Exploring the profound beauty of wildlife on a “Queer Planet”

"Queer Planet," a new documentary now streaming on Peacock, opens with a pair of bighorn sheep, both males, who are literally butting heads. As they repeatedly slam against each other, viewers may assume we are witnessing a violent battle to the death. Perhaps the two bighorn sheep were fighting over territory or food, or maybe there was some ovine slight imperceptible to human eyes.

"The biggest hurdle to overcome with normalising the queerness of nature will always be those people who shout the loudest."

Except that isn't what's happening. In a move that epitomizes the entire experience of watching "Queer Planet," the filmmakers subvert the audience's expectations about nature documentaries — and, by extension, nature itself. It turns out the male bighorn sheep weren't rivals; they were sexual partners, engaged in what could be characterized as a lovers' quarrel.

Queerness is everywhere in nature, despite claims to the contrary, and "Queer Planet" underlines that sexual diversity isn't an anomaly. It's worth celebrating.

Jaguars are returning to America, but Fish and Wildlife Service don't think they need protections

Take clown fish. The family unit shown in the 2003 animated movie "Finding Nemo" is, at first glance, reasonably close to the truth: Clown fish units include one female, one male and many juvenile males, all of whom take care of their babies together. Yet when a predator or other unfortunate event kills a female clown fish in real life, the dad changes sex into a female — as noted in a 2018 study titled "The truth about Nemo's dad" — and a juvenile male fish courts his former father so they can continue reproducing and protecting their offspring.

"They change sex, from male to female as they mature (so, yes, Nemo’s dad would become his new mom after his actual mom died)," said Bradley Trevor Greive, an author and naturalist who appears in the movie. While a child marrying their parent is morally appalling by conventional standards — and certainly is not Disney-friendly — Greive said that it is illogical to think nature would care about human concepts.

"Nature is a kaleidoscopic Karma Sutra – absolutely everything goes, and then some," Greive said. "Insects aside, one third of all animals are intersex, have both male and female sexual anatomy. Not that anatomy matters, the species of males don’t have a penis, some have four." Greive elaborated on species where females have no vaginas or three, or possess phalluses of their own. "Even many 'straight' species are not truly 'straight.' Barnacles possess a penis that is forty times their body size which, relatively speaking, makes it the biggest in the animal kingdom, and barnacles reproduce by sperm casting, which is basically masturbating into a hurricane and hoping for the best … And it works!"

There are plenty of other intersex animals. Box turtles, for example, will develop into females if their egg's ambient temperatures are high and turn into males if those temperatures are low. If the temperature hits a sweet spot, they become intersex — both male and female — yet still capable of bearing offspring. Thanks to climate change, however, more and more turtles are being born female, putting the species at risk for extinction. In addition to trans species, "Queer Planet" also showcases species with relatively high rates of homosexuality, such as the fact that 28 percent of wild King penguins will choose a same-sex mate for their initial coupling.

Lions (Courtesy of Peacock)

A documentary as bold as this one inevitably comes with political challenges. At a time of increasing violence against LGBTQ+ people, "Queer Planet" is not simply a nature documentary, although its vivid cinematography and deep-dish wildlife analysis makes it a fantastic watch for fans of that genre. There is an unavoidable political subtext in "Queer Planet," one with roots as far back as the days when Charles Darwin — who was the founder of evolutionary biology, but according to the documentary, also homophobic — downplayed and denigrated the sexual queerness he observed during his studies.

One can draw a direct line between Darwin's erasure of nature's queerness and the people who today claim the spectrum of gender and sexuality are somehow "unnatural." This supplied "Queer Planet" producer and director Ed Watkins with both an obstacle and a mission.

"The biggest hurdle to overcome with normalizing the queerness of nature will always be those people who shout the loudest," Watkins said. "The most vocal are usually those most vehemently opposed to accepting the reality of the natural world. And, even when they do, they point to other natural behaviors which humans find unacceptable as a reason to dismiss it." Watkins added that scientists and human rights advocates may not be able to "out shout" the reactionaries, but they can effectively rebut them by calmly displaying the scientific facts.

"Importantly, nothing in our documentary is confrontational, it is unrelentingly upbeat and positive," Watkins said. "I believe the best way to change people's perceptions is to show them the real world as it is, full of beauty, and diversity, and hopefully they'll see it too."

Dr. Christine Wilkinson — a National Geographic Explorer and researcher from the University of California Berkeley's California Academy of Science who is interviewed in the film — said that "Queer Planet" is hardly breaking new ground, at least when it comes to the underlying scientific facts it presents. The movie exists not to share undiscovered revelations, but to explain that the queer truth about nature has already been thoroughly documented — and encourage viewers to examine why this is not common knowledge.

"There is plenty of scientific literature documenting same-sex sexual behavior and sex-changing in animals," Wilkinson said. "I recommend reading 'Biological Exuberance' by Bruce Bagemihl if you want an encyclopedic approach, or 'Queer Ducks' by Eliot Schrefer for something more fun and accessible."

Wilkinson has spent much time studying spotted hyenas, another of the many species highlighted in "Queer Planet." They are shown living in female-dominated societies, with hyena girls possessing clitorises so large that at first glance they can be mistaken for hyena penises.

"As someone who has spent a lot of time studying spotted hyenas, they definitely hold a special place in my heart," said Wilkinson. "Their intricate social structures, largely female-led societies, formidable intelligence and, of course, their adorable bear-like ears all make spotted hyenas a personal favorite for me."

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

"I believe the only way to make the general public more aware of the fact that same-sex behaviour, and many other queer behaviours, are normal in the animal kingdom is to keep showing people real stories, backed up by real science."

While female-dominated hyena societies may not strike some as technically "queer," the same cannot be said of the countless male lions who spend most of their time in all-male groups called coalitions. Demolishing the myth of the happy male lion ruling a pride with a harem of females, "Queer Planet" explains that most male lions will actually spend the majority of their lives with each other. This results in extremely close bonds that often last a lifetime, with male lions regularly cuddling and mounting each other to display affection.

Giraffes also have very high incidences of same-sex behaviors among males, with one out of four wild matings occurring among males mounting each other — even when they have access to females. Bonobos are even more sexually open than giraffes, with "Queer Planet" explaining that bonobos seem to deal with all of life's twists and turns by turning to sex — whether it's for eating food, resolving conflicts, feeling bored or occasionally, yes, actually trying to reproduce.

"Over 1,500 animal species engage in same sex behavior, and countless more in a wide variety of queer lifestyles, so it was quite a lengthy list!" Watkins said when explaining how the filmmakers chose the species they would profile for the documentary. "In the end, we opted to feature those animals that allowed us to highlight the incredible diversity of the natural world, and for which we could tell memorable and visually stunning sequences, backed up by published science. Flamingos, penguins, lions are all very charismatic, so they went in, but we also wanted to feature some of the lesser-known and loved species like cuttlefish, ants and slugs."

To do this, the makers of "Queer Planet" trekked across the globe, obtaining the best footage nature can offer in all its queerness. Perhaps the most difficult animals to profile were flamingos. As Watkins explained, the majority of "Queer Planet"'s footage was filmed directly by Watkins, with his assistant producer George and researcher, Chris. This meant that the lush images of elegant pink birds — introduced as "flamboyant flamingos," unpacking their often-lifelong same-sex relationships — weren't easy to capture.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"We filmed those in Yucatán, in Mexico," Watkins recalled. "Each day we had to hike for about an hour through shallow, hyper-saline marshes and lakes, with all our equipment, to reach the nesting sites in the dark. Then set up our hides and sit in the sweltering sun until noon, when the birds rested, to leave. It was hot, dirty, smelly work. George braved the conditions for the longest, but the results were worth it."

Numerous other examples in the film include how macaques in Japan are "extremely lesbian," often choosing other females even when male partner are available; that male seahorses likewise tend to form lifelong same-sex relationships, with the males delivering birth from pouches; and that a majority of organisms on coral reefs are hermaphrodites, with over 500 species changing sex at least once in their lifetimes and others having both sexes.

All of this science and documentary work emphasizes how normal, natural and wonderful it is to be queer.

"I believe the only way to make the general public more aware of the fact that same-sex behavior, and many other queer behaviors, are normal in the animal kingdom is to keep showing people real stories, backed up by real science," said Watkins. "I've been making wildlife documentaries for over a decade, and I can count on one hand the number of times a queer wildlife story has featured, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is widespread. It was one of the key drivers behind getting this film made."

about climate change

“Reckless decision”: New York Governor axes congestion toll weeks ahead of launch

New York Governor Kathy Hochul delivered a crushing blow to a years-long push for a congestion toll in Manhattan, scrapping a June 30 start to the program in a surprising reversal.

The plan, which would have imposed a daily $15 charge on drivers entering the downtown section of some of the nation’s busiest roads, was approved by the state legislature, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, and transportation board. Environmental benefits and a $1 billion dollar fund for mass public transit were among the plan’s top selling points, as were a reduction of car congestion in the area.

Hochul, a Democrat and staunch supporter of the scheme until her Wednesday flip-flop, attributed the indefinite pause to an “undue strain on already stressed New Yorkers,” with POLITICO reporting that New York Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, pressured the governor to reconsider in the face of potential blowback.

Jeffries and other party officials are reportedly anxious over the possibility of Republicans winning back or keeping crucial seats in the House of Representatives after GOP victories in 2022.

Meanwhile, Hochul’s decision drew the ire of her own party. Jerry Nadler, who represents parts of Manhattan in the U.S. House of Representatives, expressed his disappointment.

“We cannot allow a vocal minority of drivers who don't quality for exemptions or discounts to dictate our policy decisions,” he wrote on X.

Legal experts questioned the legality of Hochul’s decision, including Columbia Law professor Michael Gerrard, who said on X that it was “not clear that Gov. Hochul can lawfully do this” under the statute which set up the program.

Some local representatives, including state senator and finance committee chair Liz Krueger, went further in their condemnations, pointing out that Hochul failed to outline how she would address the budget gap created by the cancellation.

“The Governor's reckless decision to effectively kill congestion pricing in New York City — and every other city in America that is considering following New York's example — is a staggering error,” she said in a statement. “On top of the financial crisis she is creating, this is simply a terrible policy decision.”

“Trump acolytes laundering their attacks”: WSJ article on Biden age slammed

An article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping” garnered fierce backlash from Joe Biden’s campaign, with critics pointing out that the Journal relies on the testimony of Republican lawmakers to draw conclusions on the president’s mental acuity.

The story centers far-right House Speaker Mike Johnson’s impression that Biden had mis-remembered details of administration policy, reports that he uses note cards to organize his thoughts in meetings, and the words of various political figures who spoke to the Journal.

As they note of the 45 interviewees, “most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans,” while “some” Democrats noted Biden’s symptoms of aging. Among others quoted in the story: former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Republican Senator James Risch of Idaho.

The story’s framing, and its use of Republican political figures as key allies, drew criticism not just from Biden allies, but across the political spectrum.

“This does have the feeling of Trump acolytes laundering their attacks [against Biden] through a reputable, prestigious news organization,” MSNBC’s Willy Geist said on "Morning Joe."

Geist also echoed responses to the Journal’s focus on Biden’s use of notes, adding that it was not only a common practice, but one that opponent Donald Trump engages in as well.

“Most of the people that are going on the record, and frankly most of the sources, are Republicans,” political commentator Maria Cardona said on CNN, noting that Democratic lawmakers who sat in on the meetings outlined by the Journal felt misrepresented. “They told the Journal exactly the opposite — Gee! I wonder why.”

Other lawmakers who’ve worked firsthand with Biden, including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, say they haven’t noticed the decline described in the Journal. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the story a "hit piece."

“We all get a little slower as we get older. But I haven't seen a mental decline that would suggest he's not for the job,” Romney reportedly said. “I sure wish he would allow a younger person to become their candidate, but that's not gonna happen.”

The Wall Street Journal, owned by Trump ally Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, touched briefly on the alleged mental challenges facing Biden’s opponent, 77-year-old Donald Trump, but stopped short of issuing as stark a warning on “signs of slipping.” Those close to the first Trump administration noted that he demonstrated similar markers of aging, despite media narratives.

“Hope the Wall Street Journal feels free to reach out to any one of us who worked in the Trump Admin,” former Pence Homeland Security advisor Olivia Troye said on X. “Happy to discuss Trump’s mental acuity & fitness for office. We can start with the closed doors discussions on milkshakes during intel briefings, windmills causing cancer, what bleach does & doesn’t do & go from there.”

NYPD zones in on Trump’s gun permit after felony conviction

A week after his felony conviction in a Manhattan courthouse, the New York Police Department is preparing to strip Donald Trump of his permit to carry a firearm in New York City.

Per CNN, the former president lost his concealed carry permit, which allowed him to carry a firearm on his person, in April of last year following indictment in a felony hush money case for which he was found guilty last week. The verdict means that he will have to give up his permit to own a firearm in the United States, which prohibits felon gun possession, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

As the NYPD notes, “Federal law and New York State law both prohibit an individual with a felony conviction from being eligible for a permit to possess a firearm.”

Though the NYPD’s Legal Bureau is completing an investigation, according to CNN, Trump’s ownership of a gun is already unlawful under federal law. He would have to have his conviction overturned or expunged to be eligible for future firearm ownership.

Trump, who told the Washington Times in 2012 that he owned a small handgun and held a concealed carry permit in New York City, rarely speaks of his own gun use and ownership. His recent appearance at the National Rifle Association convention to accept an endorsement made headlines not for his support of gun owners, but for his suggestion that he could serve three terms as president.

Sentencing in Trump’s felony conviction is expected on July 11.

Senate Republicans kill federal birth control protections

Republicans in the Senate voted down a bill Wednesday to protect access to contraception at a federal level.

The bill, sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, would have curbed potential Republican-led states’ attempts to attack contraception access, including IUD devices, hormonal birth control, or Plan B.

Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the sole GOP aye votes, leaving Democrats 8 votes shy of overcoming a filibuster on the matter, which would have codified the right to contraception access in Griswold v. Connecticut. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changed his vote to a ‘no’ at the last minute, a procedural swap that allows the chamber to take up the vote again at a later date.

Griswold, less than a decade older than the now-overturned Roe v. Wade, could be the next target of the conservative Supreme Court justices, who’ve signaled that they aren’t friendly to existing protections on reproductive healthcare. In Clarence Thomas’ concurrence on the decision which killed Roe, he wrote that the court should “reconsider all of this Court's…precedents, including Griswold.”

Democrats argue that the right to contraception is a deeply popular, but vulnerable, one. A FiveThirtyEight poll pegged support of legal birth control in all or most cases at 89%. Democratic lawmakers say that Roe, and the popularity of abortion rights before its overturn, should serve as a warning.

“We must protect the right to contraception before [right-wing extremists] have a chance to roll back decades of progress in reproductive health care and personal autonomy,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois wrote in an op-ed.

The vote comes as part of a slew of reproductive rights bills that Schumer plans to take up in the chamber in an effort to force Republican lawmakers to express their overwhelmingly unpopular positions on access to birth control, abortion, IVF and other issues.

“Senate Republicans showed us who they are today: they showed that they’re not willing to stand up and protect access to contraception, something 90% of Americans support,” Schumer wrote in a post to X.

Trump’s Georgia election case postponed again, awaiting Fani Willis decision

In a Wednesday order, the Georgia’s Court of Appeals paused proceedings in Donald Trump’s criminal election racketeering case in Fulton County, awaiting a decision on whether District Attorney Fani Willis will be allowed to stay on the case.

Just a week after the former president’s 34-count felony conviction — stemming from falsifying records in an effort to interfere in the 2016 election — the appellate court is granting him a legal break, stalling prosecution against Trump and his co-conspirators’ efforts to overturn the will of Georgia’s voters in 2020.

The Georgia Appeals panel made up of Judges Benjamin Land, Todd Markle, and Trenton Brown will hear arguments on the trial judge Scott McAfee’s March ruling that allowed Willis to remain on the case.

Widespread criticism over Willis’ handling of her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade led to legal roadblocks earlier this year, before McAfee ruled that the pair’s relationship did not pose a threat to the case. The Appeals Court agreed to re-evaluate these claims in May, but today’s issuance puts a decisive stop on the case, potentially pushing proceedings into 2025.

The case, which in part revolves around a conversation in which the then-president asked the former Secretary of State of Georgia to “find 11,780 votes” for him — the amount he would need to win the state — is yet another of Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, for which he will seemingly go unpunished for ahead of his November re-match with President Joe Biden.

Elsewhere, a pending Supreme Court ruling keeps a four-charge federal election obstruction case for Trump’s role in the January 6th attack on the electoral college certification from moving forward. In the case over Trump’s handling of classified documents, Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely stalled proceedings via a widely criticized move last month.

“Top Chef” delivers a creative and visual tour de force with tabletop dishes: 7 takeaways

I loved this episode of "Top Chef," from the Quick Fire to the elimination challenge and everything in between.

Prior to this, the top standout episodes of this season have been "Chaos Cuisine" and "The Good Land."

In "Lay it All on the Table," we were treated to a triumphant return from "Last Chance Kitchen" and stunning dish from Laura, a sharp turn in the Quick Fire and a beautifully classic elimination dish from Savannah. There were top-tier tablescapes from Danny (who apparently competed in the Bocuse D'or, which I don't think we've heard him mention before) and Dan (who apparently had tried out for "Top Chef" 13 times prior to being cast!), a quasi-successful risotto and a fun little nugget that Manny was once in an "emo punk" band. You learn something every day!

"Top Chef" sputters with a ill-conceived challenge — but the LCK victory is a worthy contender

This was also the first episode in which you can start feeling that familiar anticipation as the end-of-the-season closes in. I love endgame challenges on this show, so I know we must have some amazing dishes and stories just around the corner . . .

Here are my other takeaways for episode 11:

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

I loved the editing throughout the Quick Fire. It started with a moment in the cars on the way to the challenge as Savannah said, "I want to walk in there and see someone cooing already," followed by her looking all around the kitchen and noticing the six — not five — cutting boards. Good for her for knowing she should grab the wok. Fun challenge!

And good for Sav — $10,000, two weeks in a row? Not too shabby … (Loved the quick glimpse of her infamous mirror, too!)

I did notice that Dan and Danny didn't seem especially thrilled to see Laura, which was interesting — both have "history" with her, sure, but that struck me as a little odd, especially from Danny. I loved how Laura's new, reinvigorated post-LCK energy seemed to really carry her in this episode, capping off with her strongest dish yet.

What a stellar elimination challenge! When Kristen discussed the challenge, she mentioned Grant Achatz and Disfrutar, as well as the communal meals of kamayan, seafood boils and grazing tables, but this challenge also made me think of Gaggan Anand, who appeared in one of last season's best episodes.

Laura's dish, highlighting the "chewy" Turkish ice cream maraş (a mastic or battered iceream cream), along with flavors of sour cherry, pistachio, honey and baklava sort of blew my mind. The "didn't see it coming" baklava rings were just the cherry (ha! pun intended) on top, really.

Dan's Pollock-inspired vegetarian tablescape, complete with "puffins" and an amazing array of ingredients, along with Danny's Basquiat- inspired paella with a super cool "border" made of sauces and purees alongside his usage of negative space were also really exciting, inventive and commendable.

Poorly cooked octopus, be damned! I wonder if Savannah would've been in the top three if not for that. Highlighting the Zensai course of a traditional Japanese kaiseki meal, Savannah's "celebration of the sea" was so visually arresting. I loved how Gail phrased it as "leading up to the high castle of oyster decadence." How beautifully put!

Unfortunately, Manny and Michelle didn't fare as well, but I was happy to see Manny's risotto get relatively high marks.

How great was that bit of editing showcasing Laura's gentle, languorous painting and plating in contrast to Savannah's frenzied, last-minutes plating, complete with appropriate music (classical and dramatic, respectively) to accompany each? That was a very funny little moment of contrasts there.

Also, didn't the judges look so funny whenever they just awkwardly sat in their chairs as the tables were taken in and out? Cracked me up

I'd say this season has had a few standout dishes, like Danny's chou farci, Savannah's hard-to-define dessert, Soo's Caesar, Dan's smoked walleye and "relish tray," Rasika's bonkers barley-pretzel cake with granita and honey mustard sabayon, Michelle's coconut curry collard green saag, Manny's pozole and his many moles. I'd definitely add Laura's remarkable tabletop dish to the list.

Michelle's boot seemed like it had been coming; her departure sort of reminded me of Kaleena's, in that there felt like there was almost a tangible relief. I found it interesting that we were shown that Gail, along with Tom, "didn't even think the Quick Fire comes into play" insofar as judging Michelle v. Manny, which from what I could glean, wasn't the case for Kristen.

I think she could've been immensely successful had, as Kristen and Gail both noted, she gone with some sort of convivial, rustic barbecue tablescape (or, as Kristen put it, "thrown the food on the table"), but alas!

I can definitely see her as a potential All Star candidate for a future season. She has built a real fanbase.

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

Slight pivot: In all of my "Top Chef" coverage, I’ve tried to keep the focus on the show and the show alone, but I feel like I’d be remiss to not touch on the tone from some members of the "fandom," especially in recent weeks.

The bulk of the discourse, honestly, is beyond silly. It’s bizarre to be so impressed and inspired by the food on the show and the talent of the chefs, then head to twitter or Reddit and see literally nothing but an endless (and oftentimes baseless, frankly) litany of complaints.

Now, I get it: I love this show personally and cover it professionally, so I have a vested interest in it that sometimes goes beyond what more casual or fair-weather viewers might think of it. I most certainly have had my share of things to say about the edit, the challenges, and some of the seemingly peculiar producing decisions this season, but in no way do I find this to be a subpar, unentertaining or unenjoyable season. As a matter of fact, it’s the most I’ve enjoyed the show, personally, since probably the Colorado season with Chef Fati, back in 2018.

And if you think this lineup — which includes James Beard nominees and Michelin Guide stalwarts, alum from Eleven Madison Park, the French Laundry and Café Boulud, plus one of my favorite come-from-behind dark horse "Top Chef" contenders of all time — is in any way untalented or undeserving of being finalists on "Top Chef," then you’re really just telling on yourself.

Could a Laura-Savannah finale be in our future or is a Dan-Danny showdown inevitable at this point? Could Manny sneak in there?

I’ve had all my eggs in the Savannah basket for weeks, but Laura has come on incredibly strong in recent episodes (especially after what felt like a low-grade villain edit in the first half of the season), Danny is arguably one of the most winning-est cheftestants ever, Dan has been remarkable, and Manny is likable, capable, and a confessional superstar. I’d be thrilled with anyone of them winning, which to be fair, I couldn’t say about the final five in the majority of "Top Chef" seasons. We shall soon see . . .

"Top Chef" airs Wednesdays at 9 p.m. on Bravo and streams next day on Peacock.

about this topic

Amanda Knox reconvicted of slander in Italy after accusing boss of killing roommate

Amanda Knox is still facing the fallout of the 2007 killing of her British roommate.

On Wednesday, the now 36-year-old has been reconvicted in an ongoing slander case surrounding Knox falsely accusing her boss, Patrick Lumumba, of killing her roommate, Meredith Kercher, The Associated Press reported. After the accusation, Lumumba was arrested which led to his two-week incarceration. The trial in an appeals court in Florence was a retrial of the original slander conviction. Knox was convicted of slander in 2009, CNN reported.

However, Knox, who has since turned into a criminal justice advocate after her nearly four-year-long prison sentence in Italian prison and eventual exoneration in 2015 by the Italian supreme court, argued that her statements to police in 2007 were coerced. She claimed that the accusation was only made because police were intensely questioning her. She said to the judge she was “exhausted and confused” when she accused Lumumba of the killing as she relied on her then-remedial Italian. In 2007, Knox had signed two police statements confirming her accusation against Lumumba. However, the second statement cast doubt on the accusation.

The ruling does not clear Knox's name which has been muddled with murder charges for almost two decades. However, the decision does not mean the legal saga is over. It will have to go to Italy's supreme court, and Knox has the chance to appeal.

“Amanda is very upset from the outcome,” her lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said. Vedova continued that her legal team did not expect that ruling. “She was looking to have a final point of all this, 17 years now, [of] judicial procedure.”

Mike Johnson and the “homosexual agenda”: Trump’s ally in Congress has a history of anti-LGBTQ+ hate

As a lawyer in Louisiana and then as an elected politician, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., has spent most of his life trying to save America and the world from the "destructive" influence of gay culture, which he apparently believes is more harmful to democracy than helping Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Now Speaker of the House, the Louisiana Republican is for the first time presiding over the chamber during Pride Month, an occasion he has not noted in any public statement. Critics would argue his record speaks for itself.

Johnson's vehement opposition to anything gay puts him on the far right of even the current Republican caucus, which includes members who claim to be welcoming of the LGBTQ+ community. But he's also the Republican leader at a time when his party has stepped up its attacks on trans people, in word and deed. As someone who has worked to thwart "the homosexual agenda's assault on the traditional family" since his time as a young lawyer, Johnson is not likely to moderate his stance now — and his ascendancy suggests that Donald Trump's GOP is okay with that.

Colorado Republicans mark Pride Month with extremist hate speech targeting "godless" LGBTQ+ community

After graduating from law school, Johnson worked as a counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a socially conservative advocacy organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group. There, his expertise appeared to be centered on the legal punishment of homosexuality. Before the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that laws prohibiting private, consensual sex between adults were unconstitutional, Johnson helped write an amicus brief to oppose such a decision. And when the battleground shifted to marriage, Johnson followed, backing Louisiana Amendment 1 in 2004, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, against legal challenges that he warned would "open the floodgates to chaos and anarchy."

The "chaos and anarchy" that Johnson referred to included, in his view, polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. "If we change marriage for the homosexual activists, we will have to do it for every deviant group … there will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet," he wrote in a 2004 Op-Ed. Johnson's escalating alarm over gay rights extended to the foundations of American democracy, which he said in the same piece would be "destroyed" if same-sex marriage were officially recognized.

Johnson's record of opposing gay rights is matched by his enduring association with Christian fundamentalist groups, some of which have hosted advocates of executing people for homosexual acts. He has also embraced Christian Nationalist tenets, claiming America's founders, despite their expressed opposition to mixing church and state, "followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like." And he has worked to impose his own retrograde interpretations of biblical law, such as by suing New Orleans for giving health care benefits to gay city workers and their partners, offering pro-bono representation to clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, writing a memo to Louisiana government officials detailing how they can defy the Supreme Court's ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, and opposing the anti-bullying Day of Silence, claiming its real purpose was to suggest "homosexuality is good for society."

"There is an agenda … where the homosexual viewpoint is being — students are being indoctrinated," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly in 2006.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

As a state legislator, Johnson made it a ritual to introduce anti-LGBTQ+ bills that generally died in committee, though his allies have sometimes found ways to shoehorn its policies into other bills or, in the case of a much-ballyhooed 2015 bill to block the state of Louisiana from prosecuting businesses for discriminating against gay people, through executive action, courtesy of then-Gov. Bobby Jindal.

"I'm not sure why it would upset anyone," Johnson said at the time of the so-called "Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act."

What Johnson couldn't accomplish in the Louisiana House of Representatives, he applauded when others succeeded.

"We commend you for standing by constitutional principle [sic]," he and 16 other GOP legislators wrote to then-Louisiana Attorney General (now Governor) Jeff Landry for blocking state contracts that include anti-discrimination measures protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from firing and harassment.

After just two years in the state legislature, Johnson ran for the U.S. House in 2016 and won. Seven years later, he ran to replace Kevin McCarthy as speaker, making an issue over his rival's vote in favor of the federal government recognizing same-sex marriage. Now trying to mold a persona under the national spotlight, Johnson has more recently said he does not remember some of his more strident rhetoric.

At least some openly gay Republicans appear to have been placated. Charles Moran, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said that he would give Johnson "the benefit of the doubt" after hearing reassurances from his office.

Democrats are less trusting.

"While Trump and MAGA Mike push an unpopular anti-freedom, pro-discrimination agenda, President Biden is fighting for LGBTQ+ rights so that every American can be who they are and love who they love," DNC spokesperson Emilia Rowland told Salon.

Indeed, Johnson has often shown himself to be unrepentant. At the end of 2023, he sent out a fundraising email warning that "1 in 4 high school students identifies as something other than straight — what are they being taught in school?" and accusing the LGBTQ+ community of perpetuating a "filth that passes for popular culture these days."

"Let's face it — we live in a depraved culture," he wrote. "I didn't want to believe it at first, but I fear God may allow our nation to enter into a time of judgment for our collective sins."

To mark the start of 2024, Johnson appeared at an event hosted by an "anti-LGBTQ+ hate group," per the Southern Poverty Law Center, where he spoke about "cultural upheaval" at the behest of pastor Jonathan Cahn, who himself declared that LGBTQ+ and other forms of activism are a form of "demonic repossession."

Johnson alone won't be able to exorcise America of gay rights. But he does have a friend in Trump, who has praised him as "doing a very good job" in Congress — and is hoping to work with him again come 2025.

about LGBTQ+ issues

Mike Johnson appoints election-denying Trump loyalists to House Intelligence Committee

GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, placating Donald Trump and the right-wing of his caucus, appointed Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, to fill two open slots on the House Intelligence Committee, granting MAGA loyalists regular access to sensitive, highly classified government material.

The selection of Perry, who is the target of a federal investigation over his and Trump's attempts to subvert the 2020 election, has set off alarms even among Republican politicians who see him as spoiled goods. Five anonymous lawmakers who opposed Perry's appointment told Politico that he was "all but ineligible," especially in light of the lawmaker's efforts to block the FBI from probing his phone records. The Intelligence Committee has oversight over the FBI.

Perry's supporters on the right-wing Freedom Caucus waged an open campaign to seat him on the panel. “The FBI investigation has offered us B.S. over January 6 … which is part of the problems we have at the FBI. So if there's more oversight of the FBI, that is a good thing. Not a bad thing,” Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., a strident Trump supporter and potential running mate, told Politico. “I didn’t didn't realize that the Intel Committee is the end-all-be-all of what happens in Congress. These guys are pissing me off.”

Johnson, who counts on the support of Trump and the Freedom Caucus to keep his gavel in a closely-divided House, apparently gave in to their demands. His other pick, Jackson, a former Trump doctor, is reportedly more palatable to the caucus in part because he has forged relationships with members on the Armed Services Committee.

Jackson has controversies of his own. In 2022, a Department of Defense investigation found that he had gotten regularly drunk and abused subordinates during his service as rear admiral. Although the Navy demoted him to captain, Jackson continues to refer to himself as an admiral on his official bio.

Some of his fellow Republicans believe he only got the appointment because of his old boss.

“I know Trump is weighing in heavily for Ronny, but I think that is unfair,” one lawmaker told Politico, fuming that that the lobbying was shunting aside more qualified candidates.

Local food systems need to prioritize job quality alongside ethical food production

Local food systems are often viewed as alternatives to the global food system to stress their "promise of difference."

Research supports several benefits associated with local food systems, although not without nuances and controversy. These benefits include their ability to reconnect consumers and producers, encourage consumption of fresh and nutritious products, support local producers and boost local economies.

But many myths have also been debunked, such as the "local trap" — the belief that just because it is "local," it is more ecological, just or ethical.

Poor salaries and underpaid labor

Recent research questions the assumption that any alternative to industrial labor practices are better. Based on an analysis of job openings in alternative food systems in the United States during the 2010s, one study found that many of these jobs were underpaid and did not pay competitive salaries.

The local food movement often argues that low conventional food prices do not include the "true cost" of food production. But, if local food systems rely on poor salaries, they fail to address this issue as well.

The issue of migrant farm labor is a complex one in North America. In the U.S., legislation made great strides to protect migrant farm workers from abusive labor contractors through the 1983 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.

However, there remains an exception that protects farmers who employ migrant farm workers and keeps farm workers in general in a precarious situation, refusing them basic labor rights such as overtime protection .

This exceptionalism also applies to Canada. Canada issues closed work permits to temporary agricultural workers without a secured pathway to permanent residence, unlike other work permits.

Its temporary foreign worker programs are "a fertile ground for contemporary forms of slavery," according to the United Nations Special Rapporteur.

What is surprising, however, is that local food systems also seem to increasingly rely on this type of labor while neglecting to acknowledge the presence of these racialized workers in their marketing campaigns. This reliance on migrant farm workers also questions how "local" the products really are.

Reliance on unpaid work

Local food farms, which are mostly small-scale and labor intensive, rely heavily on unpaid labor from volunteers to stay in business.

A study by economist Carole Biewener raised a critical question: when does unpaid labor become exploitation? This is a valid concern, as volunteers themselves (including family members, community members and consumers) may find satisfaction in supporting local agriculture without expecting payment.

Biewener looked at the balance in these relationships and the benefits for both parties involved. For instance, an unpaid intern who ends up shouldering most of the workload without guidance or learning opportunities could be considered to be in an exploitative situation.

The use of unpaid work for new local farms is understandable, but the long-term reliance on this kind of labor puts into question their social and economic sustainability.

Family labor issues

It's not just farm workers and volunteers that can be exploited; farmers can be as well. Local food systems are very labor intensive and local farmers are often overworked and underpaid. Although they experience high professional satisfaction from their participation in local food systems, farmers sometimes need to pursue additional jobs to make ends meet.

Local farmers sometimes accept lower incomes or forgo wages to help their communities or keep the business running in a form of self-exploitation. One study found that some local producers in Iowa sacrificed their income to meet the increased demand from consumers seeking local alternatives to globalized food chains during the pandemic.

In the U.S., every three days a child dies from a farm-related incident. These incidents often involve machinery, motor vehicles or drownings. Out of 893,000 youth living on farms in 2014, about half worked on these farms, while more than 265,000 children working on farms were non-resident.

Unfortunately, child labor, a significant issue in agriculture in North America, hasn't been studied much within the alternative food movement.

One recent exception is a study in Illinois and North Carolina that looked into the occupational health and safety perceptions of parents and children on small, local farms. Both the parents and children who were interviewed believed the smaller size and less mechanized nature of their farms made them safer.

The study also found that the parents believed they were better equipped than regulations to protect their children. It does not seem that local food systems try to challenge the dominant beliefs and attitudes justifying child farm labor.

Gender dynamics

Recent research recognizes a certain potential of alternative food systems to transform gender relations in agriculture. Local food systems appear to be attracting more female farmers than conventional agriculture.

However, this potential is limited by gender-specific challenges, notably stereotypes regarding who is considered a "real farmer," which often exclude women. Women also face institutional barriers, work-family balance issues since they often bear the brunt of domestic labor, and fewer financial opportunities than men.

Gender-related labor issues also manifest among consumers in local food systems. These systems often demand more labor from consumers, particularly women. Many of the customers frequenting local markets for fresh produce are women.

Given the additional unpaid care work related to food provisioning in alternative food systems, this can lead to a "third shift" scenario. The "third shift" concept describes the additional unpaid work women undertake on top of their professional responsibilities and household duties when preparing fresh produce.

Improving local food systems

Local food systems offer a vision of a more sustainable food system, but we must confront their labor challenges not only for farm workers, but for virtually everyone involved. The issue raised here is structural.

For decades, the real price of food (the price adjusted for inflation) has declined at the expense of the environment and all those working in agriculture.

The rise of the local food movement has been driven by consumers looking to support more sustainable and ethical food production practices. Many are willing to pay more to support local farms.

However, the higher prices paid for local foods are still not enough to cover the true costs of production, which must include fair wages for farmers and workers. As one researcher put it, local food systems must be able to provide not only good food, but also good jobs. By confronting these labor challenges head-on, we can move closer to a food system that is not only sustainable, but also socially just.

Stevens Azima, Research Professional, Université Laval

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

Did somebody say Hitler? Critiquing Trump’s Bruce Springsteen song and dance

Politicians often get cease-and-desist letters from musicians whose songs have been deployed at campaign events in service of ideas with which they disagree. Sometimes, as in the case of Donald Trump’s use of material from Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” album, such disagreement is quite evident to anyone even half-listening to the lyrics. This clash between the Boss and the Donald ignites debate about artistic integrity, copyright infringement, and the rights of artists to protect their intellectual property by granting licenses to use their songs at political events—in a characteristic move, Trump did not seek Springsteen’s consent. The musician has been vocal in his opposition to Trump's policies and rhetoric, emphasizing the disconnect between the values portrayed in his music and those championed by the former president.

Although Reagan and Trump offer differing visions of Republican politics, “Born in the U.S.A.” can be seen as critiques of both.

In honor of “Born in the U.S.A.” turning 40 this month, let’s dig into the true liberal politics of the album track by track and examine why, despite their messages being in deep disagreement with his values, Trump persists in finding a way to deploy anthems like “Born in the U.S.A.” and “My Hometown” at his rallies anyway. As people speculate on the recent news of Trump’s 34 felony convictions and how he seems poised to be able to turn the hush money verdict to his own advantage, analyzing how he has effectively turned Springsteen's work in service of his agenda may give us some clues.

1984 in 2024

June 1984 marked a pivotal moment in both American politics and cultural history. The release of "Born in the U.S.A." coincided with the second term of Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on anticommunism and military might in a period characterized by conservative economic politics and a blind eye for the AIDS epidemic. Springsteen's album was — and still is — considered a powerful commentary on the struggles of working-class Americans in stark contrast to prevailing narratives of national pride and prosperity. Although Reagan and Trump offer differing visions of Republican politics, “Born in the U.S.A.” can be seen as critiques of both. Here’s a brief track-by-track analysis that should leave no doubt the messages of these songs cut against Trump’s campaign.

A brief history of liberal musicians who were horrified when conservatives appropriated their songs

1. "Born in the U.S.A.": This song critiques the disillusionment and struggles faced by working-class Americans, highlighting the gap between the American Dream and reality. Often misunderstood as a patriotic ode, this anthem reveals the harsh realities for veterans returning from Vietnam. They struggled to get work, to make use of their VA benefits, and to grieve the deaths of their fellow soldiers. Its gritty verses paint a picture of economic hardship with “nowhere to run ain’t got nowhere to go,” contrasting sharply with Trump's rose-tinted vision of American exceptionalism. By highlighting the struggles of Vietnam vets and blue-collar refinery workers, the song challenges Trump's contempt for American troops, instead urging an empathic examination of the social injustices facing everyday Americans.

2. "Cover Me": This song suggests the need for communal support rather than individualistic bravado. Beneath its catchy melody lies a narrative of vulnerability and dependence set against a whole world “out there just trying to score.” The song’s speaker seeks refuge and protection, a far cry from Trump's rugged narcissism. In contrast to Trump's overall divisiveness and his refusals to give aid in any cause from Ukrainian democracy to California wildfires, "Cover Me" suggests the importance of cooperation to face life's challenges as a community in solidarity. The only place it might safely be said the song agrees with Trump requires a joke about the Stormy Daniels hush money trial — he was “looking for a lover who will come on in and cover” him.

3. "Darlington County": A portrayal of the desperation of blue-collar workers set against the backdrop of hardship and desperation, Springsteen's tale of two friends “looking for some work on the county line” thanks to a “union connection” underscores the systemic issues facing working-class Americans. Trump's promises to bring back manufacturing jobs ring hollow in the face of deeper structural challenges, highlighting the need for comprehensive policies that address root causes rather than providing superficial fixes.

4. "Working on the Highway": This upbeat track belies its dark subject matter, exposing the exploitation of laborers and the cycle of poverty that traps them. Springsteen's protagonist toils endlessly with little hope for improvement, which poses questions about the impact of Trump's economic policies to boost the wealthy at the expense of fair wages and workers' rights. Shedding light on the plight of marginalized workers by drawing a parallel to prison chain gangs, "Working on the Highway" reveals the harsh realities faced by those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

5. "Downbound Train": This melancholic ballad emphasizes the precarity faced by ordinary Americans, contrasting with Trump's narrative of prosperity and stability. With its haunting melody and introspective lyrics, the song delves into themes of loss, despair, and existential struggle: "The room was dark, our bed was empty / Then I heard that long whistle whine / And I dropped to my knees, hung my head and cried." Against the backdrop of Trump's bombastic promises of greatness, "Downbound Train" serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of human existence that political rhetoric cannot transcend, “where all it ever does is rain.”

6. "I'm on Fire": With its simmering intensity and raw emotion, this song delves into themes of desire, temptation, and poignant longing. Springsteen's haunting vocals and sparse instrumentation create a mood of yearning and vulnerability, the “six-inch valley / through the middle of my soul” in opposition to Trump's image of brash confidence and impenetrable self-assuredness. The only times Trump has gotten close to such a nuanced exploration of human frailty and the complexities of romantic attraction would be when he's talking about his daughter, Ivanka.

7. "No Surrender": This track celebrates resilience and unity in the face of a divisive “war outside still raging.” It’s an anthem that celebrates an enduring spirit of camaraderie over adversity, rather than one delusional man’s fantasies of triumph through sowing polarization and discord. Springsteen’s impassioned vocals on "No Surrender" reject the politics of fear and division, instead advocating for a united front of “blood brothers in the stormy night with a vow to defend” against injustice and oppression.

8. "Bobby Jean": Reflecting on friendship and loss, this ballad emphasizes the importance of real connections over superficial networking. Against the backdrop of Trump's volatile alliances and shifting allegiances, "Bobby Jean" serves as a reminder of the importance of being steadfast and genuine in concern for others. Common lore has it that Springsteen was writing about his nostalgia for the teenage years he shared with guitarist Steve Van Zandt when Little Steven was leaving the band. Some bonds of friendship do endure despite distance or change, but imagine Trump singing this song of bittersweet reminiscence to Mike Pence after previously condoning his vice president’s hanging.

9. "I'm Goin' Down": This introspective song explores themes of heartache, disappointment and resignation. Springsteen captures the sting of unfulfilled expectations with lyrics like “sick and tired of you setting me up” just to get knocked down. Compared to the ego-driven bravado of Trump’s persona, "I'm Goin' Down" offers a more vulnerable portrayal of human emotion and a candid exploration of personal struggle. If we know anything about Trump, it’s that he never admits when he’s lost.

10. "Glory Days": While nostalgic on its surface, the song more deeply portrays how fleeting success can be and how people who cling to past successes become stagnant over time. This anthem celebrates ephemeral joys of youthful exuberance but cautions against getting stuck in the memory of them: “Well time slips away and leaves you with nothing, mister / but boring stories of // glory days.” Trump's fixation on supposed past achievements is so much in evidence that a basic internet search of his name plus the phrase “glory days” yields more than 100,000 relevant articles. He’s still at it during this election cycle, opting for rambling 90-minute campaign speeches driven by nostalgic rhetoric.

11. "Dancing in the Dark": With a catchy rhythm that conveys restlessness, this song delves into themes of alienation and disillusionment. Trump's worldview is simplistic compared to “Man, I’m just tired and bored with myself.” Lest we forget, the final minute of the original video for this song involves the Boss bringing an unknown young fan up on stage to dance with him — Courteney Cox, who went on to become one of the stars of the hit '90 television show "Friends." Imitating her kicky little shuffle from the video is a go-to move when dancing to this song, turning Cox into a proxy or avatar for the track. This yields perhaps the most entertaining and unexpected critique of Trump, in that Cox also went on to participate in the Women’s March the day after his inauguration, and she has a history of endorsing Democrats, including Joe Biden when he ran against Trump’s reelection in 2020.

12. "My Hometown": Reflecting on the decline of small-town America, this song criticizes the neglect of rural communities and the failure to address systemic issues affecting them. Springsteen captures the nostalgia and sense of loss that accompanies the decline of traditional communities, running contrary to Trump's promises to revive struggling Rust Belt and manufacturing towns. "My Hometown" points out deep-seated challenges facing these forgotten communities, in which the speaker admits he and his wife are “talking about getting out, / Packing up our bags, maybe heading South.” It’s a bittersweet counterpoint to Trump's empty rhetoric about making America great again, urging listeners to confront the complexity of systemic failures.

Trump follows Hitler’s manipulative playbook

Slavoj Žižek is a psychoanalytic philosopher whose first big foray into writing on politics after many years focusing on ideologies in the arts, was “Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion,” published by Verso Books in 2001. In "Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?" the chapter “Hitler as Ironist?” particularly made waves. The ideas here are sadly all too easily applicable to the situation of Trump using Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” tracks. At first glance, Trump's use of these anthems might seem incongruous given the stark dissonance between the lyrical content of these songs and Trump's political messaging laid out above. However, through Žižek's theory of irony, we can begin to unravel the underlying dynamics at play.

Hitler's speeches and writings often contained paradoxical statements and vague promises, allowing him to appeal to a wide range of audiences.

Žižek delves into the concept of Hitler as an ironist to challenge conventional understandings of totalitarianism, ideology and the nature of political power – even though the notion that Hitler was operating ironically may seem paradoxical or even offensive to many. Rather than interpreting Hitler's words and deeds as straightforward expressions of his beliefs or intentions, Žižek suggests that they should be seen as part of a complex strategy of manipulation and control. He argues that Hitler's public persona and propaganda were characterized by a deliberate blurring of boundaries between sincerity and cynicism, truth and falsehood, ideology and pragmatism.

One key aspect of Hitler's irony, according to Žižek, is his ability to exploit the inherent ambiguities within language and ideology. Hitler's speeches and writings often contained paradoxical statements and vague promises, allowing him to appeal to a wide range of audiences while avoiding commitment to any specific policy or principle. This strategy of linguistic ambiguity enabled Hitler to maintain flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing circumstances, while also sowing confusion and discord among his opponents.

This strategic use of irony allows Trump to exploit the cultural significance of Springsteen's music while sidestepping the ideological contradictions.

Similarly, Trump's use of Springsteen's songs can be seen as a form of strategic ambiguity, where the surface meaning of the music is subverted or distorted to serve a particular political agenda. By appropriating anthems that resonate with working-class Americans and evoke themes of struggle and resilience, Trump seeks to tap into the emotional and cultural capital associated with Springsteen's music while simultaneously distancing himself from the deeper social critiques embedded within the lyrics. Playing these songs at rallies becomes a spectacle, divorced from any genuine commitment to the values or ideals they represent. In this sense, Trump's use of Springsteen's music becomes a form of political theater, where the surface appearance of authenticity and connection with ordinary Americans masks a deeper cynicism and manipulation.

The second key aspect Žižek suggests is Hitler's ironic use of performative contradiction to undermine the very foundations of rational discourse and political debate. By blurring the distinction between truth and falsehood, sincerity and deception, Hitler created a climate of uncertainty and instability in which traditional norms and values were subverted and undermined. Similarly, Trump's use of Springsteen's music can be seen as a form of performative contradiction, where the surface meaning of the song contradicts its deeper ideological implications. Trump's usage serves to reinforce his nationalist rhetoric and cultivate a sense of nostalgia for a bygone American greatness while glossing over Springsteen’s nuanced critique of American collapse. By co-opting anthems associated with progressive values and working-class struggles, Trump seeks to reframe his image and appeal to demographics traditionally outside of his base of support. This strategic use of irony allows Trump to exploit the cultural significance of Springsteen's music while sidestepping the ideological contradictions between his platform and the lyrical content of the songs.

Overall, Žižek's concept of Hitler as an ironist challenges us to deeply analyze how Trump's use of Springsteen's songs offers insight into contemporary political rhetoric and manipulation for totalitarian goals. By using strategies of linguistic ambiguity and performative contradiction, Trump co-opts cultural symbols and narratives to advance his agenda. Žižek's discussion of Hitler as an ironist serves as a warning about the dangers of irony in the public sphere, suggesting media literacy as a solution. Žižek urges deeper critical engagement with political discourse to recognize and expose performative contradictions and linguistic ambiguities, preventing the manipulation and distortion of public sentiment and ideology.

To combat Trump's ironic use of Springsteen’s songs, critical media education can increase public awareness of the songs' true meanings, while journalists and critics can highlight discrepancies between the songs and Trump's agenda as this article has done. Artists can reclaim their work's intended meanings through cease-and-desist letters, interviews and press releases, and activists can organize events to promote the songs' authentic messages of social justice and economic struggle. These approaches expose the contradictions and manipulations in Trump’s political rhetoric. And of course, stocking his rallies with Springsteen fans ensures that when Trump weaves the Boss into his web of deceits, as he did in mid-May in New Jersey, he gets promptly roasted.

about Bruce Springsteen

“How dare you?”: Trump surrogate ripped for claiming life was better for Black people under Jim Crow

Speaking at a cigar bar in Philadelphia on Tuesday, a surrogate for Donald Trump made an unorthodox appeal to Black voters in the 21st century, suggesting life was better for them and their families when they were forced to attend separate schools and drink from separate water fountains.

"You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together," Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., who is Black, said during a discussion with a right-wing sports reporter, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. “During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative — Black people have always been conservative-minded — but more Black people voted conservatively. And then H.E.W., Lyndon Johnson — you go down that road, and now we are where we are."

Donalds was referring to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was created in 1953 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Under President Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and efforts to block Black Americans from casting ballots, as well as a host of social welfare initiatives, such as Medicare.

In March, CNN described Donalds as one of Trump's "most trusted surrogates" and "widely viewed to be on Trump's sort list of vice presidential contenders."

Joining Donalds at Tuesday night's events, dubbed "Congress, Cognac and Cigars," was his a Black colleague, Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, who appeared earlier in the day at a Trump campaign event targeting Pennsylvania's African-American voters. He pointed to Black Americans' decisive shift to the Democratic Party around the time of the Civil Rights Act as a burden on today's electorate.

Post by @acynig

View on Threads

"The reason why Democrats have a hold on the Black community is because our parents' parents' parents keep telling us, 'You gotta vote Democrat,'" Hunt said. "It is up to us in this generation to say, 'Well, why?'"

Democrats were quick to seize on the remarks.

"It has come to my attention that a so-called leader has made the factually inaccurate statement that Black folks were better off during Jim Crow. That's an outlandish, outrageous and out-of-pocket observation," Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said on the House floor Wednesday. "We were not better off when people could be systematically lynched without consequence because of Jim Crow," he continued. "How dare you make such an ignorant observation. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself."

President Joe Biden's campaign also weighed in.

"If they didn’t know before, Trump and his team are showing Black voters what ‘Make America Great Again’ means: less freedom and fewer economic opportunities for our families," spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a statement.

With all this bird flu around, how safe are eggs, chicken or milk?

Recent outbreaks of bird flu – in US dairy herds, poultry farms in Australia and elsewhere, and isolated cases in humans – have raised the issue of food safety.

So can the virus transfer from infected farm animals to contaminate milk, meat or eggs? How likely is this?

And what do we need to think about to minimize our risk when shopping for or preparing food?

How safe is milk?

Bird flu (or avian influenza) is a bird disease caused by specific types of influenza virus. But the virus can also infect cows. In the US, for instance, to date more than 80 dairy herds in at least nine states have been infected with the H5N1 version of the virus.

Investigations are under way to confirm how this happened. But we do know infected birds can shed the virus in their saliva, nasal secretions and feces. So bird flu can potentially contaminate animal-derived food products during processing and manufacturing.

Indeed, fragments of bird flu genetic material (RNA) were found in cow's milk from the dairy herds associated with infected US farmers.

However, the spread of bird flu among cattle, and possibly to humans, is likely to have been caused through contact with contaminated milking equipment, not the milk itself.

The test used to detect the virus in milk – which uses similar PCR technology to lab-based COVID tests – is also highly sensitive. This means it can detect very low levels of the bird flu RNA. But the test does not distinguish between live or inactivated virus, just that the RNA is present. So from this test alone, we cannot tell if the virus found in milk is infectious (and capable of infecting humans).

Does that mean milk is safe to drink and won't transmit bird flu? Yes and no.

In Australia, where bird flu has not been reported in dairy cattle, the answer is yes. It is safe to drink milk and milk products made from Australian milk.

In the US, the answer depends on whether the milk is pasteurised. We know pasteurization is a common and reliable method of destroying concerning microbes, including influenza virus. Like most viruses, influenza virus (including bird flu virus) is inactivated by heat.

Although there is little direct research on whether pasteurization inactivates H5N1 in milk, we can extrapolate from what we know about heat inactivation of H5N1 in chicken and eggs.

So we can be confident there is no risk of bird flu transmission via pasteurized milk or milk products.

However, it's another matter for unpasteurized or "raw" US milk or milk products. A recent study showed mice fed raw milk contaminated with bird flu developed signs of illness. So to be on the safe side, it would be advisable to avoid raw milk products.

How about chicken?

Bird flu has caused sporadic outbreaks in wild birds and domestic poultry worldwide, including in Australia. In recent weeks, there have been three reported outbreaks in Victorian poultry farms (two with H7N3 bird flu, one with H7N9). There has been one reported outbreak in Western Australia (H9N2).

The strains of bird flu identified in the Victorian and Western Australia outbreaks can cause human infection, although these are rare and typically result from close contact with infected live birds or contaminated environments.

Therefore, the chance of bird flu transmission in chicken meat is remote.

Nonetheless, it is timely to remind people to handle chicken meat with caution as many dangerous pathogens, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, can be found on chicken carcasses.

Always handle chicken meat carefully when shopping, transporting it home and storing it in the kitchen. For instance, make sure no meat juices cross-contaminate other items, consider using a cool bag when transporting meat, and refrigerate or freeze the meat within two hours.

Avoid washing your chicken before cooking to prevent the spread of disease-causing microbes around the kitchen.

Finally, cook chicken thoroughly as viruses (including bird flu) cannot survive cooking temperatures.

Are eggs safe?

The recent Australian outbreaks have occurred in egg-laying or mixed poultry flocks, so concerns have been raised about bird flu transmission via contaminated chicken eggs.

Can flu viruses contaminate chicken eggs and potentially spread bird flu? It appears so. A report from 2007 said it was feasible for influenza viruses to enter through the eggshell. This is because influenza virus particles are smaller (100 nanometres) than the pores in eggshells (at least 200 nm).

So viruses could enter eggs and be protected from cleaning procedures designed to remove microbes from the egg surface.

Therefore, like the advice about milk and meat, cooking eggs is best.

The US Food and Drug Administration recommends cooking poultry, eggs and other animal products to the proper temperature and preventing cross-contamination between raw and cooked food.

In a nutshell

If you consume pasteurized milk products and thoroughly cook your chicken and eggs, there is nothing to worry about as bird flu is inactivated by heat.

The real fear is that the virus will evolve into highly pathogenic versions that can be transmitted from human to human.

That scenario is much more frightening than any potential spread though food.

Enzo Palombo, Professor of Microbiology, Swinburne University of Technology

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

Weight loss drugs like Ozempic may improve taste sensitivity in women, preliminary research suggests

Semaglutide — a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 agonist) that’s the active ingredient in blockbuster anti-obesity drugs like Wegovy and Ozempic — may heighten taste sensitivity in women with obesity. New research from the University Medical Center in Ljubljana, Slovenia found that the tongue cells of patients who took semaglutide experienced changes in gene expression that’s responsible for the perception of taste, namely sweetness.

The recent findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. According to Medical News Today, the research was presented at ENDO 2024, the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting in Boston, on June 1.

Scientists at the University Medical Center were interested in seeing if humans who took semaglutide exhibited similar changes in taste sensitivity as animals who took semaglutide. In animals, GLP-1 — a hormone that stimulates insulin secretion and inhibits food intake — was shown to greatly impact taste sensitivity to sweetness. A 2021 study published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences reported that mice who were incapable of producing GLP-1 had reduced neural and behavioral responses to sweet compounds.

Ozempic, the "miracle drug," and the harmful idea of a future without fat

For their study, the research team conducted a 16-week-long trial with 30 women participants who had an average Body Mass Index (or BMI) of 36.4. Half of the participants received semaglutide, while the other half received a placebo. Lead study author Mojca Jensterle Sever told Medical News Today that the study “aimed to control for as many covariates as possible” that could affect taste perception. In addition to obesity, that included “sex, aging, diabetes, other serious chronic diseases [and] smoking,” she explained.

“Therefore, we selected a homogeneous group of women with obesity without serious chronic diseases or lifestyle habits that could influence taste perception,” Jensterle Sever added. “By selecting anovulatory women with polycystic ovary syndrome, we additionally aimed to reduce the variability of taste perception across different phases of the menstrual cycle.”

To measure taste sensitivity, researchers placed strips containing concentrations of four basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, and bitter) on the volunteers’ tongues. Researchers also conducted tongue biopsies to examine gene expression within the volunteers’ tongue tissue. Additionally, they used MRI scans to inspect brain activity before and after the volunteers ate a standard meal.

The team found that participants who took semaglutide had improved taste sensitivity along with changes to their taste bud gene expression and brain activity after eating something sweet. MRI scans revealed that most of the brain activity was concentrated in the angular gyrus, a portion of the parietal lobe of the brain. The angular gyrus is associated with complex language related functions (like reading and writing), semantic processing, number processing and problem solving. The parietal cortex — along with the hypothalamus and medulla — contains GLP-1 receptors.

“Previous studies reported that patients treated with semaglutide have reduced intensity of desire for sweet, savory, and salty foods,” Jensterle Sever told Medical News Today, adding that the recent study is a “proof-of-concept study,” meaning that it’s an early-stage trial that strives to understand a specific concept, not confirm a certain phenomenon.

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

“Taste perception can vary significantly from person to person, limiting the generalizability of our results,” she said.

GLP-1 drugs mimic the action of GLP-1 by managing blood sugar levels, reducing hunger and food intake and working directly on the gut to slow digestion. Per the research team, GLP-1 drugs may also help treat obesity by enhancing people’s taste sensitivity to sweetness. In fact, many Ozempic users have complained about changes to their sense of taste, also known as “Ozempic tongue.” Several Ozempic users have said they can no longer eat their favorite sweet treats because their cravings have drastically decreased.

Having an increased taste sensitivity to sweetness means people also perceive sweetness to a greater degree and feel satisfied after eating smaller amounts of sugar. Consuming less sugar also leads to a decrease in overall caloric intake, which contributes to weight loss.

Jensterle Sever clarified that her team assessed “only a specific taste in a study environment, which may not reflect everyday experience.” As for future studies, Jensterle Sever hopes they will “clarify whether the efficacy of semaglutide in treating obesity is also a ‘matter of taste.’”

about Ozempic and Wegovy:

“I’m privileged”: Meghan McCain says rising prices are costing Americans “little luxuries”

Meghan McCain dove into the economy and the cost of groceries during an interview with the New York Post financial correspondent Lydia Moynihan on Wednesday's episode of her "Citizen McCain" podcast.

Moynihan highlighted growing concerns around the U.S. economy, specifically the increase in price for goods like groceries, loans and how difficult it has become to pay off debt like credit cards or even pay off your car.

"I feel like we're at this point in the economy where people are told they can't trust themselves. . . Economists are criticizing the fact that people don't feel good about the economy but economists are saying no it's so much better, you should feel good," Moynihan told McCain.

"Women like that get passes": Meghan McCain says she faces cruelty unlike "people like AOC"

She continued: "And I hate that because why should someone in Washington D.C. lecture somebody who is living their reality wherever they are and they know they have less money at the end of the month when they buy groceries."

Moynihan noted that the Federal Reserve is trying to tighten the economy by raising interest rates to slash inflation which is why the American public has seen a difference in their cost of living.

"So many people in my generation feel like they're never going to have the American Dream," Moynihan said. "I feel like there's all of these tropes that we hear 'don't eat avocado toast' and there are exogenous factors that are actually making it impossible for people to buy homes and live the American Dream."

McCain responded "We have to have little luxuries. I saw this meme: Boomers in the 1970s buying their homes with six raspberries and an almond. It was like these boomers dancing in a conga line. I do think it's funny."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Moreover, McCain brought up the state of grocery prices in the U.S., "I'm privileged. I have a job. My husband has a job. I don't want to say I'm hurting the same way an average American is but the amount of money I'm spending at the grocery store. I can't." McCain asked Moynihan why groceries have increased 30% over the last four years and what leaders like President Joe Biden can do as that is the biggest concern for Americans in this election cycle.

Moynihan said inflation is still an issue and there is a lot of other factors. She pointed out like how the price of eggs and poultry has also increased dramatically — while also mentioning that there are droughts where we get food in certain parts of the country.

"I don't think those food prices frankly are going to be coming down. I don't. At least any time soon because inflation means it's pretty much there to stay. We can hope for the price not increasing as quickly as possible but I don't think we're gonna see things go back to where they were pre-pandemic," Moynihan said.

about this topic

Trump says it’s “very possible” that Biden and other political rivals will have to be jailed

Donald Trump, spinning the old, false line that the trial that led to his conviction on felony charges was "rigged" and orchestrated by Joe Biden, suggested in an interview with Newsmax that the "precedent" would give him an opening pay his political opponents back in kind, according to the Washington Post.

“I said, ‘Wouldn’t it really be bad? … Wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and the former secretary of state — think of it, the former secretary of state — but the president’s wife into jail?” Trump mused on Tuesday, referring to his 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton, who he had repeatedly said should be "locked up" despite now blaming his supporters for saying it instead.

“But they want to do it,” Trump said, apparently referring to Biden and other political rivals. “So, you know, it’s a terrible, terrible path that they’re leading us to, and it’s very possible that it’s going to have to happen to them … it's a terrible precedent for the country."

The precedent Trump was referring to was his imagined version of events, in which President Biden supposedly instructed Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to prosecute him, and then rigged the trial secure a conviction. Despite making this claim for several months now, Trump has been unable to cite any evidence to suggest that Bragg, an independently elected prosecutor, coordinated with the White House at all. Prosecutors said that they were only following the facts in their case.

Trump, who faces criminal charges in three other cases, has made revenge a central message of his campaign, telling supporters at one point that "I am your retribution." Other times, he has vacillated, saying in an Iowa rally that he "didn't have time for retribution." Since he first ran for president in 2015, Trump has called for the Justice Department to investigate political opponents and former allies who are now critical of him; in the lead up to the 2024 election, he has a plan to make that a reality by purging DOJ staff turning the department into what Reuters referred to as "an attack dog for conservative causes."

“Never saw a glimmer of a smile”: Trump complains about the jury as he tries to lift his gag order

Donald Trump, now a convicted felon awaiting sentencing in his New York trial, is claiming that the jury not smiling at him is proof that the trial was a rigged and biased affair, The Daily Beast reports.

“You heard me say long before the verdict that Mother Teresa couldn’t get a fair trial here. I said that, and no, you couldn’t. I never saw a glimmer of a smile from the jury. No, this was a venue that was very unfair,” Trump complained to Greg Kelly, a host on the right-wing cable channel Newsmax. “It’s a tiny fraction of the people [who] are Republicans, and it’s very unfair. And then we had a judge who was very unfair."

Trump is barred, under a gag order, from going after jurors, witnesses, court staff and Judge Juan Merchan's family due to concerns over their safety. But he has already violated the order 10 times and sent clear signals to surrogates and supporters, who are not only expressing Trump's thoughts on his behalf but also trying to dox and threaten the 12 New Yorkers who voted to convict him. NBC reported that Advance Democracy, a public interest nonprofit, found potential juror addresses posted on a far-right pro-Trump forum, in addition to violent threats against Judge Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

“We need to identify each juror. Then make them miserable. Maybe even suicidal,” wrote one user. “1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to washington and hang everyone. That’s the only solution,” wrote another user.

“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” added another person, posting on Trump's Truth Social platform. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”

Far-right groups who participated in the January 6 attack of the Capitol are also agitating for retaliation. “Now you understand. To save your nation, you must fight. The time to respond is now. Franco Friday has begun,” one Proud Boys chapter posted on Telegram, referring to Francisco Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain who purged at least 200,000 people his regime viewed as enemies of the state.

Trump is asking Merchan to lift his gag order, possibly so he can get in on the action as well. According to The Washington Post, his lawyers are arguing that the gag order is violating his First Amendment rights and his right to speak as a political candidate.

MAGA marks 80th anniversary of D-Day with vote to defund NATO

Tomorrow marks the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landing at Normandy, France, where approximately 160,000 Allied troops successfully pulled off the largest invasion by sea in history. From that point on America was in charge of allied forces and it was the beginning of the end of World War II.

When you travel to that battlefield and visit other WWII memorials and cemeteries in Europe you will see what great care is taken to ensure the memories of those sacrifices are honored with daily maintenance and respect. This is likely to be the last big D-Day celebration featuring WWII veterans who are almost all centenarians at this point. Some are traveling to the ceremonies and will be honored by all the dignitaries like President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and King Charles II of Britain. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not invited due to the invasion of Ukraine which is somewhat ironic since back in 1944 the Soviet Union was one of the allied countries fighting Germany. Of course, it wasn't long after the war that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed to provide a formal, ongoing alliance to assure the collective security of its members in the wake of Soviet machinations in Eastern Europe and Berlin.

As we commemorate the 80th Anniversary of D-Day tomorrow, I would hope that some people on the right who know better would set their ambition aside for a moment and contemplate one of the reasons that horrific slaughter happened in the first place.

The bond between the U.S., Canada and Europe has been as strong as ever since that cataclysmic event eight decades ago, at least until recently. Today Europe is bewildered by what is happening to its American allies. And you can't blame them. Most Americans wonder the same thing.

Donald Trump had no idea about the historical significance of the term "America First" when he first started saying it, believing erroneously that he'd thought up the slogan himself even though he'd no doubt heard it somewhere during his 77 years. Before the U.S. entered the war the America First Committee was the name of the right-wing isolationist movement and many of its members also happened to be just a little bit taken with that strongman fella from Germany.

Trump's threats against NATO and a new nuclear arms race

In fact, there was quite a large political faction that was all in on der Fuehrer, and as Rachel Maddow brilliantly laid out in her award-winning podcast "Ultra," most of them were America Firsters. They didn't try to hide it:

Trump has said that he "just liked the expression" America First and denied he is an isolationist. His ignorance of history and foreign policy has led him to simply denounce wars that began during other president's terms because he doesn't know what else to say. But to the extent that he has a philosophy about interventionism at all, it's that America should "win" wars and then "take the resources." Oh, and allies should pay protection money if they want the United States to adhere to its treaty commitments. NATO members have heard him loud and clear when he said this recently:

One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”

I'm sure it's not necessary to point out that NATO members don't pay dues and can't be "delinquent. " And it's especially rich for the notorious deadbeat Trump to lecture anyone about paying bills.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

The Europeans weren't exactly surprised by his shocking statement. After all, Republicans in Congress delayed financing for Ukraine for months because a group of American First politicians refused to vote for it. Just as they won't be shocked to learn that 46 MAGA members in the House of Representatives voted against funding the NATO security investment program this week. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., obviously even more ignorant of both history and current events than Trump, said on the floor Tuesday:

America should not be sending out hundreds of millions of dollars to international organizations to help them fight their enemies, especially when they are unwilling to fight for themselves.

The money is actually to support infrastructure for U.S. troops overseas, and it did manage to pass. But the world is watching.

The Atlantic's McCay Coppins recently published a piece on how the Europeans view the current state of U.S. politics. He spent weeks talking to leaders, activists and journalists in various countries this spring and the consensus seems to be that we have finally gone over the edge. For some reason, they're all convinced that Trump has the election in the bag (probably from reading the U.S. mainstream media) and that an American withdrawal from NATO is inevitable. In the wake of Russian aggression in Ukraine and Putin's broad hints about possible incursions into Eastern Europe, they are nervous and anxious that the United States is no longer committed to democratic values and is abandoning its role as a security guarantor to pursue a solely self-interested, transactional relationship with the rest of the world.

“What you’ve heard is fairly widely shared and feared across not only Central and Eastern Europe but the rest of Europe as well," Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia, told The New Republic's David Rothkopf. "The general assumption, especially after Trump’s ‘If you don’t pay, I’ll tell Russia to do whatever the hell they want,’ conjures up the images of Bucha, mass killings, torture, rape, etc., we have come to associate with Russia. It can’t be undone.”

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

As they told Coppins over and over again in country after country, this represents an existential problem for them. Contrary to Marjorie Greene's comments about them being unwilling to fight for themselves, they are starting to talk about arming up, including obtaining a nuclear arsenal which is one of the reasons the U.S. decided after WWII to take the responsibility as security guarantor. The last thing this world needs is more nuclear-armed countries. But that's exactly what we will get if Trump pulls the U.S. out of NATO. Trump and his movement don't understand that. Joe Biden does understand it. In an interview with TIME Magazine this week he said this:

I've always believed that there are two elements to American security, and the biggest element, and our normative example, is our alliances, our alliances. We are—we have, compared to the rest of the world, we have put together the strongest alliance in the history of the world, number one. Number two, we're in a situation where we are able to move in a way that recognizes how much the world has changed and still lead the world. And it's our security.

“The United States left Europe after the First World War,” he said, adding, with a measure of Scandinavian understatement, “That was not a big success.”

It would be a massive mistake to put this new America First movement in charge of the U.S. government. They have far more in common with the original than people realize and the results could be catastrophic.

about this topic

“Not normal at all”: Legal experts say Judge Cannon’s “absurd” ruling shows she’s an “absolute hack”

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has been accused of entertaining Donald Trump’s every legal defense, no matter how absurd, bogging down the classified documents case she’s had for a year with motions and hearings that would never happen in another court.

Since being randomly assigned the case last June, Cannon has dutifully considered the former president's every legal argument with the utmost seriousness, repeatedly delaying the case – by far the most serious she’s ever presided over – and recently scrapping the scheduled trial date, citing all the motions she’s allowed to pile up without ruling on, with no sign that she’s anywhere close to setting another.

Instead of tossing the claim aside, as another judge might, Cannon has treated as legitimate the argument that Trump, using only the power of his mind, could unilaterally declassify the nation’s secrets, including battle plans and information on nuclear weapons programs (Trump himself, in a recording obtained by prosecutors, denied he had that power). And she’s treated the defense and prosecution “very differently,” The New York Times reported, chastising the latter for actions that she’s allowed from the former, such as making legal arguments in court that were not first submitted in written form.

"I would be held in contempt": Experts say "biased" Judge Cannon giving Trump unusual leeway

But Cannon, even in the eyes of her many critics, has outdone herself with a ruling made public late Tuesday. Now it’s not only Trump’s lawyers who will be arguing on Trump’s behalf: she’s scheduled a hearing where right-wing attorneys will make the argument that it’s actually the Biden administration that broke the law. Set for June 21, the lawyers will argue that it was illegal for the Department of Justice to appoint special counsel Jack Smith to handle Trump’s alleged theft of the nation’s secrets.

It is one thing for a judge to accept an amicus brief, wherein an outside party submits legal arguments relevant to the case, and another to spend time on oral arguments from lawyers who don’t even represent either side.

“The issue is Judge Cannon seems to be just entirely unable — or unwilling — to be normal,” commented Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor of constitutional law at Georgia State University. “She's not up to the job as far as I'm concerned,” he continued, noting that he’s never seen a district court judge schedule such a hearing for arguments from lawyers not even involved in the case. Cannon, Kreis concluded, “is an absolute hack.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

It’s not like the arguments are novel, either. All the way back in 2018, then-President Trump was raging against special counsel Robert Mueller, who was investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia, declaring that his appointment “is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” At the time, David Sklansky, a professor of criminal law at Stanford University, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1988 decision ruled that the executive branch does indeed have the right to allocate its powers to an independent counsel, making it not even “remotely plausible” to argue such an appointment violates the Constitution.

It’s also an argument that’s been tried in court multiple times before, all of them unsuccessfully. Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, tried it in his case, CNN noted, and Hunter Biden gave it a shot too.

But it’s one that conservatives are insisting on making, at least with respect to Trump and Smith. “Improperly appointed,” states the amicus brief from Ed Meese, attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and part of the group that will argue in Cannon’s courtroom, “he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos.”

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

At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Attorney General Merrick Garland – confronted by Republican lawmakers making the same claims – noted that his office’s ability to appoint special counsels had been in effect for decades now. “The matter that you’re talking about,” he told Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., “has been adjudicated.”

It’s one thing for the arguments to be made in Congress, according to legal experts, and another for them to be treated seriously in a district court.

“The fact these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” national security lawyer Bradley Moss told CNN.

"Not normal all,” added CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams. “There is literally no reason why the judge needs to have additional folks come in at the oral argument.”

about Judge Aileen Cannon

What Donald Trump’s criminal trial reveals about a potential second Trump administration

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: A Closer Look:Examining the News

There’s a tape that both the defense and the prosecution played in summations in former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial. In it, you can hear the chaos of Trump’s office at Trump Tower in September of 2016: Trump seems to be having multiple conversations almost simultaneously. He talks to an unidentified person on the phone. He discusses polls with Michael Cohen, his executive vice-president at the time. Trump and Cohen talk about a diversity initiative and stopping the media from unsealing the records of Trump’s first divorce. His executive assistant pops in with word of a call from a developer. Trump calls for a Coke.

And then, very clearly, you can hear Cohen saying, “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David, you know, so that — I’m going to do that right away. I’ve actually come up and I’ve spoken … I’ve spoken to Allen Weisselberg” — then the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer — “about how to set the whole thing up.”

Trump interrupts and says, “So, what do we got to pay for this, 150?” Then he says, “Cash?”

“No, no, no, no no,” Cohen says. “I got it.”

On the most literal level, the tape showed Trump discussing the logistics of paying off a woman who said she had an affair with him. This was key evidence for the jury’s ultimate finding that he had intended to alter the outcome of the 2016 election by making unlawful hush money payments.

When this tape was first made public, in 2018, it was hard to pin down exactly what it all meant. But as Trump’s seven-week trial proceeded, the broader meaning of the tape emerged in sharp relief: Everything is connected in Trump world, ethical borders are easily crossed and Trump is on top of every detail.

The verdict in the criminal trial provided answers to a narrow series of questions, not least of which was whether a presidential candidate had used illicit means to prevent voters from learning about a payoff to conceal a sexual encounter. (Trump has vowed to appeal.) But the trial also unveiled a broad array of evidence that went far beyond the charges. It revealed a lot about how Trump went about running his company and the presidency — and provided hints of how that might play out in a second Trump administration.

For most of Trump’s presidential term, I co-hosted the ProPublica/WNYC podcast “Trump, Inc.,” whose mission was to delve into the conflicts of interest between Trump’s business and his presidency. Because there was so much that journalists didn’t — and couldn’t — understand about a privately held company that clung tightly to its secrets, “Trump, Inc.” billed itself as “an open investigation.” We were candid about what we did and did not know because we lived in a world of doubt.

“Trump, Inc.” uncovered a lot, including unearthing Cohen’s dubious connections in 2018 and outlining how his role as Trump’s lawyer (then still intact) created a cloak of legal privilege that hid their interactions.

But we saw just tiny glimpses of the documents that have now been revealed in their entirety in the criminal trial; we had no access to the many Trump employees, current and former, who have now described, under oath, the inner workings of the Trump Organization.

That testimony confirmed what that tape seemed to show: that Trump pays close, close attention to all his business affairs, and always has. This, in turn, suggests that the mixing of Trump’s presidency and business that “Trump, Inc.” and others documented occurred under that same watchful eye. And if voters elect Trump a second time — this time knowing that he was convicted of a crime, one where key acts were committed in the Oval Office, on top of his two impeachments — Trump can conclude that America’s voters have blessed his way of doing business. There’s every reason to believe his conflicts of interest will only be more open and more unapologetic.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump employees testified to his intense level of control in three trials against Trump or his company over the past two years. These were among five trials since 2022, each of which I covered in person, including the criminal trial of his company for tax fraud, two defamation suits brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll and the New York attorney general’s civil fraud trial. Each trial ended badly for Trump or his company (and each is being appealed).

Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York offered one sharp revelation after the next. The disclosures came not just from the talked-about witnesses, such as former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, Stormy Daniels and Cohen himself, but also from Trump’s former comptroller, his executive assistant and the aide who sat closest to the Oval Office. Some of these individuals, including a junior bookkeeper for the Trump Organization and the head of the company’s accounts payable department, work in Trump Tower to this day.

The picture that emerges from their testimony is of a boss — “The Boss” is what they nearly uniformly call him — who manages the tiniest of details but leaves the faintest of traces of all that management. Up until the throes of the 2016 campaign, Trump had to approve every payment over $2,500, an extraordinarily tiny sum for a mogul with assets around the globe. (For the duration of the campaign, until he became president, that amount inched up, to $10,000.) Trump would reject checks he didn’t want to pay and send them back to his underlings, with the word “VOID” scrawled on them in Sharpie.

Trump watched every expense in this way, his comptroller Jeff McConney testified. Trump once told him, early in his time at the company, “You’re fired,” because McConney hadn’t made an effort to reduce Trump’s bills before presenting Trump with payment documents. “It was a teaching moment,” McConney said on the stand. This close attention and tight-fistedness extended company wide: When it came to Trump University, Cohen testified, it was part of his job to offer a vendor 20% of what they were owed, or to pay them nothing at all.

Trump brought this ethos to the White House, where, as his lawyers liked to point out, he was the “leader of the free world.” He took time to write “PAY” on a $6,974 invoice sent by Trump Organization executive assistant Rhona Graff for an annual membership and “food minimum” at the Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, New York.

Trump, of course, handed over control of the Trump Organization, including the oversight of its payments, to his older sons and Weisselberg at the outset of his administration. But he never gave up ownership of his company. He always made money from it, and does to this day.

And Trump, while president, went to extraordinary lengths to keep control of his “personal” checking account. That account actually belonged to a Trump Organization business entity, which underscored the lack of separation between Trump and the company he had ostensibly separated himself from. Trump’s personal checks were approved by Weisselberg; generated by Deborah Tarasoff, the head of Trump’s accounts payable department; stapled to the approved invoice; and sent via FedEx by Trump’s junior bookkeeper, Rebecca Manochio, to the Washington home of Trump’s bodyguard-turned-White House aide, Keith Schiller, who would bring them over for Trump to sign. That’s how the checks that Trump signed to Cohen made their way to the Oval Office.

“Checks came in a FedEx envelope” that Schiller delivered, testified Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s director of Oval Office operations. “I opened the envelope. And inside was a manila folder with a stack of checks. And I brought the manila folder in to the president for him to sign.”

Money wasn’t the only thing Trump paid close attention to. He wrote all of his social media posts, save for a few written by an aide, Dan Scavino. Sometimes, Trump would dictate tweets to Westerhout. She would type them up, print them out and show them to Trump so the president of the United States could take time to scrutinize, and adjust, the punctuation. “He liked to use the Oxford comma,” Westerhout testified.

Trump did not send emails or text messages. This aversion has long been known, but the trial testimony laid out a whole series of ways in which Trump communicated without leaving precise documentation.

He was on the phone beginning at 6 in the morning and “late into the night after I went to bed, so I always felt guilty about that,” Westerhout testified. He’d often use Schiller’s cellphone to make calls, and employees would use that number to reach Trump. There were no Trump memos, no notepads, no Post-it notes, just an occasional Sharpie scrawl. And largely, except for Cohen’s, no testimony that what these employees did, they did “at the direction of” and “for the benefit of” Donald Trump. (This was an essential part of the judge’s charge to the jury: that Trump “personally, or by acting in concert with another person or persons, made or caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”)

This is the backdrop for the conflicts “Trump, Inc.” and other news media covered while Trump was president. To recap some of them (at a moment when polls show many Americans have forgotten much of what transpired during his administration): Trump’s hotel in Washington became a must stop-by for foreign officials, earning his company millions. He caused the U.S. Treasury to spend more than $1 million to house Secret Service agents in rooms with top-of-the-market rates at Mar-a-Lago and had the government pick up the tab for $1,005.60 in cocktails apparently enjoyed by administration officials and friends at his resort’s bar.

During Trump’s presidency, the response to questions about all this went something like this: As a global businessman, he or his allies would say, how could he possibly pay attention to whether the presidential seal was used on his golf courses? Or whether his son, Don Jr., was trading on the name “Donald Trump” to sell condos in India. Or whether businesspeople with foreign ties were trying to make a buck, or millions, from his presidency?

Indeed, this was part of Trump’s defense in the criminal trial, and in the civil fraud trial at which Trump was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to New York state for what a judge found was a yearslong practice of lying about the value of his assets. When he testified at that civil trial, Trump distanced himself from the fraud: “All I did was authorize and tell people to give whatever is necessary for the accountants to do the statements,” he said. And the false statements of financial condition? “I would look at them, I would see them and maybe on some occasions, I would have some suggestions.”

As is his right, Trump chose not to testify at his criminal trial, but his lawyer Todd Blanche argued on his behalf that Trump “had nothing to do, had nothing to do with the invoice, with the check being generated, or with the entry on the ledger” and that he was so busy being president he maybe didn’t even look at the checks he signed. “Sometimes he would sign checks even when he was meeting with people, while he was on the phone, and even without reviewing them,” Blanche said during closing arguments.

The jury did not buy that defense.

Trump is currently leading in the polls. It’s entirely possible he will be elected president. Yet he’s continuing to aggressively pursue business deals in countries that will have a long list of issues on which they will be seeking U.S. support.

The Trump Organization entered a full-on partnership with LIV Golf, an entity majority-owned by the government of Saudi Arabia, for tournaments at his golf courses. And last year, a New York Times reporter and photographer visited what the reporter called a “multibillion-dollar project backed by Oman’s oil-rich government that has an unusual partner: former President Donald J. Trump.” The project was launched and is being built while Trump is the front-runner for a second presidency. But neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign tried to defend or separate the project from the candidate who, while not running the company, still makes money from it.

“It’s like the Hamptons of the Middle East,” Eric Trump, who now runs the Trump Organization, told the Times. The paper wrote: “Oman, in fact, is nothing like the Hamptons. It is a Muslim nation and absolute monarchy, ruled by a sultan, who plays a sensitive role in the Middle East: Oman maintains close ties with Saudi Arabia and its allies, but also with Iran, with which it has considerable trade.”

It isn’t just the foreign deals. In April, right around the time Trump was about to be criminally tried in New York, he offered oil executives gathered at Mar-a-Lago “a deal,” the Washington Post reported. The publication summarized his message as: “You all are wealthy enough that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House.” In exchange, the Post said, Trump promised to reverse President Joe Biden’s initiatives to slow climate change, vowing to roll back some of them “on Day 1.”

And, as has been widely reported, with Truth Social going public, Trump has set up what Vox called “a perfect avenue for potential corruption.” As Vox noted, it’s “a way for Trump’s supporters to personally offer him financial support at a time when he desperately needs it.” By propping up the share price of the stock of the cash-hemorrhaging social media company, shareholders have potentially put billions of dollars in Donald Trump’s pocket.

It’s clear that Trump plays favorites and rewards loyalty; nearly eight years after he was inaugurated in 2017, it’s hard to imagine that any savvy businessperson or foreign leader fails to recognize this.

Certainly, those who were once in Trump’s orbit, if only briefly, testified to the dark side of that equation. Both Cohen and Daniels described the torrent of retribution they’ve experienced. Trump is unapologetic about his quest for vengeance. As he put it in one social media post last summer, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME I’M COMING AFTER YOU.”

Merely having been once employed by Trump seems to have taken a toll, on even relatively minor figures. In the civil fraud trial, Trump’s former comptroller, McConney, started weeping when he was asked why he no longer worked at the Trump Organization. He said he could no longer “deal with” the legal scrutiny he’d suffered. In the criminal trial, both former communications director Hope Hicks and Westerhout burst into tears on the stand, reflecting on their work history with Trump. Both said they remained loyal, but both had been banished from Trump’s graces.

And as for Weisselberg, he was not called to testify in this trial. His previous testimony in the trial of Trump’s company resulted in felony convictions on 17 counts and a five-month jail sentence. He is now serving a second jail sentence, in Rikers Island, for committing perjury in Trump’s civil fraud trial.

In the courthouse, Trump spent long stretches of time in an uncomfortable room with the shades always drawn, the fluorescent lighting unforgiving. He was required to listen to weeks of unflattering testimony, including, several times, to his own voice on that tape Cohen made of him, utterly cognizant of the tawdry deal he was striking. Saying, “So, what do we got to pay for this, 150?” After all the testimony in his criminal trial, this no longer seems like a random moment. It sounds like who Trump is: his attention to detail, his willingness to subvert the rules, the way he wields money to enhance his power, and vice versa, and is utterly unashamed.

The public knows all this now. In a second Trump presidency, it’s exactly what we’d get. Except this time, it will be all out before us, not in a secretly recorded tape.

Biden: “Every reason” to think Netanyahu is prolonging war for his own political self-preservation

President Joe Biden has said that there is “every reason” to believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is continuing his assault on Gaza for political gain, appearing to acknowledge that Netanyahu is not interested in pulling out of the region despite the Biden administration’s insistence that the latest ceasefire deal is backed by Israel.

In an interview with Time Magazine published on Tuesday, Biden was asked: “Some in Israel have suggested that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation. Do you believe that?”

The president responded, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.” He added: “Before the war began, the blowback he was getting from the Israeli military for wanting to change the constitu—change the court. And so it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.”

The remark acknowledging Netanyahu’s choice to continue the siege came almost directly after Biden blamed the prolonging of the assault on Hamas, appearing to contradict himself in his continued insistence on blaming Israel’s genocide on Palestinians.

“Hamas could end this tomorrow. Hamas could say (unintelligible) and done period,” he said, as Time transcribed. “Bibi is under enormous pressure on the hostages, on the hostages, and so he’s prepared to do about anything to get the hostages back.”

Reports have found that Biden’s claims are untrue. In a rare statement after Biden announced his administration’s supposed backing of a permanent ceasefire deal on Saturday, Netanyahu said that his conditions for a ceasefire have not changed and that Israel is still committed to the total destruction of Hamas and “ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat” before it will pull out.

“The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter,” he said.

This statement severely undercuts Biden’s claims that the ceasefire deal has been backed by Israeli officials. The plan presented by Biden is similar to previous deals approved by Hamas leaders, and calls on both sides to release prisoners and hostages, for Israel to gradually withdraw from Gaza and for Palestinians to be allowed to return to their homes — or what is left of them.

Also undercutting Biden’s claim of supporting a ceasefire deal is his refusal to withhold or condition military assistance to Israel in order to pressure Israeli forces to stop their relentless bombardment of Gaza.

The Biden administration claims that Hamas is the one opposed to the ceasefire. But Hamas officials appeared ready to consider and accept the plan on Saturday.

“Hamas confirms its readiness to deal positively and in a constructive manner with any proposal that is based on the permanent ceasefire and the full withdrawal [of Israeli forces] from the Gaza Strip, the reconstruction [of Gaza], and the return of the displaced to their places, along with the fulfilment of a genuine prisoner swap deal if the occupation clearly announces commitment to such deal,” the group said.

Indeed, based on reports, it appears that the exact opposite of what Biden and his administration are claiming is true: It is not Hamas blocking the ceasefire deal, but Israeli officials who have vowed to continue the assault. Further, Hamas officials have reportedly expressed concerns that Israeli leaders appear to be calling solely for the release of Israeli hostages, which is only the first phase of the three-phase proposal, and that Israel will then continue its assault.

The challenges of studying (and treating) PTSD in chimpanzees

Rachel the chimpanzee grew up in a suburban household under the care of an owner who treated her like a human child. She wore human clothes, ate human food, and took bubble baths. This went on until 1985 when, at the age of 3, Rachel’s owner felt she could no longer keep her animal instincts under control. Given up for adoption, Rachel eventually found herself at New York University’s Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery in Primates, where she stayed for more than 15 years.

She spent most of that time in a cage by herself — when doctors weren’t conducting medical tests on her, including 39 liver-punch biopsies.

Study finds vocal flexibility in young chimpanzees, a parallel perhaps denoting language's origins

According to government data, around 1,500 chimpanzees were used in biomedical research at any given time in the United States alone. Plans to abandon the controversial practice started in 2007, when the National Center for Research Resources announced it would stop funding breeding programs. The Great Ape Protection Act, which proposed to ban chimp testing altogether, made its way to Congress the following year, but it wasn’t until 2015 — after every other country in the world had already led the way — that this goal was finally achieved.

The reason chimpanzees were used in research then is the same reason they are no longer used today. While their humanlike DNA — 98.5% identical to ours — made them ideal guinea pigs for the study of medical problems and infectious diseases, their increased brain capacity also rendered them susceptible to sustaining complex and lasting psychological damage.

Although experts disagree on whether to call this post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the majority of chimps emerged from labs with symptoms reminiscent of the condition, including hypervigilance, disassociation, and self-harm.

For years, caregivers and animal behaviorists at wildlife sanctuaries — which have taken on the “retired” medical animals — have worked to treat these symptoms, often to great success. At the same time, rehabilitation efforts remain riddled with unanswerable questions: How do chimpanzees experience traumatic events? Why do some individuals recover better or more quickly than others? Is it possible to apply human psychology to animals, even ones as closely related to us as chimps?

Diagnosing PTSD

Chimpanzee Jeannie arrived at LEMSIP when she was 22 years old. Records indicate that, like Rachel, she was originally kept as a human companion or pet. At LEMSIP she was subjected to a variety of invasive procedures, including vaginal washes, cervical and liver punches, and lymph node biopsies. She was infected with HIV, hepatitis NANB and hepatitis C. Following protocol, she was anesthetized by a dart gun before each procedure.

In total, Jeannie was “knocked down” more than 200 times.

Seven years into her time at LEMSIP, Jeannie had what researchers describe as a “nervous breakdown” that made further testing all but impossible. She suffered seizures and occasionally attacked her hands or feet as though they were not part of her own body. She arranged her food on the floor of her suspended cage instead of eating it. Whenever lab personnel approached her, she would scream, froth, salivate, urinate, defecate, roll back her eyes, and throw herself against all four sides of her confinement.

Rachel also became increasingly difficult to work with. A 2008 study of PTSD in chimpanzees said researchers would exercise extreme caution to avoid “angry outbursts, strenuous lunges, and attempts to grab or injure those who approached.”

Mostly, Rachel injured herself.

“When I met her in 1997, she was having dissociative episodes,” says primate communication scientist Mary Lee Jensvold. “She would attack her hands and hit herself in the head. All the things we talk about with trauma in people, that’s exactly what was going on with her.”

Great ape psychologist Gay Bradshaw, lead author of the 2008 study, made similar points. “Jeannie and Rachel lived under persistent environmental stress in an atmosphere of fear, unpredictability and nearly total lack of control over their world, with a perceived omnipresent threat of violence,” he wrote in the study. Bradshaw concluded their respective symptoms, even though they could only be observed externally, “were pathognomonic for dissociative and attachment disorders and for Complex PTSD.”

Restoring Agency

LEMSIP staff considered euthanizing Jeannie, and they would have put her down if the Fauna Foundation had not agreed to take her in instead. The Canadian wildlife sanctuary expected her to be a difficult chimp to work with, and they weren’t wrong. Jeannie was erratic and unpredictable, her mood switching between withdrawal and aggression on the turn of a dime. She was anorexic, asthmatic, immunocompromised, and uncoordinated, and her prescription medication was ineffective.

Sanctuaries working with traumatized chimps often use prescriptions as part of their treatment plan. Drugs like Depo-Provera, a contraceptive injection used in this case to regulate Jeannie’s blood levels, help with physical ailments. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIS, which were given to Rachel, are used to treat both PTSD and other mental problems like depression or generalized anxiety disorder — two other conditions commonly observed in captive chimpanzees. In this, treatment plans for chimpanzees greatly resemble those of humans.

However, medication forms but one small part of a larger puzzle. Drawing from both psychiatric literature on PTSD in humans as well as the study of chimpanzees living in the wild, sanctuary employees have identified a number of shared strategies to help traumatized chimps recover. The goal, according to Kris Pritchard, caregiver at the Georgia-based Project Chimps, is to ensure “their abnormal behaviors aren’t so bad that it’s affecting their daily life.”

The first of these strategies revolves around building social connection: reintroducing chimpanzees who spent the better part of their life isolated in cages to interact with members of their own species.

“We’re social critters,” says Jensvold, referring to both great apes and humans. “Connection makes us feel safe. When we don’t, we engage in dysregulated behavior, like self-injury, which in extreme cases become catatonic.” It’s possible that, like humans, chimps engage in such compulsory behavior to alleviate negative emotions like anxiety, anger and sadness, though this claim is yet to be investigated thoroughly.

Because of their aggression, traumatized chimps at sanctuaries are typically introduced to the rest of the population while keeping them in separate compounds. Once they are released into the same space, they slowly engage in social behaviors such as grooming. This appears to have a positive impact on their mental health, with studies finding traumatized chimps who spent significant time at sanctuaries becoming “socially indistinguishable” from untraumatized ones.

The second strategy concerns space. Wild chimpanzees live a mobile, semi-nomadic lifestyle, patrolling territories that can span up to 115 square miles. Although no sanctuary has access to such a large amount of land, they provide their chimps with significantly more physical space than the average zoo. Project Chimps’ 236 acres of forested terrain, for instance, allows its residents to engage in other types of behavior observed in the wild, such as making nests, fashioning tools, and foraging for food.

The third and arguably most important strategy — closely connected to the first and second — is about agency.

“Social environments are healing,” says Jensvold. “But I would argue that the experience of captivity and losing agency is in and of itself traumatic. I mean, imagine spending your whole life inside of a cage and being aware of that.”

Bradshaw notes that Jeannie and Rachel experienced a “total lack of control over their world,” making all their surroundings — even the safe ones — appear threatening.

Agency can be partially restored through enrichment, a now widely accepted practice which Bradshaw’s research helped popularize. Put simply, it involves peppering the sanctuary grounds with objects the chimps can use however they like, whether that’s trees to climb on, branches to collect termites, tires to play with, or — in the case of one ape living at Project Chimps — a piece of cloth they can choose to carry around with them like a flag.

Equally vital to restoring agency is giving chimps the freedom of movement. Or, in some cases, the freedom to not move.

“We have a female named Gracie who doesn’t go outside her habitat,” says Pritchard. “She just stays inside her villa, which has a covered outdoor area, even when her whole community is off somewhere. That’s something we allow her to do, though. She lived her whole life indoors, so the outside could be perceived as startling.”

While some abnormal behaviors subside over time, others persist. In some cases, sanctuary workers might make the decision not to push a certain chimp to alter the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, even if it is considered “unnatural.”

Slippery Slope

Treating traumatized chimpanzees presents various challenges, including basic communication. Although a few chimps understand and can communicate using basic American Sign Language, caregivers often have difficulty figuring out the meaning of other behaviors. Take, for example, a chimp who vocalizes and pulls at the bars of their enclosure when someone approaches. “It could be they have not seen that someone in a while and are upset,” says Pritchard. “Or it could be that they are excited to see them and want their attention.”

Then there’s the question of why some chimps seem to recover better or more quickly than others.

“I have heard of chimps biting themselves down on the bone,” says Jensvold. And yet, just as you can have “two soldiers experience a bomb blowing up and have only one come out of it with post-traumatic stress,” so too can you have two chimpanzees go through years of animal testing and arrive at sanctuaries with radically different dispositions and recovery rates.

Jensvold points to a chimpanzee named Sue Ellen. Like Rachel, Sue Ellen spent 15 years in research, where she was involved in procedures on a weekly basis. Unlike Rachel, however, Sue Ellen “emerged pretty stable, even though her experience was arguably much worse.”

Jeannie’s progress was moderate. Although her seizures never went away, they occurred once a month as opposed to daily, and while she never became actively involved in the community hierarchy, she did end up seeking out the company of other chimps.

Studies on the mental wellbeing of captive chimps are limited. Not just because the subject is complicated, but also because the scientific community has yet to give it the attention it deserves. Some say research into animal suffering is slowed by pressure from Big Pharma, which sees the subject as a slippery slope. If chimps can suffer from PTSD, who is to say monkeys — whose demand in the animal testing world soared after the outbreak of COVID-19 — can’t sustain enduring and profound psychological trauma as well?

about primates

Trump’s conviction and a course correction for the GOP

Donald Trump, now a convicted felon, has not been cowed or beaten back by the possibility of prison time – something that legal experts are suggesting is increasing in likelihood based on Trump’s recalcitrant and openly hostile and contemptuous behavior towards Judge Merchan, who presided over Trump’s New York criminal trial. Trump is escalating his attacks, calling Judge Merchan a “devil” during an unhinged speech last Friday, and in interviews and other communications attempting to incite his MAGA followers to commit acts of violence and mayhem in his name if he is put in prison for his crimes.

Trump’s propagandists, which include senior leaders of the Republican Party, have rallied around him in the aftermath of his felony conviction and are attacking the United States justice system, the legitimacy of the courts, and the rule of law. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Trump MAGA supplicant, is openly pressuring the right-wing extremists on the United States Supreme Court to somehow find a way to void the New York hush-money election interference conviction. Republicans in Congress are also promising to launch (more) retaliatory false investigations into leading Democrats (and Manhattan District Attorney Bragg and presumably other law enforcement involved in Trump’s hush-money election interference trial).

"The Republican Party died nearly ten years ago. Its reanimated corpse isn’t just anathema to the former party, it’s un-American. This zombie party, that’s been hollowed out and ensnared by Donald Trump."

In essence, the Republican Party is a de facto crime organization and authoritarian cult of personality. Donald Trump is the MAGA boss and aspiring dictator who is above the law. Instead of being repulsed by Donald Trump’s conviction and how their support for him reflects poorly on their individual character and morality, his MAGA people are rallying around him. Trump’s campaign claims that it raised more than 50 million dollars in the 24 hours after his guilty verdict was handed down last Thursday. The criminal political church of Trumpism is, once again, very lucrative.

How are President Biden and his campaign responding to Trump’s historic felony conviction? Instead of swiftly going on the offense and hammering Trump as a corrupt, compromised, and dangerous felon, it was initially reported that Biden and the Democrats had decided to not emphasize Trump’s unprecedented felony conviction so as not to upset new voters in what will be a very close 2024 election. But there are indications that President Biden may pivot. In a meeting with donors on Monday evening, Biden did not hold back, describing Trump as a "convicted felon" who is "unhinged" and "snapped" after being defeated in the 2020 election, which then inspired the reprobate ex-president to attempt a coup on Jan. 6.

"White collar crook": Biden says Trump is not just a "convicted felon" but a "diminished man"

And what of the American mainstream news media? To this point, for more than eight years they have failed to consistently practice pro-democracy journalism that emphasizes the existential danger of Trumpism and American neofascism to the day-to-day lives and well-being of the American people and the nation. Ultimately, it will be up to the American people on Election Day to save their country from Trumpism and American neofascism in the voting booth. The elites will not save them or their democracy.

In an attempt to make better sense of Donald Trump’s historic felony conviction and its meaning and implications for this political moment, the 2024 election, the country’s democracy and what may happen next, I recently spoke to a range of experts.

Read part one here.

Will Bunch is a national opinion columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Look, any time that a former president of the United States is convicted of 34 felonies, it’s a big deal. Don’t let anyone tell you anything otherwise. But given the state of America right now, where people disagree not just about ideology but basic facts, what that ultimate meaning will be is very much up in the air.

Will we see Donald Trump’s conviction as the long-awaited end of a con man’s long and inglorious career? Yes, if even a relatively small sliver of GOP voters now abandons him in November. But the former-political-party-turned-cult known as Republicans see this a lot differently. They can smell the end, too…but of the American Experiment itself. The cynical comments from U.S. senators and other GOP leaders comparing the United States to Cuba or a banana republic because Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers are nothing less to destroy the slender remaining trust in our institutions and our elites. In doing so, they want to create the climate for Trump to rule America as a “red Caesar” dictator running roughshod over what’s left of a weakened system.

That’s a depressing thought, but take some hope from this. After what has been essentially a decades-long crime spree by the defendant, first in business and then in national politics, the defendant has evaded accountability thanks to various feckless prosecutors, a pliant news media, and kowtowing members of Congress. In lower Manhattan, Trump finally faced the judgment of 12 everyday American folk; teachers, a software engineer, a salesman, etc. And they saw right through his shtick. Hopefully about 80 million or so Americans can do the same on Nov. 5.

David Pepper is a lawyer, writer, political activist, and former elected official. His new book is "Saving Democracy: A User's Manual for Every American."

A primary reason our political system is off the rails is the sense that there is no accountability left, even for egregious lawbreaking, at multiple levels.

Think about it:

A federal court system has been unable to take up, in a timely manner, critical cases involving national security and the peaceful transition of power. Conflicts of interest appear to suffuse our highest courts (federal and state), tainting their deliberations and decisions. We have rampant corruption that seems untouchable in so many places, including in statehouses and the Trump White House. We have politicians behaving in ways that, in any other field, would get them fired or worse.

That lack of accountability, continuing on and on, rewards the lawbreakers (who have grown accustomed to getting away with it all) and punishes those in public service who follow the rules. The entire incentive system is turned on its head.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

And that lack of accountability is settling in as just how the system works. Which ends up eroding the rule of law in politics—and the rule of law in governance itself. And that could not be more dangerous.

So even though the verdict involved a set of illegal acts that feel smaller than the federal cases Trump also faces, the verdict did—at long last—result in accountability for those illegal acts. That may shock a lot of people on one side of the political aisle, who have grown so used to a world with no accountability. That shock provides more evidence of the problem. But for the country, and a system that desperately needs the rule of law as its anchor, this high-profile moment of accountability was critically important.

Cheri Jacobus is a political strategist, writer, ex-Republican, and host of the podcast "Politics With Cheri Jacobus."

Justice at long last.

Lifelong criminal Donald J. Trump is facing serious, substantive justice for the first time in his life — a verdict that may actually carry a prison sentence. The tragedy is that it took far too long, and the vast majority of Trump victims will never be made whole, and Trump and his thugs will never be held accountable for all of their other crimes. This era of Trump has exposed the gaping holes in a justice system and judiciary that our culture and leaders made us believe was far stronger than it is. Cheerful, largely untested American patriotism made us soft and gullible. Malleable.

MAGA media (everything owned by Rupert Murdoch plus other "media" that depends on the survival of Trump) will have some success in making a large swath of voters believe the trial was "rigged," just as Trump was able to convince millions that the Trump University trial was rigged, the Emmys that did not give him a win for "The Apprentice" were rigged, the 2020 election was "rigged" (even though he can't seem to explain how the Republicans on the very same ballot won).

Trump will take his appeal all the way to his corrupt, hand-picked, MAGA-majority Supreme Court. There is no reason to believe that they won't do his bidding.

My concern and fear is that Democrats and non-MAGA institutions will do what they have done for nine years — flinch. From declining to impeach Trump over obstruction in the Mueller Report to declining to refer to the Justice Department for indictment people who lie to Congress under oath or refuse to honor subpoenas to media putting ratings and rubbernecking over journalism, many have been asleep at the switch. They seem unwilling to fully accept that we are in this fight, and we must be ready for it. No half measures — no believing in our institutions and the guardrails which have long since been crashed through. We did not choose this fight, but this is the fight we are in, and the fight we must win. Like it or not.

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

It's now become necessary for Trump to tap Nikki Haley as his Vice-Presidential running mate, as he needs her voters — many of whom declared they will never vote for him. The Trump-Haley ticket may have to run on the undercurrent of "Should Trump not be able to actually do the job of President due to prison, you'll get your Nikki, after all", a stronger position than merely getting their Nikki, after all, but only if Trump dies.

The media is salivating at the ratings that Trump keeps delivering and at what lies ahead. Their appetite for ratings they don't have to actually work for is likely not to abate any time soon, if at all. The challenge for Team Biden is to break through the noise and the Trump garbage to highlight one of the most successful presidencies in a century. It has already proven far more perilous an undertaking than most of us predicted.

Darrin Bell is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist, creator of the syndicated comic strip “Candorville”, and author of the graphic novel “The Talk." He is also a contributing cartoonist for the New Yorker.

The Republican Party is the canary in the coal mine. It used to portray itself as the “party of law and order.” It once claimed that “character mattered.” There was a time when it would routinely reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and help ensure Black people could vote. As late as 2012, its standard-bearer considered Russia to be the USA’s greatest geopolitical threat. It didn’t use to parse its way out of acknowledging that our country was a modern democracy. Both parties are microcosms of America, in all its flaws and pretenses. But pretense is important because it reminds us of who we want to be as a nation, even if it’s not really who we are.

Only one party is abandoning the pretense altogether. Only one party wants us to become something else – a country where the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of an autocrat, his political party, and their brownshirts (sorry, “redhats.”)

There once was a Republican Party that would not have threatened to grind government to a halt or tear down the criminal justice system just because a jury found their favorite sleazy bigot guilty of lying about payments to a porn star in order to win an election. The Republican Party died nearly ten years ago. Its reanimated corpse isn’t just anathema to the former party, it’s un-American. This zombie party, that’s been hollowed out and ensnared by Donald Trump and his fanatical followers, is a precursor to America after 2025, if we send the convicted felon back to the White House.

about this topic