Sarah Elfreth, backed by Republican and pro-Israel donors, defeats former police officer Harry Dunn

Sarah Elfreth, a 35-year-old state senator, won a crowded Democratic primary to succeed the retiring Rep. John Sarbanes in Maryland's 3rd congressional district, as reported by the Associated Press. She defeated 21 other candidates, including Harry Dunn, the Capitol Police officer who won fame for defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, and is expected to cruise to an easy general election victory in a deep-blue seat.

Elfreth didn't win alone. She received more than $4.2 million worth of support from groups associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an advocacy group and fundraising giant that has weighed in on primary contests across the country, targeting candidates deemed as insufficiently pro-Israel and boosting their opponents. AIPAC spending on Elfreth's behalf through the United Democracy Project (UDP), a super PAC that also acted as AIPAC's conduit in its failed $4.6 million bid to block state Sen. David Min from succeeding Rep. Katie Porter in her California district.

Dunn, who used his story to run on a platform focused on defending democracy, had declared support for Israel's "right to defend itself" but added that he was "glad President Biden has advocated for an approach that reduces unnecessary civilian casualties.” Most of the other candidates, including Elfreth, held similarly orthodox views.

Elfreth, who ran largely on bipartisan legislation that she authored or sponsored in the state senate rather than on Israel or Palestine, expressed surprise at AIPAC's support, but did not reject its help. AIPAC, for its part, claimed that Elfreth's victory "underscores that it is entirely consistent with progressive values to stand with the Jewish state."

One of Elfreth's opponents, labor attorney John Morse, had criticized AIPAC's support for her candidacy, telling Salon it was an intervention on behalf of someone they think "will turn a blind eye to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza." Sarah Turnbull, a former Maryland Democratic Party chair, self-described Zionist and supporter of Dunn, told Salon that the AIPAC and its "mega-donors" had made the race about Israel “above and beyond every other issue that matters to the American people,” and are “attempting to determine races across this country.”

Though super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates that they support, many AIPAC donors followed in the organization's lead by contributing directly to Elfreth's campaign. Several of them are known for supporting Republican and right-wing causes, including Trump fundraisers Larry Mizel, Robert Kargman, Robert Sarver, and Daniel Kraft, son of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

In the closing days of the campaign, Dunn ran ads attacking Elfreth for benefiting from those donations. Elfreth's campaign sidestepped the issue, choosing to highlight her support from labor unions and liberal groups like the Sierra Club.

Expert warns: Obscure provision of Ohio law could keep Biden off the ballot there in November

President Joe Biden might not appear on the November 2024 presidential ballot in Ohio. Ohio law requires that presidential candidates be certified – that is, the state must be notified that presidential candidates have been officially nominated – 90 days before the general election in order to get on the ballot. That is the earliest deadline of any state.

But the Democratic National Convention that will formally nominate Biden won’t open until nearly two weeks after Ohio’s Aug. 7 deadline. The Republican National Convention will wrap up nearly three weeks before the deadline, so Donald Trump won’t have a problem getting on the ballot.

The 90-day deadline has often caused trouble since its adoption in 2010. Only in 2016 did both parties’ conventions take place before the Ohio cutoff date. Both conventions took place after the deadline in 2012 and 2020, and legislators extended the deadline both times. This is the first time that only one convention comes too late, but Republicans could well be affected in the future.

There are ways to resolve this problem, as two other states with early deadlines have already done. Washington state officials said they will accept a provisional certification of Biden’s nomination before the convention. And Alabama’s Legislature shortened its deadline so that Biden could qualify for the ballot there.

Neither solution seems likely in Ohio, where Republicans may be seeking to make life harder for the Democrats’ presidential nominee. The attorney general says the state can’t accept a provisional certification. And the Legislature couldn’t come up with a timely fix to the law.

Ohio laws generally take effect 90 days after passage. So a change to the deadline had to pass by May 9, but the Legislature wound up doing nothing. Here’s how that played out.

Divided GOP controls Statehouse

Republicans have supermajorities in both houses of the Ohio Legislature, yet they couldn’t agree on how to proceed.

The Ohio Senate passed a bill, but only after adding what Democrats viewed as a poison pill that would have banned foreign nationals from contributing to campaigns for or against ballot measures. Republicans objected to a Swiss national’s rumored contributions to a successful campaign last year in which voters approved a reproductive-rights amendment to the state constitution.

The House had planned to consider a different proposal but never voted on anything before leaving town on May 8 for two weeks.

This reflects the Ohio GOP’s bitter divisions. The House speaker won his position with support from only a minority of his caucus. The Senate president will switch to the House next year because of term limits and has hinted he will challenge the speaker.

The Legislature could still pass an emergency law to change the deadline, but emergency laws require a two-thirds vote in both houses. The chances of that happening are uncertain at best.

So, Democrats might have to file a lawsuit to get Biden on the ballot.

What’s the precedent?

As a constitutional law scholar, I believe Democrats would have a strong argument that using an arbitrary and unusually long deadline to bar a major-party presidential candidate violates voting and associational rights under the First and 14th amendments. But success is not guaranteed.

Such a lawsuit would rely on two U.S. Supreme Court cases that rejected state efforts to bar presidential candidates from the ballot.

A 1983 decision struck down Ohio’s old law that required independent candidates to qualify more than six months before the election. And a March 2024 ruling rejected Colorado’s effort to exclude former President Donald Trump from its primary ballot.

Those cases may be helpful in making the Democrats’ case, but they don’t dictate a win. The 1983 decision overturned a law that treated independent presidential candidates much less favorably than party candidates. Ohio’s 90-day deadline treats all candidates the same.

And the Colorado case involved the state’s unilateral determination that Trump was ineligible for office as an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. Ohio’s 90-day rule says nothing about whether a candidate is constitutionally disqualified.

President Joe Biden speaks during a stop in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 16, 2024, one year after a train derailment spilled hazardous chemicals in the community. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

‘Nobody seems to know why’

Those differences might not matter. Even if they do, a lawsuit still could win.

Ohio’s 90-day deadline is not only arbitrary, I believe that it is irrational. Nobody seems to know why the state extended the deadline from 60 to 90 days in 2010. The change came in an obscure provision of a 341-page bill.

The 90-day deadline has been a problem in almost every presidential election since then. The Legislature waived the deadline in 2012 and 2020, when both parties’ conventions fell after the cutoff date, and those elections ran smoothly. So the state can’t justify sticking with the 90-day rule this year when only one party is holding its convention after the deadline.

Biden probably won’t carry Ohio in any event. But having both major-party candidates on the ballot is necessary for a fair presidential election.

Everyone involved keeps saying that Biden will appear on the November ballot. But, at least for now, the law says otherwise.

Jonathan Entin, Professor Emeritus of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University

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

Trump accepts Biden debate challenge, setting up a June showdown

Joe Biden, shunning the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, challenged Donald Trump to a series of TV studio confrontations that will take place this summer, before early voting takes place.

In a video posted by his campaign, Biden dared his GOP rival to fight him over the course of two debates.

"Let's pick the dates, Donald, I hear you're free on Wednesdays," Biden says, mocking Trump over his ongoing hush money trial, in which the court breaks for recess every Wednesday.

Trump has now accepted at least one of those debates, to be hosted by CNN in its Atlanta studios on June 27.

Biden had delivered his challenge via a letter sent to the Trump campaign and the commission. According to the New York Times, the letter proposed two debates that will take place in a TV studio in June and September, respectively — long before the dates proposed by the commission, and without the participation of third-party candidates or a potentially raucous audience.

Biden, seeking to preempt a repeat of the 2020 debates in which Trump persistently interrupted both him and the moderator, also wants the inclusion of microphones that will automatically cut off when the speaker runs out the clock.

Though the rejection of the commission-hosted debates might come as a surprise to observers who have known Biden as a Washington institutionalist, his campaign possesses a number of grievances towards this particular institution. Biden's national campaign chair Jen O'Malley Dillon wrote in the letter that the commission could not be trusted to run a professional debate after failing to enforce its own rules on a garrulous Trump in 2020; letting Trump attend the second 2020 debate despite showing signs of COVID-19; and declining to schedule the 2024 debates before October to account for increased early voting. The Trump campaign has also complained about the scheduling.

Trump, who has ostensibly wanted to debate Biden as many times as possible, "anytime and anywhere," quickly accepted the proposed face off mere hours after receiving the letter. Both candidates see the debates as an opportunity: Trump hopes that such a clash would expose Biden's alleged feebleness, while Biden is gambling that drawing a clear contrast early in the general election — reminding people of why they booted Trump from the White House in 2020 — will drive up early voter turnout, which has tended to favor Democrats.

Mark Robinson said Obama was “cousins” with ISIS, falsely blamed Muslims for burning down Notre Dame

First, you see the enraged bright chestnut flames blazing through Paris’ medieval Catholic cathedral. Then you notice the flames race to demolish the Cathédrale Notre-Dame’s tall wooden spire as grand clouds of smoke fill the air. The burning exemplar of French Gothic architecture lights up the skies while the YouTube video plays a superimposed audio clip of a man yelling “Allahu Akbar,” which is Arabic for “God is Great.”

The video – a fake – quickly spread on social media, along with related conspiracy theories from far-right influencers like Richard Spencer and Jack Posobiec, who falsely suggested that Muslims were to blame for the fire. Also, promoting an Islamophobic spin on what investigators say was an accidental fire? North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a pro-Trump Republican who is now his party’s nominee to lead the state.

“Notre Dame was a ‘historic cathedral’ that caught fire and burned accidentally. The other suspicious fires and acts of vandalism at ‘houses of worship’ across France have no connection whatsoever to the Notre Dame fire,” Robinson wrote in an April 2019 Facebook post.

North Carolina Republicans just nominated a right-wing conspiracy theorist known for quoting Hitler

The same day, Robinson continued implying that Islam was to blame for the fire.“Based on current trends I guess Churches, Easter, ‘Easter Worshipers’ will have to be banned to prevent future attacks by Mus… I mean Militants,” he wrote.

To be clear, there is no evidence that Notre Dame was a victim of arson. Investigators suggest two possible culprits: a short circuit in the electrical system or a cigarette.

But Robinson has a long history of using his Facebook page to make inflammatory and indeed bigoted comments about news and politics, some of which has been previously reported. Just four years ago, when Robinson was running for his current position of lieutenant governor, he said he would “absolutely” like to return to a time when the 19th Amendment did not exist.

“I absolutely want to go back to the America where women couldn’t vote,” Robinson said at a March 2020 event hosted by the Republican Women of Pitt County.

Robinson’s record of bigoted comments has given Democrats hope that they can win this cycle. Polls suggest his Democratic rival, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, currently enjoys a narrow lead in a state that went for Donald Trump in 2020 by fewer than 80,000 votes.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

While Robinson’s use of Facebook has garnered attention before, a review of his page shows numerous inflammatory comments that have not been previously reported.

For example, in an April 2016 post he appeared to be open about his distaste for religious and sexual minorities: “Who came up with the words ‘homophobic’ and ‘Islamophobic?’ I’m not afraid of Islam or men.” Robinson has drawn unfavorable parallels between LGBTQ people and Muslim people before.

“The question is not ‘When is the last time you saw anyone but a Muslim holding a severed head and smiling,’” he wrote in a 2017 Facebook post. “The question is, when is the last time you saw a Muslim protesting against a Muslim who severed a head, or bombed a shopping mall, or ran down a group of humans with a truck, or shot up a nightclub, or burned someone alive…..”

In another, 2014 post, he wrote: “Note to all gays considering ‘coming out’; You wanna be a hero or show how brave you are? ‘Come out’ in a Muslim nation. See how that works out for you. #somebodywillgetsomehead.”

The hashtag in question certainly isn’t the 55-year-old evangelical Christian’s only foray into risque humor. Over the years, Robinson, whose weapon of choice seems to be Facebook posts, has revealed an alarming pattern of hate and conspiracy. The first Black man to hold the office of lieutenant governor in North Carolina has left a large digital footprint filled with disinformation

In 2016, Robinson shared a meme asserting that President Barack Obama was “cousins” with the Islamic State, premised on the false claim, popular in conservative circles, that the Democrat was secretly a Muslim. The post read: “Beating these guys is gonna be tough, as long as one of their cousins is in the White House.”

In response to a comment, Robinson said he didn't stumble across the image. "I make them," he said.

Another meme Robinson posted said: “The barbarians are at the gate,” referring to ISIS. It was paired with a photo of Obama and the text: “This fool is trying to find a way to let them in.”

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

Robinson frequently returned to the subject of Islam, at times using it to deflect from criticism of Trump and the Republican base.

“I've said this once and I'm saying it again; Some of you damned idiots will still be making excuses for these radical Muslims as they are cutting your empty heads off,” he wrote in a January 2017 Facebook post. In another, he posted, “The same idiots who claim ‘angry whites’ put Trump in office, are the same idiots who REFUSE to acknowledge the ANGRY RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST who hack off heads, blow people up, and run over people with trucks.”

Robinson’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

There are about 130,00 Muslims in North Carolina, making them a powerful voting bloc in the November election. In an almost cinematic coincidence, they will be heading to the polls just weeks before Notre Dame reopens after five years of repairs.

about Mark Robinson

Texas school board GOP hardliner rejects her party’s extremism after actually reading the curriculum

This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Weeks after winning a school board seat in her deeply red Texas county, Courtney Gore immersed herself in the district’s curriculum, spending her nights and weekends poring over hundreds of pages of lesson plans that she had fanned out on the coffee table in her living room and even across her bed. She was searching for evidence of the sweeping national movement she had warned on the campaign trail was indoctrinating schoolchildren.

Gore, the co-host of a far-right online talk show, had promised that she would be a strong Republican voice on the nonpartisan school board. Citing “small town, conservative Christian values,” she pledged to inspect educational materials for inappropriate messages about sexuality and race and remove them from every campus in the 7,700-student Granbury Independent School District, an hour southwest of Fort Worth. “Over the years our American Education System has been hijacked by Leftists looking to indoctrinate our kids into the ‘progressive’ way of thinking, and yes, they’ve tried to do this in Granbury ISD,” she wrote in a September 2021 Facebook post, two months before the election. “I cannot sit by and watch their twisted worldview infiltrate Granbury ISD.”

But after taking office and examining hundreds of pages of curriculum, Gore was shocked by what she found — and didn’t find.

The pervasive indoctrination she had railed against simply did not exist. Children were not being sexualized, and she could find no examples of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that examines systemic racism. She’d examined curriculum related to social-emotional learning, which has come under attack by Christian conservatives who say it encourages children to question gender roles and prioritizes feelings over biblical teachings. Instead, Gore found the materials taught children “how to be a good friend, a good human.”

Gore rushed to share the news with the hard-liners who had encouraged her to run for the seat. She expected them to be as relieved and excited as she had been. But she said they were indifferent, even dismissive, because “it didn’t fit the narrative that they were trying to push.”

So, in the spring of 2022, Gore went public with a series of Facebook posts. She told residents that her backers were using divisive rhetoric to manipulate the community’s emotions. They were interested not in improving public education but rather in sowing distrust, Gore said.

“I’m over the political agenda, hypocrisy bs,” Gore wrote. “I took part in it myself. I refuse to participate in it any longer. It’s not serving our party. We have to do better.”

After Gore reviewed hundreds of pages of the school curriculum, she was shocked that the pervasive indoctrination she had railed against as a candidate did not exist. She has since helped form a group that supports Republican candidates who have been alienated by the local GOP’s far-right faction. Credit: Shelby Tauber for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

Gore’s open defiance of far-right GOP orthodoxy represents an unusual sign of independence in a state and in a party that experts say increasingly punish those deemed disloyal. It particularly stands out at a time when Republican leaders are publicly attacking elected officials who do not support direct funding to private schools.

“It’s a rare event to see this kind of political leap, especially in a world that’s so polarized,” said University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus. “You rarely see these kinds of changes because the people who are vetted to run tend to be true believers. They tend not to be people who are necessarily thinking about the holistic problem.”

“With the presence of Donald Trump, fealty to cause has amplified, so this kind of action is much more meaningful and much more visible than it was a decade ago,” Rottinghaus said about Gore.

[Former far-right hard-liner says pro-voucher billionaires are using school board races to sow distrust in public education]

In March, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, was victorious in unseating five lawmakers in his own party and forcing another three into runoff elections after they voted against voucher legislation that would allow the use of public dollars for students to attend private and religious schools. His efforts sent a message that those who did not unflinchingly support his priorities would face grave political repercussions.

Gore was part of a similar movement of hard-liners who pushed out the Republican Hood County elections administrator in 2021 after determining that she was not conservative enough for the nonpartisan position. Now Gore and other disillusioned local Republicans have formed a group pushing against an “ultra-right” faction of the party that it says has become obsessed with “administering purity tests” and stoking divisive politics.

The former teacher and mother of four was influenced by such politics when she decided to run for office. She was motivated to seek a school board seat after a steady stream of reports from the right-wing media she consumed and her social media feeds pointed to what she saw as inappropriate teachings in public schools. She, too, had been outraged by school mask mandates and vaccine requirements during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But Gore said she feels that she was unwittingly part of a statewide effort to weaken local support of public schools and lay the groundwork for a voucher system.

And she said that unless she and others sound the alarm, residents won’t realize what is happening until it is too late.

“I feel like if I don’t speak out, then I’m complicit,” Gore said. “I refuse to be complicit in something that’s going to hurt children.”

Because of that outspokenness, Gore is facing backlash from the same people who supported her race. She has been threatened at raucous school board meetings and shunned by people she once considered friends.

School marshals escort her and her fellow board members to their cars to ensure no one accosts them.

Gore has faced backlash and threats since speaking out against the people who supported her school board race. School marshals now escort her and other board members to their cars after meetings. Credit: Shelby Tauber for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

When things get particularly heated, a fellow trustee follows her in his car to make sure she gets home safely.

“None of it was adding up”

Before Gore decided to seek office for the first time, prominent GOP operatives had been pushing for like-minded allies to take over school boards, framing the effort as necessary to maintain conservative Christian values.

In May 2021, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon told followers on his podcast that school boards were the road back to power for conservatives following the 2020 presidential election. Two months later, North Texas-based influential pastor Rafael Cruz, the father of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, amplified that message on social media, saying that getting candidates on school boards was critical.

“We need to make sure that strong, principled Americans, those who uphold our Judeo-Christian principles that have made America the greatest country in the world, are elected to school boards,” Rafael Cruz said in a July 2021 video posted to his Facebook page. “Because I’ll tell you the left is controlling the school boards in America.”

Those messages reached Granbury, where former Republican state Rep. Mike Lang and political consultant Nate Criswell asked Gore to run for the school board. Gore recalls hearing Cruz give a fiery speech while she was campaigning. In the speech, which reinforced her decision to run, she said Cruz boasted about flipping the school board in Southlake, Texas, by getting the churches involved in helping to install Christian candidates.

“When you put in the minds of parents that there is an agenda to indoctrinate their children … and the only answer is to get conservative Christian people elected to the school board,” Gore said, “it’s a very powerful message”

Gore, now 43, first became involved in local politics in 2016 when she campaigned door-to-door for Lang, a former constable who successfully ran for the Texas Legislature. She then served on a leadership committee for the Hood County GOP.

After Lang decided not to run for reelection in 2020, he asked Gore to join the “Blue Shark” show, a web-based program he founded and co-hosted with Criswell that produced videos taking aim at local politicians and officials considered insufficiently conservative. Criswell later ran campaigns for Gore and Melanie Graft, another school board candidate who previously tried to remove LGBTQ-themed books from the children’s section of the county library.

Soon after the women won their elections, the Granbury school district descended into a high-profile fight over school library books.

Administrators pulled 130 library books from the shelves after Matt Krause, a Republican representative from Fort Worth, published a list of 850 titles that he said touched on themes of sexual orientation and race. At the time, ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and NBC News obtained audio of the district’s superintendent, Jeremy Glenn, making clear to librarians that he had concerns about books with LGBTQ themes, including those that did not contain descriptions of sex. After the reporting, the Department of Education opened a civil rights investigation, which is ongoing, into whether the district violated federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

A volunteer review committee of parents and district employees eventually recommended returning nearly all of the books to the shelves.

Hard-liners wanted additional titles removed, claiming that the district was allowing “pornography,” without offering evidence to support the assertion. But Gore backed the committee’s findings, saying she was satisfied with the handful of books the district had removed for explicit content. Glenn, too, drew the ire of his onetime allies after he also supported the committee’s recommendation. Lang and Criswell have since called for his ouster. Glenn declined an interview request through a district spokesperson.

The book debate, along with a series of other fissures, contributed to Gore’s growing belief that her former colleagues were more interested in misleading residents than in improving educational outcomes.

In early 2022, leaders of the rapidly growing district announced plans to ask voters for $394 million in bonds to build a new high school and renovate existing campuses. School board members established a community advisory committee that would counsel the district.

Gore chose Criswell as her representative on the committee. She thought that once Criswell saw the district’s needs firsthand, he would support the bonds. But the opposite happened. Criswell urged voters to reject the measure, claiming some parts, such as providing full-day pre-K programs for all students, were “communist in nature.”

Gore said Criswell directed her and Graft, who did not respond to requests for comment, to post messages on social media against the bonds. When Gore pushed back, she said Criswell accused her of betraying the party. (The bonds ultimately lost by a wide margin.)

According to Gore, Criswell also pressured her to stop speaking with all of her fellow school board members, except for Graft. “They’re just lying to you. They’re not your friends,” she recalled him saying.

“I was like, how am I supposed to do my job as a board member if I’m not talking to anybody?” Gore said. “None of it was adding up.”

Criswell, who has previously said that he supports public schools, declined to answer detailed questions. Lang did not respond to requests to comment. In April 2022, Gore rescinded her nomination of Criswell to the bond advisory board. She felt that he and Lang were misleading voters about the bond and its cost to taxpayers.

“Mike Lang would call them snowballs,” she said. “You just get as many little snowballs as you can so you’re attacking from multiple fronts. And then you see which ones start to stick and gather speed and get bigger and bigger.”

In June 2022, Lang and Criswell directed one of their snowballs in Gore’s direction, taking a veiled shot at the former co-host of their show. In a video, Criswell praised Graft for continuing the fight to remove books from the school district’s libraries, saying she was “the only one that acts as the buffer right now on that board. Which is sad, because, you know, we’ve had other people elected in recent elections that just haven’t lived up to the expectations.”

Three days later, Gore fired back.

“I refuse to be someone’s puppet,” she wrote in a June 8 Facebook post. “I refuse to be told what to do, what to say or how to vote. I refuse to participate in any agenda that will dismantle or abolish public education.”

Once Gore was elected to the school board, she began to believe that her former allies were more interested in misleading residents than in improving educational outcomes. Credit: Shelby Tauber for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

“Extremism IS the problem”

A week after that post, Gore watched the livestream of a Granbury school board meeting on her laptop from a hotel room along Mexico’s Caribbean coast while on an anniversary trip with her husband.

Emotions ran high as about a dozen residents complained that board members had not removed enough books from the library. Some argued that the school board was stifling dissent from Graft by requiring the consent of two board members to place an item on the agenda.

During the meeting, Cliff Criswell, the grandfather of Nate Criswell, took the microphone, carrying what police would later describe as a black handgun in a leather holster. He accused board members of allowing pornography in school libraries and of trying to “rip apart” Graft, whom he had previously described as “the only conservative on the board.”

“We have profile sheets” on all the trustees except for Graft, Cliff Criswell shouted. “We know what you do. We know where you live.”

Gore was shocked. Panicked, she started calling family members. “My grandmother was home with our children,” she recalled in an interview. “My brother came over and slept on my front porch to make sure nobody showed up at our house in the middle of the night. I mean, my kids were terrified after that.”

Later that night, Gore addressed the incident on Facebook.

“Tonight, threats were made against me, every board member (except one) and our superintendent. We were individually called out by name, told we had profile sheets made on each of us and that we would be dealt with accordingly. THIS IS NOT OK. I take threats against myself and my family seriously, especially with all of the violence in today’s world. Will we be dealing with school board shootings next?!? WE MUST DO BETTER!”

In response to a commenter’s message of support, Gore wrote, “extremism IS the problem.”

According to a Granbury police report, an off-duty officer spotted a black pistol in a holster in Cliff Criswell’s waistband and alerted school and city police. Possession of an unauthorized firearm at a school board meeting is a third-degree felony under state law, but because officers didn’t conclusively identify the weapon that night, and because Cliff Criswell declined to cooperate, prosecutors were unable to file charges, said Granbury police Deputy Chief Cliff Andrews. Cliff Criswell could not be reached for comment.

“Had we identified the gun at the very moment, yes, absolutely, we could have filed charges on it,” Andrews said. “We made a simple mistake.”

The incident forced the district to adopt tighter security measures, including clearly posting signs prohibiting firearms and bringing in additional officers during board meetings anytime administrators expect that certain topics could lead to heated exchanges.

“That was the moment I saw how crazy it was, how unhinged it had become and how far some people were willing to go to prove their points,” Gore said.

Yet rhetoric over the school district only ratcheted up in the ensuing months.

That fall, Hood County’s far-right leaders backed the school board candidacy of Karen Lowery, who in May 2022 was one of two women who filed a criminal complaint against district librarians claiming they were providing pornography to children. A Hood County constable has declined to answer questions about the status of the complaint.

Lowery, who had served on the committee that reviewed library books but opposed returning them to the shelves, also received a key endorsement from Rafael Cruz. She went on to win her election in November 2022.

Her victory helped resurface the district’s book battles as she pressed to remove more titles. Then, in August 2023, Lowery snuck into a high school library during a charity event and began inspecting books using the light of her cellphone, according to a district report.

School board members met to discuss censuring Lowery at an Aug. 23 public meeting for violating a policy that requires them to get permission from principals when entering a campus and for not being truthful when confronted by an administrator. Lowery claimed she had disclosed her visit to the library beforehand as required. She did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment. A district spokesperson said he was unable to pass along an interview request because Lowery has requested to only be contacted through her board email.

The board voted to censure Lowery, who opposed the symbolic measure along with Graft.

“It is clear that the actions Mrs. Lowery took, as evidenced by the community and the outcry that we have heard tonight, has broken some of that trust with our staff, parents and community members,” said Gore, who motioned to censure Lowery. “The only people that pay the price for this, no matter what happens tonight, are the kids of this district.”

Old foe, new friend

By November 2023, the battle lines over school vouchers were hardening in Granbury, and at the state Capitol in Austin.

Abbott had begun waging war against Republicans who had not supported voucher efforts and contributed to their failure during the last legislative session. One lawmaker who escaped Abbott’s wrath was Shelby Slawson, a Republican who represents Hood County. Unlike some of those now being targeted, Slawson had bucked a request spearheaded by Gore and supported by the school board majority that urged lawmakers to vote against a measure that would send public dollars to private schools. Slawson did not respond to questions regarding her decision to vote in favor of vouchers despite the local school district’s opposition to the legislation.

Meanwhile, Granbury was facing a tough election. The school district was asking voters to approve a $151 million bond measure to build a new elementary school in the rapidly growing and overcrowded district, as well as provide security updates and renovations to aging campuses. The balance of the school board was also at stake in the same election.

Bond opponents formed the Granbury Families political action committee. In advertising materials, the group cited library books as one of the principal reasons residents had lost trust in the board. “Our community has lost faith in the board’s ability to conduct business,” the group claimed. “Not another penny until GISD gets new leadership.”

Nate Criswell, Gore’s former co-host and campaign manager, loaned the PAC $1,750, according to campaign finance reports filed with the district. The loan constituted about 40% of the PAC’s funding ahead of the November election.

Although a majority of the state’s school districts with bond measures scored victories, Granbury’s tax measure failed once again. (Voters rejected another bond measure this month.) Hard-line conservatives celebrated the loss, pointing to anger over the library books issue.

But even as they celebrated, the November election delivered a setback to those who wanted to take over the school board. The two candidates supported by hard-line conservatives lost by wide margins, denying the county’s far-right faction the majority on the board. Among the winners in that election was Nancy Alana, the school board member whom Gore ousted two years earlier. This time around Gore endorsed Alana, and the two former opponents have since become friends and allies.

“She let everybody know that she had been misled and that she has seen for herself the good things that are happening in our school district,” Alana said. “That the school board can be trusted. That the administrators can be trusted. And she has spoken out on that. And that has made a big difference. And she is very well thought of in our community because of her willingness to step up and say, ‘I was wrong.’”

[Help ProPublica and The Texas Tribune report on your community’s school board and bond elections]

Disclosure: University of Houston has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

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/2024/05/15/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore/.

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

Red Lobster “abruptly” closes nearly 50 stores nationwide as the company continues to struggle

Fan-favorite restaurant and everyone's go-to establishment for cheddar bay biscuits, Red Lobster — which is reportedly considering filed for bankruptcy — has now "abruptly [closed] at least 48 of its restaurants around the country," according to Nathaniel Meyerosohn with CNN.

Meyerosohn also remarks that this is "one of the only times in [Red Lobster's] more than 50-year history [that] the chain has closed dozens of stores at once."

As Mike Ives writes in The New York Times, "Red Lobster is still an American institution, but it has been losing money for a while," also noting that for "many American families, Red Lobster has long been an aspirational dining choice, and for some, an introduction to seafood."

In 2020, Thai Union became a shareholder for Red Lobster, which also then "cycled through four CEOs and an all-you-can-eat shrimp deal last year that slowed down table service,"as per Meyerosohn. The promotion was a fan favorite tradition, but making it a permanent menu item cut into Thai Union's profitability, leading to reports earlier this year that Thai Union planned to divest from Red Lobster.

Neil Sherman, CEO & Founder of TAGeX Brands, wrote on LinkedIn that his company is "proud to launch the largest restaurant liquidation EVER throughout its one auction marketplace," offering "furniture, fixtures and equipment from select Red Lobster locations" sold via an online auction.

Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt “hearing” over Trump “surrogates” circumventing gag order

Over the past week, Republican politicians have been schlepping out from the comparatively violent confines of their red states to enjoy the relative peace and tranquility of New York City – and to denounce, before the press, those who are testifying against Donald Trump, suggest people of color are not real Americans, and profess a desire to punish anyone who tries to hold the former president accountable before the law.

"I am disappointed in looking at the American citizens— the supposedly American citizens in that courtroom," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., confessed to reporters.

“Does any reasonable, sensible person really believe anything that Michael Cohen says?” added Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.

Rather than prosecute Trump, chipped in House Speaker Mike Johnson,R-La., on Tuesday, it’s time for Congress to go after the prosecutors themselves and “hold them accountable.”

Each day this week, outside the Manhattan courthouse where Trump is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records to cover up a problematic tryst with a porn star, GOP lawmakers have put on a performance for the unquestioned leader of their party.

Republicans audition to become Donald Trump's next Michael Cohen

For some, ambition might be motive enough: Vance, having deleted his old anti-Trump tweets, insisted he “was there to support a friend,” but that dear friend is also rumored to be considering him as a running mate (Vance also dutifully praised the “beautiful view” from Trump Tower). But others explicitly spelled out that they were there to be what Trump himself called them: “surrogates.”

Tuberville, in an interview with the right-wing Newsmax, was not subtle. Asked if he was there “to go against the gag order and intimidate witnesses because Trump can’t,” the senator replied: “Yes, sir.”

"Hopefully, we have more and more senators and congressmen go up everyday to represent him, and being able to go out and overcome this gag order," Tuberville said. "And that’s one of the reasons we went: to be able to speak our piece for President Trump.”

Post by @aaron.rupar

View on Threads

Tuberville is entitled to say what he likes. But as defense attorney Jeff Jacobovitz noted on MSNBC, the defendant in the case is not entitled to put the words in Tuberville’s mouth.

“If Trump is feeding any of these congressmen or senators information to talk about, that violates the gag order,” he said, adding that the judge "may have a hearing on it, and it could violate other gag orders in other cases that are pending now. And, so, that's a serious thing, and the court of appeals decision is something that has to be taken seriously."

A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke told CNN. “They have the ability to say things that Donald Trump has been wanting to say been struck down 10 times for saying. So this is one way to get around the gag order.”

It’s a problem, though, if Trump is literally dictating what his self-declared surrogates are saying. And there’s reporting that suggests that is indeed the case.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice told MSNBC he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said.

Trump is at this point a serial violator of his gag order at this point, forced to pay $10,000 for his infringements thus far; another violation, Judge Juan Merchan has warned, could be punished with time behind bars. If prosecutors decide to make it an issue – they may want to avoid the disruption – he could at the very least be headed to another contempt hearing.

about Trump's trial

“Top Chef’s” latest “Restaurant Wars” doesn’t reach the highs of previous seasons

In most seasons of "Top Chef", "Restaurant Wars" is one of the biggest conversation starters of the season, often sparking healthy discourse, discussion, debate — and in some cases — outrage, like when current host Kristen Kish was booted in season 10.

This season? It just sort of . . . happened, without much fanfare. Which, unfortunately, is beginning to seem like the theme of the season.

"Sausage Race": 9 of the biggest takeaways from this week's baseball-themed "Top Chef"

This is not to say that there weren't some lovely dishes, of course. Dan's winning smoked fish dish, another of Manny's mgnificent moles, Savannah's chawanmushi, Danny's carrot-centric chowder, Amanda's "brilliant" vegan gumbo and Laura's tartare all sounded great. Also, very simple, but I loved the idea of Manny's shrimp with miso butter. I also liked how the judges split down the middle and were then able to dine at both restaurants and see how consistent the service and food was throughout.

Good on Laura for doing well (though she clearly didn’t train the front of house staff very well, hence all of the issues which messed up Kaleena’s expediting), and how odd that Michelle seemed so off-kilter? That was strange.

On the flipside, I love how Danny made pre-made tickets (Current reigning champ Buddha Lo wrote here that he did the same on his seasons). Really smart!

Here are the rest of my takeaways:

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

General mid-season rundown: Aside from Danny’s Buddha-like precision and performance, no one really seems to be “swinging for the fences,” to borrow a metaphor that would’ve fit perfectly in last week's episode.

I think Manny seems stellar — his highs are amazing — but they’re often metered by lesser efforts and tiny mishaps. Laura has had a crummy edit and while her food seems perfectly fine, she’s not the most inherently “rootable” character. I continue to love Savannah based on sheer potential, edit and that mustard greens dish, but I’d love to see her do more (though her chawanmushi sounded terrific to me, maybe sans mushrooms).

Dan, Soo, and Michelle are probably the strongest contenders outside of Danny, but Michelle’s lackluster turn in Restaurant Wars and her near-boot a few weeks ago against Rasika dock a few points. As I previously mentioned, Amanda has some dark horse energy, but I’m not sure how she’ll fare as the numbers dwindle. Lastly, I think I might be rooting for Kevin the most? He’s such a bright, likable, positive presence on the show and his LCK performance thus far has been seriously impressive. I think his "Top Chef" France experience, which hindered him in the actual competition, might actually be a huge benefit in the frenzied rush-rush of LCK?

I liked the recent COVID seasons with no front of house component and a “chef’s tasting” instead, especially because we barely see or hear any discussion of the decor anyway (and I personally could care less about that). It’s also interesting how it’s a foregone conclusion that the boot is always front-of-house or executive chef/expeditor.

I’ve always found it interesting how most cheftestants don’t just opt to be a line cook during Restaurant Wars because then there’s a 99% chance you won’t be going home.

Odd decision of the season #472: why have a Restaurant Wars with an uneven cast? Still makes no sense why they didn’t just 1) have an elimination Quick Fire or 2) bump Restaurant Wars back a week? It's pretty inherently unfair with one team one member down.

The progression for Kaleena's team still seemed odd to me, though: Why so much protein, including two different tenderloins? As a guest judge put it — and which sort of encapsulates the whole episode — there were "no clunkers, but nothing cohesive."

Laura seemed very in control to me, more confident and poised than Michelle, as far as FOH goes. The delays in the second seating were absurd; I'm confident that Padma would've called it out, but Gail and Kristen remained polite while Tom and Kwame seemed to get increasingly irritated. However, Gail's "well, here's a cilantro sprig" when asked to identify the Mexican component of that dish got a chuckle out of me.

It was interesting to see the chasm in opinion about Soo's rice cake dish, which was loved by one half of the judges and hated by the other. Perhaps seemingly entirely dependent on which seating they actually dined at?

Also, I reiterate that there needs to be some more consistency throughout. Why does Soo get dinged for store-bought rice cakes while Kaleena wins with store-bought pasta? Why was Laura's making her own chorizo barely acknowledged when everyone else used store-bought sausages?

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

Tom seems grumpy on the show, or almost “over it,” but very relaxed and enthusiastic on Last Chance Kitchen. It’s an interesting juxtaposition. It feels like an even sharper distinction this season especially.

I think Michelle had a strangely poor front-of-house showing across the board. Savannah did a terrific job frying the fish for her dish, though. It looked fantastic!

Also, again, good for Laura for doing and quite well and handling the mix-ups in the kitchen and Kaleena very well. I’m starting to root for her because I feel like she’s very capable, but has been unfairly maligned with a pretty one-note edit.

Kaleena's end-of-episode confessional seems so distinct — accomplished, pleased, content — from her Last Chance Kitchen preamble which felt . . . different. It's odd that she didn't just tell production instead of walking into LCK and throwing things into disarray.

Of course, it didn’t wind up mattering because Rasika lost again anyway, but the whole “episode” really espoused the energy of this season, which is sort of fly by your pants? David, Soo, some of the challenges, this Kaleena withdrawal and temporary Rasika reinstatement: It's just strange all around.

Rasika really sort of burned out, which is a bummer. Good for Kevin, though! He's doing such a great job in LCK.

Lastly, Tom’s “a lot has changed in our industry” comments in response to Kaleena's withdrawal really encapsulates a ton that has relatively gone unsaid on Top Chef proper.

While Kaleena's withdrawal (and David’s lingering disappearance) just add more question marks to this already uneven season, Bliss did outline her decision further on social media.

In a post on Instagram, Kaleena wrote that "My decision to not go back into [Last Chance Kitchen] was not easy by any means. After my elimination in [episode] 4, I cried in my room for no less than [four] days because I was so disappointed in myself. I didn't feel like that this time around. I was proud of how far I had already come, and I was also mentally fatigued . . . mentally gassed if you will. I made the choice that was best for me."

She added, "When you exit "Top Chef,' you go right back into your world of work and all the stresses of a normal, unboxed life. We go back to leading our kitchens and businesses. It's not an easy transition. I made the decision that was right for me at that time in my life, and I've no regrets to this day about it. I had proved what I wanted to prove, and now I needed to take care of myself."

Bliss also said that she is "at peace" and "can't wait to watch the rest of the competition unfold and root my pals on!"

about this topic

Trump’s lawyer committed a “cardinal sin” with Michael Cohen, legal expert says: He was “boring”

Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who is now testifying against his ex-boss, might have expected an incisive cross-examination from Todd Blanche, Trump's experienced lawyer. Instead, the Tuesday afternoon grilling turned out to be sleepy and dull, according to CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen.

"[Blanche] committed the cardinal sin of cross-examination," said Eisen, who was in the courtroom at the time. "It was so tangled up at times that it was boring. It actually was some of the first boring moments in all of the 19 or so days of this trial that we've had."

Trump's legal team, led by Blanche, sought to discredit Cohen's testimony as the ravings of a man driven by hopes of financially profiting from his hate towards the former president, who abandoned him in a federal prison after Cohen pleaded guilty to his involvement in the same hush money deals at the heart of the Manhattan trial.

Blanche repeatedly questioned Cohen about calling Trump a "boorish cartoon misogynist" and "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain," as well as his motives for testifying and the money he made from books and merchandise criticizing Trump. Cohen answered many of these questions with "sounds like something I would say." In response to Blanche asking him if he was lying when he praised Trump in the past, Cohen said that at the time, he was "knee-deep into the cult of Donald Trump."

Eisen dismissed Blanche's line of questioning as ineffective.

"He came out of the box with objectionable questions that were about him and Cohen's criticism of him, that had nothing to do with the case, got a reprimand from the judge, got off on a bad foot," said Eisen. "He meandered all over the map."

On the other hand, Eisen described Cohen as "disciplined" and "credible." The contrasting performances were further underscored by expectations; according to Eisen, many thought that Cohen would be bested by Blanche, who has a strong reputation in legal circles. That reputation might have just taken a hit.

Cohen, a star witness for the prosecution seeking to nail Trump for an allegedly fraudulent cover-up of his tryst with Stormy Daniels, testified that the former president directed the filing of checks that were described as part of a legal "retainer" agreement, when they were actually reimbursement for hush money payments to the adult film star.

Republicans audition to become Donald Trump’s next Michael Cohen

The much-anticipated testimony by former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen finally arrived this week and from the sound of many of the talking heads on television, it's been a huge disappointment. They were apparently expecting the former president's one-time personal "fixer" to melt down on the stand in a fit of rage or lunge at his former boss. Instead, the carefully prepared Cohen was subdued and succinct, admitting his lies and misdeeds in service of Donald Trump with a sorrowful mien.

They are all so blinded by ambition and the ecstasy of being in this exciting moment that they fail to see that they are heading down exactly the same humiliating path that led Cohen to that witness stand this week.

The prosecution's case has been meticulously laid out through testimony from the people with whom Trump conspired to create fake news items about his political rivals in 2016 and their scheme to buy up negative stories about him to testimony from his loyal, former assistants creating a timeline delineating what the former president knew and when he knew it.

And then there was Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who received the hush money payoff, taking the stand to dramatically verify that the story they were trying to suppress was true. All of this has been backed up by a paper trail that even includes handwritten notes by Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg on incriminating documents outlining the crime Trump is charged with committing.

But the full story is best told through Michael Cohen, who ties all the various strands of the plot together.

"Out of loyalty": Michael Cohen details the many times he lied for Trump

In the last two days of direct and cross-examination, Cohen has woven the tale of a nefarious scheme hatched by Trump, a tabloid smear merchant, women with whom the married Trump had sexual relationships along with some lawyers and accountants to illegally suppress information and cook the books to aid Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. Most legal observers think he's done a good job of it, despite the baggage he carries as a convicted felon. (As every TV lawyer has pointed out at least once, witnesses who flip on their co-conspirator bosses are, by definition, not pure and innocent but testify for the government in courtrooms around the country every day.)

At this writing, Cohen is still in the middle of cross-examination by Trump's defense lawyers who appear to be suggesting that Cohen is angry with Trump for failing to pick him for a plum position in the White House so he's lying about his personal plot to spend his own money and lie for him repeatedly, which seems a bit strained. When asked by Trump's attorney why he would have done such things, Cohen replied, "I was deep in the cult of Donald Trump."

Considering where he is today, there's certainly a lesson in that but it's obvious that some people who should know better are not heeding it. I'm speaking of the elected Republicans who are now making pilgrimages to Manhattan to demonstrate their fealty to the Dear Leader, even down to their clothes and the placement of their flag pins:

Dressed by daddy. pic.twitter.com/2cfkCCG08E

— Brian Guest (@brguest20) May 14, 2024

Cults often have uniforms, The only thing missing is a red MAGA hat to make it complete.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

I called this last week when I wrote about Florida Senator Rick Scott's appearance in court after Trump was reported to have complained that he was getting no support from the party in his time of need. I expected that the vice presidential wannabes would be making the trek right quick, elbowing each other out of the way to gain his attention. Sure enough, this week we have seen contenders, J.D. Vance, R-Oh., Gov. Doug Burgam, R-N.D., Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fl., and MAGA Trump superfans, Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, GOP presidential alsoran Vivek Ramaswamy and last but hardly least, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. (South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida had better step it up.)

These GOP luminaries are supposedly there to provide moral support to the Republican nominee for president. As Vance told Fox News:

“I mean, look, I was there to support a friend. Recognizing that sometimes it’s a little bit lonely to sit up there by yourself, I offered to come in and maybe just be a friendly face in the courtroom. And that’s all I wanted to do."

Please. That's not really what they're there to do for Donald Trump. They come into the courtroom for about 45 minutes or so and then leave and hold a press conference outside. They rant about the trial being a witch hunt and a sham and say all the things Trump is precluded from saying because of the gag order imposed by the judge to stop him from putting the family members of the court employees, the witnesses and jury members in danger. It's a blatant act of defiance of the spirit of the law from a group of people who take an oath to uphold it. Sen. Tuberville, a man with absolutely no filter, told Newsmax that it is a coordinated strategy:

Hopefully, we have more and more senators and congressmen go up every day to represent him and be able to go out and overcome this gag order. And that’s one of the reasons we went, is to be able to speak our piece for President Trump.

Perhaps the most shocking performance of the group so far was Speaker Johnson, the man who is second in line to the presidency, who called the trial a sham and, like most of the others, even lied about the judge's daughter putting her in the cross hairs of the crazy MAGA followers in defiance of the gag order. What a low, low moment for American politics.

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

Trump is naturally very pleased with this unctuous display of sycophancy. He came before the cameras on Tuesday and said “I have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully.” If it could be proved that he "directed" them to do this, he would go to jail for violating the gag order but Trump's mob boss style is well-understood. They all know very well what Trump wants them to say without him ever having to tell them.

All of these grasping sycophants are now "deep in the cult of Donald Trump" just as Michael Cohen was all those years ago. As MSNBC's Chris Hayes so sharply observed yesterday,

You're watching the next iteration of people auditioning to be the next version of that guy up on the stand … Here you have this set of people who seem to bear no connection to the ghost of Christmas future of the man on the stand who was himself this supplicant figure and you wonder which one of them is going to end up in the same position.

I think they all are in one way or another. No one escapes unscathed. They are all so blinded by ambition and the ecstasy of being in this exciting moment that they fail to see that they are heading down exactly the same humiliating path that led Cohen to that witness stand this week having to confess to the whole world that he was a fool who destroyed his life trying to please this man who has never cared for anyone but himself.

about this trial

Cold-blooded killer: Study finds climate change is driving deadly cold waves, harming wildlife

Bull sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) are large, voracious predators. Measuring anywhere from 7 to 11 feet from tail to snout, with dark gray skin and a white underbelly, bull sharks eat everything from fishes and dolphins to other sharks and even the occasional human. It is for that last reason that it takes a lot of gumption to attach electronic tags to wild bull sharks — yet that is precisely what scientists did in a recent study for the journal Nature.

Their findings proved, tragically, that there is a newly-discovered way in which climate change makes life more difficult for both bull sharks and other undersea life.

"This shows the potential impacts of increased cold events, an understudied aspect of climate change research."

Specifically, the study found that climate change is making both more frequent and more intense a phenomenon known as extremely cold upwelling events. Those refer to when pockets of cold water replacer warm water at the surface after being brought there by strong winds and ocean currents. Led by researcher Nicolas Lubitz from James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, the scientists learned that the sharks chose shallower water during upwelling events because they needed to avoid the newly-colder water.

In a related study, the researchers also analyzed 41 years of sea surface temperature data and 33 years of wind records to learn about the history of upwelling events in the Indian Ocean’s Agulhas Current and the East Australian Current — particularly when they had a large death toll in animals like sharks, squid and manta rays.

"Borrowed time": As we shatter temperature records, experts worry we're in "uncharted territory"

The researchers concluded that the cold upwelling events turn lethal depending on how fast they cause the temperature to drop. Additionally, when an event lasts for a long time such as multiple days, marine animals like fish species and turtles are more likely to die or suffer serious health problems from issues like hypothermia. An increasing number of killer cold upwellings might also cause a sort of "bait and switch" to occur in certain ecosystems, with species that reside in the subtropics expanding their territorial range while those closer to the poles suffer an increased risk of dying from the cold. Finally, these events will almost certainly impact humans, particularly those who rely on the fishing industry for survival.

“We’re seeing changes in how often the upwelling occurs, how intense it is, which might impact the fishing communities in these areas,” Lubitz told CNN. “It’s really an economic thing as well as the biodiversity thing.”

More broadly, the study reveals that climate change is not only about the planet warming, but in a seeming paradox can also trigger catastrophic cooling events.

"This shows the potential impacts of increased cold events, an understudied aspect of climate change research, and highlights the complexities of climate change effects on marine ecosystems," the authors write.

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

"Studies of climate change and ocean temperatures usually focus on heating rather than cooling."

Studies of climate change and ocean temperatures usually focus on heating rather than cooling. For example, a recent report by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority found that more than half of 1,000 reefs analyzed out of more than 2,900 in total suffered from significant levels of bleaching, with a mere quarter being unaffected. Coral bleaching occurs when coral become stressed due to high temperatures or lack of nutrients and expel the algae that live symbiotically within it. This is the fifth mass bleaching event to occur on that reef in the last eight years.

Climate change is causing ocean temperatures to spike in unprecedented ways, with temperature records shattered every single day in 2023.

In a similar development, in 2022 the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences published a study measuring ocean temperatures by studying ocean heat content (OHC), a catch-all term referring to the saltiness (or salinity), different layers of temperatures and other factors that culminate to determine global oceanic temperatures. The group found that as of that year, 2022 had been the hottest in the historical record, surpassing the previous maximum record set in 2021. The authors speculated that the increase in OHC could have factored into extreme weather events like the increased number of wildfires and floods.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

In the future, if the oceans warm too much, it could further destabilize the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a conveyor belt of ocean currents essential to the fishing industry and maintaining stable weather. AMOC has already shown signs of weakening, and if it is drastically altered, the result could be even more extreme weather changes.

In short, climate change has a complex relationship with ocean temperatures, sometimes raising them to dangerous levels and on other occasions causing them to drop precipitously for ocean animals that depend on stability. At least one of those species, however, was able to shed light on the terrible toll being taken for the humans causing the problem: sharks.

“That was really the key in this study in that we could see when the sharks migrate,” Lubitz told CNN. “We could see how the temperature profiles change, and how the sharks were swimming shallower when they were in upwelling areas because they were trying to avoid the colder water from the depths.”

about climate change

Trump said men would see his mistreatment of Stormy Daniels as “cool.” His trial suggests otherwise

Despite all the press hand-wringing about Michael Cohen's so-called credibility issues as a witness in Donald Trump's criminal fraud trial, the colorful details he's offered from the Manhattan witness stand this week add an aura of truth to his recollections. Cohen claims Trump blew off concerns about Melania Trump leaving him after his infidelities were revealed with, "How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long." Of course. "There's going to be a lot of women coming forward," Cohen claims Trump warned him as the number accusing him of sexual abuse or harassment swiftly topped two dozen.

Perhaps the most telling bit of Trumpian dialogue Cohen recounted from the stand, however, was Trump's reaction to hearing adult film actress Stormy Daniels was shopping the story of their 2006 sexual encounter to the press in the days after the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape.

"Women are going to hate me," Trump said, according to Cohen's testimony. "Guys may think this is cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign."

The possibility that men could experience empathy or care for women seems alien to Trump.

That's believable because such an assessment reflects Trump's zero-sum view of all relationships: Every human interaction has a winner and a loser.

"The spin he wanted put on it," Cohen told the court, "was that this is 'locker room talk,' something that Melania had recommended — or, at least, he told me that’s what Melania had thought it was — and use that in order to get control over the story and to minimize its impact on him and his campaign."

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

Daniels testified last week about what was, at best, really bad sex with Trump. There were a lot of red flags for coercion — Trump "blocking the door," the bodyguard stationed outside, and Trump using Harvey Weinstein-style threats that the only way Daniels would "get out of that trailer park" would be by having sex with him. Trump seems to believe that men, as a group, would generally agree that it's just great if your sexual partner leaves an encounter traumatized and ashamed, so long as the dude gets what he wants. The possibility that men could experience empathy or care for women seems alien to Trump.

But, of course, there's a long and ugly public record of Trump expressing this acrimonious view of gender relations in both private and public. On the "Access Hollywood" tape — filmed a year before his encounter with Daniels — Trump is bragging about how he sexually assaults women to impress his male companion, the show's host Billy Bush. The two men laughingly relish the pain of Trump's victims, as Trump crows, "when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

During the civil trial period where Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, he repeatedly defended this view as if he were simply describing an inescapable fact of nature. During his deposition, he was asked if he believes powerful men can just sexually assault who they like, saying, "If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true," tacking on "unfortunately or fortunately."

Trump defends his comments from the “Access Hollywood” tape in his taped deposition:

Trump: “Historically, that’s true with stars…If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately.” pic.twitter.com/FqtTVFF2oE

— Republican Accountability (@AccountableGOP) May 5, 2023

When asked to clarify on CNN after losing the case, he said he meant it was "fortunately" for powerful men but "unfortunately for her." It's like hearing someone describe eating a hamburger as good for the person, but bad for the cow. During the same interview, he blamed Carroll for the assault, saying "What kind of a woman meets somebody" and then allows herself to be alone "in a dressing room" with him shortly thereafter. He repeatedly talks about sex between men and women as if it's inherently violent, like he's the predator and she's the prey — and if she gets hurt, it's her fault for not protecting herself against him.

Legal expert: Prosecutor undercut Trump lawyers' strategy to "destroy" Michael Cohen's credibility

As Bush's cackling on the "Access Hollywood" tape suggests, some men do think it's "cool" to view sex as something you extract out of women, instead of something consenting adults choose in hopes of mutual enjoyment. As Bikini Kill frontwoman Kathleen Hanna lamented in a recent interview with Salon, some men enjoy "the look of humiliation and fear on women's faces." In her writings on the origins of misogyny, philosopher Kate Manne roots the phenomenon in male entitlement, arguing that men want to lash out at women who are denying them what they feel they are owed, whether it's submission, attention, or sex.

It's not a coincidence that there's a lot of overlap between male Trump supporters and communities of bitter misogynists, from "incels" (who hate women for supposedly denying them sex) to "men's rights activists" (who are angry at women for wanting equality). They want to live vicariously through Trump's abuse of women. But it's also true that plenty of men find this behavior gross. And not just because it's immoral, either. Trump's actions are also pathetic.

As many male commentators pointed out in the aftermath of Daniels testifying, Trump comes across in her story as equal parts scary and pathetic. Pathetic, because he wants so badly to be seen as suave and attractive, but fails miserably at it. His silk pajamas were an attempt at Hugh Hefner cosplay. His arrogance and boasting failed to impress the much younger woman he had lured to his room under false pretenses. She's not attracted to him. She's plotting her escape. In the end, because he can't seduce her, he leverages fear. While falling short of legally provable rape, the events that day left her sad and regretful that she ever went to visit this horrible man.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Trump has often sought to portray himself as a Lothario, a James Bond-type who the women can't resist. The evidence, however, suggests the opposite is true: Women are just not that into him, or, in most cases, are actively repulsed. Rather than admit it's a personal problem caused by his loathsome personality, Trump, like most misogynists, spins a story where sex is never something women actually want. Instead, they have to be bribed, bullied or even forced. Wives in this view are paid-for trophies. Extramarital sex is always viewed in terms of conquest, whether by tricking women with false promises of a payday or, as Trump explained to Bush, by simply making them do it.

But even Trump knows on some level this isn't "cool." If he thought he came off as sexy and desirable in the story Daniels told, his narcissism may compel him to admit they had sex. But he denies her story, no doubt because the main theme is how bad he is at sex.

Trump's abusive treatment of women is often treated like a sideshow to his larger criminal and authoritarian project, but in truth, it's all rooted in the same toxic levels of entitlement. He can't persuade women to want him, so instead he turns to coercion. His fascist ideology is more of the same. Unable to convince most Americans to support him or his politics, he seeks out ways to impose himself on the country anyway, through lies, fraud, and, eventually, an attempted coup. The man has never met a system he didn't try to cheat. That's largely because, his claims to being the greatest at all things at all times aside, he knows he simply doesn't have the talents or work ethic to succeed on the merits. Far from being a side issue, Trump's hostile attitudes towards women predict his approach to the law, the public, and the political system: Since he can't win fairly, he chooses force.

about this topic

“Not an open-and-shut case”: Former U.S. attorney lays out remaining landmines for Trump prosecution

The general consensus of most legal experts and other serious observers is that the first weeks of Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York (what is really a trial about election interference and fraud) have gone very badly for the former president.

Key witnesses for the prosecution such as former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, her attorney Keith Davidson, and then President Trump’s aide and confidante Hope Hicks have offered a damning portrait of Trump’s personal behavior, desire to hide his alleged affair(s) before the 2016 election, and pattern of using money to hide unflattering and potentially harmful information from the public.

The main witness for the prosecution, Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, testified this week and "put it all together" for the jury, according to legal experts. The outcome of the hush-money trial – and if the charges rise to the level of a felony – appears to be greatly dependent on Cohen. His testimony and the hush-money trial have taken on even more extreme importance for the future of the United States and its democracy given that Trump’s three other criminal trials appear to be delayed past Election Day. In the end, the hush-money trial may be the only chance to hold Trump accountable for his decades-long crime spree. Public opinion polls show that a “guilty” verdict in the hush-money trial may sway enough voters to abandon the aspiring Dictator Donald Trump and vote for President Biden, in what is now a virtual tie.

But there are some legal experts who hold the unpopular view, one contrary to what so many Americans and members of the mainstream news media and political class (and especially the “Resistance”) desperately desire and want to believe, that a guilty verdict in Trump’s hush-money case is not a fait accompli or in any way a certainty. Kevin O’Brien is one such voice.

"In a criminal case, if you're a prosecutor, you'd like to have the conduct required for conviction to line up with the ethical significance of the case. But here, they are totally different."

A former assistant U.S. attorney who specializes in white-collar criminal defense, commercial and securities litigation on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants, regulatory enforcement cases, and arbitrations, O'Brien is currently a Partner at Ford O'Brien Landy LLP. His legal analysis and expert commentary have been featured at NBC News, BBC News, Salon, Bloomberg News, Vox, Scripps News, Reuters, Westlaw Today, and Law360.

In a conversation with Salon, O’Brien explains that the charges against Trump are highly technical and suggests that the prosecution will likely have a difficult time proving Trump’s direct role in falsifying his business records, a requisite for the charges to rise to the level of a felony.

Legal expert: Despite "credibility" issues, Michael Cohen "put it all together" for Trump jury

He also shares his concerns that there are jurors who find themselves annoyed that Trump, a former president, is being charged with hiding an affair and that does not rise to the level of a serious crime. O'Brien is concerned that the defense’s emphasis on the sexual and other lurid details of Trump’s encounter with Daniels may also have the effect of turning jurors in favor of the corrupt ex-president.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length:

How are you making sense of Trump's hush-money trial and the larger maelstrom around his multiple criminal trials? This is all truly historic and unprecedented, and not in a good way. It is also very exhausting.

I had mixed feelings about the hush-money case before it started. The charges are almost unworthy of a former president. Moreover, the statute seemed technical. In a criminal case, if you're a prosecutor, you'd like to have the conduct required for conviction to line up with the ethical significance of the case. But here, they are totally different. The charged conduct is creating false business records, which carries little ethical weight. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Donald Trump intended to create or abet, enable, and assist the creation of false business records. These records certainly appear to be false. But how did he actually falsify the records? That is the key matter. Perhaps Mr. Cohen will provide that link. It has not been compellingly established yet in the hush-money case by the prosecution.

You are most certainly an outlier, especially among the types of voices who are being featured in the mainstream news media, on certain cable news networks, as well as here at Salon, who are generally presenting Trump's first criminal trial as almost a fait accompli. I am on the record as being very concerned about the hush-money trial (and the other ones as well) and how too many public voices are being prematurely happy and celebratory about Trump being found guilty and that somehow leading to his demise. This is not an open-and-shut case despite how many people would like to believe it is.

It is not an open-and-shut case at all.

"The jury is going to be instructed that these are just misdemeanors. A juror will likely say to themself, 'They had us here for all this time over misdemeanors? Really?' That's a good argument in favor of the defense."

Given the nature of juries and criminal cases, all it takes is one or two jurors who aren't overwhelmed by the proof. A juror who says to himself that yes, what Trump did was bad, and he acted in a disgusting way as he often does, but where is the crime here? How does this violate the public's trust? I believe that we are being swayed by the tense and dramatic atmosphere of this first criminal trial. The witnesses are colorful and interesting — and they have baggage of their own.

Let me be clear, I believe that the prosecution has done a great job. They are very well-prepared and very professional. They have also thought of all the angles that should have been considered so far. They have also thought deeply about their strategy. But in the end, the prosecution may not have the evidence to prove their case conclusively. Moreover, I am concerned that the prosecution may have gone overboard on the sexual details of Trump's encounter with Stormy Daniels. There may be one or two jurors who were put off by that and feel like the prosecution is just trying to embarrass Donald Trump. Yes, Trump denied having a relationship with her and you want to prove that he in fact did have one. But all the extra details may not have been necessary.

Pushing back a bit. There is all the evidence that has been presented in court so far, for example a recording of Trump talking about the hush-money payments. There are also the witnesses including Trump's aides and confidantes, the former publisher of The National Enquirer David Pecker, Karen McDougal's attorney who handled her alleged hush-money payment, and Stormy Daniels herself who have painted a damning portrait of Donald Trump's behavior. I am sure many people reading our conversation will be very surprised that you are not convinced that Donald Trump is already defeated in this first criminal trial.

I don't think Donald Trump is dead to rights. The case against him is not overwhelming. And even if the prosecution can prove everything that they have alleged, the weight of the charges does not fit what the facts and evidence show. There might be people who suspect that they wouldn't have gone after anyone other than Donald Trump about these matters and therefore this is a political prosecution. I can easily see one or more jurors having such a thought in a way that can create reasonable doubt. The charge is, again, somewhat technical. It's not intuitive. The jurors must connect the strong ethical condemnation of hiding material facts from the electorate on the eve of an election, which is the ethical thrust of the entire case, from the actual charged conduct, which has nothing to do with it.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

The charges against Donald Trump are for falsifying business records. If I were the prosecutor, I would want to have proof of a conversation where Trump admits that we've got to call these hush-money payments legal fees or something else in order to buy off Stormy Daniels. Moreover, because Trump is a former president, it seems to me that the prosecution is probably going to be held to a higher standard of proof of guilt by the jury.

If found guilty will Donald Trump be sentenced to prison?

These criminal offenses come with a range of possible sentences. Falsifying business record records are misdemeanors. And in that case, you can't serve more than a year, that's the maximum for any misdemeanor. And most people convicted of misdemeanors, at least the first time around, get no time served, they get probation. But if they can link that to a predicate crime, like election fraud, which is what the state is trying to do, or tax evasion, then they can bump the charges up to a felony. But even so, I think the range is going to be on the low end given the nature of the offense. Will a judge sentence Donald Trump to prison for these offenses? I can see an argument that given Trump's public stature as a former president that some prison time may be warranted. No man is above the law. But even then, I believe the sentence would be for only a few months, and he may just get probation. Trump does not care about being fined.

The argument being made by the prosecution is that the hush-money payments were part of a larger attempt in service to hiding information from the public to help Donald Trump win the presidential election. How hard is that going to be to prove?

It's not a crime in New York to mislead voters or to make false statements to the electorate on the eve of an election. But it is a crime, albeit a misdemeanor, to make false entries in business records. The jury is going to be instructed that these are just misdemeanors. A juror will likely say to themself, "they had us here for all this time over misdemeanors? Really?" That's a good argument in favor of the defense. Yes, that reaction is not based on the evidence. But human commonsense reactions have an impact on how jurors make their decisions. And such a reaction may also be common among prospective voters as well. The prosecutors are going to have to compellingly connect this all to an attempt to defraud the public as part of something much bigger.

What strategy and approach would you use to defend Donald Trump? Would you present him as someone sympathetic and a victim who is being persecuted or as a horrible person who has done many bad things but one who is not guilty of what he is being charged with in the hush-money trial? The latter approach seems more compelling to me as opposed to the "family man" line that his defense used in their opening statement. How do you find a balance?

If you were operating on a blank slate as a defense lawyer, the latter approach is far preferable. It's easier to pull off. It levels with the jury and you are letting them into your confidence, that is seductive. We all know that this guy isn't a great person, right? But where's the crime? That could be an effective approach in a case like this. Here is the problem: Donald Trump is not going to let his lawyers make that pitch to the jurors. I assume Trump's attorneys said all that stuff about him being a "family man" because he demanded that they do it. For the same reason, I assume that the cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, which became kind of pointless, was done at Trump's request. He wanted her to be embarrassed and shamed on the stand. He wanted her to be punished because he was angry at what she has said about him and their intimate encounter. I'm sure Donald Trump instructed his lawyers that they had to go after Stormy Daniels with everything they had, even though that's often not the wisest approach. I don't think it was the wisest approach here. They've got a very demanding client with Donald Trump who is insistent that certain things be done even if they aren't the wisest things to do in the case.

When you are dealing with a difficult personality like Donald Trump, what is your approach as an attorney?

Donald Trump can be his own worst enemy. But past a certain point, you have to make peace with your client. As an attorney, you can take a hard line on certain things. If you're a forceful person with a track record of success you may be able to get away with it for a while, but inevitably, you're going to have to bow to the client's wishes. If you don't you will get fired. There has already been talk about how Trump is not happy with his lead attorney Todd Blanche. The hush-money trial is maybe only half over. No lawyer wants to get fired from a trial, especially so after all the work they've put in.

Why is Donald Trump not in jail for repeatedly and flagrantly violating the court's gag orders about threatening witnesses and engaging in other menacing and intimidating behavior against people involved in the trials?

Donald Trump is in the middle of an election campaign. This judge, and likely no other judge, would put Trump in jail for violating a gag order. What Trump is doing is certainly improper, but there's not much a trial judge can do. In a criminal case the defendant needs to be there. Someone who is not only a former president, but is a leading candidate, a judge is going to bend over backwards to avoid putting him in jail. I just don't see it happening. Frankly, the things that Trump says are outrageous. But I believe that part of why he is getting away with this behavior is that there has not been some type of high-profile incident where his followers have been incited to serious violence. There may have been things that have happened that the Secret Service and other law enforcement are keeping close to the vest, but we don't know that. So far at least, the hush-money trial has proceeded without serious incident. Trump's bad behavior with the gag order and his threats and the like is one issue that I believe the press has made too much of.

What is going on with the three other criminal cases against Donald Trump? The so-called legal walls that are supposed to be closing in on Donald Trump appear to have stopped, again.

The Georgia case was likely never going to trial until well after the election. It is a huge case. They indicted too many people. Too many small potatoes were swept up in the indictment. They didn't need to do that. Fani Willis decided she wanted to tell a sweeping story, which does have some merits as an approach. But in the end, the practical problems with such an approach are great in terms of time. Matters are not getting easier in the Georgia case given the attacks on her personal conduct. She is also in a hostile political environment. The Republican legislature doesn't like her. I'm sure a number of the judges don't think much of her either. So, she's got to be careful, and she wasn't.

By comparison, special counsel Jack Smith has done a wonderful job with the cases in Florida and for Jan. 6 and the attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Unfortunately, the federal courts have proved to be an obstacle. The Supreme Court taking this appeal on a fairly simple question that they've made into an enormous philosophical debate about presidential immunity is going to mean the Jan. 6 election interference case will not get tried before the election.

The case in Florida is even worse. Judge Aileen Cannon apparently doesn't want the case tried. There's apparently nothing that the government can do about her. I assume they thought about moving to have Cannon disqualified at the very beginning, but they opted against it because they felt that they could not win. Accusing a judge of bias or the appearance of bias is a very serious matter. We are now paying the price for that decision. The classified documents case is a very simple one with the fewest obstacles to conviction. There is almost no defense to anything that Donald Trump did, but nevertheless, we're not going to see a trial for quite a while — and certainly not before the 2024 presidential election.

about this topic

Despite restrictions and bans, abortions rose across the U.S. according to new data

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago, eliminating the constitutional right to access abortion, 14 states have nearly totally banned abortions. The implications have varied from forcing women to carry unwanted or unviable pregnancies to term to women being forced to spend thousands of dollars to travel out of state to influencing where medical students attend their residency programs.

But one thing the restrictive landscape hasn’t done? Reduce the number of abortions happening nationwide.

According to a new report released this week by the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project, the number of abortions in the U.S. has continued to rise slightly since Roe was overturned. In 2023, there were on average 86,000 abortions per month compared to 2022 when there were about 82,000 abortions per month.

While the researchers don’t have their own data from pre-Dobbs, a previous study estimated that in 2020 slightly more than 930,000 abortions occurred in the United States in 2020, averaging about 77,500 per month. The same study estimated that abortion numbers had increased between 2017 and 2020 after decades of the annual number of abortions declining.

Florida clarified abortion rules after enacting ban. Doctors say it's "gaslighting" and unhelpful

WeCount collected their data thanks to their database of all clinics, private medical offices, hospitals and virtual clinic-abortion providers in the United States. Leveraging this database, providers submit the monthly number of abortions. WeCount synthesizes the data and creates imputations for the clinics that don't send their data.

“We're finding that there were a slightly higher number of abortions in 2023 compared to the data we collected in 2022,” Ushma Upadhyay, a professor and public health scientist at the University of California, San Francisco who co-led the research, told Salon in a phone interview. “We’re also able to look at the loss in states with either total abortion bans or six-week bans, and we found that there are about 180,000 fewer abortions in the 18 months since the Dobbs decision in those states.”

These cumulative declines were most notable in Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama. Notably, the data found that accessing abortion care via telehealth has been a “game changer,” Upadhyay emphasized.

"Telehealth has really opened up access for people living in ban states who previously didn't have many other options."

In a telehealth medication abortion, a patient typically talks to a provider over video or a secured chat platform. If the patient is less than 10 weeks pregnant and found to be eligible, the provider can prescribe the patient mifepristone, which blocks pregnancy hormones, and then misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions. The medicines can be delivered via a mail-order pharmacy even to those in states where abortions are nearly completely banned.

According to the report, more than 40,000 people in states with abortion bans and telehealth restrictions received medication abortion through providers in states protected by shield laws between July and December 2023.

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

“Telehealth has really opened up access for people living in ban states who previously didn't have many other options,” Upadhyay said. “This is an option that their state may not see as legal, but the states providing the care see these as a fully legal option.”

Telehealth can help patients from having to travel many hours to access care, take time off or find childcare — and it’s also less expensive than in-person care.

“This care often does not even require an appointment. Some providers offer it in an asynchronous way, meaning that when the patient comes to the website, completes their medical history information and then any questions, a provider will review it,” Upadhyay said. “Patients that are able to do the entire process from the comfort of their home or even at their work. They don't actually have to take time off of work to communicate with their providers.”

Elisa Wells, co-founder and co-director of Plan C, a non-profit abortion access group, told Salon in a phone interview that she wasn’t surprised to see the increase in abortion numbers in the #WeCount report.

"The WeCount numbers are an undercount because they do not account for the self-managed abortion option."

“Abortion is a common health need and as there is more information about abortion and abortion access available through the press — and in part because of these bans — I think people are considering how abortion fits into their lives and utilizing the service that they know is right for them," Wells told Salon. “So we're not at all surprised, and we also know that the WeCount numbers are an undercount because they do not account for the self-managed abortion option.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

At the same time, this is happening as anti-abortion legislators are targeting medication abortion and trying to restrict access. In Louisiana, a bill proposed by a Republican state senator would classify mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV "controlled dangerous substances," essentially lumping it in the same category as sedatives like Xanax and Ambien. Meanwhile, the country is still waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision on a case that would restrict access to mifepristone nationwide, and eliminate access to mifepristone by telehealth and by mail.

In other words — and in spite of the fact that self-managed abortions are safer than ever — the future of abortion access is not guaranteed. Even if telehealth access is not eroded, Upadhyay emphasized this data shouldn’t be interpreted as “all of the demand in states with abortion bans” is being met.

“Our biggest concern is that it will be overlooked that there are many, thousands of people living in states with bans who are unable to access abortion that are being forced to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term,” she said. “It's so important that people have healthcare in the communities where they live.”

about abortion access

Legal expert: Despite “credibility” issues, Michael Cohen “put it all together” for Trump jury

Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen appeared measured, if at times evasive, Tuesday afternoon as he faced a winding cross-examination in Trump's ongoing criminal trial in Manhattan.

Cohen became emotional at times as he talked about the legal consequences he's faced for his years of lying for Trump. And he had a poker face as Trump's defense lawyer, former federal prosecutor Todd Blanche, asked him about his frequent cascade of insults at Trump, who he's repeatedly said he wants to see behind bars.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, with prosecutors saying that audio recordings, internal business records and witness testimony prove he was scheming to kill damaging stories about alleged extramarital affairs ahead of his 2016 campaign and disguising reimbursements to Cohen as legal fees — all in violation of state and federal election law and state tax law. Trump denies the charges, as well as the affairs.

Blanche asked Cohen if he had once called Trump a "boorish cartoon misogynist" or a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain" on his podcasts or social media.

"Sounds like something I would say," Cohen said in response to both.

"Exceeded expectations": Experts say Michael Cohen is "dismantling" Trump lawyers' defense

Blanche at times pushed Cohen to answer his questions more directly.

"You talked about on 'Mea Culpa' your desire that President Trump would be convicted in this case?" Blanche asked, referring to a Cohen podcast.

"Sounds like something I would say," Cohen replied.

Blanche asked why he wouldn't answer yes or no.

"I don't know if I used those words specifically," Cohen said.

Blanche asked questions about whether Cohen was obsessed with Trump, his past strident praise for Trump, whether he was cooperating with Manhattan prosecutors out of self-interest, the money he's made off books and merchandise criticizing Trump and his history of lying in official proceedings — to reporters and to the public.

Blanche asked Cohen if he was lying when he praised Trump in the past, including calling him a "good man" who "cares deeply about this country."

"At the time, I was knee deep into the cult of Donald Trump, yes," Cohen said.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Blanche also showed Cohen emails in which his lawyer and Manhattan prosecutors discussed frustration with Cohen's frequent media appearances concerning their Trump probe.

Earlier in direct examination, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Cohen about his years of loyalty for Trump that ended in a federal prison sentence and emotional and personal pain.

Cohen said that during an early 2017 Oval Office meeting, Trump told him to expect a check and speak with former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg — a conversation Cohen said referred to the plan to reimburse Cohen for paying off adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Cohen also said he did "very minimal" legal services work for Trump in 2017 when he was paid $420,000 from Trump's bank account.

And he said that following an FBI raid at Cohen's home, Trump assured Cohen that his then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was "in his pocket."

Former federal prosecutor Barb McQuade said she thought Cohen's "direct examination went about as well as could be expected for the prosecution."

"Because the prosecution presented a great deal of evidence before he testified, the jury was already familiar with his story before he ever took the stand," McQuade told Salon. "In addition, the prosecution used email messages and text messages throughout his direct examination."

But she believes that in cross-examination, Cohen proved "less persuasive."

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

"He became somewhat argumentative with the defense, and seemed to shirk responsibility for prior inconsistent statements," McQuade said. "If he told the lie in the past, he should own his lie. Instead, he deflected those questions, which could diminish his credibility in the eyes of the jury."

On the other hand, McQuade said that prosecutors may hope that despite Cohen's baggage, the jurors can rely on the reams of financial invoices, bank statements, checks, emails, text messages, audio recordings and witness testimonies that allegedly show Trump caused a scheme to disguise reimbursements for hush money as legal services.

"Nonetheless, he doesn’t need to do a whole lot of work here," McQuade said. "The documents and the other witnesses provide the bulk of the case. Cohen just helps to provide context and pull it all together."

Salon viewed Tuesday's proceedings through an audio and video feed provided in an overflow room in a Manhattan courthouse. Trump's facial expressions weren't always clear through the feed, though he at times appeared to watch Cohen intently and at least once seemed to nod off.

Toward the end of Tuesday's cross-examination, Blanche appeared to signal another focus for the defense: Trump's contention that he didn't know anything about the alleged plan to reimburse Cohen for paying off adult film star and director Stormy Daniels.

Cohen told jurors this week that Trump avoided emails that could leave a written record.

"But when you think of yourself as a fixer, are you fixing things that you broke?" Blanche asked.

"No sir," Cohen said.

about Trump's hush-money trial

Everything we know about rapper Childish Gambino’s new album and tour

Childish Gambino is officially back.

Multi-hyphenate Donald Glover is slated to go on tour under his musical moniker (which he notably chose from the online Wu-Tang Clan name generator) after recently releasing "ATAVISTA," the reworked version of his 2020 album, "3.15.20"

Glover on Monday revealed on X/Twitter that the new album was already available on streaming platforms, noting that it was the "finished version" of its precursor. "There's a special vinyl coming soon with visuals for each song," the musician said, also observing that a larger project would be rolled out in the coming months. "The all-new Childish Gambino album comes out in the summer."

“This is America”: Is Donald Glover a genius?

Glover in the announcement also shared the link to the music video for his song "Little Foot Big Foot" featuring rapper Youngy Nudy. The video is roughly six minutes of black and white footage directed by Hiro Murai, Glover's frequent collaborator who has directed the artist's music video for the profound 2018 hit, "This Is America," as well as episodes of "Atlanta," the popular FX series Glover created, wrote and starred in. The video was also posted to Glover's Instagram account, which was barren before the "ATAVISTA" reveal.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C66xgRavUrD/?hl=en

The album release was accompanied by news of an upcoming world tour. As NBC noted, During his September 2018 concert at Madison Square Garden, Glover had previously stated there wouldn't be more.

“If you bought a ticket to this concert, that means you bought a ticket to the last Childish Gambino tour ever,” Glover as Gambino said at the time, per Billboard. "You don’t need to record this s**t. This is that moment. This is not a concert. This is church.” At the time, Glover was riding the success of "This Is America" and his popular 2016 album, "Awaken, My Love!"

He doubled down on the notion of retiring his stage name in January of that year, after winning a Grammy for best traditional R&B performance for "Redbone."

"I like endings and I think they're important to progress," Glover said at a news conference following his victory.

Now, "The New World Tour" will kick off on Aug.11 in Oklahoma City, touching down in major North American cities before moving on to Europe, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, according to The Associated Press. Artists Amaraee and Willow (also known as Willow Smith) will serve as opening acts for parts of the tour.

Though the release of "ATAVISTA" came as somewhat of a surprise to fans, Glover had teased the drop in the weeks preceding it. In April, he appeared as a guest during rapper Tyler the Creator's headliner set at the Coachella music festival in California. Following his performance, Glover in an Instagram Live feed shared that he would debut two new — and final — albums ("ATAVISTA" and the upcoming summer project).

On March 15, 2020, Glover shared a series of new Childish Gambino tracks on the website, DonaldGloverPresents.com; however, the songs were scrubbed shortly thereafter, seemingly replaced with the release of "3.15.20" a week later. The album featured the talents of pop singer Ariana Grande and rapper 21 Savage. It would subsequently be removed from streaming services as well, as noted by The AP.

Since Glover's last tour, he's completed "Atlanta," rebooted the 2005 film "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" as a television series for Prime Video, and flipped his Star Wars spinoff, "Lando," from a Disney+ show to a Lucasfilm movie.

about this topic

How big food companies can do more to create healthier food environments

Healthy eating is challenging in our current food environment in Canada. When delicious, attractive, unhealthy foods are promoted, priced, and placed for easy access and consumption, it contributes to the suboptimal eating patterns among most Canadian adults and children.

The food industry has a role in the World Health Organization's global action plan for addressing chronic diseases by creating healthier food environments, by taking actions like reducing the amount of salt, saturated fats and sugars in foods. After all, food companies are the ones who create, distribute and market the majority of foods we consume.

It is no secret that companies and their shareholders have legally mandated profit-driven interests — interests that may not align with a desire to support public health and healthy eating among Canadians.

To understand more about food industry commitments, we studied the nutrition-related policies and pledges of the largest food and drink manufacturers in Canada, including companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Danone. We wanted to understand the commitments companies have made to create healthier food environments in Canada and to see if things had improved since 2018, when our team of nutrition and public health researchers first conducted this exercise.

We used standardized methods that have been used in other countries to evaluate the top 22 food and drink manufacturers in Canada and their company policies and commitments related to nutrition in six key areas:

corporate strategy,
food (re)formulation,
nutrition information and labelling,
marketing and promotion,
accessibility and availability, and
transparency in relationships.

Scores for each of these six areas were added up to generate overall scores out of 100 for each company. To make sure the evaluation was relevant, we adapted the methods so they considered current policies in Canada. Our newly released report, which follows a similar report our team published in 2019, revealed some surprising findings.

Surprising findings

Our work showed that some companies are doing more than others. We found a range of overall company scores, with the highest score totalling 75 points out of 100, while the lowest score was 18 points.

The top performing company, Unilever, had a defined strategy to support healthier diets, public targets for the proportion of sales from healthier products and a commitment to report on these targets, and a policy that restricts marketing to children up to the age of 16. These positive examples demonstrate that it is reasonable to ask companies to make public health commitments, and to expect them to report on their achievement of these goals.

The results showed that many food and beverage companies are not doing enough to positively shape diets in Canada. The median score received was 49/100, a small improvement since our last report.

When we looked at each of the six key areas, we found very few commitments to make healthier foods more available and accessible. Most commitments centered on what companies said they were doing to improve the nutritional quality of their food products. We also found some important areas where none of the 22 companies had made any commitments. For instance, none had committed to decrease their spending on marketing unhealthy foods.

Company commitments related to nutrition matter. They guide companies' current and future actions, they inform shareholders and governments of corporate intentions and perhaps most importantly, they can be used to hold companies to account for actually meeting their stated commitments.

Recommendations for healthier food environments

If food manufacturers are to play a meaningful role in improving food environments, commitments and targets need to be specific, comprehensive, and clearly and transparently shared with Canadians. Companies also need to track and report on their progress in achieving their targets. We see some promising practices emerging internationally. For example,
Mexico-based international food manufacturer Grupo Bimbo publicly reports the healthfulness of the products it sells and what proportion of its sales come from healthier foods.

Based on our analysis, we have created a set of recommendations for food manufacturers. For example, we recommend that:

Food manufacturers should set and publicly report on targets for the proportion of their sales that come from healthier foods.
All food manufacturers should commit to specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) targets for the amount of sodium, sugars and saturated fats in their products and report on their progress.
Companies should commit to pricing healthier foods the same or lower than less healthy foods.

We also suggest that companies pledge not to advertise unhealthy products and brands on product packaging or in settings or media where children less than 18 years old may be exposed, in line with recent World Health Organization recommendations.

Companies can do more if they truly want to support healthier dietary patterns among adults and children in Canada. Some companies may be taking steps in the right direction, but others seem to need more incentive to act and overall progress remains slow.

This work highlights the importance of introducing government policies that would require companies to make positive changes and create healthier food environments in Canada. Given the billions of dollars in health-care costs each year in Canada caused by diet-related diseases, it is likely worth the investment.

Lana Vanderlee, Canada Research Chair in Healthy Food Policy, Assistant Professor in Nutrition, Université Laval; Alexa Gaucher-Holm, Master of Science student, School of Nutrition, Université Laval; Dana Olstad, Associate Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, and Monique Potvin Kent, Professor, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, L'Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa

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

Kelly Clarkson credits weight loss to a drug that isn’t Ozempic

Kelly Clarkson is opening up about her weight loss journey and said, "Everybody thinks it's Ozempic, but it's not. It's something else."

The 42-year-old singer and host of "The Kelly Clarkson Show" interviewed Whoopi Goldberg on Monday morning when the conversation shifted toward their respective weight loss journeys. When Clarkson complimented how ageless Goldberg looked, she responded, "First of all, it's all the weight I've lost. I've lost almost two people. I am doing that wonderful shot that works for folks who need some help, and it's been really good for me."

Clarkson then also shared about her experiences with a weight loss drug, "Mine is a different one than people assume, but I ended up having to do that too because my bloodwork got so bad. My doctor chased me for two years, and I was like, 'No, I'm afraid of it. I already have thyroid problems.'"

Clarkson further explained how the medication is "something that aids in helping break down the sugar," noting how her body "doesn't do it right."

The two women continued to talk about their bodies, stating that before their use of prescription medications, Goldberg said she was 300 pounds.

"My heaviest, I was like 203 [lbs.] And I'm like 5'3" and a half," Clarkson replied.

In January, the singer and host revealed on her show that she was pre-diabetic and that was the motivating factor for her to lose weight.

“House of the Dragon” swings by the Wall in the North as civil war brews

War is brewing in the new trailer for the return of "House of the Dragon." So what side are you on?

The fractured divide in House Targaryen has never been more apparent in the upcoming season. Based on George R.R. Martin’s book "Fire & Blood," civil war is imminent between former friends and now enemies, Rhaenyra (Emma D'Arcy) and Alicent (Olivia Cooke) in HBO's hit "Game of Thrones" prequel.

Following an explosive end to the show's first season, the second season picks up right up in the fallout. With Alicent in control as her son Aegon (Tom Glynn-Carney) was crowned king of Westeros when it was allegedly promised to his half-sister, Rhaenyra by their father, the late King Viserys (Paddy Considine).

The trailer opens with flashes of each character and even a short glance at one of the Northmen at the Wall — someone who looks awfully a lot like Jon Snow . . . a potential ancestor maybe?

An ominous Rhaenyra narrates that "the Targaryen who sits the Iron Throne is not just a king or queen, they are a protector of the realm." As the trailer shows glimpses of the new King Aegon, Rhaenyra continues, "Now I find myself in an impossible position. The enemy usurped my throne."

In contrast, Alicent tells her sons, Aegon and Aemond (Ewan Mitchell), "We must proceed with caution." She is met with an outburst from the king, "F*** dignity. I want revenge."

"House of the Dragon" Season 2 returns June 16.

Lab-grown meat’s PR problem offers an opportunity for plant-based products

Slop. This is the four-letter word Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman used to describe lab-grown meat on social media, while seemingly begrudgingly praising “Crash-and-Burn Ron” Desantis after the Republican governor banned the manufacturing and sale of cultured meat in the state of Florida.

“I co-sign this,” Fetterman wrote. “As a member of @SenateAgDems and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with our American ranchers and farmers.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg. As cultured meat has entered the culture wars, and questions around its production and distribution have become political fodder — for instance, on Monday, Alabama followed Florida’s lead in banning the products — its detractors have hurled a series of colorful descriptors its way. DeSantis has described its limited introduction to the market as part of the “global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish,” while Tennessee representative Bud Hulsey said in a March hearing that “some folks would probably like to eat bugs with Bill Gates, but not me.”

Our love affair with fake meat couldn't last

American politicians aren’t alone in their trepidation around lab-grown meat, which is produced by culturing animal cells in a bioreactor, where they multiply and differentiate into muscle tissue, and which is then harvested and processed to create an alternative to conventional meat production. A March survey-based report out of Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability found that “many consumers view conventional meats as both tastier and healthier than laboratory-grown alternatives.”

Joseph Balagtas is a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue, who also led the university’s recent report about consumer attitudes regarding cultivated meat. His research team found “similar results when evaluating consumers’ willingness to try conventional and cultivated meats in a restaurant setting.”

For common meats, such as beef, chicken and pork, the researchers found that about 90% or more of consumers are willing to try conventional or non-cultivated meats.

“The proportion of consumers willing to try the cultivated versions of these meats is around 30 percentage points lower, though it is still a majority, about 60%,” Balagtas said. “Given the fact that cell-cultured meat is not widely available, these results reflect consumer distrust of the unknown when it comes to food, which is a barrier for any novel food trying to break into the market.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

As a result, many conventional meat manufacturers are already beginning to tailor their public messaging about their products. For instance, as one lamb and beef producer in the United Kingdom told researchers as part of a recent survey they thought “marketing their produce as ‘the real stuff’ might give them a competitive edge compared to protein produced in a bioreactor.”

However, farmers and ranchers aren’t the only ones who see a potential marketing opportunity from lab-grown meat’s simmering PR crisis. Plant-based meat companies are also starting to adapt their packaging in an effort to appeal to new customers, especially those who may want an alternative to factory-farmed meat but aren’t keen on the idea of cultivated meat (which isn’t available to purchase commercially in the States currently, even if one wanted to).

One major way plant-based companies are doing this is through the use of color. As Charlotte Pointing wrote for VegNews on Tuesday, “red is the new green” when it comes to packaging for vegan meat substitutes because its a color often associated with fast-food, and thereby quick, easy flavor — especially when trying to target “flexitarians” or omnivores.

For instance, Impossible Foods, one of the leading plant-based meat brands in the country, debuted new, red packaging — a departure from their current cyan labels — today at Natural Products Expo West. The packaging will be seen for the first time on the packaging for their new Impossible Beef Hot Dogs.

"We’re the fastest-growing plant-based company in America, so it’s a good time to evolve from a position of strength."

“We’re the fastest-growing plant-based company in America, so it’s a good time to evolve from a position of strength. We wanted packaging that lived up to and reflected the deliciousness of our products while really popping on the shelf,” Peter McGuinness, president and CEO of Impossible Foods, said in a statement.

One of Impossible Foods’ main competitors, Beyond Meat, is taking a different tack. As Food Business News reported on Monday, the company has spent the last three years working with groups like the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association to meet the organizations’ respective criteria for endorsement. Those endorsements are now reflected on Impossible Foods’ packaging because “Beyond Meat’s management team believes marketing messages focused on the nutrition profile of its products will provide a point of differentiation in the market.”

During a May 8 conference call, Ethan Brown, the chief executive officer of Impossible Foods, said the product has “been so well received by not only the medical community, but the nutrition and registered dietitian community, that we have high confidence that it addresses the No. 1 issue in the category.”

It also sounds like some of the ire that has been previously directed at plant-based meat products has found a different target with the proliferation of cultivated meat, which also potentially indicates a larger opening in the market for vegan burgers, hot dogs and tenders.

“You can trust that this product has the health benefits that you’d expect it to have,” Brown said. “And, so, that’s a very different scenario than [the] one we were facing a year ago, when there was just so much negative noise that was being drummed up about the category.”

about this topic

How do we reduce pesticide use while empowering farmers? A more nuanced approach could help

Pesticides threaten humans, wildlife and our environment. Food production must change.

But farmers are already pushed to their margins. Organic agriculture produces less food and requires more land. An immediate end to pesticide use will probably cause productivity to drop and prices to soar.

There's no simple answer that makes pesticides right or wrong – context is key.

"Farmers want to produce food in a healthy environment as it makes it easier for us to operate," says David Lord, a farmer in Essex, England. "But when we're forced to produce so close to the cost of production, people are existing on such fine margins, they can't invest in the things they need to, and they're just pushed to farm in a way they don't want to."

The debate about pesticides often gets polarized, pitching farmers against consumers. But that doesn't capture the nuance or prioritize trust in scientific evidence. There's a common ground that can be explored by identifying wins for both people and biodiversity that share agricultural landscapes.

For ten years, I've studied pollinators, such as bees, hoverflies and butterflies – all beneficial species that are harmed by intensive agricultural practices. I've learned that protecting these species, begins with engaging, inspiring and empowering people.

That engagement starts with sensitive and genuine conversations with farmers that can sometimes be uncomfortable but can lead to exciting opportunities for change. Communication also helps researchers like me to identify trailblazers who can inspire and empower others.

"I have huge admiration for organic farmers, they are so limited in what they can do and they have to be really innovative," says Lord, who I interviewed for this article.

He spends a lot of time talking to other farmers, visiting farms and seeing how other people are developing more sustainable farming practices. Over the last 12 years, he has started reducing his pesticide use and increasing the diversity of crops he plants.

"It was just a vicious circle. We looked ahead and thought it's not going to get any better, we need to do something differently. Luckily, there was a group of farmers out there already doing things, we learned from them and thought this could work for us."

Lord's actions were not just a response to poor profit and environmental conditions. They represent an individual's ability to challenge the status quo and change.

My colleagues and I have previously proposed that we should monitor pesticides more like pharmaceuticals. Perhaps we should treat farmers like medics. Their job is to treat diseases, but they have a fundamental duty of care to their patients – our landscapes.

Reconciling the debate

Pesticide use is complex, and so are the ways these chemicals influence the ecosystem. Farmers – and pesticide use – should not be reduced to one type.

Changing farming practices is a challenge, but transformation is already happening and much more is possible. Cover cropping, plants grown for soil cover rather than for harvest, can improve soil quality and keep weeds under control – this reduces the need for pesticides and even buffers their use. This practice is promoted by the UK government.

Pesticides easily contaminate the soil, water, air and food chains with detrimental effects. Pollinators are emblematic of the negative consequences of pesticide use, yet scientific findings are inherently variable and depend on the context of a farming situation. Progress depends on rigorous, objective research. We almost always need to know more.

Science will continue to advance farming through, for example, the development of new pest-resistant varieties and conservation methods. Whatever the approach, basic scientific principles such as objectivity and rigour should always be applied.

Pesticide regulation protects people and wildlife and some of the most dangerous pesticides have been successfully restricted. But the entire regulatory process in the UK (and elsewhere) needs reform. That doesn't mean, in my view, that the regulatory process should become tighter or more bureaucratic, but rather more realistic and holistic.

We know beneficial species are exposed to multiple pesticides, for example. In bumblebee colonies across Europe, we found an average of eight, and up to 27, distinct pesticide compounds. This type of monitoring once a pesticide has been approved could improve the current single-product, single-use assessment that we have today.

It's time to consolidate, harmonize and centralize our scientific understanding and approach. This is especially timely as the UK embarks on its pesticide strategy post-Brexit.

Pesticides are part of a much bigger issue – food security in a globalized world and the most impactful change resides with global economic powers. Pesticide use also dominates in commodity crops like cotton, extending the pesticide debate beyond food systems.

As Irish farmer Andrew Bergin told me: "Nature is very valuable until someone has to pay."

Pesticides can be sustainably reduced, but this requires an approach that reconciles the seemingly conflicting goals of food production, environmental protection, biodiversity and human health.

People and biodiversity share agricultural landscapes. We are all responsible for maintaining their vitality. This includes farmers, consumers and retailers supporting sustainable farming practices, and governments introducing robust policies that facilitate real change to how pesticides are managed.

Jessica Knapp, Assistant Professor in Ecology, Trinity College Dublin

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

Orcas sink another yacht off the Strait of Gibraltar

A pod of orcas sunk yet another boat, according to a recent report, this time a sailing yacht within Moroccan waters in the Strait of Gibraltar. Two people riding a 49-foot vessel known as Alboran Cognac were attacked by an unknown number of the cetaceans around 9 AM local time on Sunday.

It's the latest in a series of dozens of such incidents, including a yacht that was sunk last November after orcas, also known as killer whales, rammed the yacht's rudder. Although some scientists speculate the animals may be displaying "playful" and "copycat" behavior, the experience was certainly not enjoyable for the two humans from the recent incident, who reported feeling strikes to their hulls and rudders before water began leaking into the vessel. They were rescued by a nearby oil tanker that transported them to Gibraltar while their yacht was left to sink.

We've got orcas all wrong and it's killing them

One popular theory for the attacks is that they were perpetrated by Gladis, a pod of about 15 orcas named after a killer whale (White Gladis) supposedly rammed to death by a boat. Gladis and other orca subpopulations have been documented targeting boats off the Atlantic coast of Portugal and north-western Spain since May 2020, and experts believe Gladdis may be behind this attack as well.

Although it is tempting to attribute the orcas' activities to revenge for climate change, underwater noise caused by ships or some conspiracy, animal behavior experts say that orcas possess complex cultures and enjoy sharing rituals with each other. If the orcas wanted to harm the humans on these boats, they could easily do so, but instead the behaviors involve interfering with the vessel's operations seemingly out of curiosity, or perhaps for enjoyment.

"This is a kind of cultural revolution," Lance Barrett-Lennard, PhD, senior research scientist at the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, told Salon in June. "In the short timespan, sometimes this kind of behavior, if it's directly related to food or some survival value, it may very well fade away fairly quickly. We'll see whether that happens or not."

about orcas and whales

“Just enjoy it!”: The new stars of “Doctor Who” strike a chord by going musical

Throughout its 60 years “Doctor Who” has been to the ends of the universe and back, to numerous versions of the distant past and far-flung futures. “The Devil’s Chord,” however, marks the first episode in hundreds that comes close to qualifying as a fully musical episode. By some people’s reckoning it is, and why argue?

There are multiple musical interludes, a battle with a god-like figure slicing into a violin set against the 15th Doctor (Ncuti Gatwa) and Ruby Sunday (Millie Gibson) on a piano, and a zesty closing song-and-dance number that would be perfectly at home on Broadway.

Characters may not belt out their dialogue, but The Doctor’s adversary Maestro (two-time “RuPaul’s Drag Race” winner and Broadway star Jinkx Monsoon) freestyles a piece of a ditty describing their daddy issues. The power of song and saving it are the main points “The Devil’s Chord,” which pits Fifteen and Ruby against Monsoon’s all-powerful being, described as the essence of music itself.

Doctor Who (Bad Wolf/BBC Studios)

A world without music is doomed, series creator Russell T. Davies posits in the episode he wrote – one that spells out the stakes by having The Doctor and Ruby swing by 1963 London to witness The Beatles record their first album.

What should be a memorable excursion throws them off when they watch Paul, John, George, and Ringo lay down a track at Abbey Road, and hear these lackluster lyrics:

“I’ve got a dog, he’s called Fred/ My dog is alive, he’s not dead/I love my dog, he loves me too/ I haven’t got a cat, only a dog . . .”

What follows is a game of cat and mouse wherein Maestro, the child of the Toymaker (played by Neil Patrick Harris in the 2023 special episode that introduced Gatwa) threatens to erase all sentient life for the sake of going solo. Quintessential “Doctor Who” . . . except for, you know, the musical part.

"Doctor Who" producer Russell T. Davies is bringing more joy to the Whoniverse "to find hope"

While the episode has been generally well-received since its May 10 debut, there are always some who take issue with a departure from, shall we say, the classic method of storytelling. Then again, the inevitability of change is written into the Time Lord’s DNA. Knowing that makes it strange to think that it’s taken this long to place its hero at the center of such a performance.

Even so, Gatwa and Gibson admitted in a recent interview that those scenes took them by surprise.

“Wasn’t in the audition process!” Gibson said with a laugh, moving Gatwa to add, “At all! Couldn't have expected that. Did not know that Russell had that in him.

“But it was a nice surprise,” Gatwa continued. “I mean, we got thrown in at the deep end.”

"This character has been switching things up for 60 years,” said Gatwa.

The star could be referring to any aspect of the episode, but he’s probably talking about the frantically euphoric episode closing sequence “There’s Always a Twist at the End.” The sequence challenges him and Gibson to sing and swivel furiously while backed by a corps of crisply choreographed dancers. Although The Doctor and Ruby show off their own footwork, neither Gibson nor Gatwa have dance training, which is surprising if you watch Gatwa move, whether to music or running from a threat. (Never forget: before he was The Doctor he was a Ken in “Barbie.”)

But in Gatwa's view, the musical adventures are aligned with this season’s overall objective. “Song and dance tend to be things that spring out of us when we're feeling joyful, and musicals are just, yeah, exactly what Russell said: joy,” he observed.

Musical episodes are a relatively recent undertaking in television, with one the earliest full-scale examples that comes to mind being “The Bitter Suite,” a 1998 episode of “Xena: Warrior Princess.”

The standard-setter is the 2001 episode “Once More with Feeling” from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” a beloved series whose fervent fanbase relived its songbook through local singalongs . . . until the series’ corporate parent, 20th Century Fox Television, shut them down.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Many series have indulged in musical episodes since those first aired, although sci-fi and fantasy series seem to be most open to such flights since characters are constantly encountering unexplained and novel phenomena. Even the second season episode of “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” went full Broadway with its episode "Subspace Rhapsody."

“Doctor Who” would seem to be an exception mainly based on tradition, until one recalls how many episodes featured melodic elements in their plots. (Although with two of Gatwa’s first three episodes featuring its stars crooning and shaking a leg, this season may be the first to feature such numbers in close succession.)

Doctor Who (Bad Wolf/BBC Studios)

Several episodes throughout the show’s run use tunes as a device, dating back to William Hartnell’s Doctor and the third season serial titled “The Gunfighters.” The Time Lord’s companions were forced at gunpoint to perform “The Ballad of the Last Chance Saloon” while he was spared that indignity.

Much more recently Matt Smith’s Doctor joined a people’s choir in Season 7’s “The Rings of Akhaten,” where a civilization’s survival hinges on their performance of a song. This isn’t even the show’s first encounter with the Beatles – another Hartnell episode from the Season 2 serial “The Chase” contains the only remaining Beatles footage from “Top of the Pops,” since most of its recordings were wiped.

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

None of Gatwa’s predecessors were called on to sing as confidently or move as dynamically as he does in the showstopper finale of “There’s Always a Twist at the End,” which is both exuberantly euphoric and, like most of the seemingly one-off bits in this series, invites closer reading as a clue.

It could be a simple in-joke since an actor named Susan Twist has made at least four appearances in the show since the 60thanniversary special “Wild Blue Yonder,” as the fansite Cultbox points out. Or . . . could it be hinting at something more sinister? Why can’t it be both?

Before the premiere of “The Devil’s Chord,” Gatwa and Gibson were aware that some fans might be put off by Davies’ musical direction. But they weren’t worried about it. "Complexity is one of the fruits of life, you know?” Gatwa said. “It's good to be challenged, it's good to do things differently.

"The show is about change, about progression, and about literally switching things up. This character has been switching things up for 60 years,” he added, “and it’s a really fun element to add to sci-fi. Just enjoy it!”

New episodes of "Doctor Who" stream Fridays on Disney+.

about this topic

It’s time for Steve Bannon to go to prison, Justice Department says, citing January 6 subpoena

The Justice Department asked a federal judge on Tuesday to begin former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s four-month prison sentence, CNN reported.

Bannon was found guilty of defying a subpoena issued by Congress' January 6th select committee investigating the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Bannon had used his podcast to promote Trump's false election claims, warning a day before the insurrection that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow."

The judge presiding over Bannon’s trial, Justice Carl Nichols, had initially paused his sentence because the former adviser had appealed his conviction, claiming he enjoyed immunity via executive privilege thanks to his previous job at the White House. But a three-judge panel of the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, “saying the former aide and prominent podcaster had no legal rationale for his blanket refusal to appear before the Jan. 6 committee,” Politico reported.

In its own court filing, the Justice Department states that a person found guilty must begin the term of their imprisonment.

“The D.C. Circuit rejected defendant’s appeal on all grounds," the filing noted.

It is unclear when Bannon might have to report to prison. He would join another former Trump advisor, Peter Navarro, who likewise defied a Jan. 6 subpoena.