergency rooms. 

“This case could radically change how emergency medical care is practiced in this country and could make pregnant people second-class citizens in America's emergency rooms,” Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, told Salon. “What I think we are looking at here is the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade was just the beginning, and these extremist politicians are using every tool at their disposal in their campaign to ban abortion nationwide.” 

We need your help to stay independent

The precedent could have a dangerous ripple effect.

“Practitioners are going to be afraid to practice, they're going to be afraid to treat people, they're going to be working under terrible conditions of wondering if they're going to get fined,” Azaleea Carlea, legal director at Legal Momentum, told Salon. “If they're going to go to jail, if they're going to have to wait for someone to be dying before they can help them.”

Trump claims he has “great support” among Black and Latino voters because of his mugshot

Donald Trump chimed in by phone to tell Black supporters that his mugshot, taken in Fulton County jail when he was indicted by District Attorney Fani Willis on election racketeering charges, has been followed by a supposed surge in Black and Latino support for his campaign.

"But since this has happened, like the mugshot, the mugshot is the best," he bragged. "It just beat Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra by a lot. By the way, beat it by a lot. But that’s the number one mugshot of all time."

The occasion for Trump's remarks was a "Black Americans for Trump" event at a barbershop in Atlanta, the largest city in the swing state of Georgia, where Biden's 12,000-vote victory in 2020 was sealed with his 88% support among Black voters. Trump, hoping to cut into the deficit, enlisted Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to stump for him at the barbershop while he attended via phone call.

According to the New York Times, the event was sparsely attended, with reporters and staff members far outnumbering voters and potential supporters. Trump, seeming to imply that Black and Latino voters might relate to a candidate facing a criminal indictment, continued to express awe that the mugshot has caused his support among them to "skyrocket."

"It’s been amazing, really been amazing. It’s it’s been actually very nice to see," he said, as Donalds and Carson listened stoically. "You know, in one way, you say, gee, isn’t not too bad. But the truth is, it’s really a lovely thing when I see that we have great support now in the Black community and in the Hispanic community."

Trump's remarks echo those from conservative media personalities, who have been suggesting that the former president's mugshot and indeed criminal convictions would make him more popular among minority voters. Fox News' Jesse Waters claimed to know what people were saying on "the streets," and his impression was that the mugshot made Trump "a martyr" and "a sympathetic character in Black America."

Tonight’s debate could be Trump’s last act

Freedom of choice is what you got
Freedom from choice is what you want 
— Devo

History is set to be made in Atlanta on a CNN soundstage. The president of the United States, Joe Biden, will debate a convicted felon, Donald Trump.

The first question that should be asked of Trump is why he thinks he has any ability to lead a nation after 34 felony convictions. We know what his answer will be. We know what his fans will scream. But the interesting thing to see is what Biden, who until recently has refrained from mentioning this fact, will say. 

As recently as this week, many speculated the debate would not occur. “There ain't going to be no debate,” James Carville told me recently as he shook his head in distaste at the prospect.

Some have said this debate means nothing. Wednesday, ABC posted an article saying, “The country’s increased polarization, changing media landscape and campaign strategies have weakened the impact of a presidential debate.”

Trump certainly believes this debate matters. He has tried to give himself an out by saying he and Biden should have a drug test before they go on stage. This comes after Trump spent the last few months endorsing doctored videos showing Biden rambling incoherently. Trump has also spent months talking about “Sleepy Joe Biden,” lowering the bar so much that all the President has to do is appear cogent on stage and he can claim victory. Thus, Trump was not only giving himself an out saying he wouldn’t debate Biden unless they undergo a drug test, but he also gave himself a convenient excuse should he go on stage and bomb; his claims that Biden got jabbed “in the ass” with some kind of magical pharmacological substance that enabled him to win the debate.

None of that means anything once on stage. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, two of CNN’s more cogent anchors, will have to moderate a debate between the two presumptive candidates without a studio audience and with the ability to mute the microphones of the candidates if they choose.

It should be interesting. For weeks we’ve heard what the issues will be, the predictions of who will win and how the two will perform. I think we should look beyond that. This debate takes place before either the Democratic or Republican National Convention. That is as unprecedented as the President of the United States debating a convicted felon.

It gives each party an unprecedented off-ramp for both of their candidates. In other words, depending on who wins this debate and how bad their opponent does in this debate, both parties could meet at their conventions and choose another candidate for President. We’d see one or both national conventions as chaotic as any in my lifetime. Gone will be the Democrats doing the macarena with Al and Tipper Gore dancing with the faithful on stage. Gone will be the balloons, cheers and fireworks of Rasta Ronnie Reagan and his wife Nancy on stage in Dallas.

The first convention will be the MAGA party, or what’s left of the Republican party in Milwaukee just a few short weeks from now. Trump, should he go off the rails in Atlanta, then faces a sentencing three days before the convention in his felony case. Both could be fatal to his political dreams.

Polls have already shown there is a growing negative impact among independent voters in key battleground states. Bombing in this debate, combined with Trump’s sentencing, could be a catalyst for change at the RNC. At least, the opportunity will be there. And, whatever else you may say about Republicans, as James Carville once told me, “You have to admire their work ethic. They love to win.”

Yes, they do. The GOP is a party addicted to winning. If, in fact, winning were heroin, there’d be a lot of trainspotting going on in Milwaukee in mid-July. And that’s where it gets dicey for Trump. He does have an inside edge, with Lara Trump, his daughter-in-law as a co-chair. As the AP reported in May, “The RNC has fired dozens of longtime staffers and sought alliances with election deniers, conspiracy theorists and alt-right advocates the party had previously kept at arm’s length. Lara Trump, who is married to Trump’s third child, Eric, has been an outspoken defender of the former president and has not hesitated to blast his foes, promising four years of “scorched earth” political retribution if he wins the election.”

But there are members of the Republican Party already upset with Trump’s stewardship of the party, saying she has concentrated so much on her father-in-law winning the presidential race that down-ballot races have been ignored. The fear the party could lose control of the Senate and House in the fall elections is palpable, though it is often subtly ignored by the party hierarchy in its bid to re-seat a convicted felon as president.

If Trump suddenly appears vulnerable in November, the RNC could resemble a roadhouse bar in Mid-Missouri on a hot Saturday night after the beer taps run dry. The Trump faithful will be battling the non-believers for control of a party headed toward doom.

On the other hand, should Trump come away with a draw, or a win, then it could matter little what sentence is handed down to the convicted felon – the faithful will hold because the majority of what’s left of the GOP will see Trump as a “winner” for the fall.

We need your help to stay independent

It is curious, indeed, to explore the reasons why the party formerly calling itself the “Law and Order” party has embraced a convicted felon, grifter and adjudicated rapist in civil court. Far more serious — and not-so-serious — minds than mine have prolifically pontificated on that question. Perhaps it is as Time Magazine described Ronald Reagan’s popularity in its July 7, 1986 edition when it asked, “Why is this man so popular?” The article noted that Reagan may be “the dumbest and the smartest President that the U.S. has ever had,” who made a career out of being underestimated. It also noted that his career as an actor wasn’t taken seriously, which had “profound implications, some of them potentially sinister.”

Trump has embraced the “sinister” portion of that resume. Like Reagan, Trump is able to distance himself from his failures. He preaches the sanctity of family but is divorced. His relationship with his own children has been distant and troublesome. He himself said all he ever did was write the checks for their upbringing. His former fixer Michael Cohen told me that all of his children said they “never wanted to end up like their father.”

Trump, like Reagan, also aligns himself with evangelicals for political advantage but rarely goes to church. And, as with Reagan, Trump’s tactics show a window into the uglier side of the American dream where religious hatreds, fanaticism and intolerance thrive. Trump, taking a cue from Reagan, has honed that to an edge. Reagan was once looked at as “the illusion of a long summer celebration of the past,” and Trump by extension is another foray into that fiction. 

As for Biden, the stakes are just as high going into this debate. He doesn’t have the fanatical following Trump enjoys, and he could prosper or falter from both a Trump victory or defeat in the debate. 

Some pundits say the best-case scenario for both candidates, but especially for Biden, is for the debate to be a wash — no winner or loser. Should Trump fail, and the Republicans choose another candidate at a convention that turns into a political wildfire, then that could spread to the DNC.

If Trump is out, Democrats have another month to consider Biden’s fate — even if he does well in the debates. Biden has certainly buried himself in preparation as if it were the seventh game of the World Series, the Super Bowl and the World Cup combined.

He’s spent that time at Camp David, we’re told, with several thick binders of information, a debate prep team and, in this heat, an appropriate amount of chilled lemonade, iced tea and whatever libations the president desires.

While Trump can go off on wild tangents, and probably will, during the debate as he tries to bait Biden into a gaffe, Biden will be concentrating on making succinct and substantive points to counter wild accusations while also making pointed observations about his convicted felon nemesis. Above all, he will have to avoid the inappropriate gaffes that he is widely known for, beginning in 1987 during the Democratic debates. He also wants to avoid the “crypt keeper” stare that Jon Stewart made fun of recently in a moment in the East Room when Biden couldn’t resist turning around and smiling at the mention of Trump’s felony conviction. 

One young Democratic stalwart compared the debate to Dr. Xavier preparing for a debate with Magneto. I abhor comic book references, and can’t see either man in either role. But if it helps you to understand, well, OK.

Biden has several advantages over Trump. First, he’s not a convicted felon. He’s actually accomplished something as president. He’s less apt to ramble on about shark bites and electrocutions at sea. He has stood fast for women’s rights and he values the Constitution.

But Trump will rant about oil prices, the war in the Middle East and Ukraine, inflation and “roving bands of criminal immigrants.” Though factually Trump is debating in quicksand, Biden must effectively refute the nonsense and appear cogent and in control of the facts as he does so.

The advantage there, of course, is with Trump who appeals to issues emotionally, not factually. That’s part of his continuing grift. His ability to do so is his most sinister and effective strategy.

Finally, if both candidates turn in disastrous performances, we could also be looking at a chaotic situation at one or both conventions if either party chooses a different candidate — after the consumption of copious amounts of pizza, alcohol and cigarettes (not to mention the rending of hair, gnashing of teeth and blood-curdling screams of despair and doom). 

In the late 19th century, Henry Adams offered a cutting analysis of American leadership. “The progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant,” he wrote, “was alone evidence to disprove Darwin.”

Look at the debate through those eyes and tell me where you think today’s probable candidates sit in the pantheon of American leadership. And remember the old adage misattributed to several politicians as you consider whether or not you should pay attention to this debate and vote this fall: If you aren’t sitting at the table, chances are you’re on the menu.

Sit at the table.

Infant deaths spiked 13% in Texas following law restricting abortion, study finds

A restrictive abortion law in Texas has been linked to in a sharp uptick in infant mortality that other states did not experience, a new study has found. Pediatric heath researchers from John Hopkins University report the number of newborn babies dying in Texas has increased by approximately 13% since the state's near-total abortion ban went into effect, according to a recent investigation in JAMA Pediatrics.

The rest of the United States saw only a 2% infant mortality increase in the same period. Deadly congenital abnormalities were the leading cause of death, increasing 22.9% in the state compared to 2.9% nationwide. Researchers said this suggests a rise in cases where women are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, despite knowing the fetus had little or no chance of survival.

"Our analysis provides among the first empirical evidence on the association of recent highly restrictive abortion policies with infant health," the authors wrote, noting "we were unable to examine differences by race and ethnicity, which are currently available on death certificate data, due to the large amount of missing data in these subgroups."

Known as SB8, the Texas law bans abortion after six weeks with few exceptions in life-threatening pregnancies. It is also called the Texas Heartbeat Act, though this is misleading given a fetus does not actually have a heart at this stage. Six weeks is a period often before many people realize they're pregnant.

"We had read the literature that was showing an association [of infant death increases] with prior abortion restrictions or states that are hostile to abortion,” said Alison Gemmill, perinatal epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and lead author of the analysis in an interview with STAT News. “We think it’s actually a causal effect."

Gemmill's research found in 2021 there were 1,985 infant deaths in Texas occurring before a child reached one year old. After the state's abortion law took effect those numbers spiked. By 2022, not only had the total number of infant deaths occurring under the age of one risen — to 2,240 in the same period — but more than half of those babies were still newborns, dying before they reached 28 days old.

While the leading causes of the deaths were congenital abnormalities, sharp rises were also noted elsewhere. Unintentional injuries, often associated with forced pregnancies, rose 20.7% in the state compared to 1.1% across the U.S. And infant deaths due to maternal complications in pregnancy increased 18.2%, compared to 7.8% nationally. Gemmill told STAT that these numbers only paint a partial picture of the long-term impact of abortion bans, and that her plan is to focus her research on infant morbidity.

"Although replication and further analyses are needed to understand the mechanisms behind these findings, our results indicate that restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost," Gemmill and her co-authors concluded. "These findings are particularly relevant given the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization US Supreme Court decision and subsequent rollbacks of reproductive rights in many US states."

Rae Hodge contributed reporting to this article.

New Yorkers were choked, beaten and Tased by NYPD officers. The commissioner buried their cases

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

Series: The NYPD Files:Investigating America’s Largest Police Force

ProPublica reporters uncover abuse and impunity inside the NYPD, using confidential documents and insider interviews, giving the public unprecedented access to civilian complaints against officers.

Brianna Villafane was in Lower Manhattan protesting police violence in the summer of 2020, when officers charged into the crowd. One of them gripped her hair and yanked her to the ground.

“I felt someone on top of me and it was hard to breathe,” she said. “I felt like I was being crushed.”

The New York City civilian oversight agency that examines allegations of police abuse investigated and concluded that the officer had engaged in such serious misconduct that it could constitute a crime.

Villafane received a letter from the agency about its conclusions. “I was happy and I was relieved,” she recalled. The next step would be a disciplinary trial overseen by the New York Police Department, during which prosecutors from the oversight agency would present evidence and question the officer in a public forum.

Then last fall, the police commissioner intervened.

Exercising a little-known authority called “retention,” the commissioner, Edward Caban, ensured the case would never go to trial.

Instead, Caban reached his own conclusion in private.

He decided that it “would be detrimental to the Police Department’s disciplinary process” to pursue administrative charges against the officer, Gerard Dowling, according to a letter the department sent to the oversight agency. The force that the officer used against Villafane was “reasonable and necessary.” The commissioner ordered no discipline.

Today, Dowling is a deputy chief of the unit that handles protests throughout the city.

His case is one of dozens in which Caban has used the powers of his office to intervene in disciplinary cases against officers who were found by the oversight agency to have committed misconduct.

Since becoming commissioner last July, he has short-circuited cases involving officers accused of wantonly using chokeholds, deploying Tasers and beating protesters with batons. A number of episodes were so serious that the police oversight agency, known as the Civilian Complaint Review Board, concluded the officers likely committed crimes.

As is typical across the United States, New York’s police commissioner has the final say over officer discipline. Commissioners can and often do overrule civilian oversight boards. But Caban’s actions stand out for ending cases before the public disciplinary process plays out.

“What the Police Department is doing here is shutting down cases under the cloak of darkness,” said Florence L. Finkle, a former head of the CCRB and current vice president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. Avoiding disciplinary trials “means there’s no opportunity for transparency, no opportunity for the public to weigh in, because nobody knows what’s happening.”

Indeed, the department does not publish the commissioner’s decisions to retain cases, and the civilian oversight agency makes those details public only months after the fact. Civilians are not told that the Police Department ended their cases.

To piece together Caban’s actions, ProPublica obtained internal records of some cases and learned details of others using public records, lawsuits, social media accounts and other sources.

Retention has been the commissioner’s chief method of intervention. He has prevented the cases of 54 officers from going to trial in his roughly one year in office — far more than any other commissioner, according to an analysis of CCRB data. His predecessor, Keechant Sewell, did it eight times in her first year, even as she faced more disciplinary cases.

In addition, under Caban, the Police Department has failed to notify officers that the oversight agency has filed charges against them — a seemingly minor administrative matter that can actually hold up the disciplinary process. The rules say that without this formal step, a departmental trial cannot begin. Seven cases have been sitting with the department since last summer because it has never formally notified the officers involved, according to the CCRB.

These cases are particularly opaque, as there is no publicly available list of them.

In one episode, the CCRB found that an officer had shocked an unarmed man with a Taser four times while he was trying to back away.

“He Tased me for no reason,” recalled William Harvin Sr. “He was coming to me, Tasing my legs, my back.”

The review board found that the officer, Raul Torres, should face trial. But the Police Department has yet to move the case forward, a fact Harvin learned from a reporter. “They take care of their own,” he said, shaking his head. (Torres, who has since been promoted to detective, declined to comment and his lawyer said the officer had “no choice” but to use force.)

In more than 30 other instances, Caban upended cases in which department lawyers and the officers themselves had already agreed to disciplinary action — the most times a commissioner has done so in at least a decade. Sewell set aside four plea deals during her first year as commissioner.

For one officer, Caban rejected two plea deals: In the first case, the officer pleaded guilty to wrongly pepper-spraying protesters and agreed to losing 40 vacation days as punishment. Caban overturned the deal and reduced the penalty to 10 days. In the second, the officer pleaded guilty to using a baton against Black Lives Matter protesters “without police necessity.” Caban threw out the agreement, which called for 15 vacation days to be forfeited. His office wrote that it wasn’t clear that the officer had actually hit the protesters, contrary to what the officer himself already admitted to in the plea. The commissioner ordered no discipline.

The under-the-radar moves run counter to Mayor Eric Adams’ pledge during his candidacy to improve policing by “building trust through transparency.” This year, in his State of the City address, Adams also promised that cases of alleged misconduct would “not languish for months.”

In a statement to ProPublica, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office defended the Police Department and Caban’s record: “Mayor Adams has full confidence in Caban’s leadership and ability to thoroughly review all allegations of police misconduct, and adjudicate accordingly.”

A Police Department spokesperson declined to answer detailed questions, responding instead with a one-sentence statement: “The NYPD continues to work closely with the Civilian Complaint Review Board in accordance with the terms of the memorandum of understanding.”

That memorandum stemmed from a political compromise reached about a decade ago. Concerned that the department’s policing tactics were too aggressive, members of the City Council pushed for the CCRB to be able to prosecute cases rather than simply make recommendations to the police commissioner.

The final memorandum, produced after protracted negotiations with the Police Department, included the mechanism that has since allowed Caban to intervene in disciplinary cases. The agreement states that the commissioner may take cases away from CCRB prosecutors if the commissioner determines that allowing the agency to move ahead will be “detrimental to the Police Department’s disciplinary process” or if the “interests of justice would not be served.”

Chris Dunn, the legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, objected at the time to that veto power. Shown the number of cases that Caban has retained, he told ProPublica, “This is exactly why we were so concerned about this authority.”

The agreement stipulated that retentions can be used only on officers with “no disciplinary history,” a limitation that Caban and other commissioners have not always followed. Caban has on three occasions retained cases of officers who the CCRB had previously found engaged in misconduct.

While commissioners can still choose to impose significant punishment after retaining a case, they often don’t. In 40% of the cases that Caban has retained, he has ordered no discipline. In the cases in which he has ordered discipline, it has mostly been light, such as the loss of a few vacation days. The most severe punishment, ProPublica found, was docking an officer 10 vacation days for knocking a cellphone out of the hand of someone who was recording him.

A Retreat Under Adams

Disciplinary trials can produce significant consequences for officers — if they’re allowed to proceed.

In 2018, CCRB prosecutors brought charges against the officer who killed Eric Garner, the Staten Island man whose cries of “I can’t breathe” helped ignite the Black Lives Matter movement. It would be a last chance to hold the officer, Daniel Pantaleo, accountable after a grand jury had declined to indict him. The commissioner at the time, James O’Neill, moved to handle the case internally, according to multiple current and former review board officials. (O’Neill did not respond to a request for comment.)

The CCRB, however, pushed back. “I went to war,” recalled Maya Wiley, the chair of the board at the time, who went to City Hall to argue against the Police Department’s plans. Officials in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration overruled the commissioner and let the trial move ahead. Pantaleo was found guilty of using a banned chokehold. Amid huge public interest and scrutiny, the police commissioner then fired him.

The current approach to police discipline under Caban is something civil rights advocates attribute to his boss, Adams, a former police captain who has struck a tough-on-crime image and opposed policing reforms since taking office two years ago. “We cannot handcuff the police,” Adams told reporters when vetoing two criminal justice reform bills in January.

Last year, the mayor reportedly urged Sewell to reject recommended disciplinary action against a top uniformed officer, who was also an Adams ally. She declined and pushed to discipline the officer, resigning shortly afterward. Mr. Adams then appointed another close ally to the position: Caban.

Caban has his own history with the disciplinary process. Over his 30 years on the force, he has twice been found by the CCRB to have engaged in misconduct, making him an outlier in the department. The vast majority of officers have never been found by the oversight agency to have committed any misconduct.

In one case, he was ordered to complete more training after he arrested a civilian for not providing ID. In the other, related to refusing to provide the names of officers to a civilian who said they had mistreated her, there is no record of discipline.

The Police Department did not comment on Caban’s record, but it previously said, “Caban’s awareness of that process will only help him bring a fair and informed point of view to those important decisions.”

Caban recently rejected discipline in a case in which two officers had killed a man in his own apartment during a mental health crisis. The chair of the review board criticized the decision, a move that earned Adams’s ire. She also requested more resources to investigate complaints, which rose 50% last year. Instead, the Adams administration imposed cuts, forcing the board to stop investigating various kinds of misconduct, including officers who lie on the job.

“In this administration we have a mayor who runs the Police Department,” said Dunn, of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “He sets the tone, and the tone is ‘we’re cutting police accountability and discipline.’”

The police union, the Police Benevolent Association, disagrees, saying Caban’s actions are a critical counter to what it sees as frequent overreach by the civilian oversight board. “The police commissioner has a responsibility to keep the city safe,” the union’s president, Patrick Hendry, said in a statement. “CCRB’s only goal is to boost their statistics and advance their anti-police narrative by punishing as many cops as possible.”

Last fall, Caban sent his own signal. He gave one of the department’s top positions to an officer who tackled and shocked a Black Lives Matter protester with a Taser in the summer of 2020. Tarik Sheppard, a captain at the time, was heading to a disciplinary trial when his case was retained a year later, with no discipline given. Sheppard is now deputy commissioner for public information. He regularly appeared on television this spring to talk about the Police Department’s response to campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

The outcomes have been different for the victims. Destiny Strudwick, the protester who was tackled and shocked with a Taser, has struggled since the encounter nearly four years ago. “Sometimes I feel like the human psyche is only made to handle so much,” she said. “And what happened to me, it just was too much.”

Sheppard did not respond to requests for comment.

The Police Department never informed Strudwick or Villafane that the cases against the officers who hurt them had been upended. After learning what had happened, both felt that the department had denied them justice.

“That makes my heart sink,” said Strudwick, after ProPublica told her of Sheppard’s retention.

As for Villafane, she gasped when she was shown the Police Department letter wiping away the case against Dowling, who did not respond to requests for comment. She slowly read a line out loud, “His actions therefore do not warrant a disciplinary action.”

She shook her head. “He’s supposed to be protecting us and he’s hurting us,” Villafane said. “Who am I supposed to call to feel safe now? Not him.”

CNN won’t fact check Donald Trump during the debate. Here’s why we shouldn’t be worried

For tonight's debate, one thing is certain: Donald Trump will lie, the entire time. When he's not deflecting or filibustering, he will be lying. He will make up facts, present his weird fantasies as if they really happened, and probably claim that random people genuflected before him, calling him "sir" with tears in their eyes. With Trump, there are two basic rules: If accusing someone else of something, he's actually confessing to it. With everything else he says, assume the opposite is true. The only exception is when he gets angry and the truth slips out, which is what President Joe Biden no doubt hopes will happen when Trump is pressed about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade. 

So it's understandable that many folks were dismayed to hear that the moderators at CNN, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, will not be fact-checking the debate. "Obviously, if there is some egregious fact that needs to be checked or the record needs to be made clear, Jake and Dana can do that," David Chalian, CNN’s political director, told the Associated Press. "But that’s not their role. They are not here to participate in this debate. They are here to facilitate a debate between Trump and Biden."

Stress levels are already high, so it's no surprise this is making it worse. At her personal blog, Salon contributor Heather "Digby" Parton lamented, "It appears that CNN is simply planning to enable a freak show instead of doing its job as journalists."


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


I get why this is upsetting. For those of us who want to see democracy survive, the anxiety about this debate could not be higher. But, as odd as it might seem to say so, it's probably for the best that CNN is going this route. There's not a lot of evidence that taking the time to fact-check Trump will do much to move the needle. For four years, Trump was heavily fact-checked by news organizations which counted over 30,000 lies, an average of 21 a day. It made little difference because the people who care about facts were already opposed to Trump.

Also, if the moderators try to correct Trump's lies, that is all the debate will be about and there won't be any room to discuss the issues, much less Biden's views on the issues. To reach those precious undecided voters who will decide the race, it's better to focus less on facts and more on the big picture: Which man should be trusted with the future of this country?

Bring on the freak show. I want people to be freaked out. They need to stop telling themselves Trump's return wouldn't be "that bad." They need to be terrified, and I trust if he goes hog wild, terrified is how most non-MAGA people will feel. 

The single biggest obstacle for Biden's re-election right now is that so many Americans, especially low-information swing voters, have forgotten who Trump is. The debate could be a critical moment to refocus people on what scares them the most about Trump, which is his larger sociopathic approach to politics, of which lying is only a small part. The man has been convicted of 34 felonies and is facing three more felony trials. That he's a liar is a given. What viewers need to understand is how Trump's lies and crimes affect them. 

In his Wednesday Message Box newsletter, former Barack Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer highlighted a line from a recent Biden campaign ad that summarizes their message about Trump: "This election is between a convicted criminal who is only out for himself and a president who is fighting for your family."

Parton is right that it would be bad if Biden spent too much time during the debate correcting Trump's lies. So hopefully he doesn't do that. Everyone already knows Trump is a liar. There's no need to "prove" it. Biden can simply assert that Trump's statement is a lie, and move onto what really matters: Why he's lying and how it hurts the country. For instance, instead of getting into the weeds of how we know the 2020 election was fair, Biden can focus instead on what the Big Lie led to, which is the January 6 insurrection. The upside of this approach is it's the one that is more likely to cause Trump to flip out. 

Biden understood this well in 2020. In the first presidential debate of that election, Biden declared, "I’m not here to call out his lies. Everybody knows he’s a liar." He also called Trump a "clown." This upset a lot of Beltway journalists at the time. Some accused Biden, heaven forbid, of being angry. It turned out to be the right choice. Politely ignoring Trump's sociopathic behavior is just complicity at this point. But Biden also understood it's the elephant in the room — everyone can see it, no need to prove it's real. Trump's smoldering evil is likely to be that much more self-evident this time around, as he's spent the past four years wallowing in unjustified grievance and self-pity. Biden would be wise to take advantage and not waste too much time trying to "prove" what the audience can see for themselves. 

Trump has been telling his base that the debate will be "three against one," as usual pretending he's some downtrodden victim facing down the so-called elites. He wants nothing more than to get into a fight over facts with the moderators. As I wrote yesterday, Trump's supporters already know that he's a liar — it's what they like about him. He's tricked his base into seeing lies as a weapon to wield against their enemies. If they see him doubling down on his lies when corrected, they will cheer for him, foolishly believing he's sticking it to those liberal nerds, with their irritating insistence that facts matter. Trump does better when he's perceived as a fighter. Even his lies get justified in this narrative as a necessary evil when taking on the "elites." 

What viewers need to see is the reality of Trump, which is that he's a whiny narcissist, who lies for the same reason any sleazy criminal does: so he can serve himself while screwing over everyone else. Ideally, he will get frustrated and angry, so that he releases his already shaky grip on self-composure. For that to happen, there needs to be less focus on traits he's proud of — and he is very proud of his ability to lie with a straight face. It would be better if the discussion highlighted what Trump is afraid people see: A loser. He's proud of being the man who paid hush money to an adult film star. He's ashamed of being the man so sloppy he got caught doing it. I suspect Biden can land repeated blows on Trump's 34 felony convictions and other major court losses. Being reminded of his losses rattles Trump, whose self-esteem is so wrapped up in his self-image as a criminal who gets away with it.  

No doubt it would be better if everyone cared as much about facts as the progressives planning to watch the debate. But if that were the case, we wouldn't have to worry about any of this. A country where more people cared about facts is one where Trump wouldn't have gotten within a 10-mile radius of a presidential debate. The truth people need to see Thursday night is less about the statistics on crime rates or ballot counting, but about temperament. They need to see the true face of Trump: His selfishness, his sociopathic morality, and his erratic behavior. They already know he's a liar. What people need is a reminder of why he lies, and why his behavior is so dangerous. 

Jamaal Bowman was beat by a toxic blend of militarism and Zionism

New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman lost a primary election Tuesday after unprecedented spending against him by powerful forces that insist Israel does no wrong. The powerful pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC had already devoted more than $14 million to defeating Bowman, in retaliation for his outspoken support of a ceasefire to the war in Gaza and human rights for all — including Palestinian — people. 

Since last fall, most Democratic voters — especially young people — have recoiled at the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. But despite the magnitude of the horrors inflicted on civilians, the vast bulk of the U.S. media and political establishment has remained on automatic pro-Israel pilot, while often tarring strong opponents of the mass murder as antisemitic. 

Although usually eager to defend Democratic incumbents facing strong primary challenges, this time the party’s leadership offered winks and nods to Bowman’s AIPAC-funded opponent, George Latimer. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries went through only perfunctory motions of supporting Bowman. Another fellow Democrat, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, was in the groove when she declared on Sunday: “I am not weighing in on primaries intentionally. But what I'm very focused on is number one, I stand strongly with Israel.” Hillary Clinton endorsed Latimer, saying the country "needs strong, principled Democrats in Congress more than ever." 

The meaning of such declarations is rote complicity with nonstop U.S. military aid to Israel as it maintains a siege of Gaza that has already lasted more than 260 days. During that time, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights said last week, “more than 120,000 people in Gaza, overwhelmingly women and children, have been killed or injured” — “as a result of the intensive Israeli offensives.” 

When this week began, Save the Children reported that “up to 21,000 children are estimated to be missing in the chaos of the war in Gaza, many trapped beneath rubble, detained, buried in unmarked graves, or lost from their families.” While voters were casting ballots on Tuesday, the Washington Post summarized a new assessment from experts reporting to the United Nations: “The threat of famine in the Gaza Strip has been revived after Israel’s military operation in the southern city of Rafah disrupted aid deliveries, leaving more than 500,000 Palestinians on the brink of starvation.”

Israel’s warfare — fully enabled by the U.S. government — is continuing to cause those systematic atrocities.

“All available evidence indicates that U.S. officials hold Israel to a lower standard than just about any other country,” Responsible Statecraft reporter Connor Echols pointed out last month. The evidence is ample.

The rock-bottom standards applied to the Israeli government are in sync with what the U.S. media and political establishment routinely apply to the United States government. The same basic mass-messaging patterns that confer absolution on whatever the U.S. military does (as described in my book War Made Invisible) are operative in making excuses for what the Israeli military does.

The militaries of the two nations are enmeshed. Not only does the U.S. send huge amounts of weapons and ammunition to Israel. The countries are also constantly exchanging intelligence as well as data on evaluating the efficacy of weaponry and warfare tactics. They share, and create, the same enemies in the Middle East. And the two nations execute highly deceptive maneuvers from the same propaganda playbooks.

In short, while their command structures are separate and they can sometimes be at odds over tactics and proprieties, the Israeli military largely operates as an extension of the U.S. armed forces. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, dominant mentalities — constantly reinforced by mass media and mainstream politics — run along parallel ruts of Zionism and militarism that are mutually reinforcing and increasingly intersecting. Along the way, toxins draw strength from the poisons that Martin Luther King Jr. denounced as “the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.”

All the denials notwithstanding, a bedrock of unwavering support for Israel as it continues the mass killing of Palestinian civilians is the base assumption — conscious or not — that Palestinian lives are far less valuable than Jewish Israeli lives. Or American lives. 

The merger of American and Israeli militarism is now more comprehensive than ever. Both are driven by extreme nationalism, war profiteering, and ethnocentric bigotry. Nonviolent unyielding resistance is not futile. It is essential.

How Joe Biden should handle the issue of Hunter’s conviction at the debate

“Mr. President, your son, Hunter Biden, has been convicted of felonies in connection with his purchase of a gun and lying about his drug use. He now faces another trial for tax evasion. What makes him different from your opponent, who has also suffered a criminal conviction?”

Tonight’s debate on CNN, the first of the general election, is bound to include such a question about the president’s adult son and his troubles with the law. As Joe Biden’s campaign has laid out, and as we’ve previously outlined, the president’s major debate strategy should be focused on bringing attention to Donald Trump’s criminality. The former president’s supporters are obviously hoping that Hunter Biden’s recent criminal conviction will distract from the verdict against Trump. Here is the best way to avoid the obvious pitfalls surrounding the other Biden while turning his son’s troubles into an opportunity to reinforce his commitment to the rule of law. 

“I am a dad as well as being the president. I love my son. Before he worked so hard to turn his life around, he made serious mistakes. He is suffering the consequences. That’s what the rule of law is all about. I stand by it, I trust the jury’s first verdict, and I will not criticize it. We must accept the law when it does its work, even if we might wish, as a parent, that the jury’s decision was different.

My opponent is different. He is the first former president ever tried or convicted of crimes. 34 times he was found guilty of lying in business records to cover up a crime against democracy. 

He paid hush money to interfere with the 2016 election and keep the truth about the scandal from you, the voters, and interfere with the 2016 election, as he tried to do after the 2020 election. His coverup could well have changed many Americans’ votes. The jury said that no person is above the law, even a former president.

So he attacks the jury. He attacks the judge. He attacks the witnesses. He undermines our justice system and the rule of law which keep us safe. No one is above the law. Anyone who tries to be above the law is unfit for office.

We need your help to stay independent

He’s running to save himself from three other indictments in three other jurisdictions. Two involve his role leading up to January 6. If he’s elected, he’ll have his attorney general toss his federal indictments faster than Buddy Baker’s souped up Dodge Charger in the Daytona 500.

“I am different from my opponent in another way, too. I will not pardon my son.I will not commute any sentence he may get. The law is the law. The American people elected me to follow the law, not to favor my family, even when my heart aches.

“My opponent has already pardoned his son-in-law’s father, Charles Kushner, convicted of tax evasion and witness tampering. But it gets worse. He has promised to pardon the violent invaders of our sacred Capitol on January 6. Violence is never ok. Attacking the seat of our government is never ok. 

Violence is on the ballot. Any vote for my opponent or any third party candidate is a vote to approve January 6. Staying home and not voting is a vote for violence. I believe in you, and I ask for your vote because I know you believe in a peaceful America, too.

One other difficult topic for Biden is certain to come up tonight. 

“Mr. President, your policy on Israel has divided Americans who support our Middle East ally and those who call your supplying arms being used to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza genocide. How do you win back the support you have lost?”

Biden should respond: “Voters are smart. They are looking for a president who keeps America safe, keeps our troops out of harm’s way whenever possible, who supports our friends, presses them to defend themselves according to the values in which Americans believe. That’s why I have pressured Israel to get humanitarian aid into Gaza and last month paused a shipment of bombs that I feared could be used where civilians would be at too great a risk.

“I have been on the world stage through many crises. Leaders across the globe who believe in America respect me. I don’t cater to dictators like Putin or Kim Jung Un, as my opponent does.

"The Middle East has always been the region where the differences are the toughest to bridge. We are seeing that now."

“My policy is guided by five principles. First, Israel was brutally attacked on October 7 and has the right to defend itself. Second, we must contain the war to avoid a regional conflagration that could easily consume the entire world. Third, America’s fighting men and women must be kept out of it. Fourth, the two-state solution is the only way out of the cycle of war. Last, we must maintain our leverage with our ally to support the first four principles and to keep Israel from doing more things that harm innocent people and Israel itself.

“None of this is easy. To my progressive friends and to the young people rightly shocked by the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza: I abhor those deaths, each and every one of them. I know the pain that every parent who loses a child suffers. 

Because we agree that children and innocents have not been protected in this war, know this: If my opponent were in charge, with his opposition to a two-state solution and his Israel-right-or-wrong policy, this crisis and innocent Palestinian people would be far, far worse off. I cannot share the confidential communications I have had with Israel’s leadership, but you have seen, even in public, that we do not always agree. 

Friends can be critical of one another. The support we have given Israel in arms has been used and at times abused, but it gives us the ability to be heard when we speak our truth about humanity in the midst of war. 

“We have kept the conflict from spreading, especially last month, when Iran sent hundreds of missiles and drones to attack Israel. We were on the brink of regional war. Our technology and jets helped our ally of 76 years protect its civilians, which gave us leverage to help ensure that Israel responded in strong but limited ways. Iran stood down. A dangerous situation was defused. 

“I am proud that our policies helped save the world from a near-catastrophe.

“Bill Burns, a seasoned diplomat and head of the CIA, along with Secretary of State Blinken, have been in shuttle diplomacy to get my ceasefire proposal in place. In support of a ceasefire and the return of hostages, just last weekend, Israelis in Tel Aviv staged a massive demonstration. That gives us faith that peace will return.

“The choice in this election is clear. I am experienced in the complexities of world crises and the fine line a Commander-in-Chief must walk to keep America safe and avoid the worst. Unlike my opponent, I do not act out of spite, impulse and bluster. I need your vote to keep us on the track to a two-state solution that is best for Israel as well as Gaza, and for keeping America out of war.”

Antarctica’s melting ice is reaching a “tipping point” due to climate change, study finds

Like a magnifying glass on an anthill, excessive emissions from burning fossil fuels is melting the Antarctic ice sheet. The faster it liquefies, the more we're faced with the dire prospect of extreme sea level rise. Scientists have debated whether a "tipping point" exists for this ice sheet, or a moment when the effects of this melting would be suddenly both irreversible and catastrophic.

Now a recent study in the journal Nature Geoscience reveals that such a tipping point may indeed exist. As it turns out, scientists have misunderstood a key aspect of the physical process behind the Antarctic ice sheet's ongoing melting, and therefore have underestimated the ultimate impact of climate change on Antarctica.

The British Antarctic Survey researchers discovered that warm ocean water is seeping beneath the Antarctic ice sheet at its so-called "grounding line," or the point at which the ice from a large body rises from the seabed and begins to float. When warm water moves under a grounding line, the ice melts at an accelerated pace and could pass a threshold where the body's ultimate collapse is inevitable. While this process occurs, sea levels will rise at a much faster rate than currently predicted, resulting in millions of people from coastal communities being displaced over the upcoming decades and centuries.

"Our results point towards a stronger sensitivity of ice-sheet melting, and thus higher sea-level-rise contribution in a warming climate, than has been previously understood," the researchers write. Although they acknowledge that their model likely simplifies the melting process by overlooking variables currently unknown to scientists, they argue that "the possibility of tipping points in grounding-zone melt and the universality of susceptible shelves warrants a continued research effort to better constrain grounding-zone processes both from models and observations."

Last month, a study published in the journal PNAS revealed that Antarctica's so-called "Doomsday Glacier" is nearing collapse, as revealed by high-resolution satellite radar data that shows Thwaites is being flooded with warm sea water. And in February, a study in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the West Antarctic Ice Sheet — which is roughly the size of Mexico (1.97 million square kilometers in area), and which is already melting at an alarming rate — once underwent a period roughly 8,000 years ago in which it dramatically and quickly shrank. Now history is seemingly repeating itself, but this time, human activity is to blame.

Palestine and the archeobotany of occupation: Ancient fruit in the mouth of a hungry god

Every spring, silver-green olive trees across the historical territory of Palestine bloom into white clusters, with the region's iconic green and black fruit to appear as the season wears on. Acacia and artemisia species, cousins of wormwood, gather across the landscape, bedding up Italian ryegrass, crown daisy and showy scabious. Unapologetic bouquets burst purple from the chaste trees and jujube fruit hangs from the Christ-thorn trees — from which, it is said, the crown of a certain 1st Century rebel rabbi was fashioned. All these plants are the source of traditional medicines. The flora of the places now called Gaza, Israel and the West Bank tell the history of a blended people.

Tilled by humans for thousands of years, this region is an endangered miracle of biodiversity, and an ethno-botanical story of shared roots especially worth honoring in a time of war. What local people believe to be the oldest olive tree in the world still stands in the village of al-Walaja, near Bethlehem in the West Bank. It's said to be 5,500 years old, and if that's true it was already there during the empires of ancient Egypt and Babylon, which lasted much longer than any subsequent civilization has managed. Known as al-Badawi by locals, the tree has had many names and titles, including “Bride of Palestine” and “Old Woman.” 

Al-Badawi is stewarded by the family of a man named Salah Abu Ali, who calls himself the tree's servant and says he will not leave its side, come what may. Whether al-Badawi will stand much longer is impossible to say. The separation fence demarcating Israeli and Palestinian territory is just 20 meters away, and Israeli settlers destroyed more than 43,000 Palestinian-owned trees and saplings in the West Bank in recent months, a dramatic escalation from pre-war numbers. 

“Olive will stay evergreen; Like a shield for the universe,” writes Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish. There are certainly reasons to hope that the flora of this troubled land will keep telling its story no matter how or when this war ends. Consider the recent discoveries made by archeologists and archeobotanists in a different village not far away, known to Arabs as Tell es-Safi. An ancient temple has been uncovered by the shovelful, revealing a place where sacred plant medicine was central to life and religion.  

Medicine, symbolism, mystery 

Tell es-Safi, known to Israelis as Gath, is 700 feet above sea level on the high plains of the Hebron district, close to the West Bank but within Israel's 1967 borders. A team of researchers from Bar-Ilan University have worked there for decades, under the auspices of the Israeli government. The sheepherding El-Azi family, whose ancestor helped the Jewish immigrants who founded nearby Kibbutz Menachem in 1939, are believed to be the only Palestinians who remain in the village. 

Hellenistic believers, 3,000 years ago — a blended population of many cultures — championed the Greek goddesses of fertility with hallucinogenic traditional medicines in seasonal rituals.

Dr. Aren Maeir is head archeologist at the site, where he’s been digging since at least 1996. He and Dr. Suembikya Frumin, lead researcher and manager of the Archaeobotany Laboratory at Bar-Ilan, are among the scientists behind the discovery of a 3,000-year-old Greek temple at Tell es-Safi. 

Their paper, published earlier this year in the journal Scientific Reports, explores the religious practices of agrarian mystery cults in the region, where the blended population of ancient Philistines — Hebraic, Greek, Arabic, Egyptian and Roman — celebrated native agricultural cycles. Their research reveals for the first time how Hellenistic believers of the period championed the goddesses Demeter, Kore (i.e., Persephone) and Hera with a host of hallucinogenic traditional medicines in seasonal rituals. 

"One of the most significant findings is the identification of earliest known ritual uses of several Mediterranean plants," Frumin said in a release.


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


“This new data indicates knowledgeable activity by temple personnel regarding the use of plants with mood-affecting features," she continued. "Our method of quantitative and qualitative analysis of total plant assemblage should be highly relevant for analyzing other ancient cults and for the study of the cultural and cultic history of the region and beyond.” 

Among the recovered plants were traces of poison darnel or ryegrass, also known as “false wheat.” It’s a rich bed for ergot fungus, which can be deadly if used improperly. It produces lysergic acid, an analog of the psychedelic drug LSD, and was used by ancient peoples to brew beer and bake bread for special occasions.

In their excavation of the lower portion of the temple, the Bar-Ilan team found remnants of ancient seeds and fruits used for feasts, rituals and decoration. Analyzing the adjacent cookware and stone finds and comparing accounts of similar temples elsewhere, the team was able to place the ritual evidence to the time of the Philistine culture, roughly 1200 to 600 B.C. This site was likely destroyed, along with the rest of the Philistine city-states, by the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, depicted in the biblical book of Jeremiah as the great enemy of the Hebrew people.

Perhaps even more impressive, researchers managed to reconstruct the plant evidence and how it fits into the region's geographical and agricultural history. 

This site under a modern Palestinian village was likely destroyed in the 6th century B.C. by the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, depicted in the biblical book of Jeremiah as the great enemy of the Hebrew people.

“Although charred plant preservation from a burnt settlement is often limited to seeds and fruits, their unripe forms show the use of flowers and fresh vegetables in the temple,” write the paper’s authors, who used “analysis of the plant assemblages’ phenology to reconstruct possible seasonal/monthly dating of the collection and deposition of various plants in the temples.”   

These discoveries illuminate the long and rich relationship between the ancient Philistines and modern-day Palestinian culture. The plants found in the temple suggest a history of Aegean trade routes, and offer evidence about the enigmatic Philistine culture and the Greek mystery cults that apparently thrived within it. 

“Spatial reconstruction of plant-related activities in the temples and associated contexts," the authors report, include "a study of the ethnobotany of the temple plants, known in neighboring archaeological cultures to be associated with medicine, symbolism, and other functions."

Exile and return; history and hope

At risk of stating the obvious, it's worth mentioning that Palestinian scholars are playing no role in the excavations and research at Tell es-Safi. Israel's war in Gaza, which has killed over 38,000 people and injured more than 86,000, has also destroyed 70% of Gaza’s colleges and universities and damaged many UNESCO-protected sites. Petitioners to the International Criminal Court have argued that the Israeli attack on historical and cultural monuments constitutes a war crime in itself, under international law.

For both Palestinians and many outside observers, the current situation carries echoes of the Nakba or “catastrophe” of 1948, when most of the historic Arab population was driven out of the newborn state of Israel and hundreds of ancient villages were bulldozed to rubble. Archeological digs began almost immediately in the new state. More than 800 artifacts, spanning 7,500 years of history, were reportedly excavated during the 1960s and '70s under the aegis of Moshe Dayan, Israel's legendary former defense minister. Many of those ended up at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

Tell es-Safi "was first settled sometime in the late prehistoric period,” Maeir told National Geographic. “It was more or less continually settled until modern times. The last settlement there was an Arab village that was abandoned during the Israeli War of Independence. So basically for about 7,000 years or so, there was continuous settlement on the site.”

To say the village was "abandoned" may be a deliberate euphemism. In 1945, Tell es-Safi was home to 1,290 Palestinians. Less than three years later, it was emptied entirely, along with 16 other villages in the district of Hebron. Some of the residents driven out of Tell es-Safi 75-plus years ago are still alive, and still long to return. 

“It was midsummer, and the farmers had already piled the wheat on the threshing floor when Jewish armed gangs attacked the village, killing many farmers,” said 88-year-old Khadija al-Azza in 2020, recalling for reporters the moment when Zionist militias attacked her village. 

“Terrified villagers fled and left the heaps of wheat unthreshed. We thought that we would return to thresh it. …  We left on foot, carrying nothing with us. After walking one day and one night, we got to the village of Ajjur, where farmers kindly received us in their homes," she said. "We spent three days there, then the Zionist gangs attacked Ajjur and we fled to the east. We walked for two days without water until we reached Beit Jibrin,” a refugee camp in Bethlehem named for another depopulated village in what is now central Israel.

“I wish the time will come when I will be able to return and die in my hometown,” she said in the interview. 

We need your help to stay independent

There is no question that Jewish cultural and religious history runs deep in the ancient lands now variously called Palestine and Israel. But the powerful Judaic narrative of a promised land, now returned to, is only one refrain among many in a land called home for many in exile, a place were many cultures and religions have mingled, overlapped and honored their gods.  

The ancient fruit found in a temple dig feeds history, just as the olive trees feed Palestinians today. Perhaps it's fitting that the first antiquity repatriated to Palestinian authorities from the U.S. was a spoon

“Our hearts burn over our lands,” said Nisreen Abu Daqqa, of the Gaza village of Khuzaa, in an interview with Al Jazeera. “We wait all year long for the olive season, which is the most beautiful season, but the Israelis have deliberately burned our trees using their missiles and tank shells.” 

When Salah Abu Ali talked to Middle East Eye about al-Badawi, the ancient olive tree outside Bethlehem, he spoke of the Old Woman as much more than a plant, as something closer to hope itself. “This tree represents an integral part of our identity and our resistance against the Israeli occupation,” he said. “If this tree continues to stand, our steadfastness will continue.”

“Bankrupt” Giuliani went on Amazon shopping spree for cheap ties, according to court filing

Rudy Giuliani spent a staggering sum on polyester neckties, phone chargers and camera gadgets despite bankruptcy, a court filing late Tuesday night revealed.

The $1,892 in purchases across nearly 30 orders, sent to addresses in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida include a laundry list of clothing, personal goods, and pantry staples, all as Giuliani was mandated to rein in his spending by a bankruptcy court.

The former New York City mayor and Trump adviser fell on hard times after being ordered to pay $148 million to two Georgia election workers who he defamed, filing for bankruptcy in December 2021.

But bank and Amazon records filed in court on Tuesday, initially obtained by 404 Media, outline a staggering pattern of spending. Giuliani, limited to a monthly spend of a still-whopping $43,000, spent closer to the tune of $120,000 in just his first month under the agreement, and at least $75,305 in May.

The nearly $2,000 in Amazon purchases represent something greater, critics say: Giuliani’s near-total refusal to comply in good faith with his bankruptcy.

As legal columnist Jonathan Wolf notes for legal publication Above the Law, “Giuliani is abusing the bankruptcy process like any number of rich entitled douchebags before him.”

“People whose lives Giuliani ruined, who he owes a tremendous amount of money to, might never see a dime,” Wolf wrote.

Giuliani, who faces disbarment in multiple jurisdictions, along with a criminal indictment in Arizona, continues to peddle lies about the 2020 election. The same lies that resulted in his bankruptcy after the defamation ruling.

“Democracy must be respected”: Assault on Bolivia’s presidential palace fails

Soldiers stormed Bolivia’s presidential palace Wednesday afternoon in what the government called a coup d’etat attempt, years after an election ended a far-right government established by military intervention. The group retreated later Wednesday afternoon, with the government maintaining control of the building.

President Luis Arce, who won power in a 2020 election after left-leaning President Evo Morales was toppled in a 2019 military coup, denounced the strike and demanded that democracy be respected.

“We denounce irregular mobilizations of some units of the Bolivian Army. Democracy must be respected,” Arce wrote on X, the platform owned by Elon Musk, who took partial responsibility for the previous Bolivian coup.

Per Bolivian newspaper El Deber, citizens who attempted to enter the square were dispersed with tear gas as General Juan José Zúñiga and his army rammed vehicles into the government headquarters in Murillo Square, La Paz. 

President Arce stood with ministers in a video, per the Associated Press, and asked Bolivians to stand against the attack.

“The country is facing an attempted coup d’état. Here we are, firm in Casa Grande, to confront any coup attempt. We need the Bolivian people to organize.”

Bolivia’s 2019 coup d’etat, which installed Jeanine Áñez and her right-wing government, occurred after opponents of Morales accused him of election interference. In the 2020 race, Arce and Morales’s socialist party won over 55% of the vote in a U.N.-observed tally.

Many pointed to industry nationalization and pressure from foreign investors as key instigators in that coup, though Zúñiga’s motives appear to be related to his own election doubts.

Zúñiga was removed from his post as commander of the nation’s army before the attack yesterday after making threats against former President Morales, per Spanish newspaper El País.

Arce ordered Zúñiga and the troops to stand down, minutes after the general told reporters that “surely soon there will be a new Cabinet of ministers . . . our country, our state cannot go on like this.”

Per El Deber, Zúñiga retreated from the square at around 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday. He was arrested after 7 p.m., a moment which TV news captured on camera.

Outside the palace, supporters of Arce and his government rallied. "Thank you to the Bolivian people,” he told the crowd, per the Associated Press. “Let democracy live on.”

Paris Hilton recalls haunting treatment facility child abuse in House testimony

Paris Hilton delivered haunting testimony before Congress on Wednesday — detailing abuse she faced as a child in a youth treatment facility — advocating for new legislative solutions to the problematic industry.

Before a House committee meeting on modernizing child welfare programs, the star and heiress opened up about her own experience in residential care facilities after a tumultuous period in her teenage years.

“When I was 16 years old, I was ripped from my bed in the middle of the night and transported across state lines to the first of four youth residential treatment facilities,” the socialite testified to the House Ways and Means Committee. “These programs promised healing, growth and support, but instead did not allow me to speak, move freely or even look out a window for two years.”

Hilton, who previously testified over the "troubled teen" facilities, urged representatives to take up the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act, which would provide more oversight to youth residential treatment facilities and protect their patients.

“I was force-fed medications and sexually abused by the staff. I was violently restrained and dragged down hallways, stripped naked, and thrown into solitary confinement,” Hilton recalled. “My parents were completely deceived, lied to, or manipulated by this for-profit industry about the inhumane treatment I was experiencing.”

The model, reality TV star, and musician told congresspeople that victims are often marginalized and find it difficult to come forward, adding that, if the treatment was so egregious in expensive private facilities, she could only imagine how bad it was in public ones.

“It’s really difficult to tell anyone in the outside world. A lot of these kids are not believed because these places tell their parents they’re being lied to and manipulated because they want to go home,” she said.

Hilton, who detailed her shocking abuse to Salon last year, has become an advocate in a fight against the "troubled teen" industry, including the facilities in which she spent many of her teen years. Her time at Provo Canyon School was the subject of her 2020 memoir, "This is Paris."

Tennessee investigators turn Graceland fraud case over to the feds

After a dizzying fraudulent attempt to take control of the one-time home of Elvis Presley, the Tennessee Attorney General's Office is handing the Graceland case over to federal investigators.

In May, a mysterious company known as Naussany Investments came close to selling the Memphis home at auction after allegedly defrauding the family and falsely claiming that Lisa Marie Presley, the daughter of Elvis, took a loan against the property that she failed to pay. 

Lisa Marie's daughter, Riley Keough, refuted Naussany’s claim and stated in court that the company seemed to be non-existent, with no phone number or address on record. Keough, the trustee of the Presley estate, successfully fought off the bizarre attempt to steal the property from under her.

A Shelby County judge curbed the elaborate scheme last month, placing an injunction on the property sale as Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti launched an investigation into the fraud behind it. But his office changed its tune on Wednesday, handing over the investigation to the federal government after Naussany Investments laid off its claim to the property.

“The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office looked into the Graceland matter, and it quickly became apparent that this was a matter best suited for federal law enforcement. We have faith in our federal partners and know they will handle this appropriately,” a statement from spokesperson Amy Lannom Wilhite to CNN read.

It is unclear which agency is taking the buck, with the Department of Justice and FBI declining to comment to several news agencies.

Speaker Johnson plots to use House to free Bannon

House Speaker Mike Johnson vowed to defend Steve Bannon from an impending prison term by filing a brief in support of the former Trump adviser via the House of Representatives.

“We’re working on filing an amicus brief,” Johnson said on Fox News after a House vote allowed the chamber to take such an action. “The January 6th committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted. We think the work was tainted.”

Bannon’s refusal to answer to a Congressional subpoena from the Select Committee on the January 6th attack landed him a 4-month sentence in prison, despite numerous failed appeals. But the House vote to disavow the previous chambers’ finding that Bannon violated its orders may boost his chances of staying free.

Johnson has worked to align himself more closely with the former president after far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s failed ouster attempt and has previously vowed to pull levers to help Donald Trump through his legal trouble.

The former president tasked the speaker with finding ways to “overturn” his criminal conviction earlier this month, Politico reported, as Johnson publicly bragged of him singing his praises.

Trump, still facing numerous cases at state and federal levels after his May conviction in New York for falsifying records to hide hush money payments, is attacking the judicial process from just about any angle possible.

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its verdict on a presidential immunity case, itself an effort to slow legal proceedings against the former president.

Boebert rocks “very China” knockoffs of the Trump sneaker for victory party

Lauren Boebert, who won her race on Tuesday to become the Republican candidate in Colorado’s 4th district, rocked a knockoff pair of Donald Trump’s golden sneakers and a “MAGA” hat as she celebrated her victory.

At the Windsor, Colorado election night party, Boebert made a splash with her shoe choice, though she admitted to a reporter that the “Never Surrender” footwear wasn’t quite the real thing.

The dupe shoes, which Boebert called “very China,” mimic a pair of $399 gaudy gold sneakers that the former president churned out in a fundraising effort earlier this year. The original run of the shoes is on sale for over $10,000 on online retailers, but Trump’s website still lists a pre-order for the original price.

"If I could've bought the OGs, I would have," Boebert, who makes $174,000 per year, told the Colorado newspaper Westword.

Boebert, who swapped seats earlier this year after a narrow loss in Colorado’s third district, won her primary handily. 

“America will rise again and I’m so excited that you all are here to be a part of it with me,” she said to the 70 or so in attendance after nabbing nearly 44% of the vote in the six-candidate race. 

Boasting a call from the former president that night, during which he cheered her on after the win to run in Trump-skeptical Republican Rep. Ken Buck’s former district, she told Westword, “I said a lot of great things. I told him I'm looking forward to helping him in this fight and that I'm going to be there, and I told him he needs to win his third election. He congratulated me, he loves me, and thanks me for a good win.”

“He politicized rock and roll”: Five fascinating facts from HBO’s “Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple”

Steven Van Zandt is a rock and roll legend but one who has flown under the radar for decades.

You may mostly know him for his hilariously wise and sometimes obtuse "Sopranos" character Silvio Dante who was known on the show for his Michael Corleone impression. Outside of his infamous role, the rocker has made countless contributions to rock and roll, established in HBO's documentary "Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple." Directed by Bill Teck, the film takes audiences through the humble origins of Van Zandt to the heights of his career as a rock and roll star, producer and hitmaker.

Despite all of his different interests in music that led him to being a longtime member of close friend Bruce Springsteen's band the E Street Band, throughout the documentary, Van Zandt is also shown to be a person deeply connected to activism and human rights. His massive contributions to activism in the mid-'80s to protest apartheid South Africa helped tangibly globalize the conflict through his gift of music.

The musician, actor and overall renaissance man received his flowers in "Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple." Here are some of the most fascinating facts about Van Zandt's life experiences:

01
Van Zandt grew up in New Jersey and dominated the music scene there
Stevie Van Zandt: DiscipleStevie Van Zandt: Disciple (HBO)
The story and life of Steven "Stevie" Van Zandt begins in Middletown, New Jersey. As an Italian-American in New Jersey, he came from a humble background but Van Zandt was musically gifted.
 
As musically talented teens in New Jersey during the 1960s, Van Zandt and Bruce Springsteen both had played in separate bands before they became friends. But rock groups really took off in 1964 when The Beatles debuted in America. Following The Beatles were The Rolling Stones, and thus Springsteen and Van Zandt were inspired. At Upstage Club in Ashbury Park, the pair meet South Side Johnny Lyon. They would move between different bands and experiment with different styles of music and instruments. 
 
2
Friendship and musical relationship with Bruce Springsteen
Stevie Van Zandt: DiscipleStevie Van Zandt: Disciple (HBO)
The relationship between Van Zandt and Springsteen would go on to last decades after they began playing music together in the 1970s.
 
"There was a mystical thing in the air that happens when you meet somebody who feels about something the same way with the kind of intensity that you feel about it. So he became my rock and roll brother instantly," Springsteen said about meeting Van Zandt for the first time.
 
They collaborated in many different bands, including Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes and of course eventually Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band. The pair would perform at Asbury Park with Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes which helped push the New Jersey music scene even further than the friends had expected.
 
As Springsteen's popularity rose, there was a spot for Van Zandt in his friend's band to perform live and continue producing for Springsteen. Van Zandt said, "I went for seven gigs and I stayed for seven years."
 
"The friendship was so intense and I needed another sounding board and somebody with Stevie's creativity and things were going good. It was just a no-brainer. We were so close that I just wanted him near me, I wanted him at my side," Springsteen said.
3
Van Zandt was a staunch anti-apartheid activist and produced the song "Sun City"
Stevie Van Zandt: DiscipleStevie Van Zandt: Disciple (HBO)
Van Zandt and Springsteen were on tour in Germany during the 1980s when Van Zandt's political awakening began.
 
"When we first started out Stevie was no politics, no politics. That's not the way to go about it, that's wrong. Then he became all politics," Springsteen noted.
 
"I felt if I could shine a light on some of these things, maybe I could stimulate some thought which would stimulate some conversation, which would stimulate some action. We're supposed to be the heroes of democracy and freedom and we weren't," Van Zandt said.
 
His activism hit its height when violence in South Africa left anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko dead in police custody. "I hear this song 'Biko' by Peter Gabriel. The song was amazing. It really led to my engagement in with activism in general and specifically the apartheid regime of South Africa."
 
Van Zandt would visit segregated, violent areas in South Africa to tell people on the ground that he would "win the war on TV." He came back to America to begin his mission to record the political song "Sun City." The song and EP would unite rockers, rappers, musicians and many different artists to fight as a group called Artists United Against Apartheid.
 
"There's a certain political element in rock and roll anyway. It is you saying 'I'm doing this no matter what people think.' But when he started to actually do things and say things about politics, he politized rock and roll," Johnny Lyons said.
4
Van Zandt joined "The Sopranos" because he was broke
Stevie Van Zandt: DiscipleStevie Van Zandt: Disciple (HBO)
While Van Zandt had found his identity in politics and activism, it began to take its toll on his career.
 
He shifted gears in the '90s after doing a final political concert for Tiananmen Square. "No record company wanted to sign me anymore. I was done," Van Zandt said. "I went out into the wilderness and walked my dog for seven years."
 
"You start bringing down governments they start getting nervous. Maybe we're next?" Van Zandt joked. But his next real step would be the HBO hit series "The Sopranos." Creator David Chase noticed Van Zandt at a Rock and Roll Induction Ceremony. Some critics told Van Zandt his career would die if he went to television and acting, and he responded, "Well, I'm also broke." Thus, the iconic role of Silvio Dante was born.
5
Van Zandt's legacy as a formative rocker
Stevie Van Zandt: DiscipleStevie Van Zandt: Disciple (HBO)
As his career shot up because of "The Sopranos," Springsteen and Van Zandt would reunite to perform again in 1999.
 
Not only did he begin performing again but he created his own radio show "Little Stevie's Underground Garage" where he would put people on to new musicians from many different musical genres. The radio show eventually became the first branded satellite station across the country.
 
He was involved in building a new record label. He was on TV, radio and Broadway. Van Zandt also is passionate about educating young students about the history of rock and roll.
 
"I think he realizes if someone doesn't keep this going it may die," DJ Palmyra Delran said about Van Zandt.

"Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple" is now available to stream on Max. 

“Teeing up the next one”: Expert says SCOTUS “roadmap” helps right-wingers revise “deranged” cases

The Supreme Court’s Wednesday reversal of a ruling that limited how the Biden administration can urge social media companies to remove misinformation is a "minor victory" for anti-disinformation efforts – while posing the latest reversal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and leaving unclear how far the government can go to pressure the suppression of free speech, legal experts say.

Two states and five social media users had sued dozens of executive branch officials and agencies, claiming that the Biden administration had violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to censor their speech.

Last September, the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court ruling that government officials had “coerc[ed]” or “significantly encourag[ed]” the platforms’ moderation decisions. The court then narrowed a District Court injunction that restricted the administration's communications with social media companies.

But the Supreme Court in its 6-3 Wednesday opinion pointed out issues with the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

"The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court's factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous," reads the ruling.

The justices said the Fifth Circuit had "glossed over complexities in the evidence" by attributing every platform's decision to the Biden administration. The ruling said the circuit had also wrongly treated defendants, plaintiffs and platforms as a "unified whole."

“Over the last couple of years, the Fifth Circuit has become one of the most aggressive circuits for challenging government, power, administrative and state issues, and this is the latest in a string of rebukes that they've received,” Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said. “There's a question of how much of this is the Supreme Court being skeptical of and really pushing back on the Fifth Circuit, and how much of this is really case specific?”

The Supreme Court in its 6-3 Wednesday opinion said the individual and state plaintiffs failed to establish standing to seek an injunction against the executive branch officials.

To get standing, the plaintiffs would have had to prove they will soon suffer an injury traceable to the government. 

“The ruling makes it clear that states and ordinary users of social media platforms do not have standing to challenge government efforts to persuade big tech to consider removing content that is dangerous to the public," former federal prosecutor and University of Michigan law professor Barb McQuade told Salon.

McQuade said that going forward, it appears that legal challenges “will have to come from the tech companies themselves.”

McQuade also called the “case a minor victory for efforts to combat disinformation.”

The opinion centers around what restrictions the First Amendment places on what’s known as jawboning – a term dating back to the 1970s that refers to when an administration urges businesses to adopt a certain policy.

“We have the jawboning question, which is the government instructing, nudging, or encouraging in First Amendment problematic ways, the platforms to act in a certain way,” Gus Hurwitz, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said. “Another background question in this case is: were the platforms acting as an arm of the government at the government's behest?”

The Supreme Court’s opinion highlighted the case of plaintiff Jill Hines, a Louisiana healthcare activist who leads the anti-mask and vaccine mandate group Health Freedom Louisiana.

In July 2021, Facebook de-platformed one of Health Freedom’s groups after a post had asked members to contact state legislators about health freedom bills.

The group’s de-platforming came three months after a White House official sent Facebook “suggestions” that included ending group recommendations for groups that have spread COVID-19 or vaccine misinformation. Facebook then told that official that it “had already removed all health groups from our recommendation feature.”

"It is hard to know what to make of this,” the justices wrote in their ruling.

The ruling said it’s hard to say whether Facebook was implementing the White House’s policy or its own.

The opinion said Hines made the “best showing of all the plaintiffs” – but said her “weak record gives her little momentum going forward.”

The ruling said without “proof of an ongoing pressure campaign” by the White House, it’s “entirely speculative” to link any future Facebook moderation to the administration.

In its amicus brief, the Knight First Amendment Institute highlighted another email exchange between White House officials and Facebook.

In one exchange, a White House official sent Facebook a news article and alleged the platform of failing to control misinformation.

One day later, another administration official warned that the White House was ‘[i]nternally.. considering our options on what to do about it,’” according to the amicus brief. The official complained Facebook was not "'trying to solve the problem.'"

Lawyers for the Knight First Amendment Institute said that interaction “may have been coercive.”

And Justice Samuel Alito cited the comments in his dissent as an example of the government "placing unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech."

The Supreme Court's majority ruling cited the interaction as an example of communications that were "more aggressive than others."

But the 6-3 ruling described those comments as part of the administration's efforts to pepper social media platforms with detailed questions about their policies and push them to suppress certain content at a time when Facebook in particular "'was one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy.'”

"Publicly, White House communications officials called on the platforms to do more to address COVID–19 misinformation—and, perhaps as motivation, raised the possibility of reforms aimed at the platforms, including changes to the antitrust laws and 47 U. S. C. §230," reads the ruling.

Overall, the justices in the majority ruling said that Facebook and other social media platforms began moderating COVID-19 misinformation content before the government got involved.

Social media platforms also at times explained to White House officials that "flagged content that did not violate company policy," reads the ruling.

Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute who was counsel of record for the amicus brief, said the Supreme Court was right to reverse the Fifth Circuit.

“The opinion was clearly skeptical of, not just skeptical – rejected the plaintiff's claims that there was a vast conspiracy by the government to coerce the platforms into taking down their speech,” Abdo told Salon.

But, he said he wished the court had provided more explicit guidance on how far the government can go under the First Amendment to pressure social media platforms into suppressing speech – particularly in an election year.

“The platforms are attractive targets for official pressure, and so it’s crucial that the Supreme Court clarify the line between permissible attempts to persuade and impermissible attempts to coerce,” Abdo said.

Abdo said it would be “fair” for the Biden administration to read the opinion as reaffirming their past practice of providing guidance to platforms: “That they can try to persuade, but they cannot try to coerce.”

Abdo said the opposite is also possible: “It wouldn't surprise me if they decided it's just not worth the risk of a future suit with better claims being allowed to go forward, and so distancing themselves from the platforms.”

Abdo said Congress could offer clarity by passing legislation to require the government to disclose its efforts to persuade platforms to take down speech.

“That would I think alleviate the risk that the platforms will interpret something that is on its face meant to be only persuasive with an actual threat,” Abdo said.

The Supreme Court could shed light on similar questions in upcoming days via the NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton case, which questions the constitutionality of a Texas state law that prohibits social media platforms from censoring user content and sets strict disclosure requirements.

“A lot of folks are trying to read tea leaves,” Hurwitz said. “In this case, the Alito dissent has some language about platforms being private actors not subject to the First Amendment.

Legal observers say the ruling marks the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings reversing decisions by the notably conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which sprawls Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

"The reason that people are bringing cases like these is because they think that before this conservative Supreme Court, they have a real shot at getting five votes for extreme right-wing legal theories," said Jay Willis, a lawyer and editor-in-chief at Balls & Strikes.

We need your help to stay independent

In May, the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling that found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding violated the Constitution's separation of powers and Appropriations Clause. 

The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision found that the underlying statute authorizing the CRPB satisfies the appropriation's clause. 

Last week, the Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling upheld a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The Fifth Circuit had agreed that the law was unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard that modern gun control laws must be "consistent with the Second Amendment's text and historical understanding." 

"What we're seeing here is a series of really sort of deranged cases bubbling up from the Fifth Circuit where the Supreme Court conservative super majority is basically having to say: 'Look we agree with you, Fifth Circuit broadly, but we can't countenance this,'" Willis said.


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


Willis noted that those three decisions all had buy-in from conservative justices: the Wednesday 6-3 ruling was authorized by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

But, he stressed: "The Supreme Court turning some of them away is not evidence that the Supreme Court is moderate in any sense of the word. It just means that the Supreme Court is not as far to the right as the furthest right people in the entire federal judiciary."

Willis added that just because this case hasn't ended up as the conservative legal movement hoped, that doesn't mean the issue is resolved.

"Even if they don't get everything they want in the case, there's still a fully laid out explained opinion from conservative justices that provides sort of like hints or a roadmap for conservative legal activists going forward," Willis said. "How to frame their next challenge, what they could do to get around the majority's objection to the case. A lot of the way that the development of the law works is over time."

Hurwitz said he questioned if the case would end up being litigated again. 

“I wonder how unique it was to the setting of both the COVID era and the 2000 election – a unique moment in our history and the role of the platforms,” he said. 

“It's entirely possible that folks aren't going to let it go and there will be another bite of this apple,” he continued. “But that would require better facts, better plaintiffs, in order to make that happen. And I don't know that that's really likely to happen.”

“She’s in full dementia”: Gena Rowlands has Alzheimer’s disease

Gena Rowlands has Alzheimer's disease, per an update shared by her son, actor and director Nick Cassavetes in a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly. Cassavetes directed 2004 romance film "The Notebook," casting Rowlands as a character with dementia.

“I got my mom to play older Allie, and we spent a lot of time talking about Alzheimer’s and wanting to be authentic with it, and now, for the last five years, she’s had Alzheimer’s,” Cassavetes told the outlet. “She’s in full dementia. And it’s so crazy — we lived it, she acted it, and now it’s on us."

In the movie, which was adapted from the 1996 Nicholas Sparks novel of the same name, Rowlands starred as the older version of Rachel McAdams' Allie alongside the late James Garner and Ryan Gosling, who portrayed the older and younger version of Noah Calhoun.

Rowlands, a four-time Emmy winner and two-time Golden Globe winner, was twice nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in her films "A Woman Under the Influence" (1974) and "Gloria" (1980). She received an honorary Oscar in 2015. 

Biden pardons service members convicted by anti-gay laws

President Joe Biden will issue a proclamation granting pardons to potentially thousands of former U.S. service members persecuted under a Cold War-era law that banned consensual sex between gay couples, as reported by the Associated Press. In doing so, Biden says he is "righting a historical wrong" by reversing a policy that may have purged as many as 100,000 people from the armed forces and denied them veterans' benefits.

Biden's pardon comes towards the end of Pride Month and marks the third mass pardon issued during his presidency. In 2022 and 2023, he granted clemency to people convicted at the federal level for possessing marijuana.

Under Biden's proclamation, eligible service members will be able to apply to seek a review of their discharges and recover back pay and veterans' benefits. It's unclear exactly who or how many veterans will have that option.

Officials told the AP that most of them were convicted prior to the now-repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of 1993 that allowed people to serve in the military if they remained silent about their sexual orientation. Service members convicted of non-consensual acts will not be covered by Biden's pardon.

The pardoned offenses largely fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s former Article 125, which prohibited “unnatural carnal copulation” and was effective from 1951 to 2013.

 “We have a sacred obligation to all of our service members  including our brave LGBTQI+ service members: to properly prepare and equip them when they are sent into harm’s way, and to care for them and their families when they return home," Biden said in a statement. "Today we are making progress in that pursuit.”

White House officials said that Biden's decision was not driven by electoral concerns. Nevertheless, it could put his position in sharp relief with that of the Republican Party, which has been doubling down on anti-gay measures across the country.

Jamaal Bowman ousted by conservative challenger in setback to congressional progressives

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), facing a torrent of outside money and suffering from avoidable blunders that alienated him from his House district, suffered a 17-point loss to Westchester County Executive George Latimer in Tuesday's New York primary election. The defeat of this outspoken Squad member and critic of Israel is a blow to progressives in the Democratic Party, who have faced a number of well-funded primary challenges from the right.

The election in New York's 16th District, one of the most heavily Jewish districts in the country, was seen by some political observers as a bellwether for attitudes towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. Bowman first won his seat in 2020 after defeating Eliot Engel, an entrenched incumbent and Israel hawk perceived as out of touch with the everyday concerns of his constituents. In late 2023, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a hardline pro-Israel group funded in part by GOP donors, sought a challenger who could take down Bowman and lead a centrist pushback against the Democratic Party's left flank.

Latimer, a moderate Democrat who announced his primary challenge just after returning from a trip to Israel, had patiently courted the goodwill of local political leaders, with some who urged him to run citing Bowman's record of criticizing the Israeli government. He also benefited from a redistricting that left only a sliver of the Bronx in a district that now encompasses most of suburban Westchester County.

While Latimer, an unequivocal supporter of Israel, relentlessly attacked Bowman for his criticism of Israel's destructive invasion of Gaza and support for a ceasefire, AIPAC followed its playbook of avoiding any mention of Israel in its ads and instead used its $14 million budget to characterize him as insufficiently loyal to President Joe Biden. The most expensive House primary race in U.S. history turned out to be completely lopsided: by one tally, Latimer-aligned groups outspent Bowman seven to one.

"It is an outrage and an insult to democracy that we maintain a corrupt campaign finance system which allows billionaire-funded super PACs to buy elections," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who endorsed Bowman. "AIPAC and other super PACs spent over $23 million to defeat Bowman. He spent $3 million. That is a spending gap which is virtually impossible to overcome."

As Bowman flamed out, a fellow Squad member, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was cruising to a 64-point victory in New York's 14th District. Two months earlier, another Squad member, Summer Lee, easily snuffed out a centrist rival after AIPAC declined to intervene. In choosing to make an example out of Bowman, centrist and pro-Israel forces trained their fire on a lawmaker who had helped undermine his own political standing with a series of unforced errors for which he was routinely mocked.

In early October, Bowman faced a House censure and misdemeanor charge for pulling a fire alarm in the U.S. Capitol, seemingly to delay votes on GOP legislation. His response to the escalating violence in Israel and Palestine a week later largely stayed in line with the demands of other progressives for a permanent ceasefire and to hold Israel accountable for its killing of Palestinian civilians, but a video of him calling reports of Hamas raping Israeli women "propaganda" earned him an especially strong rebuke. Opposition researchers also ferreted out old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories during his time as a middle school principal, which Bowman later said he regretted publishing.

Bowman's actions may have made it easier for his political opponents to paint some of his other comments in a harsher light. Bowman, for example, argued that Israel purports to "represent all Jews," a claim he said was "dangerous" because when Israel is "behaving badly" it risks inciting antisemitism against Jews elsewhere. Fellow New York Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman called that "quintessential antisemitism," even as he noted, like Bowman, that it would be wrong to blame all Jews for the actions of the Israeli government.

Latimer, who promised to deliver "results, not rhetoric," capitalized on Bowman's errors and reputation as a confrontational, unapologetic progressive by painting him as ineffective. Bowman, campaigning as the candidate of the working class and people of color, pointed out that he helped secure $1 billion in government funding for the residents of Bronx and Westchester and accused of Latimer answering only to rich suburbanites. But he also continued to make the race something of a referendum on Israel, noting that Latimer has supported providing the country with billions of dollars in military aid "while we are struggling to live day to day right here in this district."

We need your help to stay independent

Late in the campaign, Latimer got into trouble for making racially insensitive remarks, such as suggesting that Bowman, a Black man, had an "ethnic advantage" and was working only for his Black and brown constituents. He made another version of that claim in a debate, where he accused Bowman of working for residents of places like Dearborn, Michigan which has a large Arab-American population. Ultimately, it appears the charges of racism didn't stick as stubbornly as Latimer's accusation that Bowman was peddling antisemitism with his criticism of Israel.

Similarly, Bowman struggled to press home the message that he had delivered for his district as Latimer collected endorsements from local officials who he had cultivated since being elected as Westchester County Executive in 2017. While Bowman could count on the support of national progressive leaders like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, it's unclear that their appearance at a joint rally helped disprove criticism that he was aloof to local issues. The fact that the rally took place in the South Bronx, miles outside of his district, didn't help either.

Throughout one of the nastier congressional campaigns in recent memory, Bowman consistently trailed Latimer in the polls, so his defeat came as little surprise. While Latimer is all but guaranteed a victory in November's general election, the primary race exposed deep rifts within the Democratic coalition, with Bowman performing strongly in working class and ethnically diverse areas like the Bronx, where he won 84% of the vote, while Latimer ran up large margins in wealthy, suburban Westchester. In a district with more Westchester than Bronx, this spelled doom for Bowman.

He may have already been standing in the pit when AIPAC buried him.