Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump says Putin will release detained reporter Evan Gershkovich “for me, but not for anyone else”

Former President Donald Trump had shown little interest in the plight of an American journalist currently being held by the Russian government on dubious charges of espionage. But at 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, the Republican candidate picked up his phone and asserted that the Kremlin would only release Evan Gershkovich if he wins the 2024 election.

"Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else," Trump posted on his website, Truth Social. The Russian dictator would agree to do in exchange so for "nothing," he said, adding that the release would come "after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office."

Gershkovich, 32, is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who was detained by Russian authorities in March 2023 on accusations of spying. Over a year later, no evidence has been presented to support the claim.

Trump enjoyed warm relations with the Russian government after it backed his 2016 campaign. Asked about Gerskhovich's case in an April interview with Time magazine, Trump said that relationship would help him get the reporter released. "Putin is going to release him," Trump said, after explaining that he had not commented on the case "because I have many things I'm working on."

"I get along very well with Putin," Trump said, "but the reporter should be released and he will be released. I don't know if he's going to be released under Biden."

Trump previously attacked President Joe Biden for securing the release of another American prisoner in Russia, WNBA star Brittney Griner, who he described as a "spoiled person" and "a basketball player who openly hates our Country." At the time, he maintained that he would have secured the release of another prisoner, ex-Marine Paul Whelan, without having to exchange a Russian prisoner, saying he "would have been let out for the asking."

This no-bake, boozy Strawberry Margarita Pie is the perfect Memorial Day Weekend dessert

If you are puzzling over your Memorial Day menu or need the perfect dessert to bring along to a get together, you have landed at the right place — especially if your plans include a sunny locale and the company of adults.

I may not always have the best timing, but I do this week. You will want to make this crave-quenching pie for summer’s kickoff weekend.

Strawberry Margarita Pie is delicious fun. It is a little bit naughty, though delightfully so, and seems to charm and intrigue all who try it. A favorite of mine this time of year for a rollicking getaway with friends, this creamy, no-bake, frozen marvel is loaded with the season’s sweetest, freshest strawberries, a heavy squeeze of lime and a couple/few shots of booze. It is such a delight!

And like the most-perfect, say-no-to-sour-mix-and-never-add-Rose’s-lime-juice, best-ever margarita, it is exactly the flavors you want right now to kick off these warm early days of summer. I can think of nothing better to include in your upcoming long weekend plans.          

Memorial Day marks the beginning of Summer Season along our otherwise quiet bayside community. From mid-May through the fourth of July, life here along our shared water’s edge picks up dramatically. The summer people, most of whom we do not see much any other time of year, descend like migrating birds ready to relax, replenish, and indulge. This dessert is fully aligned with their It’s five o’clock somewhere vibe, which is as contagious as a virus, I might add, to us full-timers (those of us who live here all year long).

Seeing our friends and neighbors stretched out in various states of repose each day or catching sight of them launching their sailboat for a mid-morning outing on the water increases our vulnerability to catching their “virus.” The virus I speak of commonly elicits such changes in behavior as taking spontaneous dips in the bay or going on midday boat rides in the middle of the work week, or believing a flimsy cover-up thrown over swim attire is acceptable for most any daytime activity, or enjoying longer than usual lunches that may include a bottle of white wine, or dozing in a lounge chair or hammock at previously thought to be unacceptable times. It is a sickness that takes us all down by the time summer is in full swing.       

But I digress . . . and I do not want to leave you without these last words.

There is one problem with this lovely pastel-pink, fuchsia-flecked pie: It disappears quickly once it is made. Even with the best of intentions to share, I would say that in my house, we succeed only about 30% of the time, if that.

Strawberry Margarita Pie is a dessert for which mere mortals have virtually no chance of resisting once it has been cut and is within reach. In theory, it keeps very well. I mean, it is a frozen pie, so it would stand to reason. But it only keeps if you stay out of it! Unless I hide it way back in the freezer behind bags of vegetables and underneath an old ice pack large enough to cover my entire back, my husband and I will whittle it away one slim slice at a time, each believing the other will not notice another tiny sliver missing. Before we know it, we are negotiating for the remaining last bites, feigning confusion over how it could be that only a small bit is left. 

Lastly, something I find both odd and interesting is that the flavors come through most brilliantly once it gets “melty,” which occurs after it has been out of the freezer twenty minutes or so. My good friend and reliable taste tester emphatically believes this pie is best when you have to use a spoon to eat it, but you will have fun figuring out at what stage of melted-ness you think is perfection. Just be sure to factor in some wait time before diving in.

It is not easy . . . but it sure is worth it.  

We need your help to stay independent

Strawberry Margarita Pie
Yields
6 to 8 servings
Prep Time
30 minutes
Chill Time
4 hours (or overnight)

Ingredients

1 quart fresh strawberries

4 tablespoons sugar

6 ounces sweetened condensed milk (I use sweetened condensed coconut milk)

2 shots tequila (about 3 ounces)

4 tablespoons Cointreau or Citronage (or triple sec)

Juice of 1/2 lime (about a tablespoons)

1 pint whipping cream (or coconut whipping cream)

1 deep dish graham cracker crust, precooked and chilled. 

Lime zest and sliced fresh strawberries, for garnish

Sprigs of fresh mint, optional 

Directions

  1. Clean and dry strawberries, saving a few to use for garnish. Slice all remaining into a bowl and toss with sugar. Set aside.

  2. Using a food processor, combine condensed milk, tequila, Cointreau, lime juice, and strawberries. Process until smooth. Pour into a large bowl and refrigerate.

  3. Using a cold bowl and cold beaters, whip cream to stiff peaks.

  4. Remove strawberry mixture from refrigerator and use care to fold in whipped cream, about 1/3 at a time, until all is incorporated.

  5. Gently pour mixture into chilled pie shell and smooth. Cover with foil and tent so it does not touch the top. Place in freezer for at least 4 to 5 hours, preferably overnight.

  6. Remove from freezer 20 or so minutes before cutting. This pie is most flavorsome when it is not hard frozen.

  7. Upon serving, garnish with lime zest and sliced fresh strawberries. Add a few sprigs of mint, if desired.


Cook's Notes

Make Your Own Graham Cracker Crust ~ regular or gluten-free: It is so easy to make your own crust if you have graham crackers on hand.  Grind about 2 cups to crumbs, add a few pinches of sugar and about 1/4 cup softened butter or coconut oil. Mix well and press into a greased pie plate. Prick holes in bottom and sides and bake 10-12 minutes in preheated 350F oven. Remove and cool.

If you need gluten-free: Whisk to blend 1 cup gluten-free, 1::1 baking blend and 1 cup whole GF flour of choice, like sorghum or millet flour. To that, add a pinch of salt, 1 tsp baking powder, 4 rounded Tbsp sugar, and  a hefty shake of cinnamon. Set aside. If you have ground flax, mix 2 Tbsp in 2 Tbsp water and set aside. (If not, any binding agent will do: xanthan gum, psyllium husk, an egg white) Using your fingers or a fork, mix in 1/4 cup softened butter or coconut oil until mixture looks like crumbs. Add a tsp of vanilla, flax mixture (or binding agent of choice) and 1/4 cup water (you may need a little more) to wet mixture. Knead until it all holds together. Press into a well greased pie pan and bake 10-12 minutes in preheated 350F oven. Remove and cool.

Sweetened Condensed Milk: I prefer Sweetened Condensed Coconut Milk, and it is becoming easy to find. Nature’s Charm is a brand you can ask your local grocery store to carry for you. notes

“Exploiting racial divisions”: Kagan says Supreme Court gerrymander ruling will have “odious” impact

In a 6-3 vote that fell cleanly along ideological lines, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling that GOP lawmakers in South Carolina improperly used race to give Republicans a representational advantage in the state's U.S. House delegation, per CBS News. The court's right-wing majority accepted Republicans' arguments that politics, not race, was the predominant factor in their map-making process.

The case centered on a 2022 congressional map drawn by the Republican-led state legislature that packed 30,000 Black residents from the state's first congressional district to its sixth congressional district, which was already a Black-majority district. The shift meant that the first, previously red-tinted district would become more solidly Republican. The lower court had termed this a "stark racial gerrymander."

Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion, which found the lower court's decision "clearly erroneous" and asserted that, in a state where race and politics "closely correlate," there was no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander.

"The fact of the matter is that politics pervaded the highly visible map-making process from start to finish," Alito wrote.

In its lawsuit, the South Carolina NAACP alleged that Republicans had set a cap of 17 percent Black voters in the first congressional district. But the court's majority dismissed the figure as a "side effect of the legislature's partisan goal." Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentaji Brown-Jackson, disagreed.

"It will be easy enough" for bad actors to "cover their tracks in the end: just raise the 'possibility' of non-race-based decision making, and it will be 'dispositive,'" Kagan wrote in her dissent. "And so this 'odious' practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue."

The decision, Kagan argued, was a sanction for lawmakers to further disenfranchise voters of color. But Justice Clarence Thomas, who concurred with Alito, suggested that racial gerrymandering claims should not be taken up by courts at all. Targeting Brown v. Board of Education, the case that helped end racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, Thomas wrote that in that instance, the Supreme Court took a "boundless view of equitable remedies" through "extravagant uses of judicial power."

The court, he concluded, should not make the same mistake again.

Cassie breaks her silence after Diddy video, urging people to believe “victims the first time”

Cassie Ventura is ready to speak on her experience with ex-partner, Sean "Diddy" Combs.

The singer took to Instagram to express her gratitude for the outpouring of support after the release of a widely circulated video of Combs physically assaulting Ventura in a hotel hallway in Los Angeles in 2016. The video has sparked larger conversations about abusive relationships and the continuous legal battles Combs faces in numerous sexual assault lawsuits and an alleged federal sex trafficking investigation.

“Thank you for all of the love and support from my family, friends, strangers and those I have yet to meet,” Ventura wrote. “The outpouring of love has created a place for my younger self to settle and feel safe now, but this is only the beginning.”

Ventura continued, “Domestic Violence is THE issue. It broke me down to someone I never thought I would become. With a lot of hard work, I am better today, but I will always be recovering from my past.”

Additionally, Ventura, who many people had doubted after the bombshell lawsuit she filed against Combs in November last year stated, "My only ask is that EVERYONE open your heart to believing victims the first time. It takes a lot of heart to tell the truth out of a situation that you were powerless in.

“I offer my hand to those that are still living in fear. Reach out to your people, don’t cut them off. No one should carry this weight alone,” she continued.

Ventura concluded, “This healing journey is never ending, but this support means everything to me."

https://www.instagram.com/p/C7T6OCKRJ-W/?hl=en

Scientists worry so-called “Doomsday Glacier” is near collapse, satellite data reveals

Antartica's Thwaites Glacier is also known as the "Doomsday Glacier" because it could greatly contribute to sea level rise if it collapses. And new evidence suggests that's exactly what's happening.

Miles and miles below the surface, the glacier is destabilizing as ocean water rushes underneath its core structures. Scientists learned this thanks to high-resolution satellite radar data that shows Thwaites is being flooded with warm sea water, according to the study published in the journal PNAS.

Thwaites is the world's widest glacier, spanning approximately 80 miles and reaching depths of roughly 2,600 to 3,900 feet. It rests on downward sloping land and is therefore vulnerable to the ocean's eroding effects. Thwaites already single-handedly contributes to four percent of the world's total sea level rise. If it collapses on its own, the Florida-sized glacier will elevate sea levels by roughly two feet (65 centimeters). In the process, though, Thwaites' collapse could trigger other melting events, increasing sea levels by an estimated 10 feet (3 meters).

"The rushing of seawater beneath grounded ice over considerable distances makes the glacier more vulnerable to melting from a warmer ocean than anticipated, which in turn will increase projections of ice mass loss," the study's authors write. As UC Irvine professor and lead author Eric Rignot said to CBS News, "We see the seawater coming in at high tide and receding and sometimes going farther up underneath the glacier and getting trapped."

This is not the first report to indicate that climate change is weakening Thwaites at its very foundation. In 2021 researchers at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) said the Thwaites Glacier had started destabilizing because the ocean water in the Amundsen Sea continued to warm. That warm water persists in melting the Thwaites Glacier's ice, and climate scientists who spoke with Salon expressed concern about this in 2021.

"This isn't the lynchpin for the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet, but it's a worrying development that underscores the urgency of efforts to decarbonize our civilization," Dr. Michael E. Mann, then a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, said at the time. He later added that "it is one significant step along the path of Antarctic ice sheet collapse and major inundation of our coastlines. A worrying sign that really does underscore the urgency of climate action."

CORRECTION: This article was updated after confusing sea level rise statistics regarding a Thwaites collapse.

Families of Uvalde shooting victims sue Texas DPS officers for waiting to confront gunman

Your donation to The Texas Tribune will help investigative journalism that impacts state policies and politics. It is the last week of our Spring Member Drive, and our newsroom relies on readers like you who support independent Texas news. Donate today.


Relatives of 17 children killed and two kids injured in Texas’ deadliest school shooting are suing Texas Department of Public Safety officers who were among hundreds of law enforcement that waited 77 minutes to confront the gunman at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary, lawyers announced Wednesday.

“Nearly 100 officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety have yet to face a shred of accountability for cowering in fear while my daughter and nephew bled to death in their classroom,” Veronica Luevanos, whose daughter Jailah and nephew Jayce were killed, said in a statement.

The legal action against 92 DPS officers comes days before the two-year anniversary of the shooting in which an 18-year-old used an AR-15 to kill 19 students and two teachers in two adjoining fourth-grade classrooms.

Relatives of most of those students killed and two who were injured also announced Wednesday that they are suing Mandy Gutierrez, who was the principal at Robb at the time, and Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, who was the school district police chief, for their “inaction” that day.

The families’ attorney also announced Wednesday that the city of Uvalde will pay them $2 million to avoid a lawsuit. Additionally, the city will provide enhanced training for current and future police officers, designate May 24 as an annual day of remembrance and work with victims’ families to design a permanent memorial at the city plaza, among other things.

A DPS spokesperson declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

[“Someone tell me what to do”]

During a press conference in Uvalde, an attorney for the families, Josh Koskoff, said the state's failure to prevent the deaths began long before the shooting occurred. He said Texas failed to provide small communities like Uvalde with enough resources to train their officers.

"You think the city of Uvalde has enough money, or training, or resources? You think they can hire the best of the best?" Koskoff said. "As far as the state of Texas is concerned, it sounds like their position is: You're on your own."

Koskoff also hinted that the families could also sue state and federal agencies, but did not name which ones. He also said the families are negotiating an agreement with the county, which would also avoid a lawsuit.

Javier Cazares, the father of one of the victims, Jacklyn Cazares, said it had been an “unbearable two years” since the massacre that took his daughter.

“There was an obvious system failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that,” Cazares said. “The time has come to do the right thing.”

The family's lawsuit will likely need to overcome a judicial doctrine called qualified immunity, which shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from liability in lawsuits. Overcoming that immunity will require establishing that the officers violated a constitutional right.

“We think that this situation where kids, after all, are required to lock down in their classrooms, their freedom is constrained,” Koskoff said. “In this situation we feel like qualified immunity is not applicable.”

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a Democrat who represents Uvalde in the Legislature, filed a bill last year that sought to end qualified immunity. Like several other pieces of legislation filed in response to the massacre, that bill failed to pass.

Koskoff, who has also represented the families of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut, said city officials had also failed to hold their officers accountable but praised the city for working with the families to implement changes aimed at preventing another tragedy like the 2022 shooting.

Hundreds of law enforcement officers from scores of local, state and federal agencies have been heavily criticized for waiting more than an hour to confront the gunman, which conflicted with training that instructs them to confront a shooter if there is reason to believe someone is hurt. The U.S. Justice Department’s investigation of the massacre concluded that the delay likely caused some deaths and that failures in leadership and training contributed to law enforcement’s ineffective response.

Koskoff on Wednesday noted that law enforcement outnumbered the gunman 376 to 1.

"On paper, it should have been no contest. So what happened?" Koskoff said. "Maybe it just turns out that if a kid has a military weapon, the military weapon — the AR-15 — and you get access to it easily, maybe it's not that simple to stop a kid like that. Of course, they didn't give themselves a chance, these 376 officers."

[“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15]

In the settlement with the city of Uvalde that families’ lawyers announced Wednesday, local officials will implement a new “fitness for duty” standard for Uvalde police officers, to be developed in coordination with the Justice Department and provide enhanced training for current and future police officers.

“For two long years, we have languished in pain and without any accountability from the law enforcement agencies and officers who allowed our families to be destroyed that day,” Luevanos said. “This settlement reflects a first good faith effort, particularly by the City of Uvalde, to begin rebuilding trust in the systems that failed to protect us.”

In a written statement, city officials called the 2022 shooting the "community's greatest tragedy."

"We will forever be grateful to the victims’ families for working with us over the past year to cultivate an environment of community-wide healing that honors the lives and memories of those we tragically lost," city officials said."

An investigation by a Texas House committee found “systemic failures and egregious poor decision making” by nearly everyone involved in the response.

That panel’s 77-page report revealed that a total of 376 law enforcement officers descended upon the school in an uncoordinated manner, disregarding their own active shooter training.

The majority of the responders were federal and state law enforcement –– 149 U.S. Border Patrol and 91 state police –– whose responsibilities include responding to “mass attacks in public places.” The other responders included 25 Uvalde police officers, 16 sheriff’s deputies, and five police officers with the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District as well as neighboring county law enforcement, U.S. marshals and federal Drug Enforcement Administration officers.

The myriad of law enforcement mistakes stemmed from an absence of leadership and effective communications, according to the House report. DPS fired at least two officers who responded to the shooting.

A trove of recorded investigative interviews and body camera footage obtained by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and FRONTLINE showed that officers failed to set up a clear command structure and spread incorrect information that caused them to treat the shooter as a barricaded suspect and not an active threat — even as children and teachers inside the classrooms called 911 pleading for help. No single officer engaged the shooter for more than an hour despite training that says they should do so as quickly as possible if anyone is hurt.

Following intense criticism of their response, several law enforcement officers resigned or were fired in the months following the shooting. Arredondo, the school district police chief at the time, was fired in August 2022.

About 72% of the state and local officials who arrived at Robb Elementary before the gunman was killed received some form of active shooter training throughout their law enforcement careers. But of those who received training, most had taken it only once. After the shooting, Texas mandated that officers receive 16 hours of active shooter training every two years.

A Uvalde County grand jury is currently considering potential criminal charges against responding officers. The county’s prosecutor declined to comment this week on the status of those proceedings.

DPS is fighting the release of records from its investigation into the shooting. In the aftermath of the massacre, agency leaders carefully shaped a narrative that cast local law enforcement as incompetent.

Koskoff criticized DPS for deflecting blame away from state police.

“As if they didn’t know how to shoot somebody?” he said.

Pooja Salhotra contributed to this story.


We’ve got big things in store for you at The Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Join us for three days of big, bold conversations about politics, public policy and the day’s news.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/22/uvalde-shooting-texas-dps-lawsuit/.

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

The dystopian glam impact of David Bowie’s “Diamond Dogs” on artists from Lady Gaga to St. Vincent

This May, we’re celebrating the 50th anniversary of David Bowie's classic album "Diamond Dogs." It’s an opportune moment to revisit the enduring legacy and cultural impact of this iconic work from 1974, as it draws on decadent themes of dystopia and gender fluidity that easily resonate in our modern world. Bowie's dark vision of a decaying urban landscape fits right in with contemporary concerns about environmental degradation, social inequality and political unrest. As we reflect on the lasting influence of "Diamond Dogs" half a century later, it becomes evident that Bowie’s last gasp of glam is not simply a relic of the past, but a dynamic influence and enduring lens that continues to shape current culture. Glam today should ultimately be seen as kind of undead, persisting and evolving in unexpected and innovative ways, much like the timeless allure of Bowie himself.

Glam rock, epitomized by extravagant theatrics and provocative themes, found its quintessential expression in this album. Released amid the decline of glam rock's popularity in the mid-1970s, "Diamond Dogs" represented a departure as Bowie ventured into what he called his “plastic soul” era with the "Young Americans" album, drawing from soul, funk and avant-garde experimentation. The waning of glam rock during this period can be attributed to various factors, including its co-option by the mainstream music industry and the emergence of new musical trends like punk rock and disco, which offered contrasting expressions of rebellion and flamboyance.

A theatrical extravagance

Glam today should ultimately be seen as kind of undead, persisting and evolving in unexpected and innovative ways, much like the timeless allure of Bowie himself.

Drawing on the work of English philosopher Simon Critchley, we can analyze “Diamond Dogs” according to three key criteria defining its glam sensibility. The first of these is that glam rock is renowned for its theatricality and extravagant performance style, blurring lines between music, art and theater. Bowie, a master of reinvention, embraced this aspect on “Diamond Dogs,” transforming into the post-apocalyptic prophet Halloween Jack within a dystopian urban landscape, visually encapsulating his commitment to over-the-top performance. Critchley emphasizes Bowie's theatricality as central to his artistic identity in his book "Bowie" (OR Books, 2016). While no music videos were officially released for "Diamond Dogs," Bowie incorporated elements of his Halloween Jack persona into live performances and promotional material, including cover art and promo photos where he appears as a half-man and half-dog hybrid, reinforcing his constant attention to visual storytelling.

Belgian artist Guy Peellaert's cover artwork cemented Jack's place in the pantheon of Bowie's iconic personas. Following Bowie's transformation into the enigmatic half-man, half-dog character crafted for this album and tour, audiences found themselves immersed in a world of urban decay and apocalyptic visions. Inspired by George Orwell's novel "1984" and Bowie's own uncertainty about the direction of his career, Halloween Jack was meant as a symbol of rebellion and survival in the midst of societal collapse. He sported shaved eyebrows and a red mullet haircut just like Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane did. Jack prowled the streets of Hunger City, a fictional dystopian landscape brought to life through Bowie's vivid storytelling. The album's title track introduces Halloween Jack as a "real cool cat" ruling over the diamond dogs, a motley crew navigating the urban wasteland. As the album unfolds, listeners are drawn deeper into Jack's world, confronting themes of societal collapse and moral decay that resonate with contemporary audiences. Through Halloween Jack, Bowie invites us to explore the darker corners of human existence and to confront the harsh realities of a world on the brink of implosion. 

A musician deeply indebted to Bowie's groundbreaking work on "Diamond Dogs" is the flamboyant and genre-defying Lady Gaga. Her outrageous performances, elaborate costumes, and boundary-pushing music videos echo the glam rock era's emphasis on spectacle and extravagance. Tracks like "Bad Romance" exude otherworldly glamour, embodying fearless experimentation akin to Bowie's artistic vision. Gaga explores themes of love, desire and power within a dark and decadent fantasy world with lyrics like, "I want your love and I want your revenge / You and me could write a bad romance," evoking a sense of intrigue and danger. The song's pulsating beat, haunting melody, and operatic vocal delivery create grandeur and theatricality, echoing Bowie's boundary-pushing approach in "Diamond Dogs."

Gaga's admiration for Bowie is evident not only in her music but also in a permanent homage she bears on her skin. In February 2016, she inked Bowie's iconic lightning bolt from the “Aladdin Sane” album cover onto her ribcage before her tribute performance at the Grammy Awards, symbolizing her profound respect for his fearless innovation. Gaga’s mesmerizing medley of Bowie’s songs showcased her own unique spin on his music while honoring his legacy. Bowie held Gaga in similarly high regard, recognizing her instinct for pushing boundaries in music and performance. 

Besides her sound, we all remember the meat dress. Gaga's looks definitely incorporate bold fashion choices and an avant-garde aesthetic that further enhance her otherworldly glamour through the surreal and fantastical, and she is a terrific example of how the first glam rock criteria of defiance then paves the way for the second criteria of a glam lens: gender fluidity and glamorous fashion.

Androgyny and gender fluidity

In "Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music” (University of Michigan Press, 2006), Philip Auslander, a Performance Studies professor, explores how glam rock challenged traditional gender norms. Auslander argues that glam rock's theatrical elements and gender-bending imagery allowed artists like Bowie to blur the lines between performance and identity. By adopting androgynous personas and extravagant costumes, glam rockers destabilized gender binaries and societal expectations. Auslander contends that glam rock's performative nature was not just superficial but a way to explore complex issues of identity and power, as seen in Bowie's gender play and defiance of categorization.

Halloween Jack was meant as a symbol of rebellion and survival in the midst of societal collapse.

Bowie, an icon of gender-bending or gender fluidity, used his own image to critique the boundaries between masculine and feminine aesthetics, inspiring generations of artists to explore their own identities. Critchley discusses Bowie's exploration of gender in "Bowie," noting how his personas allowed him to transcend societal expectations and conventions. On "Diamond Dogs," Bowie uses the androgynous alter ego of Halloween Jack to embody a more fluid gender presentation, clad as he was in extravagant costumes and makeup that defied categorization. The infectious guitar riff and defiant lyrics of “Rebel Rebel” reinforced these visuals, celebrating nonconformity and self-expression in ways that further solidified the album's status as a glam rock landmark.

The opening lines of "Rebel Rebel" immediately set a tone of individuality and defiance: "You've got your mother in a whirl / She's not sure if you're a boy or a girl.” These lyrics challenge traditional gender norms and expectations, embracing ambiguity and fluidity as symbols of liberation and self-expression. Bowie's playful exploration of identity and gender reflects the androgynous aesthetic that was central to glam rock as a cultural movement. As the song progresses, Bowie's lyrics continue to exude this sense of rebellion, encouraging listeners to embrace their uniqueness and reject societal norms: "Hot tramp, I love you so!" This celebrates individuality and self-confidence, rejecting faked conformity in favor of authentic self-expression. By embracing the "hot tramp" persona, Bowie invited listeners to revel in their own eccentricities and lean into the freedom to be whoever they wanted to be.

This freedom goes well beyond the realm of music on stage to the red carpet and other runways. "Diamond Dogs" has an influence that can be seen perhaps most evidently in contemporary fashion and visual culture. Designers like Marc Jacobs and Alexander McQueen draw inspiration from Bowie's avant-garde style, incorporating elements of glam rock into their collections. Jacobs paid homage to Bowie in his Fall/Winter 2016 collection with metallic fabrics and bold patterns, collaborating with Bowie's estate for limited-edition T-shirts featuring iconic images. Similarly, McQueen's Spring/Summer 2010 collection, "Plato's Atlantis," evoked Bowie personas through futuristic designs with geometric shapes and theatrical proportions. Alessandro Michele of Gucci, Vivienne Westwood, and Hedi Slimane of Saint Laurent also find inspiration in Bowie's aesthetic, infusing their collections with bold patterns and exaggerated silhouettes reminiscent of Bowie's iconic looks. Westwood and Slimane especially tend to embrace a disheveled black and red pirate look that echoes Halloween Jack, further contributing to a broader cultural shift towards greater acceptance and visibility for non-normative gender expressions.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CgPZtaRO1ps/?img_index=9

These examples demonstrate how Bowie's influence extends beyond the realm of music, shaping contemporary fashion and visual culture. His impact on the world of fashion remains profound, serving as a constant source of inspiration for designers seeking to innovate and challenge conventions. Auslander's book highlights the cultural significance of glam rock, especially its impact on LGBTQ+ communities and its role in shaping broader conversations about gender and sexuality. He argues that Bowie’s glam looks conveyed hope through platforms for marginalized voices, contributing to a cultural shift towards greater acceptance and visibility of non-normative gender expressions.

Embracing dystopia

This brings us to the third criteria of the glam rock lens, which requires themes that provoke or subvert normativity, especially by portraying its dark underbelly. "Diamond Dogs" offers a dark and dystopian vision of a post-apocalyptic world rife with decay and decadence. Critchley highlights Bowie's willingness to delve into existential dread and societal decay. Songs like "We Are the Dead" and "Sweet Thing" reflect Bowie's fascination with dystopian imagery, painting a vividly dark picture of a failed society on the brink of implosion.

In "We Are the Dead," Bowie's lyrics evoke despair and resignation. The lines "For we’re breaking in the new boys, deceive your next of kin / For you’re dancing where the dogs decay, defecating ecstasy / You’re just an ally of the leecher," reflect a feeling of detachment and disillusionment as individuals seek solace in the bizarre escapism of doing unto the next generation those indoctrinations that left their world in turmoil in the first place. His haunting refrain of “we are the dead” underscores the pervasive sense of despair and disillusionment that permeates the album, serving as a stark reminder of the consequences of societal decay. Similarly, "Sweet Thing" offers a haunting portrayal of societal collapse and moral decay, with Bowie crooning about longing and desperation as young people grapple with the chaos and uncertainty of the world around them: "Cause hope, boys / Is a cheap thing, cheap thing // Is it nice in your snowstorm."

One striking example of the enduring legacy of the darkness of "Diamond Dogs" is found in the eclectic and boundary-pushing music of St. Vincent, also known as Annie Clark, who channels the spirit of Bowie's post-apocalyptic prophet, Halloween Jack. Like Bowie and Gaga, St. Vincent blurs the boundaries between art and music, creating a multi-dimensional and gender-fluid experience that transcends traditional classifications. But it’s the oddity and decay present in songs like "Digital Witness" and "Birth in Reverse" that most truly showcase her penchant for experimental sounds and provocative themes that provide a haunting echo of "Diamond Dogs."

St. Vincent openly acknowledges David Bowie as a profound influence on her music and artistic identity.

In "Digital Witness," St. Vincent critiques modern society's obsession with technology and surveillance culture. The lyrics "People turn the TV on / It looks just like a window" highlight the pervasive influence of media and technology on our lives, while the repeated refrain "Digital witness, what's the point of even sleeping?" questions the constant surveillance and scrutiny that individuals face in the digital age. Musically, the song features a blend of electronic beats, angular guitar riffs, and catchy melodies, creating a sound that is both futuristic and unsettling. Similarly, "Birth in Reverse" explores themes of existential dread and societal decay. The lyrics "Oh what an ordinary day / Take out the garbage, masturbate" juxtapose mundane daily routines with existential angst, capturing the sense of disillusionment and ennui that pervades modern life. Musically, the song features a driving bassline, jagged guitar riffs and dissonant synths, creating a sense of tension and unease. St. Vincent's vocal delivery conveys a sense of urgency and desperation that mirrors the dystopian imagery of "Diamond Dogs."

St. Vincent openly acknowledges David Bowie as a profound influence on her music and artistic identity. She attributes much of her eclectic blend of genres to Bowie's fearless experimentation and continual reinvention throughout his career. Clark has often spoken of Bowie's transformative impact on her as a young artist, describing his ability to expand creative horizons and inspire her to push the boundaries of her own artistry. While there might not be direct documented interactions between the two, Bowie's legacy looms large in St. Vincent's work, evident in her willingness to defy expectations and challenge industry norms. Bowie, known for his appreciation of emerging talent, would surely have admired St. Vincent's boundary-pushing approach to music and performance. Their connection as kindred spirits in the realm of artistic innovation and reinvention is palpable, with St. Vincent emerging as a fitting inheritor of Bowie's legacy, carrying forward his spirit of creativity and fearless expression of challenging times.


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


Bowie's "Diamond Dogs" doesn't just confront us with uncomfortable truths – it plunges us into a world teetering on the brink of collapse, where societal norms crumble beneath the weight of decay and decadence. In an era marked by environmental degradation, political unrest and social inequality, Bowie's album becomes more than just a commentary. It's a visceral experience that forces us to confront the complexities of our modern world. As we navigate our present-day uncertainties, Bowie's call to embrace theatricality and gender fluidity takes on a new urgency, drawing us into a world where darkness and danger really do lurk around every corner. The album ensures that Bowie's spirit lives on, casting a long shadow over contemporary music and culture, beckoning us to embrace the power and the darkness of glam. In the reflection of Bowie's impact, there's the obvious lingering question: What uncharted realms will tomorrow's creatives traverse, fueled by the primal energy of "Diamond Dogs"?

 

The death of the fast-food dining room

Bob Wright, the chief executive officer of the Chicago-based sandwich chain Potbelly, said in a May earnings call that customers are “managing their wallets” a little more closely, which means eating out less frequently. “They’re pulling back ever so slightly and probably from a lot of places,” Wright said. “We’re competing with all other restaurants, and we’re competing with the refrigerator."

He continued: “And when people’s entire food budget is under pressure, what they don’t want to do is start compromising on their meal choices.”

As a response to this increasingly competitive environment — where fast-casual, sit-down and drive-thru restaurants are all feeling the pressure — we’re starting to see fast-food companies attempt to woo wayward customers in a variety of ways. 

Some, like Subway, have tried to communicate to potential diners that the quality of their product has improved; last year, the chain began the process of adding deli slicers to each of their locations so that sandwiches would be made with freshly-sliced meat (this didn’t necessarily have the fiscal impact Subway leaders likely hoped it would, which may explain their more recent pivot to footlong cookies, which one critic said tasted like a “moist, floppy sleeping bag of flour and oil”). Other companies have opted to reintroduce value meals and special promotions as chains like Chili’s and Applebee’s are attempting to lure diners with cheaper options. 

However, while fast-food chains are eager to get more customers, it doesn’t seem like there is a ton of industry-wide focus on getting those customers to actually come inside their restaurants. For instance, a few months ago, McDonald’s announced it would start getting rid of self-serve drink stations, and as a result, free refills —and now some customers have started noticing the in-store perk is indeed disappearing from locations across the country. 

In response, some McDonald’s diehards have taken to social media to express their discontent. "Fast-food is ending right in front of our eyes," one user on X wrote in response to the decision. Yet if the fast-food dining room is dying, customer behavior is at least partially to blame. 

The issue of self-service soda machines, which were first introduced by McDonald’s in 2004, is a perfect example of how diners’ habits have changed at restaurants since the beginning of the pandemic. 

In 2023, several franchise owners in Illinois who had already ditched the soda stations said food safety, theft prevention and a lack of dine-in customers impacted the decision. "It's an evolution towards convenience and [the result of] the growth of digital service," Mikel Petro, who operates 15 McDonald's throughout central Illinois with his wife and in-laws, told the State Journal-Register

Consumer behavior changed during the pandemic — resulting in an increase in digital, delivery and drive-thru orders — and, per CNN, McDonald's is shifting to accommodate that new reality. The chain has also since launched a concept called  "CosMc's," small-format locations with reduced dining rooms. According to McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski, that development "opens up for us a whole bunch of development opportunities for us to go after."

We need your help to stay independent

McDonald’s isn’t the only fast-food company to consider ditching, or simply adapting, their dining rooms as a response to the significant decrease in customer food traffic. As Salon Food reported last year, a ton of chains, including Taco Bell and Wendy’s, have undergone sleek, eerily homogenous renovations that seem to prioritize efficiency over the semblance of human touch. 

"To accelerate our business and expand our footprint across the globe, we must consistently meet the needs of our customers however they choose to engage with Wendy's, whether that's through a digital platform or in the drive-thru," Wendy's CEO Todd Penegor said in a press release last year after it was announced the company was planning a massive redesign of their restaurants. 

In the case of McDonald’s, the company has been working towards a digital-focused dining room for some time now. In 2018, the company announced a $6 billion plan to overhaul most of its 14,000 U.S. restaurants by 2020. The makeover included new furniture and decor, remodeled counters for table service and "refreshed" exterior designs. 

The fast-food chain also shared plans to install digital kiosks for ordering, customizing and paying for meals, as well as easier-to-read digital menu boards in restaurants and drive-through lanes. Additionally, they planned designated parking spots for customers who order food through the chain's mobile app. Now, six years later, diners across the country who visit a McDonald’s location will likely notice these augmentations. 

Partnered with the fast-food industry’s growing prioritization of app users — as of February 2024, McDonald's has more than 150 million app users who have logged in within the last 90 days — it makes sense that some of the dining-in amenities, like self-serve refills, would fall by the wayside. For those who still prefer the dining room experience, signs on McDonald’s soda stations are instructing customers to “please visit the front counter for a refill.” 

Amid ongoing legal troubles, Rudy Giuliani launches eponymous coffee brand

It looks like Rudy Giuliani is attempting to add “coffee connoisseur” to his résumé.

The former New York City mayor announced the launch of his new coffee brand, Rudy Coffee, on Sunday. In it, Giuliani touted three specific varieties of coffee — Rudy Bold Coffee, Rudy Decaf Coffee and Rudy Morning Coffee — which come packaged in individual, two-pound bags adorned with Giuliani’s face. Each bag also features its own slogan, including “fighting for justice,” “enjoying life” and “America’s mayor.” 

In the ad., Giuliani also notes that when purchasing Rudy Coffee, "you'll also be supporting the Call 2 Action nonprofit, which is devoted to helping veterans and first responders, so you can make a difference and taste the difference." 

Per Giuliani, his self-described “fresh roasted specialty coffee” is made with organic Arabica beans and range from medium to dark roast. Each bag is available for $30 on the brand’s official website.

“I've moved at a fast pace, and have had many different roles in life, but the one constant thing has been a good cup of coffee, which is now proven to have health benefits,” Giuliani wrote in a message posted on the website. “Please enjoy my delicious fresh roasted specialty coffee. It's quality you can trust.”

Giuliani hailed his coffee as “smooth, rich, chocolatey, and gentle on your stomach,” adding, “It’s so good, I even recommend drinking it black!”

This comes only a few days after Giuliani was arraigned in Arizona on charges of attempting to overturn Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential election loss. On Tuesday, Giuliani pleaded not guilty in an Arizona court. He was also ordered to post a secured appearance bond of $10,000 and appear in the state within the next 30 days for booking procedures, AP News reported.

“By supporting Rudy Coffee, you’re not just treating yourself to exceptional coffee, you’re also supporting our cause,” Giuliani urged his supporters in the ad. “The cause of truth, justice, and American democracy.”

Louisiana Republicans declare abortion pills a “dangerous substance,” threaten prison and hard labor

Republicans in the Louisiana state house passed a bill Tuesday that would designate the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol as a "controlled dangerous substance" and punish people holding these pills if they do not hold a prescription, The New York Times reported. According to the bill, violators "shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than one year nor more than five years," in addition to fines.

Under the proposed law, someone who is themselves pregnant would be exempt from imprisonment and fines, but anyone who helps them obtain abortion pills would be at risk of prosecution. For non-pregnant individuals who are taking precautions, or volunteers who provide pills to under-served communities, the bill represents an escalation from punishing people for actual abortions to targeting those who are merely preparing for the possibility.

Lower-income women are expected to be hit hardest, as they have more difficulty accessing hospitals to provide necessary care. And doctors, noting that misoprostol is often used to treat miscarriages, induce labor and stop obstetric hemorrhaging, fear that  in a state with one of the country's highest maternal mortality rates  the legislation could put lives at risk by sowing confusion and prolonging the delivery process during medical emergencies.

"Imagine being in labor, and your O.B. says, ‘Oh, you need misoprostol to ripen your cervix so we can progress labor safely,’ and that woman thinks, Wait, why is she giving me the dangerous drug?” Dr. Jennifer Avegno told the Times, warning that the law could mislead people into thinking that abortion pills will poison them.

The GOP bill, which is backed by anti-abortion groups like Louisiana Right to Life, defies decades of medical research and patient data that has found the two pills to be overwhelmingly safe. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not consider abortion pills to be drugs with the potential for dependence or abuse, Republican lawmakers and judges have used that excuse to undermine access.

Last April, Trump-appointed federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suspended FDA approval of mifepristone, which is used in more than half of U.S. abortions and was first approved for use more than 20 years ago. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Louisiana bill, which passed the House 66-30, goes to the Republican-controlled Senate next. If it passes there, Republican governor and anti-choice stalwart Jeff Landry is widely expected to sign it into law.

Democrat ruled “out of order” for discussing Trump’s alleged crimes in Congress: “This is a cult”

A Democratic lawmaker had his comments on the House floor struck from the record after he used his time to detail Donald Trump's troubles with the law on Wednesday, per NBC News.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., used his floor time to criticize the House's Republican majority for shutting down honest discussion of Trump's criminal cases and distracting people "from the fact that their candidate for president has been indicted more times than he's been elected." But he was ruled out of order by the presiding officer, Rep. Jerry Carl, R-Ala., for then actually listing all of Trump's legal entanglements.

The back-and-forth between McGovern and Republican House members grinded proceedings to a halt for about an hour. Carl told McGovern to “refrain from engaging in personalities," to which the Democrat responded by asking where it was "unparliamentary to state a fact." McGovern also pointed out that GOP members who had called Trump's Manhattan trial a sham and accused the judge of bias were allowed to speak unabated. Carl declined to weigh in. "In this Republican-controlled House, it’s okay to talk about the trial, but you have to call it a 'sham,'" McGovern complained.

Rep. Eric Houchin, R-Ind., then entered the fray, asking that McGovern's words be stricken from the record, a request that members can make if they feel that a colleague has used disorderly language. As they fired broadsides, staff members scrambled to figure out how to proceed correctly. Eventually, Carl ruled McGovern's words out of order, citing rules that prohibited members from using "personally offensive" language about the president.

"The accusation that the president has committed a crime or even that the president has done something illegal is not in order," Carl said. Even though Trump is no longer in office, Carl said that precedents have expanded this rule to include former presidents as well.

McGovern was not allowed to speak on the House floor for the rest of the day, so the congressman took his speech to the reporters outside.

“This is a cult,” McGovern said, referring to the Republican Party. “I mean, they go to extreme measures to protect Trump, you know. And any which way they can. And they’re awfully sensitive.”

Israel threatens “severe consequences” after 3 European nations recognize Palestinian state

Israel's foreign minister issued a blunt threat of "severe consequences" for the countries of Norway, Ireland, and Spain—and presumably other nations that may follow—after the trio announced their decision Wednesday to formally recognize a Palestinian state.

In their joint move, inspired in large measure by the ongoing Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, the governments of Norway, Ireland, and Spain said they would make the formal recognition next week on May 28. In response, Israel recalled its ambassadors from Oslo and Dublin as an initial sign of displeasure and protest.

Israel's foreign minister Israel Katz said in a public statement that the move to recognize Palestine was a "distorted step" by the countries which he claimed was "an injustice to the memory of the victims of 7/10, a blow to efforts to return the 128 hostages, and a boost to Hamas and Iran's jihadists, which undermines the chance for peace and questions Israel's right to self-defense."

Katz warned that "Israel will not remain silent" in the face of what it perceives as a betrayal by its European allies and that "further severe consequences" would follow for those making such a decision. Israel recalled its ambassador to Spain last year after comments made about violations of humanitarian law in Gaza.

Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also condemned the move Wednesday and said the response from Israel would be to intensify its operations in Gaza—where the ICC chief prosecutor this week alleged war crimes by Israeli forces have taken place—even further. In his remarks, Ben-Gvir called for a "root treatment" for the city of Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of civilians have fled but many still remain with nowhere go.

Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, called for immediate punishment for the Palestinian Authority and expanded settlement construction in the Occupied West Bank as a response.

In their remarks, leaders from Norway and Ireland defended recognition of a Palestinian state as the appropriate response to the violent conflict that has endured for decades but has escalated dramatically—and brutally—over the last seven months, both in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank.

"In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured, we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike," said Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, as he led the three nations in their announcement.

In place of a "long and gruesome conflict," Støre said a new reality must be realized: "Two states, living side by side, in peace and security."

Taoiseach Simon Harris, head of the Irish Parliament—who made the announcement on behalf of Ireland alongside Tánaiste Micheál Martin and Green Party Minister Eamon Ryan—called the decision the "right thing to do" as he condemned Hamas, which he said has "nothing to offer," while also reiterating unwavering commitment for "Israel's right to exist securely and in peace with its neighbors."

The decision by Ireland, Harris said, was made in the context of its own fight for independence and freedom from colonial rule. Citing Ireland's own declaration for independence in 1919, Harris said recognition for a Palestinian state is vital "because we 'believe in freedom and justice as the fundamental principles of international law,' and because we believe that 'permanent peace' can only be secured 'upon the basis of the free will of a free people.'"

In response to Ireland's announcement, Social Democrats leader Holly Cairns applauded the government's decision.

"The Social Democrats have long called for the government to match its strong words, on the carnage in Gaza, with action—and this is a powerful action which sends a strong message," Cairns said. "That message is one of hope, peace, justice and freedom— for an imprisoned Palestinian people being massacred by a barbaric occupier."

Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez spoke before members of Congress in Madrid on Wednesday where he denounced "the massacre in Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian territories," and defended the move to recognize a Palestinian state as necessary under the circumstances and in the face of Israel intransigence.

"Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu is still turning a blind eye and bombing hospitals, schools, andhomes," Sánchez declared. "He is still using hunger, cold and terror to punish more than a million innocent boys and girls—and things have gone so far that prosecutors at the International Criminal Court have this week sought his arrest for war crimes."

Reacting to Wednesday's announcements by Ireland, Norway, and Spain, officials with Oxfam International—which has long lobbied for a Palestinian state and urgently demanded a cease-fire in Gaza to end the current bloodshed—welcomed the news.

"This recognition is a landmark decision and other countries must follow suit," said Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. "It is a crucial step in affirming the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination, but it must transcend beyond symbolism into concrete steps towards ending the Israeli occupation and achieving full sovereignty for the Palestinian State."

While the ongoing assault on the southern city of Rafah has triggered a mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of people with no safe place to go in Gaza, Khalil said, "We urgently need an immediate and permanent ceasefire and an end to the blockade to end the death and destruction, to allow unfettered aid into Gaza and to ensure the release of the hostages and illegally detained Palestinian prisoners."

Jim Clarken, Oxfam's chief executive, also championed the decision by the three European nations for showing "real and brave leadership on the world stage."

"We know right now that the people of Gaza are starving and that UN agencies have regrettably had to halt aid operations in Rafah," Clarken said, "Ireland stood by UNRWA in its hour of need. We need now to leverage today’s move to press for urgent life-saving aid to get to the people of Gaza."

“No blaming it on his spouse”: Critics say seditious Alito flags expose his “Christian nationalism”

When Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was caught raising an upside down American flag outside his Virginia home, the conservative jurist found a woman to blame: his wife. It was she who decided to wave the chosen banner of election deniers in the wake of the January 6 insurrection, he said, after she became righteously furious at an allegedly profane display of anti-Trump sentiment in her neighborhood. Alito, innocent, just happened to live there — with no input on the seditious décor.

Everything about this is normal, okay?

It took just over a week for The New York Times to find out there was another flag, at another home, also associated with the fringes of the American right. This one, known as the “Appeal to Heaven” flag for the words printed on it, above a depiction of a pine tree, was displayed outside Alito’s beach house in New Jersey during the summer of 2023.

This time Alito did not blame his wife; per the Times, he had nothing to say at all.

The same banner flies outside the home of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., an open believer in using the government to impose his form of right-wing Christianity. As Rolling Stone reported, the “Appeal to Heaven” flag has its roots in the Revolutionary War, but in recent years “it has come to symbolize a die-hard vision of hegemonically Christian America” — that is, a society where laws are written based on narrow-minded interpretations of the Bible under the belief that one religion, and one particular, Americanized interpretation of that religion, should enjoy government-sanctioned supremacy over all others.

It also means a country where Donald Trump rules without regard to certified election results: the flag of Christian nationalism was flown, literally, by the same extremists who stormed the U.S. Capitol in 2021.

“There is an apparent pattern of Justice Alito publicly displaying symbols featured in the January 6th attack on the Capitol and associated with Donald Trump’s false claim of having won the 2020 election,” Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. “Flying a flag carried at the insurrection in the days immediately following the insurrection is tremendously alarming. Doing so again, years later and on multiple occasions, as even more high stakes insurrection-related cases came before the Court, simply cannot be explained away.”

Alito, former President George W. Bush’s backup choice for the Supreme Court, has not fooled anyone before: that he is a right-wing ideologue, eager to overturn precedent on abortion and the separation of church and state, has been ably demonstrated since his confirmation in 2006. That he has ethical issues has also been reported before.

We need your help to stay independent

Last year, ProPublica revealed that the justice went on an undisclosed trip to a “luxury fishing lodge," flying on the private jet of hedge fund manager Paul Singer (Alito tried to preemptively rebut the story with a highly unusual commentary in the Wall Street Journal, claiming ignorance of the fact Singer had business before his court).

The right-wing defense of Alito today is based on a mix of studied ignorance and attacks on Democrats for being mean about the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. Kim Strassel, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal, spun the upside-down flag as having less to do with January 6 than with hurt feelings — with “this broader attack on the court and the hatred that’s been directed at the justices.” In this telling, it’s fine to signal one’s support for insurrection as a form of venting, even if you (or your spouse) are supposed to avoid any hint of partisan bias.

The other line, when no spouse or mean neighbors can be blamed, is to profess an ignorance of symbolism – to pretend there’s no modern context for the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, in particular, that might suggest a political leaning. Who knows? The right-wing justice could be waving a flag adopted by the far right because he’s an historical aficionado, one unbothered by message sent by waving it a couple centuries later.

But that would just be partisan spin from a political faction that has given up caring about appearances.

“[T]his is a huge deal,” argued Andrew L. Seidel, an attorney and author of a book dismantling the myth of an avowedly Christian founding of the U.S. government. “The Appeal to Heaven flag was all over the insurrection and comes out of explicitly Christian nationalist spaces,” he wrote on social media. “Sam Alito is professing his Christian nationalism.”


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


According to the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should not just avoid impropriety but the “appearance” of it; they should conduct their personal life in such a way as to “minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office”; and they should avoid all “political or campaign activity” inconsistent with their official responsibilities.

Alito, in other words, is entitled to privately support Trump, the January 6 insurrection and Christian nationalism, but he is not a normal private citizen. Although not bound by the ABA’s code, the principles upon which it is based should be uncontroversial: Alito holds public office and thus must uphold a higher standard of personal conduct, avoiding speech that would fatally undermine his claim of impartiality.

“[W]hen you’re a Supreme Court justice, you’re supposed to avoid giving off even a whiff of partisan bias,” former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance noted on her website. “Or religious favoritism. As a judge, and certainly, as a Supreme Court justice, you have that duty. Justice Alito flunks the test and flunks it badly.”

If nothing else, Alito has provided liberal critics grist and damaged the credibility of the decisions his right-wing supporters would like him to write going forward (the Supreme Court is expected to rule shortly on whether Trump and other former presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution). But now even institutionalists, who have been hesitant to damage what they see as the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, are arguing something must now be done.

For the good of our country and the court, Justice Alito must recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. Durbin also called on Chief Justice John Roberts to “immediately enact an enforceable code of conduct,” arguing that Alito’s flag waving “will further erode public faith” in the country’s highest court.

Richard Hasen, a legal expert who heads the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said Alito’s second display of support for insurrection was the final straw for him.

“I was uncertain if the initial revelation of the first flag merited Justice Alito’s recusal in the first case, but I now believe he must recuse in the Trump immunity and related cases,” he wrote on his website. “There’s no blaming it on his spouse this time in any credible way.”

Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done should Alito again reject personal responsibility and should Chief Justice Roberts again refuse to enforce a code of ethics. Impeachment short of a Democratic super-majority is also a pipe dream, not a plan of action. In the spring of 2024, all Alito’s critics can really do is pray that the winner of the next presidential election, who may well pick his successor, isn’t the same man who tried to overturn the last one.

Former Trump lawyer blasts Aileen Cannon’s “incompetence” and “bias,” says trial should have begun

Judge Aileen Cannon declined to rule on a motion filed by Trump's lawyers on Wednesday to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith's indictment of the former president on the grounds that it had technical flaws, once again pushing back an already long-delayed trial. CNN reports that while Cannon appeared unconvinced by their argument, she raised concerns that the jury might not understand the nuances of the case. 

Cannon's stalling provoked criticism from former Trump White House lawyer turned Trump critic Ty Cobb, who criticized her "incompetence" and "perceived bias" and suggested that most jurors won't "have the difficulty that she perceives."

"I don’t think this case will move at all,” Cobb told CNN's Erin Burnett. “And I think the fact that she’s scheduling hearings, multiple hearings, sort of one or two motions at a time is compelling evidence of that. Most federal judges would have long ago ruled on all the pending motions. And frankly, this is a case that should’ve started trial yesterday or two days ago when the original trial date was set."

Cobb has been a prominent critic of Cannon, a Trump appointee, since proceedings began last June. Earlier this month, he said that she was "not capable of ruling intelligently" after Cannon indefinitely postponed the case on the grounds that there were too many pretrial matters to be resolved. Last month, he suggested that Cannon's "partiality" would get her removed from the case.

In March, when Cannon requested proposed jury instructions based on Trump's widely-rejected interpretation of the Presidential Records Act that government material was his personal property, Cobb criticized her "remarkable misunderstanding of the applicable law" and said her handling of the case was "embarrassing."

Before the motion filed on Wednesday, there were already five other motions by Trump's lawyers to dismiss the case that Cannon has not yet ruled on. Unless Cannon decides to pick up momentum, the trial is unlikely to take place before the 2024 election. Former President Donald Trump, who has lashed out repeatedly against the prosecutors and their case, could have the case thrown out if he returns to the White House.

Behind Trump’s courthouse spectacle a dark reality remains concealed

Years ago, while covering the trial of a leader of the “Texas Syndicate,” a criminal organization with roots in the Lone Star State, I noticed half a dozen spectators who showed up every day. They dressed the same as the man on trial. They had the same tattoos, the same hairstyles and the same attitude. I took a chance and spoke with them one day and found they were members of the gang who showed up to pay their respects. They were cordial enough to me as I offered no immediate threat. But I was curious and asked them if they weren’t concerned they would be identified and targeted by law enforcement for showing up every day. One of them just laughed. “They know who we are,” he explained. “We dress this way to show our power and our respect.”

Seeing House Speaker Mike Johnson, Congressman Matt Gaetz and fish oil salesman Sebastian Gorka show up at the Trump felony trial in Manhattan recently reminded me a lot of that Texas trial from so long ago. In Trump’s case, he is surrounded by a small number of rabid supporters of a criminal cause who need the safety of numbers because they cannot stand alone. They have all the individual courage of the cowards they truly are. Or they remind me of the characters in “Freaks." You know, “One of us. One of us.”

The members of the Texas Syndicate, for the record, showed more individual courage and respect to reporters and other spectators (with the exception of the police) than Trump’s MAGA sycophants.

The Trump team is great at garnering attention for their antics as well as Trump’s. Reporters are quick to jump on every outlandish statement or action. During Trump’s trial, we’ve seen, heard or read about a wide variety of wild behavior ranging from inappropriate flatulence to extended napping. When the Trump team recently published a social media video encouraging a “unified Reich,” it created a storm of protest from people who wanted to compare Trump to Adolph Hitler. 

President Biden himself chimed in with that comparison at a campaign event Tuesday in Boston. “’A unified Reich.’ That’s not the language of an American president. That’s not the language of any American. That’s the language of Hitler’s Germany.” As Biden’s re-election team noted, all three network evening news broadcasts and all three network late night shows covered the “unified Reich” announcement.

The spectacle certainly drew a lot of attention and the Truth Social post from Trump that sparked the controversy stayed up for 18 hours before being removed. The Trump team blamed a staffer for a mistake. But, mistake or not, it does speak to Trump’s aspirations if he’s re-elected. Few have spoken, specifically, what those aspirations are and many are content to say what Steve Colbert said Tuesday night, “MAGA now stands for Make American Germany Around 1938.”

Those who support Trump do not care, and in fact are proud of the statement. Most of America, dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal recoil at the statement, but little realize the true horror that statement and Trump’s actions represent.

We are caught like cats pawing at baubles while missing the true depravity of another Trump presidency. What is behind the spectacle is of greater concern. Do not take from me. Do not take it from the Democrats. Take it from no one else but the Republicans themselves and take it to the bank from The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025.

Project 2025 can be found online. It is a comprehensive and practical guide of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the federal government should the Republicans seize power after the 2024 election. Philosophically it is alarming. It interprets the Declaration of Independence’s “pursuit of happiness” as “pursuit of blessedness,” and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts writes that a good life is found above all in “religious devotion and spirituality.” 

We are caught like cats pawing at baubles while missing the true depravity of another Trump presidency. What is behind the spectacle is of greater concern. 

Of course, that means Christian devotion and spirituality, not anyone else’s religion or fervor.

It is the Christian Nationalist’s guide to government, with a few other headaches inserted as well. Should Trump win the 2024 election the project wants to replace federal civil servants with patronage jobs – people who owe their allegiance to the Republican MAGA party. The U.S. government established a merit-based system of selecting government officials and supervising their work with the 1883 Pendleton Act. That act was established following the assassination of President James A. Garfield by a disgruntled job seeker. President Chester A. Arthur, a Republican, signed it into law.

We need your help to stay independent

The Heritage Foundation wants to destroy merit-based employment, saying that doing so would eliminate the “Deep State." It ignores history and the very roots of the Republican Party – and instead would help bring about a monarchy – with employees who owe everything to the President and his party. It doesn’t want to eliminate a Deep State – it only wishes to own it. 

That’s okay because Project 2025 also envisions a president with absolute power who will slash funding to the Department of Justice, dismantle the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security and sharply reduce climate change regulations, eliminate the Department of Commerce, destroy the independence of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. The Project recommends abolishing the Department of Education and would only fund federal scientific research if it suits “conservative principles.”

The Project’s goals would destroy LGBTQ rights, according to President Joe Biden, “taking America back decades,” and would encourage racial discrimination by hindering minorities' ability to “purchase homes and raise families where they choose.”

Biden’s 2024 spokesperson James Singer released the following statement this week, “Trump and his allies’ dreams of making him a dictator on ‘day one’ are an assault on our democracy and Constitution. Trump has been clear, he will attempt to punish those who stand against him, condone and even encourage violence done on his behalf, and put his own revenge and retribution ahead of what is best for America.”

Destroying the FCC would help Trump institute state-owned media and destroy criticism of the government. Defunding the DOJ and other government agencies would also make scrutiny of the government much more difficult. It is next to impossible to get the government to respond to Freedom of Information Requests now. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Trump guts the federal government instead of fully funding FOIA offices. We would rarely, if ever, know what the Federal government had in mind until it came knocking on your door and dragging you out to be thrown in a prison and forgotten.

Donald Trump’s attempts to catch your attention with his narcissistic and juvenile behavior therefore mask dark deeds and desires. It isn’t enough to say Trump would burn it all to the ground, which he would, it is also imperative that we in the media show the voters exactly how he would do it. We have done a horrible job informing people of that. 

We cover the scatological, the prurient and the juvenile at the expense of explaining to people why Trump is so dangerous, and in doing so, we add to the risk of Trump’s return to office. I am no partisan. The Biden administration feels almost the same about me as the Trump administration, but it is clear: Trump cannot return as president or we’re done. 


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


That said, large, sweeping general statements can no longer suffice. The electorate remains numb to those. And it is counterproductive to play with the shiny baubles Trump dangles in front of us.

Look at the specifics. Pay attention. Should Trump be re-elected, Project 2025 recommends that the future president immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and directs the DOJ (or what’s left of it after it is gutted) to arrest adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."

While Project 2025 doesn’t promote a specific candidate, many of those involved are acolytes and fans of Trump’s – and no doubt have a dark blue suit, a white shirt and a red tie in their closets at home. Those suits are as ubiquitous among MAGA members as leather and chains in certain biker gangs and bed sheets among KKK members.

The project also wants to outlaw pornography – good luck defining that much less outlawing it. It wishes to abolish the Pentagon’s diversity, equity and inclusion program and wishes a loyalty test to be used as a determining factor in hiring new government employees or firing existing employees.

I remain loyal to the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Those loyal to Trump in many cases knowingly flaunt their disrespect for both – while others merely remain unaware of Trump’s danger.

We have just a few precious months left to educate those people.

“Confirms my worst fears”: Republican farm bill would slash SNAP benefits, gut animal welfare laws

House Republicans are trying to pass a $1.5 trillion farm bill that critics across the political spectrum say will squeeze farmers, weaken protections against pesticides and other potential toxins, and cut food stamps, putting poorer Americans at risk of going hungry.

The bill the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, which will be debated in committee starting Thursday seeks to accomplish its objectives not only by hamstringing the federal government, but by curbing the power of states and rural communities to set their own policies and standards, including on the welfare of animals.

Meanwhile, the country's largest and wealthiest producers stand to benefit from the bill's allocation of massive subsidies and the removal of regulations. Industry groups representing them have praised the bill, pitting them against a long list of advocacy and farmer organizations who argue that must-pass farm legislation should not be skewed in favor of big agribusiness.

"America's farmers and consumers need forward-looking policies that build a sustainable, resilient, and fair food system," said Food & Water Watch policy analyst Rebecca Wolf. "Instead, House leadership seems poised to take us backwards, trading state-level gains for a few more bucks in the pockets of corporate donors. Congress must move beyond partisan bickering, and get to work on a Farm Bill that cuts handouts to Big Ag and factory farms."

House Agriculture Committee chair Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., claimed that the bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies." But David Scott, D-Ga., the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."

A farm bill is a legislative package that governs an array of agricultural and food issues and typically lasts five years before needing reauthorization by Congress. The 2018 bill would have expired in September 2023, along with many of the programs it funded, if Congress did not pass a one-year extension. Now, lawmakers are racing to pass a new farm bill before the new deadline, with Senate Democrats releasing their their own version earlier this month. But a ticking clock is not enough to bring Democrats around to the House GOP proposal, which they say crosses several red lines by stripping funding from key initiatives.

One of those red lines is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps feed low-income Americans. The Republican farm bill would slash nearly $30 billion from SNAP benefits over the next decade, limit future adjustments outside of inflation and outsource eligibility decisions to private corporations, even as the federal program already struggles to prevent 41 million people from starving with the money that it has.

We need your help to stay independent

While the bill does make some modest improvements like expanding access to senior nutrition improvements and removing a lifetime ban on Americans with previous felony drug convictions from receiving benefits, critics say that those only add up to about half of what Republicans aim to cut.

"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years under this proposal, the Congressional Budget Office projects, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of individuals and families with low incomes," said Ty Jones Cox, Vice President for Food Assistance at the Center on Budget and Food Priorities.

Democrats are also balking at the bill's proposal to remove climate-friendly rules around the use of $14 billion in conservation funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, which they say is necessary to cut pollution and protect rural communities from environmental damage, such as that caused by toxic pesticides. Republicans, on the other hand, say that conservation policy should be left in the hands of state and local governments, even though such efforts (or lack thereof) can be wildly inconsistent. To accomplish their purpose, House Republicans inserted into the farm bill many provisions from earlier legislation that failed in the House amid opposition from over 150 organizations and farmer groups.

The threat to dismantle federal and state-issued standards through inserting provisions from the EATS Act puts existing animal welfare protections at risk, including those meant to shield dogs from puppy mills and prevent mistreatment of farm animals. Animal rights groups accused Republicans of sacrificing those protections to satisfy the demands of powerful interest groups. "Thompson’s efforts to tip the scales for the pork industry’s laggard faction are especially perplexing because he’s been hearing from many farmers, producers and citizens in his own state who want him to defend and protect animal welfare standards," wrote The Humane Society of the United States.


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


Meanwhile, the bill received praise from some agribusiness groups, who hope to eat from the trough of billion-dollar subsidies.

"The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 sends a clear message that Food for Peace should be delivering as much American grown food to as many hungry people as possible," said Peter Laudeman, Director of Trade Policy for U.S. Wheat Associates. "This is a mission American wheat farmers are proud to support, and we look forward to seeing these important reforms carried through the farm bill process."

But its apparent obeisance to a few thousand of America's wealthiest producers in the commodity crop business, while cutting food aid and conservation funding, has also drawn criticism from both left and right. Some conservative lawmakers and policy thinkers, suspicious of government spending in general, have derided the bill as an expensive backdoor gift to people who don't need it.

“There’s a reason you’re seeing so many groups from across the ideological spectrum in opposition — there’s not an economic justification for it,” David Ditch, a senior policy analyst at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, told The Hill.

Other groups have complained that the bill would weaken child labor laws, unfairly reduce competition, or protect unsustainable commercial agriculture at the expense of more resilient, diversified approaches. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has taken advantage of the House GOP's razor-thin majority to wield political leverage, said that the bill "is dead on arrival in terms of receiving a substantial amount of Democratic support.”

Electric school bus carbon test: Why the EPA’s new green-school grants matter

There are currently more than half a million diesel school buses rumbling and coughing along America's roadways in 2024, carrying around 24 million students to public and private schools alike. The EPA estimates that about 40% of that fleet is now more than 11 years old, which is the driving reason behind the agency's Clean School Bus Program, with $5 billion in funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. On Monday, a trio of Harvard health and environmental scientists found that school districts would save an average of $247,600 in costs for every one of the roughly 200,000 high-emission heavy duty vehicles they replace with an electric bus

 In an analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that lowering the number of emissions-driven deaths and childhood asthma cases — not to mention reducing negative climate impacts — by replacing old diesel buses with new electric ones via EPA funding would save about "$207,200 per bus and $40,400 per bus, respectively." The totals accounted for a vehicle benefit of $84,200 per bus, $43,800 in health benefits and $40,400 in climate benefits. The study's authors found that if the entire fleet of U.S. school buses had been replaced in 2017 with EVs, emissions-related deaths would have been reduced by around 24 times, and new childhood asthma cases would have been reduced by around 23-fold.

"The transportation sector is the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Vehicle emissions are also an important contributor to ambient air pollution, causing substantial health effects," wrote the study's authors. "Several recent studies have attributed roughly 20,000 deaths per year in the United States to vehicle emissions, despite recent decreases. Around 90% of this mortality burden is due to exposure to ambient fine particulate matter, with ozone representing the remaining 10%." 

Chronic exposure to ambient particular matter, or PM2.5, is causing a surge in mortality among adults and asthma in kids, with some U.S. areas seeing acute impacts about 10 times worse those measured in severe-haze urban areas in China. Researchers said that, among the U.S. 20,000 annual deaths, PM2.5 "is the environmental exposure responsible for the largest mortality burden in the United States. PM2.5 is emitted directly from vehicles (primary PM2.5) or is formed in the atmosphere after vehicle emissions of precursor gases."  


Climate stories are more than carbon copy. To capture the big picture, subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


The EPA's Clean Bus Program currently has only a five-year funding window for its $5 billion carveout, which ends in 2026. That could prove to be a challenging timeline as districts continue to face an ongoing national shortage of bus drivers. The agency does grant priority, however, to districts more likely to be struggling, meaning those still using buses manufactured in 2010 or earlier. Using EPA funds to replace the aging fleet with cleaner and healthier zero- or low-emission buses could offer critically needed budget savings by alleviating health costs.

Researchers note that the $5 billion in funding can only replace only around 15,000 buses, however, which is just 3% of the 200,000 heavy-pollution diesel buses. And replacing the entire diesel bus fleet won't come cheap. The study's authors found that, without significant subsidies, per-vehicle ownership and upkeep cost for an electric bus is about $156,000 more than that for buying and maintaining a new diesel. Replacing 200,000 buses with another round of health-hazardous diesels would cost between $60 billion to $80 billion; after accounting for rollout costs, full electric replacement would cost about 2.5 times as much.

It's unquestionably a painful calculus: With the need for greater funding in the coming years, lawmakers in Congress deliberating EPA funding will have to weigh those costs against the rising tide of political campaign contributions from the fossil fuel lobby, with the health of millions of children potentially hanging in the balance.  

Trump vows to “NEVER” take away birth control — except he spent four years doing just that

If he's elected president, Donald Trump will try to take away your birth control. We know this because he spent his first term in office attacking contraception access from many angles and, in many cases, successfully cutting people off from this necessary health care. His efforts were so dogged, it likely contributed to the alarming national outbreak of syphilis the country is experiencing. 

The plain facts need to be stated up front because right now there's a "controversy" over whether Trump has designs on taking away birth control. Trump, in his usual manner, is fueling this dispute with his favorite tactic: lying. 

The current dust-up started Tuesday morning when Trump told Pittsburgh's KDKA News that he's open to letting states ban birth control. "Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policy than others," he said when asked about proposals to ban contraception. He also claimed, falsely, that his campaign planned to release "a policy on that very shortly, and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting." This is the standard lie Trump uses when asked about abortion. For instance, Trump told Time on April 12 that he'd release an abortion policy plan in "two weeks." It's been six weeks and no sign of it. 

It will never come. This is just Trump's way of evading having to weigh in on a sticky issue. He'd like low-information swing voters to believe he won't ban abortion, but, of course, he wants his evangelical base to have faith that he will sign any ban that's on offer. Reporters know that this "two weeks away" lie is code for "the Christian right gets whatever they want." So when he said it with regards to contraception, it was properly understood as a covert promise to go along with any proposed ban or restriction. 


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


This, however, was really stupid.

Abortion rights are really popular, and contraception even more so: 88% of Americans in 2023 said birth control is morally acceptable. This is down slightly from the 92% high from 2022, likely due to a well-funded campaign from MAGA forces to demonize female-controlled contraception as "unnatural." So Trump scrambled, posting on Truth Social that, "I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS OF BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives."

This, however, was a lie. We know it was a lie intuitively because Trump lies about everything. This is the same man who repeatedly said he would testify in his hush-money trial, but of course, wriggled away at the last minute. But in this case, there's a giant pile of receipts from Trump's four years befouling the White House. Even before he set foot in the Oval Office to the day he tried to steal the 2020 election, Trump let loose a horde of Bible-thumping fanatics across the administration who did everything they could to slap birth control out of the hands of women who need it. 

It often got lost in the maelstrom of other bad Trump news, but at Salon, we carefully tracked Trump's many assaults on contraception access. During his first round of staffing, there was a heavy emphasis on hiring people who opposed legal contraception. One of his biggest health care policy advisors falsely claimed birth control pills cause abortion, a pretext to ban the pill alongside actual abortion. His first Health and Human Services secretary, Tom Price, called for an end of federal funding for birth control and voted to allow employers to fire women for using contraception.

Trump's administration had a two-pronged strategy to take away contraception from as many women as possible: First, defund family planning clinics that offer birth control at low or no cost. Second, gut the Affordable Care Act provision requiring insurance plans to cover contraception as they would any other preventive service. Even amid the pandemic, the Trump administration kept pushing to take away insurance coverage, taking the case to the Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of allowing employers to block women from using their own insurance to pay for contraception. 

Luckily, few companies took advantage of Trump-created "rights" to interfere with their employees' use of birth control. But Trump's assault on family planning clinics had serious impacts. Nearly 1,000 clinics nationwide lost funding and were forced to reduce services or shut down entirely. It's unclear if this has had an impact on unintended pregnancy rate, which continues to decline overall because of increased insurance coverage. (Though the recent spike in abortion rates suggests many women are still falling through the cracks.) But there's significant evidence that this loss of affordable care has contributed to the rise in sexually transmitted infections, including the alarming syphilis outbreak. 

According to experts at both Johns Hopkins University and the Centers for Disease Control, the dramatic rise in syphilis transmission — which is the highest it's been since the 1950s — has many factors, including drug abuse and pandemic disruptions to health care. But among the contributing causes is that "a lot of sexual health clinics have closed over the last decade," as the Hopkins analysis explains. Places like Planned Parenthood are often the only place some people, especially men, can get tested for sexually transmitted infections. Without it, many people just don't bother at all, leading to more transmissions. 

We need your help to stay independent

One reason Trump's war on contraception doesn't seem to register with voters, even those on the left, is because of his personal sexual promiscuity. It's hard for people to imagine a man who likes to sleep around as much as he does would be opposed to technology that prevents some of the negative consequences. But that attitude fails to understand how much Trump simply doesn't care. As Stormy Daniels testified in Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, he didn't bother using a condom when they had sex. Misogynists like Trump often don't think about birth control much, if at all, figuring that it's women's problem to deal with. We also see this attitude with Trump advisor Jason Miller, whose response to accidentally impregnating his mistress was not to express regret for his role in the situation, but to foist all the blame on her and attempt to weasel out of child support

Trump is guaranteed to renew his efforts to restrict birth control if he wins in November because that's what the larger Republican party, in thrall to the Christian right, wants. In the days after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Democrats tried to pass a bill through Congress that would bar states or other government entities from banning any form of contraception deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration. This was necessary, because in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision, Justice Clarence Thomas invited states to ban birth control, so the Supreme Court could take that right away, as well. The bill did not pass, however, because 195 congressional Republicans — the vast majority of them — voted against it. There were a lot of lip-smacking excuses as to why, but the reason is not mysterious: The GOP is controlled by the religious right, and the religious right wants to take away birth control, just like they took away abortion for millions of women. 

Congressional Democrats are once again hoping to highlight Republican radicalism on this front. Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that Democrats would re-introduce the Right to Contraception Act. The expectation is Republicans will filibuster the bill, which will create an anti-contraception voting record Democrats can point to in campaign ads. Republicans have been opposed to birth control rights for decades now, but it's been hard to get voters to believe it, since it's such a ridiculous position. But with the overturn of Roe, the hope is people will finally start to see what's been under their noses all this time: Yes, Trump and Republicans are coming for your birth control. 

“The American Dream is dying”: Democrats’ main selling point “is not a winning message”

President Biden and the Democrats are in a battle for the soul and future of American democracy. The stakes of the 2024 election are that high. Donald Trump is an existential threat to the country.

The 2024 election is existential for President Biden and the Democratic Party in more basic and fundamental ways as well: Trump continues to threaten President Biden and other leaders in the Democratic Party with death and imprisonment if he takes back the White House. The most recent example of such tyrannical behavior occurred last Saturday when Donald Trump told the NRA convention that President Biden should be executed for being a “Manchurian candidate”: “If that were a Republican, he would have been given the electric chair, they would have brought back the death penalty."

Biden is a patriot who loves America. Trump is a corrupt coup plotter and public admirer of Hitler, Vladimir Putin and other enemies of democracy.

Yet Biden has responded to Trump's escalating threats against democracy with a desperate desire to present an image and leadership style that is “reasonable” and “responsible” and emphasizes public policy successes. As I explained in a recent essay, being boring, nice, and passive will not help President Biden and the Democrats defeat Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Political scientist M. Steven Fish agrees.

Fish is a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. He has appeared on BBC, CNN, and other major networks, and has published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The American Interest, The Daily Beast, Slate, and Foreign Policy. His new book is “Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy's Edge.”

In this conversation, Fish argues that the Democrats have neglected the importance of emotions in winning over the mass public to their cause. He also warns that the Democrats (and by implication many liberals and progressives) fundamentally misunderstand the (white) working class and their continued support for Donald Trump and Republicans. Toward the end of this conversation, Fish offers advice for President Biden and the Democrats on how to recalibrate their messaging and leadership style to defeat Trump and the Republicans in the 2024 election and beyond.

Read part one of our conversation here

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length

Politics is fundamentally a struggle over emotions and ideas. Democrats on the national level are horrible storytellers. They believe that facts and policy win political battles. They do not. Democrats win the facts and lose the argument.

All the research I did for my book bears out what you say here. First, on emotions: The Republicans—and for that matter, their authoritarian equivalents around the world—never forget that politics is about appeals to values and feelings more than material interests. The Democrats have lost track of that fact and think that the advantage goes to the party that offers more attractive policies and the most goodies.

A crucial part of appealing to emotions is having a great story. The political psychologist Drew Westen spells this out in his work, and he rightly faults the Democrats for both their belief that elections are primarily debates over policy issues and their lack of a compelling narrative.

"I think blaming the media for anything almost always misses the point."

What I’ve found is that the most inspiring narratives, the ones that really connect with people and win them over to your side, are national narratives. All the great liberal leaders such as Dr. King, JFK, and FDR armed themselves with enthralling national stories that centered on showing the world what we Americans were made of by reducing poverty, overcoming racism, leading the world in education and scientific innovation, and making the blessings of citizenship a reality for all Americans. And by aggressively claiming the flag and constantly wrapping their progressive programs in a grand national vision, they never allowed ethnonational creepy crawlers like George Wallace to claim patriotic superiority.

Today’s Democrats are so squeamish about nationalism and seemingly incapable of appreciating the power of narrative that they have no national story at all. So, in the absence of a powerful, liberal national-democratic story, Trump’s cramped, nativist, ethnonational fable, which treats native-born white Christians as the true Americans, is pretty much all we ever hear, even though most Americans don’t actually find it compelling.

And without a strong national narrative, your policies will be seen as sops to special interests and particular groups rather than as vital to the whole nation’s welfare. In the absence of such a story, no one will care about your policies unless they stand to benefit from them directly themselves. That would include, for example, the vast majority of workers who don’t have reason to think a given infrastructure spending bill will get them a job, and the overwhelming majority of Americans who work for employers who provide health insurance.

I am a proud member of the Black working class. My father was a janitor and my mother a home healthcare worker. I grew up with the so-called “white working class” that the mainstream media and political class fetishizes—and mocks and fails to understand. In many ways I feel more at home with those folks than I do with the white upper class and other elites who I often travel among personally and professionally. This background and life experience has given me a great insight into the Age of Trump, one that most of my fellow travelers, especially if they are white and from more privileged backgrounds, sorely lack.

You just put your finger on why voters of color are going over to the Republicans in droves. Almost half of Hispanics and fully a quarter of Black men now say they plan to vote for Trump. Many highly educated white liberals just can’t believe their eyes, and their reaction is often the same as it is when they see working-class whites throw in with the Republicans: How can these people vote against their own interests? And how can we Democrats strive ever more fervently to let them know how much we love them and how the Republicans don’t care?

Whites now make up no more than about a quarter of my students at Berkeley, and I can’t tell you how many kids of color tell me that their parents are all in for Trump. Many are first and second-generation Americans from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. What I’m hearing from my students, and also seeing in the research, is that a lot of people of color, including many recent immigrants, are tired of well-heeled white liberals treating them as casualties rather than as authors of the American story. Progressives’ white savior complex, however well-intentioned, can become so patronizing that it feels like plain old racism to them.

We need your help to stay independent

In my book, I focus a lot of attention on white working-class voters, since that’s the group that seems to be going over to Trump in the largest numbers.

One of the things these people find most alienating about many affluent white progressives is how bigoted we think they are. Of course, there are plenty of hardcore bigots out there. But a raft of data suggests that they’re a small and diminishing portion of the population, and they’re not even a majority among Republican voters.

Overeducated coastal white elites who rarely mix it up with working-class Republicans—and this includes a lot of academics, journalists, and most of the people who control the Democratic Party’s messaging—tend to grossly overestimate how bigoted working-class whites are.

"Democrats are doing what they always do, which is running on 'the issues' rather on the story that’s much bigger than 'the issues' and that ties them all together."

What the Democrats offer today are pathos-soaked appeals to “struggling working families.” The vibe they put out to working-class people is basically: The American Dream is dying—especially for people like you. The only way you can revive it is by accepting government aid. And if you’re not smart enough to realize how desperately you need it, just wait until you get old and sick, and the Republicans won’t cover your preexisting conditions!

In America, this is not a winning message.

What role has the mainstream news media played in the democracy crisis?

Let’s start with an important fact noted by the historian Timothy Snyder: Reporters are the heroes of our age. They are the guarantors of democracy, all the more in times like ours when democracy is in grave danger. And for the most part, the ethic of objectivity and truth-telling is alive and well.

I’d like to add that I think blaming the media for anything almost always misses the point. I often hear my fellow liberals say that “the media” are to blame for Trump’s rise. But the media are just the messenger, and outlets of every type and stripe stay in business by giving us the information we want and putting it in terms that engage our attention. The reason Trump dominates the airwaves, even out of office, is that he’s more interesting and entertaining and less constrained by the Marquess of Queensberry boxing rules than his opponents, so stories about him get more clicks.

The fact is, we live in an age of click-bait communication, infotainment, and public addiction to spectacle. If freedom’s enemies project more chutzpah and garner more attention than its defenders do, democracy will remain in jeopardy—if it survives at all. And if the truth-tellers tell their truths less provocatively, consistently, and doggedly than the disinformers tell their lies, any shared notion of reality will shrivel. We can already see that happening.

If you want your message to resonate, you can’t be dull, and the Democrats have become more than a little boring. Their low-dominance risk-aversion, fear of offending, distaste for “othering” anyone, and skittishness about using provocative, transgressive language, are a big part of why so many voters, especially young ones, experience the Democrats’ policy appeals as bloodless, boring bromides.

Just have a look at Project 2025 and Agenda 47. Trump and MAGA describe themselves as “conservatives." In reality, they are neofascists (or even more specifically fake right-wing authoritarian populists). We need to use accurate and specific language to defeat this threat to American and global democracy. 

This needs to be integrated into the Democrats’ narrative. The Trumpified Republicans are in no way conservatives, at least not in the American sense. Nor are they patriots. Democracy is our country’s most sacred tradition, and nobody who seeks to undermine democracy in America has the right to call themselves either a conservative or a patriot.

Look, I grew up in a Republican family in the Midwest and the South: small government, small business, personal responsibility, patriotism, and all the rest. Mom told me we were Republicans in part because some Democrats used the N-word. Mind you, this was in Kentucky back in the 1970s, and she was right. Obviously, the Trumpified Republicans are no longer my parents’ party.


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


Whatever you and I might think of their policies, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were both conservatives and patriots. None of them would have thought of trying to undermine the legitimacy of democracy by claiming that any election they lost was rigged or by inciting an insurrection. None of these figures were my political heroes, but still, they were real conservatives and real Americans. Trump and his MAGAmen are radical yahoos and traitors. And, as you say, neofascists. It’s long past time the Democrats got over their squeamishness about adducing these facts and using these terms.

You mention Project 2025 and Agenda 47, and you’re right: These documents provide a roadmap for demolishing democracy. As you know, the Republicans’ plans include eviscerating what they call the “deep state,” which actually means the agencies of justice, administration, and law enforcement. These are the part of the government that ensure the rule of law—that is, a system in which the rulers, as well as everyone else, must obey the rules. Gutting them will enable the Republicans to rig political competition, stay in office even when they lose, suppress opposition, weaponize law enforcement, and leverage their offices for private gain.

As usual, Trump and the Trumpized Republicans are telling us exactly what they plan to do, so we have no excuse for acting shocked at their behavior. The question is how democracy’s defenders can use the Republicans’ remarkably candid statements of their intentions against them.

How can the Democrats leverage the Republicans’ betrayal of democracy to beat them in November and beyond?

It’s true that Biden and other top Democrats sometimes sound the alarm on the Republican threat to democracy. But is that what they are running on? Is that what they never quit talking about? Not really. Instead, they run on promises to control prescription drug prices. They run on the Republicans’ abortion bans. They run on taxing the rich at a higher rate. In other words, the Democrats are doing what they always do, which is running on “the issues” rather on the story that’s much bigger than “the issues” and that ties them all together.

That story is about American democracy, and it’s what the Democrats should be running on, day in and day out. Everything we hold dear—a dynamic economy, our preeminence in the world of science and innovation, civil rights, civil peace, a woman’s right to choose, public health, basic human decency—rests on the preservation of democracy.

We defend it; the Republicans are seeking to turn us into a tinpot dictatorship. Their hero and role model is Viktor Orbán, the two-bit Hungarian despot who wrecked his country’s democracy, allied his country with Putin, and drove every company out of business that refused to bankroll his party and bribe his sorry butt. Do you want to live in Orbán’s America?

Trump does. After meeting with Orbán at the White House, he said of him: “It’s like we’re twins!”

Trump’s ultimate hero and mentor, of course, is Vladimir Putin, America’s greatest sworn enemy. Democrats also support our democratic allies to the hilt, including Ukraine. Those relationships multiply our power and keep our nation secure. Trump wants to withdraw from NATO. Withdraw from NATO! Why? Because destroying NATO is Putin’s dream, and Trump sides with Putin. Always, every time. Do you know what Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would call that? Treason! Because that’s what it is.

Now why the hell don’t the Democrats say it?

If you had a private meeting with President Biden and his advisors what advice would you give them?

Fire your pollsters, or at least ignore them. They can’t get their twitchy noses out of last week’s focus-group data on gasoline prices, and they don’t see the big picture or grasp what you’re up against. Nor do they fully see what you’re really capable of. The constant adjustment of your message to polling data makes you look like a people-pleasing panderer rather than the principled, passionate progressive hard-ass you really are. You’ve been at this for over half a century and run in nine elections. You understand Americans better than anyone else does.

Be provocative. Be interesting. Use transgressive language. Ridicule Trump; don’t even act like you take him seriously. But don’t just keep shining the spotlight on him and hoping against hope that if voters finally see how awful he is, they’ll choose you by default. That’s classic low-dominance politics, and it’s part of why Trump is always the news, even though you’re the president and he’s just a private citizen trying to stay out of jail. Keep the spotlight on yourself. You’re the man; Trump is not.

Switch to a high-dominance messaging style that projects your superior strength and commitment to democracy and the American way. We saw glimpses of your appreciation for the need to do that in your Republican-owning SOTU speech, your decision to leak that you refer to Trump as a “sick fuck” in private, and your “make my day, pal” response to Trump’s invitation to debate. But those were just flashes of dominance; you’ve got to do it every day.

Trump’s a traitor who sides with our enemies. You’re a bold commander who has produced a crackling economy, united our democratic allies against Putin’s horrific invasion of Ukraine, and stood up to Xi Jinping. That’s why Putin and Xi and every other enemy of democracy in the world is pulling for Trump. You kicked Trump’s ass once, and you’re going to do it again. Show it and tell it.

This final bit of advice is not for Biden, it’s for the rest of us, everybody who wants democracy to prevail: It’s time to rally behind Biden with abandon. Let’s leave the prattle about Biden’s age to the Republicans; it’s a disgrace for liberals to keep tearing ourselves apart about it when he’s our candidate and the main thing standing between us and a slide into autocratic hell. So what if he moves more slowly than he used to? Biden’s mind is sharp, his heart’s enormous, and he works 12-hour days. He’s got what it takes and then some. He’s our guy. Let’s back him to the hilt and take it to Trump.

All hail Lord Voldemort: Republicans get their revenge for campus protests

For many outside the ivory tower, it was clear university leaders needed to do something to quell the chaos surrounding pro-Palestinian encampments on their campuses.  So when college presidents from New Hampshire to New York to Georgia to California invited riot police to break up the protest camps, firing "less-lethal" weapons, zip-tying students and throwing professors to the ground, it may have seemed like a tough but necessary call.  

"There must be consequences," declared the president of my university, USC’s Carol Folt, for students who "foment harassment, violence, and threats." This echoed statements of other university leaders, and President Biden himself, who, despite a nod to the First Amendment, pronounced, "order must prevail." In denouncing the protestors, he also cited antisemitism and a "fear of being attacked." 

The college presidents preparing to address Congress this morning would do well to consider the broader historical implications of their testimony.

Not least, and not lost on university presidents, Virginia Foxx, the Republican chair of a key House education committee, warned administrators to take firm action against their "unlawful antisemitic encampments" — lest they be hauled in front of Congress, and, like a few of their Ivy League peers, be forced to resign. By opting to militarize our campus, Folt has dodged the next round of these McCarthyistic congressional hearings, which begin today.

Yet for those of us on the inside, at USC and elsewhere, the image of a lawless, violent, antisemitic pro-Palestinian mob stands completely at odds with the reality.  With few exceptions, the encampments have been overwhelmingly peaceful, well-organized microsocieties, with posted community rules, medical and food tents, yoga and meditation, kite-making workshops, teach-ins, and Shabbat services and Passover seders. These students and supporting faculty form a multi-racial interfaith community. They are united by their outrage at the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza by Israeli bombs supplied by U.S. taxpayers. They share a vision for freedom and justice for Palestine.  

President Folt could have understood all this herself had she ventured from her office bunker and walked the 75 paces to the encampment.  The many Jewish students there would have told her why they've been proudly saying, "Not in my name." Or, that there's a difference between feeling unsafe by hearing a "free Palestine" chant, and actually being unsafe — a crucial distinction in determining free-speech rights. Even the allegedly antisemitic chant, "from the river to the sea" — which originated as a Zionist concept decades before the creation of Israel, and was written in the original platform of the Likud Party in 1977 —  is understood by Gaza protestors today as a vision of equality, and freedom from occupation and violence, for all the people of the Holy Land, Palestinian and Israeli alike.  While the slogan engenders fear for many Jewish students, a University of Chicago poll showed 76 percent of Muslim students understood it to mean that Palestinians and Israelis should live together (in one or two states) on the same land.

Some university presidents, refusing to "solve" the problem with riot police, have shown what real leadership means. They listened to their encamped students and agreed to some of their demands. "That's what a lot of students are really looking for — to take a moral stance about what is taking place in the world," Cal State-Sacramento president Luke Wood told CBS News. Wood said he did "92 listening sessions" before coming to an agreement. College presidents at Northwestern and Rutgers also reached agreements with their student encampments without calling in the police.  Not coincidentally, those two presidents have now been summoned before Rep. Foxx's committee and will appear today.

Avoiding that summons is likely one of the reasons why USC President Folt never made that walk to our student encampment.  Nor has she responded to the letter signed by some 60 USC Jewish faculty members, denouncing the weaponization of antisemitism "to silence and delegitimize certain perspectives and expressions of protest," while "fueling counter-protests by right-wing nationalists exploiting the struggle against antisemitism for their own gain." Missing in the discussion is the fact that nearly equal percentages of Muslims also feel unsafe on campus. Hardly surprising, Islamophobia is not on the Foxx agenda today. Yet pro-Palestinian students "have not only had job offers rescinded," writes UCLA's Saree Makdisi in the Los Angeles Review of Books, "but also have been doxed, placed on blacklistsfired, suspended, banned from campus," and "sprayed with irritants or chemical weapons…"  

At UCLA late on April 30 and the morning of May 1, multiple accounts show, pro-Israel counterdemonstrators relentlessly attacked a peaceful pro-Palestinian encampment. “A mob of men, some of them later identified as far-right activists, reportedly launched fireworks into the encampment, swung two-by-fours with nails sticking out of them, and uttered death and rape threats," Piper French wrote in the New York Review of Books. "They punched and maced four student journalists, brought one to the ground, and beat him at length.” One student journalist required hospitalization, along with 25 other students for "broken bones, head trauma, and severe lacerations." The counter-protesters also inexplicably released live mice into the camp.  The violent siege went on for several hours, with no police intervention. 

One of the men on hand that night was later identified as a member of the Proud Boys; another, as an anti-gay activist known for his antisemitic statements and Nazi salutes.  Yet another participant, it turned out, was apparently embedded with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. Aaron Cohen, a self-proclaimed former Israeli special-ops veteran, boasted on X that he "[r]an a quiet infiltration operation into the UCLA encampment and now down here with LASD who’s staging now and preparing to make entry…to begin taking down the pro-terror antisemitic encampment. " 

Meanwhile, after a night in which the police were shockingly absent, in the wee hours of May 2, dozens of officers from LAPD, LASD and the California Highway Patrol dismantled the camp, arresting more than 200 protesters. Despite the one-sided violence, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block defended his decision to ask the police to take down the camp.  "Several days of violent clashes between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators put too many Bruins in harm’s way and created an environment that was completely unsafe for learning." Of course, riot police are also, arguably, not safe for learning.  

We need your help to stay independent

And yet despite the smearing and false accusations against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, in the vast majority of cases, at UCLA, USC, and elsewhere, students who endured the violent crackdowns now face trespassing charges on their own college campuses, and potentially disastrous academic sanctions. They are guilty not of antisemitism, but of expressing the "wrong" kind of speech about Israel's war on Gaza.  As the USC Jewish faculty letter states, "the university’s actions have distorted principled, peaceful protest and demonized encamped students and their supporters."

In smearing our students, my USC president and her peers have taken extreme measures against those they are charged to protect – not, I believe, to ensure peace on campus, but out of mortal fear of their own universities’ donors, and of being called to testify in Congress.  Rep. Foxx assailed the Rutgers and Northwestern agreements as "surrender to antisemitic radicals." Foxx's Education and the Workforce Committee has been transformed into a modern-day Star Chamber, where Trump sycophant, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, lies in wait like a 21st Century inquisitor. Stefanik, who inspires dread akin to the likes of Lord Voldemort, already has a few notches on her belt, including the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and Penn. 

It's a sign of the times that university presidents like Folt, who called in the helicopters and body-armored police, sealed the gates of the university, barred non-USC journalists, and implemented double-ID scans and bag checks for everyone on campus, have for now escaped the committee's scrutiny. And so the Northwestern and Rutgers presidents who refused to militarize their campus are now preparing to defend themselves in Congress. UCLA's chancellor will also face questioning by Foxx, Stefanik and other committee members.

Stefanik has a much broader agenda, including as a potential running mate to Donald Trump in 2024.  On Sunday she was in Israel, addressing the  Knesset, where she proclaimed that "with God's help," Donald Trump will win reelection. Part of her Trump bona fides is her broader reactionary attack on free speech. She voted for the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, which incorporates a sweeping definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.  Many Jewish groups oppose this effort, believing it stifles legitimate criticism of Israel under the guise of antisemitism. A coalition of 104 human rights and civil society groups, including many in Israel, wrote that the IHRA definition "has  often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel." More than 1300 Jewish professors in the U.S. also objected. "If imported into federal law," the scholars wrote, "the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans–among others–who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies."  


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


These efforts to restrict criticism of Israel are themselves part of a broader right-wing effort to undermine academic freedom, attack diversity efforts and suppress dissent nationwide. Some 57 bills in state legislatures are part of a "coordinated attack against public colleges and universities with legislation that would undermine academic freedom, chill classroom speech and impose partisan agendas," according to the American Association of University Professors. And in recent years, since the protests against oil pipelines in the Dakotas and the Black Lives Matter mobilizations after the murder of George Floyd, dozens of red states have advanced anti-protest laws. In some cases, these laws define a "riot" as a gathering of three or more people that allegedly pose a threat to public safety.  

This anti-democratic agenda is already gaining momentum under Biden. We can only imagine how far it could go in a second Trump term.  

And so the college presidents preparing to address Congress this morning would do well to consider the broader historical implications of their testimony. It is time for them to speak out: not in support of repression, but in defense of their students, and of the principles of free expression and academic freedom. 

Seventy years ago, Army lawyer Joseph Welch faced down Sen. Joe McCarthy, who accused Welch of harboring a Communist sympathizer on his staff. Welch responded with the words that Americans had been longing for.

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness," Welch told McCarthy. "Have you no sense of decency?"  

The time has come for an American college president to stop cowering and speak truth to power. We need another Joseph Welch moment. College administrators who bow to the anti-democratic forces of the hard right in Congress, and the Trumpian neofascists poised to take power, are perched at the edge of an icy, perilous slope. Principles far greater than job security are at stake. How college presidents act from here forward matters more than ever.

Neglected tropical diseases threaten to become the next pandemic. We must prepare for them now

In March, Puerto Rico declared a public health emergency over an alarming outbreak of dengue fever. Local officials have confirmed more than 500 cases of the potentially fatal mosquito-borne virus as of mid-April, a record that far surpasses previous years' annual totals.

Puerto Rico is not the only part of our nation affected by dengue; 35 states have reported cases so far this year.

Though once seen as a disease that only afflicted people in developing countries, dengue — and diseases like it — now poses an imminent danger to American public health. We need leadership from Washington to develop a comprehensive plan to track, fight and prevent these diseases. 

The dengue outbreak in Puerto Rico is not a "one-off" problem. Far from it. This disease is endemic in 100 countries, causing up to 400 million infections a year and about 40,000 deaths. Dengue fever is one of about 20 "neglected tropical diseases." Every neglected tropical disease places overseas American military forces, workers and travelers at risk.

And increasingly, these diseases threaten Americans within the continental United States. Dengue, yellow fever, Chagas and Zika have expanded beyond their historical tropical origins with the spread of the Aedes mosquito and other carriers. Florida, Texas and other temperate — but not tropical — Southern states were previously too cold for these mosquitos to thrive. But as average temperatures keep rising due to global heating, that has changed. In recent years, multiple states have reported locally acquired cases of malaria and Zika.

Neglected tropical diseases are aptly named; they have been overlooked, underfunded and under-researched for decades.

While not currently on the World Health Organization’s official list of neglected tropical diseases, there is a push to accord Valley Fever that designation. Valley fever is another global infectious threat — this one a fungal infection – that is gaining a stronghold in the U.S. With symptoms ranging from mild to pneumonia-like and carrying the risk of long-term lung damage, Valley Fever is endemic in parts of South America and in Southwestern states like California and Arizona. More recently, cases have emerged in Illinois and other Midwestern states. These trendlines are unlikely to reverse on their own.

As neglected diseases like these continue to wreak havoc globally and increasingly threaten the health and lives of Americans, our nation is without a plan to fight back.


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


That is not the fault of any one administration or Congress. Neglected tropical diseases are aptly named; they have been overlooked, underfunded and under-researched for decades.

In fiscal 2020, the U.S. government devoted $103 million in funding for these diseases — just $3 million more than Congress appropriated six years earlier, in fiscal 2014 — effectively a cut in funding after inflation. And to date, no administration has produced a plan for tracking, treating and preventing these diseases.

We need that plan. We need coordinated action across federal, state and local governments and the public and private sectors to fill dangerous gaps in surveillance, clinical protocols and neglected tropical disease countermeasures.

As neglected diseases like these continue to wreak havoc globally, our nation is without a plan to fight back.

Our nation has the research and public health capacity to reverse the upward trajectory and reduce the staggering toll of neglected tropical diseases. In fact, just this month, the World Health Organization prequalified a new dengue vaccine — only the second to receive prequalification. This is a welcome and important development. Currently the vaccine is only recommended for children and is not yet approved for use in the U.S. The need for new Dengue diagnostics and interventions is significant and further progress against other neglected tropical diseases is imperative; the work of scientists in both the public and private sectors is far from over.

We need your help to stay independent

Similarly, our elected leaders have their work cut out for them. They need to formulate and set in motion an action plan that leverages those capacities to get the job done.

Hopefully, future generations will look back on the Dengue outbreak in Puerto Rico as the catalyst for an enduringly significant societal accomplishment, not a danger signal we missed or dismissed. 

“Seinfeld” actor Michael Richards apologizes for that time he said the N-word, ahead of book release

Michael Richards, best known for his role as the zany neighbor Cosmo Kramer in the massive sitcom “Seinfeld,” wants people to know: “I’m not racist.”

Richards’ racist outburst in 2006 at the Laugh Factory — in which he hurled slurs, including the n-word, and insults at patrons — severely stunted his career, which had already taken a turn for the worse after the end of “Seinfeld.”

"I was immediately sorry the moment I said it onstage," he told People Magazine. "My anger was all over the place and it came through hard and fast . . . Crisis managers wanted me to do damage control. But as far as I was concerned, the damage was inside of me."

The incident, occurring after a heckler interrupted with, “You’re not funny. We don’t think you’re very funny!” per an excerpt from his upcoming book, was captured on cell phone video and obtained by TMZ, leading to an apology on the "Late Show with David Letterman" that did little to stop the backlash.

Richards is releasing a memoir, “Entrances and Exits,” this June, but told People that he’s “not looking for a comeback.”

"I'm not racist," Richards told People. "I have nothing against Black people. The man who told me I wasn’t funny had just said what I’d been saying to myself for a while. I felt put down. I wanted to put him down."

In the interview, Richards also discussed turning down a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, noting that he “didn’t feel deserving.” He also claimed that he turned down a hosting invitation from "Saturday Night Live" twice, too, for similar reasons.

Richards was recently spotted on the red carpet for the first time in years, supporting his one-time co-star Jerry Seinfeld, who is facing his own criticism for his support of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza. 

“Time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster”: DOJ files antitrust suit against ticket giant

Live Nation, the group behind Ticketmaster and countless controversies surrounding ticket fiascos, is facing a Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced in a Thursday press conference.

"We allege … [that] Live Nation relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry," Garland said. "The result is that fans pay more in fees, artists have fewer opportunities to play concerts, smaller promoters get squeezed out, and venues have fewer real choices for ticketing services. It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster."

The company, which has allegedly engaged in price-gouging, tactics to push venues into exclusivity contracts, and other anti-competitive practices, has been the target of calls for regulation for years, coming to a head following the online sale for tickets to Taylor Swift’s “Eras Tour.”

Congressional condemnation and a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yielded few policy changes, but the DOJ probe could prove the most decisive blow to the events giant yet, which owns and operates venues, sells tickets, and promotes live events. 

Live Nation saw 23 million attendees and made nearly $4 billion dollars in revenue in the first quarter of 2024, a record high for the company. Federal oversight could change the structure of the California-based company, threatening their near-total grip on major sporting and music events in the U.S.

"Live Nation-Ticketmaster locks out competition ticketing through the use of long-term exclusive ticketing contracts with venues that can last over a decade," Garland said, adding that the company also maintains control by "acquiring venues themselves with exclusive agreements that cover more than 70% of concert ticket sales at major concert venues across the country."

The Biden Administration, which announced a crackdown on “junk fees” in 2023, requiring companies like Live Nation’s Ticketmaster to disclose full prices up front, has taken broad actions to rein in monopolistic companies from taking advantage of consumers.

Antitrust suits against Apple and Google, as well action against major mergers between Spirit and Frontier airlines and Kroger and Albertsons, have positioned the administration as one ready to take on mega-corporations, but Live Nation will likely put up a fight.

Per Politico, Live Nation executives and lawyers met earlier this month with DOJ antitrust officials to try and dissuade their efforts to break up the company.

Nikki Haley, once deploring Trump’s “chaos,” says she plans to vote for him

Nikki Haley, once a challenger in a vicious Republican primary, said on Wednesday that she would vote for former President Donald Trump — who mocked her husband for his military service overseas — once it comes time to push that button in November. 

“Where’s her husband? Oh, he’s away. What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone,” Trump said in a February rally, prompting Haley to remind her former boss of her husband’s service.

“Someone who continually disrespects the sacrifices of military families has no business being commander in chief,” Haley wrote on X, months before announcing her support.

Upon dropping out, Haley remarked that Trump would have to “earn the support” of her and her voters, choosing not to endorse him after his brutal attacks, including giving her the nickname “birdbrain.” But she's changing her tune, citing a second Biden term as her motivation.

“I will be voting for Trump,” Haley said at an event for the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. “Having said that, I stand by what I said in my suspension speech. Trump would be smart to reach out to the millions of people who voted for me, and continue to support me, and not assume that they’re just going to be with him.”

Haley, who netted sizeable chunks of the vote in GOP primary contests even after dropping out, said in 2023 that American voters “are not going to vote for a convicted criminal,” referring to a group of charges against the former president, some of which could see a verdict as early as next week.

She follows in the footsteps of former Trump primary opponents in endorsing him despite constant jabs, like Ted Cruz, who, in 2016, announced his support for Trump after he made disparaging comments against his wife.

Having called Trump "chaos” earlier in this race, and blaming his rhetoric for the 2015 Charleston Church shooting, Haley’s vote could come as a surprise to many of her moderate primary supporters, who clung to her as an alternative to the increasingly violent voices in the Republican party.