Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mike Johnson pulls a fast one on Ukraine past a distracted Donald Trump

The Republican Party has been in such a state of pandemonium for so long that it's hard to imagine what new turns it can take and yet from week to week, it always does. The 2020 election tantrum and insurrection was certainly the pinnacle of Trumpish anarchy, still Republicans in the House of Representatives have been working hard to emulate their Dear Leader ever since they won the majority in 2022. It's a bad idea to make sweeping statements about them finally jumping the shark since they always manage to outdo themselves but this week is certainly one for the books — if only because the stakes are so very high and they have sunk so very low. 

As I wrote a couple of days ago, House Speaker Mike Johnson was caught in a trap between his fellow right-wing zealots, led by Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have appropriated Donald Trump's hostility to Ukraine, and the rest of his caucus which is more reluctant to see the world blow up. The events in the Middle East last weekend were a sober reminder that the United States' role in global security isn't the best issue to use as leverage for parochial electoral advantage. It can get real very quickly. 

Maybe he got word from a higher power reminding him that Donald Trump isn't really the Big Guy In Charge. 

Johnson had indicated that he planned to bring four separate votes to the floor: aid packages for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and a bill to require Russian assets to be confiscated for Ukraine along with a ban on TikTok unless it is sold to a different entity, among other things. This caused a huge uproar among the MAGA fanatics who were distraught that they didn't get their way. (They claimed they wanted funding for a massive border crackdown but everyone knows that Trump ordered that nothing should be done so he could use it as an election issue.) It was unclear if Johnson's deals would ever make it to the floor and looming over all of this is the fact that Greene has been holding the threat of deposing Johnson over his head for weeks. 

So that's where we stood on Wednesday morning and it didn't look very promising. Then suddenly, out of the blue, Mike Johnson had what he would no doubt call a "come to Jesus" moment and he went before the microphones that afternoon to declare that he didn't care if his fellow Republicans threw him out of the speaker's office, he was going to do the right thing. Johnson gave a stirring speech about how he believes the intelligence he's seen and warned of the danger of allowing Ukraine to fall. 

So, I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to march through Europe if he were allowed. I think he might go to the Balkans next. I think he might have a showdown with Poland or one of our NATO allies. To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys… this is not a game, this is not a joke.

It's hard to say what happened to bring about such a public change of heart. He's been stalling this necessary funding for months and could have suspended the rules and allowed the Senate package to come to the floor and it would have passed easily. Instead, he allowed Trump and Greene to dictate this course and it's been a disaster. Maybe it was that intelligence finally convincing him that this was leading to a very bad outcome or perhaps he finally sees the upside to being a profile in courage instead of a MAGA toadie. Who knows? Maybe he got word from a higher power reminding him that Donald Trump isn't really the Big Guy In Charge. 

We need your help to stay independent

All day Thursday there were reports of intense infighting in the caucus over rumors that Johnson and members of the leadership were going to back a rules change that would require more than one member (like Greene) to call for a motion to vacate the chair, the deal with the devil that his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, made that ultimately took him down. Some members are clearly getting tired of these antics:

The extremists went ballistic over this, cornering Johnson on the floor and he eventually shot down the rumor, saying the rule would not be changed. 

You get the feeling that Johnson has just put himself in the hands of fate at this point. And fate looks a lot like Marjorie Taylor Greene:

With Democrats staying cool (or as Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries called it, "united and frosty") there is every reason to believe she will be thwarted if she tries it so I remain skeptical that she will. Greene enjoys the attention she gets wielding Johnson's ouster as a threat. But any member could do it and some sound so incensed that one might just decide to go for it.


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


On Thursday night Democrats on the rules committee broke with all precedent and stepped in to save the bills, voting to move them to the floor. It's expected that Democrats will likewise vote to proceed and the bills will pass with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. That is unless something happens to derail it — which could easily happen because Republicans are crazy. 

What does the leader of their party say about all this? Well, he's on trial in New York and can't watch TV or tweet any instructions. Trump has had some luck with intimidating jurors already (with the help of Fox News) by suggesting that there are liberal plants in the jury pool lying to get chosen so they can stick it to him as usual. One juror has already asked to be excused and others may follow once it becomes clear that Fox is intent on identifying the ones about whom Trump has suspicions.

He's also very upset that he has to sit in the freezing courtroom from morning until night (It's common for the elderly to get cold easily…)

As for what's going on in Washington, much less the rest of the world, Trump is not really engaged. He doesn't know what to say about anything to do with foreign policy anyway except "it wouldn't have happened" if he were president and to complain about how nobody else is paying their fair share. That's pretty much all he had to say about Johnson's plan in one perfunctory Truth Social rant on Thursday. He's focused on the biggest issue: himself. 

This may explain why Johnson is finally going to get this done — Trump is out of commission and unable to meddle in things he doesn't understand. His being on trial may end up being the best thing that's happened to our politics in a very long time. As long as he's tied up in court, he's irrelevant when it comes to anything important.  

Law professor: Fox News helping Trump “strategically” use the “trial to his advantage”

The second week is wrapping up in former President Donald Trump’s first criminal trial on charges from the state of New York related to paying hush money to an adult film star. So far, the jury has been selected, but no other proceedings have begun.

The Conversation U.S. interviewed Tim Bakken, a former New York prosecutor and now a legal scholar teaching at West Point, and Karrin Vasby Anderson, a political communication expert at Colorado State University, to find out what overarching themes they have observed, both in the courtroom and outside it.

Is this trial proceeding normally?

Bakken: It seems like an ordinary trial, but it is an extraordinary trial underneath if we really look at some of the details. The first thing that struck me was on Day 1, when Judge Juan Merchan questioned 96 jurors. Fifty of them said they could not be fair to Trump. On Day 3, 48 of that day’s 96 said the same thing.

That does not bode well for a defendant in a jurisdiction where Democrats outnumber Republicans 9 to 1.

In addition, the judge did not make an accommodation to alleviate the possible difficulty that such antagonism represents. If 50 out of 96 people raised their hands and said they couldn’t be fair because of the color of the defendant’s skin, that would signal a problem. In a trial, that problem is addressed through allowing the defense to ask more questions of the jurors and to get more peremptory challenges, which allows them to dismiss a juror without having to explain why.

There are 10 already allotted because this is a low-level felony trial. In other cases in New York, you would have 20, such as a murder case. And the judge has the discretion to increase that number. He could have done that in this case, but he didn’t.

How fast is the judge moving?

Bakken: Merchan has told Trump he may not be able to attend his child’s high school graduation, scheduled for May 17. That indicates that the judge is moving apace.

But in many cases in New York – on Fridays, for example, when a defendant or defense lawyer or prosecutor is Muslim or Jewish – some or all of the entire day will be taken off by the judge. There won’t be any trial.

I think the judge will let Trump attend the high school graduation, because otherwise he might seem to treat Trump a little bit differently than other defendants.

What is most important for the public to understand so far?

Anderson: I think it’s important for the casual observer, who might wonder whether being on trial for a felony was hurting Trump’s presidential campaign, to understand that he’s strategically using the trial to his advantage.

Voters following the trial in the mainstream media are hearing from experts that the legal proceedings are progressing relatively normally and the system is standing up under the unprecedented circumstances of this case.

But in the conservative media sphere, Trump is using the trial as a campaign strategy pretty effectively, stoking his base’s fears and quoting pundits and hosts from Fox News, Newsmax and OAN who echo his framing of the trial.

Trump has said the requirement to be in the courtroom every day is harming his ability to campaign. The Guardian reported, however, that while he is in court, his “Truth Social page is putting up new posts minute by minute.”

If you look at those posts, you see a series of complaints about the case interspersed with pro-Trump campaign messaging and posts telling voters to be afraid of what he says is rampant crime under Joe Biden’s tenure as president.

Individually, the campaign posts are consistent with Trump’s usual messaging. But when Trump layers messages about crime with others about an allegedly corrupt justice system, the goal is to not only intensify voters’ fears but also tell voters they should be afraid because powerful people are coming for him and are going to come after regular people next.

Trump is also charging that the process of his trial is undermining democracy. He posted a video in which his close adviser Stephen Miller urged, “So when you hear them say that democracy is on trial, they’re right. Democracy is on trial. Freedom is on trial. The rule of law is on trial. … If Donald Trump is convicted then all of these principles are convicted and destroyed with him.”

This sets up a catch-22. If Trump is not convicted, he gets to say he was exonerated. If he is convicted, then he just pivots to this charge that a normally operating courtroom is what’s undermining justice and democracy – not his actions or the actions of his campaign.

If Trump was just posting on his social media account, it wouldn’t be nearly as powerful. But Fox News, OAN and Newsmax are really functioning as his campaign surrogates. Since much of the country is paying attention to that media space, that’s a really consequential campaign strategy. It’s savvy of him to use the court proceedings in this way.

Is any of what Trump is saying a fair criticism or statement?

Bakken: The New York district attorney decided to prosecute Trump in this case. He didn’t have to. It seems unquestionable that Trump filed or made false business documents. That’s a misdemeanor. And in this instance, the misdemeanor statute of limitations had run out by the time the district attorney issued the charges. But the prosecutor chose to say the actions were related to another crime, which makes them felonies.

Anderson: The charges also have context. Maybe no other businessperson would be prosecuted for this filing of paperwork. But that’s only half of the problem. Donald Trump would not be in trouble for filing this paperwork if he hadn’t done it to allegedly illegally influence an election.

I think that’s actually why Trump is so aggressively pushing his narrative of “election interference.” He knows that the charges against him are really about breaking campaign finance laws and his conduct in an election more than a particular business filing.

Bakken: In the last week or so, it came out that Merchan had contributed to Democratic candidates, including President Biden, in the past. It was reportedly a total of US$35, which seems very minimal. But one of New York’s legal ethics leaders, Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University, said it is a judicial ethics violation, though he said it would likely only merit a warning and not removal from the case.

What does the trial mean so far in terms of politics or the 2024 presidential election?

Anderson: I think the media has to report on the facts on all sides of this trial. But I worry that it may not actually be as consequential as maybe people who are following it think that it will be, because many undecided voters have opted out of political news altogether.

Bakken: The trial emphasizes an extraordinary level of political antagonism between the parties, and also an extraordinary reluctance of people who are not inclined toward party politics to tune out and protect themselves.

The people who are tuning out might not be strong advocates, politically, for one side or the other but the people who would be neutral if they collected all the information. They could be the moderators, the good-faith, middle-minded people who can help bridge the gap between the political combatants.

 

Tim Bakken, Professor of Law, United States Military Academy West Point and Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University

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

Trump is an “isolationist” who likes Russia and war crimes. What could go wrong?

Forget the debate over the word “fascist” and whether it only applies to a handful of dead guys in Europe: What if I told you that Donald Trump is a psychopathic killer, one inclined to the use all the power and might of the American armed forces like a child with matches who has been unjustly deprived of a nap and is determined to set the world on fire?

I absolutely do not jest. Trump said this himself. It’s not enough to kill an alleged terrorist with an R9X Hellfire missile, slicing them to death with a half-dozen razor-sharp blades — you gotta get the wife and kids too. “You have to take out their families,” Trump said in 2015. Twice.

Trump then killed an eight-year-old girl: Nawar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who died in a botched raid that the Republican strongman authorized within hours of taking office. (Nawar’s father, Anwar al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, was a radical imam affiliated with al-Qaida who was killed in a controversial American drone strike in 2011.) As president, Trump escalated every conflict he could, setting records for the number of airstrikes he ordered in Somalia, Iraq and Syria. According to Airwars, a group that monitors violence in conflict zones, it is likely that thousands of civilians were killed under a man who to this day is sometimes referred to as an opponent of U.S. miltary action overseas.

Foreign policy is one area where an American president is from day one sort of a dictator, by default granted broad power to conduct lethal military operations, openly or in secret, without first obtaining congressional approval. Trump is running for president, which is to say he had that power once and he would like to have it again, but this time with a federal bureaucracy and military brass purged of any “deep state” liberals who might balk at doing something especially dumb and evil, like deliberately targeting noncombatants.

This is particularly relevant now that Gaza has been blown apart and the entire Middle East between Iran and Israel is a tinderbox. The last thing the world needs is another arsonist.

But that’s exactly how Trump is campaigning: as the man unafraid to set the world on fire. Consider the response to Iran’s missile attack on Israel, which was telegraphed by Iranian leaders as retaliation for Israel's earlier strike on Iran's embassy in Syria  and was effectively neutralized by a U.S.-led coalition that included British, French and Jordanian forces. President Joe Biden, in a call with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, urged restraint, basically telling Israel to take the win.

Trump, by contrast, blamed America. Apparently referring to Israel, he said, “They’re under attack right now. That’s because we show great weakness,” at a rally for his faithful in Pennsylvania. “The weakness that we’ve shown is unbelievable, and it would not have happened if we were in office.” These remarks were paired with an all-caps rant from his time as president, reshared on Truth Social, threatening that Iran would “SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES” if it didn’t behave better.

As The Guardian’s Sam Levine noted, “Trump’s message underscores how quickly he is willing to escalate tensions with foreign leaders during moments of conflict.”

We need your help to stay independent

Late Thursday night, Netanyahu decided he needed at least a fig leaf of escalation, ordering a strike on an airbase in central Iran that the Islamic Republic downplayed as much ado about nothing. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, even further to the right than the prime minister, shared that assessment, lamenting that it was "weak" and not the "crushing attack" he and other hawks had wanted.

If Trump hadn't lost the 2020 election by 7 million votes, he would be advising Netanyahu right now, not an administration that at least urged Israel to stand down and, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was "not involved" in the strike on Iran. And if he were to listen to his own supporters, he might not be content just telling Bibi to bomb the hell out of the Islamic Republic, with unqualified American backing, but go ahead and do it himself. “Iran has begun launching drone strikes on Israel,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., posted on social media. “[W]e must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran.”

Trump is no wiser than Blackburn, which is to say that he too is mad and dim enough to start World War III after receiving a Newsmax push alert. He’s already touted his willingness to conduct foreign policy on the basis of what will thrill the MAGA base, reportedly exploring the idea of direct attacks on Mexican drug cartels.

“‘Attacking Mexico,’ or whatever you’d like to call it, is something that President Trump has said he wants ‘battle plans’ drawn for,” one source familiar with those plans told Rolling Stone. “He’s complained about missed opportunities of his first term, and there are a lot of people around him who want fewer missed opportunities in a second Trump presidency.”

With all the reasonable adults purged under Project 2025, there would be no one around to thwart this foreign policy of “Do Stupid S**t.” A second term would be staffed with extremists, absent any guardrails. How would such a team of far-right brutes respond to a serious terror attack? Would you want to find out?


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


Ukraine, though: This is where Trump, man of peace, is said to shine. He’d end the war in a day, he’s said. His allies even claim there’s a plan.

“He will not give a penny in the Ukraine-Russia war,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a like-minded authoritarian, said after a meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last month. “Therefore, the war will end, because it is obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own feet.”

The war will end because Ukraine is forced to surrender after being betrayed by America; this is how those who support such a policy describe it. Already Trump allies such as Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, campaigning for vice president in the pages of The New York Times, are pointing to Russian territorial gains — that is, Russian aggression exploiting Ukraine’s ammunition shortages, a direct result of Republicans stalling the latest aid package in Congress — as a reason to concede the whole fight.

What's left unspoken, at least in public, is that Trump and his allies believe that military superiority determines justice: Might makes right. Fiona Hill, a former adviser to the ex-president, told The New York Times’ David Sanger that, while in office, “Trump made it very clear that he thought… that Ukraine, and certainly Crimea, must be part of Russia.” After all, Russia used to be a much larger empire and its government demonstrably likes Trump, so why shouldn’t he — through pure vanity, if nothing else — help them win it all back?

It's true that Trump is an isolationist, at least in the sense that he abhors the international rules-based order, couldn't care less about the U.N. or NATO and is profoundly uninterested in using military force to “help” anyone but himself. But don’t be fooled into thinking that would mean less bloodshed. A second term for this would-be dictator would mean that belligerent reactionaries around the globe — Putin, Netanyahu, himself — would have license to lash out and take whatever they believe is rightfully theirs. It would surely mean U.S. troops receiving permission from their commander in chief to carry out the sort of blatant war crimes that got disgraced Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher a presidential pardon.

In 2024, democracy is on the ballot, sure — but so is internationalism. Anyone who doesn’t want to see tanks on American streets or crossing national borders should be aware of the stakes. The first time was an ugly farce; the second will be a tragedy.

Donald Trump turns the GOP into a protection racket — and demands Republican candidates pay up

For someone who frequently proclaims his innocence, Donald Trump sure loves to act like a two-bit gangster. The perpetual defendant should be focused on staying out of prison and running for president as the first of his four criminal trials kicks off. Instead, he is still focused on his lifelong obsession with making money while avoiding honest work. And the latest marks for this elderly grifter are other Republican candidates running in state or local races. 

"[T]he Trump campaign is asking for down-ballot candidates who use his name, image and likeness in fundraising appeals to give at least 5 percent," Politico reported late Wednesday. The campaign's, uh, "outreach" took a nice shop you got there, shame if something would happen to it tone. "Any split that is higher than 5% will be seen favorably by the RNC and President Trump’s campaign and is routinely reported to the highest levels of leadership within both organizations," read the letter sent to Republican fundraisers this week.

Not that anyone should feel pity for these Republicans. They're copycats using Trump's most basic grift: Slapping his name all over your fundraising appeals, with the implicit promise to MAGA followers that sending them money will make liberals cry.

One would think the "or else" was already implied by this language, but Trump's campaign committee clearly worries Republican politicians struggle to understand subtlety. So the threat was made explicit: "Any vendor whose clients ignore the guidelines mentioned above will be held responsible for their clients’ actions," including having the Trump campaign cut them off. 

It's been long established that Trump sees his supporters, first and foremost, as open wallets to pick. But his interest in separating fools from their money has escalated in recent months, as his legal fees and court judgments are mounting. Despite routinely declaring himself to be a "billionaire," Trump has done everything in his power to avoid paying what he owes. Instead, he's resorting to tricks of all sorts, including his longstanding favorite: Swindle some schmuck into paying it for him. 

Despite getting his nearly half-billion bond reduced to $175 million after losing his fraud case in New York, the money Trump allegedly secured is starting to smell quite fishy. Simply put, Attorney General Letitia James seems concerned that the guy offering to secure the bond does not actually have the money to pay it.

"Billionaire" Trump also seems to be digging through the metaphorical couch cushions to pay his lawyers. One reason President Joe Biden's war chest is much bigger than Trump's is because Trump donors are being directed to a PAC that pays his legal bills, not traditional campaign activities like ads and organizing. The Trump takeover of the Republican National Committee appears to be financially motivated, at least in part. As soon as Trump installed loyalist leaders, including his daughter-in-law, the RNC restructured its cash flow system so that Trump's legal bills get priority over traditional campaign expenses. 

Now, they're shaking down people running for state legislatures and comptroller offices, with the implication that saying no means Trump will publicly put that candidate on blast, derailing their career. Not that anyone should feel pity for these Republicans. They're copycats using Trump's most basic grift: Slapping his name all over your fundraising appeals, with the implicit promise to MAGA followers that sending them money will make liberals cry. Still, it is especially churlish of Trump to begrudge the little guys a piece of his hustle. Republicans had to give away whatever dignity they had left by praising Trump publicly, so of course they want a little payola in return. 

No doubt Trump thinks he's a super-genius for being able to con so many people, but really, it's the same thing over and over, from hawking Trump sneakers to tricking MAGA granny into becoming a recurring donor. It's a legal or semi-legal form of what the Security and Exchange Commission calls "affinity fraud": Where fraudsters target "members of identifiable groups" by being a member of that group or enlisting "respected community or religious leaders from within the group" to convince members "that a fraudulent investment is legitimate and worthwhile."


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


A classic example would be people in a pyramid scheme targeting fellow members of their church. Multilevel marketing scams that spread through Facebook groups are another example. It is why so many hucksters sell survivalist kits, supplements and overpriced gold through right-wing media networks. It's how people end up spending $60 for a suspiciously lightweight Trump-branded "Bible," even though a real Bible with all the words in it is available for cheap or even free

Over the weekend, the Washington Post offered up a delicious slice of schadenfreude to liberal readers, in the form of interviews with Trump voters who bought stocks in Truth Social. Because of the affinity for Trump with some folks, the price of the stock, which was traded under his initials DJT, soared to many times what financial experts estimated it was worth. Then, as predicted, the price started to crater. The folks interviewed bought the stock at prices ranging from $65-$90 a share. Then it fell to the mid-twenties and now Biden's out there cracking jokes about it: "if Trump’s stock in the Truth Social, his company, drops any lower, he might do better under my tax plan than his."

Usually, when people make bad investments, they can chalk it up to poor information or a temporary lapse in judgment. But to admit this was foolish, for these folks, would cast doubts about what they've been doing with the past few years of their lives be remaining devoted to Trump worship. They've just put in too many pennies not to waste all their pounds. So instead they spin a face-saving story about how they're sure he's got an ace up his sleeve and the stock will bounce back. 

The down-ballot Republican candidates suddenly facing a Trump-imposed fee are in a similar situation. Having built their political identities around being Trump sycophants, they can't just back out now. That is why Trump feels free to shake them down. Turns out that betting your political career on someone who models himself after a mafioso is not a great long-term plan for security. I'm genuinely surprised the protection fees were set at a modest 5% minimum. It's likely just an opening gambit. If they pay that — and I'm sure many will be fearful enough to do so — watch for the fee to keep Trump from badmouthing them in public to rise. 

Trump’s first criminal trial is a test run

The Age of Trump and the larger democracy crisis are not “just” a huge political problem. They are a moral and ethical crisis as well, a test of our national character. Moreover, these great challenges cannot be remedied in a piecemeal fashion. They are entangled with one another and must be taken on simultaneously if we are to escape the Age of Trump and all its great troubles and pain. Ultimately, the struggle to save American democracy is not like a buffet where you get to pick and choose.

America’s mainstream news media and its pundits have, for the most part, actively avoided the ethical and moral dimensions of the country’s democracy crisis and the Age of Trump.

Why is this?

There is another reason why the American mainstream media continues to largely avoid questions of morality, ethics and national character in its reporting and commentary on the Age of Trump and our democracy crisis: They do not want to judge the American people.

One of the main reasons is that it is far easier to continue to pretend that these are normal times and to focus on political personalities and polls and “independent and undecided voters” than it is to turn a mirror to questions of character, ethics, and morality. This is part of a much larger failure by the mainstream American news media to ask questions about emotions about politics – especially as they relate to right-wing authoritarian populism and the MAGA movement and the larger global antidemocracy movement. In all, the mainstream news media as an institution has a standard set of conceptual tools and lenses for making sense of the world and American politics. With Donald Trump's political rise, these approaches have proven inadequate. Yet, the mainstream news media still holds onto them tightly. So now the mainstream news media is trying to prepare for how it will continue to function with some veneer of independence (if it even exists in an environment where “freedom of the press” will not be a real thing and Donald Trump, like Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, has deemed the news media to be “enemies of the people”).

As Charles Sykes writes in a new essay at the Atlantic about the American news media’s failures in the Age of Trump, “In our digitally chaotic world, relying on the reporting strategies of the past is like bringing the rules of chess to the Thunderdome":

The former White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer points out a recent example in his newsletter: On a radio show earlier this month, Donald Trump bizarrely suggested that Joe Biden was high on cocaine when he delivered his energetic State of the Union address. It was a startling moment, yet several major national media outlets did not cover the story.

And when Trump called for the execution of General Mark Milley, it didn’t have nearly the explosive effect it should have.

The "Prime Directive of 2024," Sykes writes, is to "never, ever become numbed by the endless drumbeat of outrages.”

There is another reason why the American mainstream media continues to largely avoid questions of morality, ethics and national character in its reporting and commentary on the Age of Trump and our democracy crisis: They do not want to judge the American people and their behavior by assigning moral labels (and therefore moral accountability and moral agency) to those many tens of millions of Trump MAGA voters and the Republicans and “conservatives” who support the campaign to end the country’s multiracial pluralistic democracy.

Tom Nichols is among the few prominent public voices who consistently and bravely intervene against that dominant media narrative by showing how the Age of Trump is a moral and ethical crisis that reflects horribly on the supporters and enablers of the wildly corrupt ex-president and his MAGA movement. In a recent essay at the Atlantic about Donald Trump sharing a video of President Biden hogtied in the back of a pickup truck like an animal that is about to be slaughtered and mounted on the wall, Nichols focuses on the questions of morality, character and personal responsibility:

After seeing Trump post this video, I found myself wanting to ask his voters the questions that always occur after one of his outrages: Is this okay with you? Is this something you’d want your children to see?

[…]

Such thoughts are unpleasant—in part because of how many millions of Americans, including people we may know and care about, have repeatedly voted for Trump. But at some point, we have to decide when to levy a moral judgment that puts these choices beyond the realm of a normal political argument.

Unfortunately, we’re not getting much help in making those determinations from some of the media. On Sunday morning, for example, Kristen Welker of Meet the Press noted that Trump had “stepped up his attacks on the judge and his family in the New York hush money case” and is “falsely calling the criminal proceedings ‘election interference.’” Her verdict: “It is yet another reminder that we are covering this election against the backdrop of a deeply divided nation.”

Well, sure, that’s one way to put it. More accurately, however, we might say that a mostly coherent and decent nation is under electoral assault from a violent seditionist minority that has captured one of our two national parties, and its leader encourages and condones threats against officials at every level across the country, including threats of violence against the sitting president of the United States.

Every ardent Trump supporter should be asked when enough’s enough. And every elected Republican, including the sad lot now abasing themselves for a spot on Trump’s ticket or in his possible Cabinet, should be asked when they will risk their careers for the sake of the country, if not their souls. We have reached an important moment—one of many over the past years, if we are to be honest. After all we have learned and seen, and all of the questions we might ask of Trump supporters, perhaps only one simple and direct question truly matters now:

Is this who you are?

In a subsequent essay, Nichols explains that Trump’s attacks on reality, democratic political norms and human decency are part of a coordinated strategy to exhaust the American people. The goal: Dictator Trump and his authoritarian movement will be able to take power and then rule over a morally compromised and complicit public.

We need your help to stay independent

In an excellent essay at The New Republic, Brynn Tannehill tells an uncomfortable truth, one that cuts to the heart of the comforting and self-soothing assumptions made by too many in the American news media and political class (and general public) about the inherent goodness and fundamental decency of the American people – even those Americans who support the MAGA movement and the larger right-wing authoritarian populist movement:

There are two types of news articles that, whether they intend to or not, always end up painting Donald Trump’s supporters in a sympathetic light. One type of story usually points to “economic anxiety” as a reason why “average Americans” would support someone as awful as Trump (despite all the data proving this isn’t true).

Another tends to describe his supporters as regular people who have fallen down a rabbit hole of kooky ideas and conspiracy theories peddled by malign actors.  One notable recent example of this was written by McKay Coppins for The Atlantic, who urged readers to go to a Trump rally to see what MAGA looks like today.

Both genres, interestingly, show the people as passive vessels being acted upon. They fail to give agency to the people supporting a man who openly promises a dictatorship: a man who vows, “I am your retribution.”

Tannehill continues, offering this lesson from one of the darkest eras in human history:

Thus the important takeaway from these articles is not relief that Trump has gotten stale. It confirms the other evidence that there is a strong, underlying desire for an authoritarian fascist to rule the country and that even those who aren’t true believers would simply go along with it, or disbelieve it altogether. These perfectly nice, ordinary, generous, pleasant people are no different from any German in 1933–1945.

[Hannah] Arendt also noted how part of the allure of fascism is its invitation to “throw off the mask of hypocrisy.” Trump was merely the invitation. He was an outlet for an unspoken desire to seize control and remake the nation, hurting the people who needed it along the way.  One of my takeaways from these articles highlighting bored rallygoers is: Many of the people in the front row aren’t fired-up true believers. They are there for the ideology and the outcome, not for the man. They’re OK with the fascism, even if the schtick got old. In the end, the worst movements are always quietly enabled by otherwise ordinary men.

In a very provocative essay at the Daily Beast, Michael Ian Black views Donald Trump and “MAGA” as a painful lesson and opportunity for the American people and their leaders to do better. As Black compellingly argues, the Trumpocene and its gross pathologies, both collective and personal, have forced the mask, clothing, and other accouterments to drop away, thus revealing the vast ugliness beneath it all:

For almost a decade now, people who know better have excused Trump’s venom to protect themselves.

So, thank you, Donald, for showing me what cowardice actually looks like.

Thank you, Donald, for proving the old adage about suckers and the frequency of their birth rate.

Thank you, Donald, for neatly illustrating LBJ’s maxim that “if you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket.” Thank you, Donald, for further illustrating the lesser-known, second half of that quote: “He’ll even empty his pockets for you.”

Thank you, Donald Trump for using the American flag as a mirror. You’ve shown us who we are.

After all this gratitude, my question is the following: what did we do to deserve you?


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


The first of Donald Trump’s four criminal trials began this week in Manhattan. Unfortunately, Trump's obvious criminality has not broken his power over his MAGA followers and other supporters. It is true that some Republicans and “conservatives” are telling pollsters that they are less likely to support Trump if he is convicted of a crime. Given the levels of polarization and how political parties are now a form of personal identity for many Americans – especially Republicans and conservatives – I am deeply suspicious of such claims.

Of course, Donald Trump’s most loyal MAGA cultists and others who are compelled towards the Trump personality cult have not been deterred by his wanton lawbreaking and instead are attracted to him more because of it.

Those Americans who exist outside of the MAGAverse and the right-wing echo chamber and look on, vexed and confused, still in a years-long state of denial, at how such an evil man can be loved by so many.

Trump’s four trials are a type of crucible for the truth. They are also a space where the rule of law, morality, basic norms of right and wrong, and justice are tested. What has the Age of Trump done to the American people and our national character? We will find out on Election Day at the ballot box.

The true cost of traveling out of state for an abortion is more than financial

In June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which provided Americans with a constitutional right to abortion, it changed what options Hanz Dismer had in the state of Missouri.

While abortion access was already severely limited in Missourit, minutes after the Supreme Court’s decision was released the state Attorney General Eric Schmitt issued an opinion to kick off the state’s trigger ban making it one of the first states to nearly outlaw abortion. At the same time, the state’s last remaining abortion clinic quickly halted its services. All of these events unfolded along the backdrop of Dismer’s unplanned pregnancy. 

“I took a pregnancy test after my shift in the clinic and realized that I'm pregnant, and I have more rights now than I will when I go home tonight,” Dismer told Salon. “That hit hard.”

The pregnancy wasn’t necessarily unwanted, Dismer told Salon. It just wasn’t “happening at the right time.” Ultimately, terminating the pregnancy was the best choice they could make for themself. But for Dismer, the rapidly changing legal landscape in their home state changed the calculus on how they could access abortion care. Not only in terms of where Dismer could access services, Dismer planned on getting an abortion at the clinic they worked at as a social worker in Illinois, but the support that accompanied Dismer. For example, Dismer didn't have anyone drive with them to the clinic.

"It's forcing shame and stigma on you during what is already the worst moment of your life."

“Because I didn't want anyone else to face the potential to be aiding and abetting an abortion, right?” Dismer said. “Not only was I faced with an unplanned pregnancy that I had to figure out if this was a good time in my life to become a parent, and what my partner's needs are, and all of that, but I also had to contend with the legal landscape, which made that decision making process unnecessarily traumatic.” 

Dismer isn’t alone in feeling the emotional toll of having to travel out of state for an abortion. A 2023 study published in the journal Contraception found that the emotional cost of having to travel out of state is a common experience.

“It's forcing shame and stigma on you during what is already the worst moment of your life,” one study participant testified. Another said, “It was very stressful having to plan that trip and get there and be away from everyone and everything I knew.”


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


Following the Dobbs decision, states have been able to make their own laws severely restricting abortion access across the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there has been a rise in interstate travel for abortion care since Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade. The institute estimates one in five abortion patients traveled out of state for abortion care in 2023, compared to one in 10 who did so in 2020.

This week, Kari Lake brushed off criticism of abortion bans in her state of Arizona, saying "Even if we have a restrictive law here, you can go three hours that way, three hours that way, and you're going to be able to have an abortion."

But the reality is not so simple.

As Salon previously reported, shock waves and ripple effects are felt across the maternal health landscape when just one or two states implement near-total abortion bans. While many people think it’s easy to cross state lines to access care, it doesn’t come without both an emotional, and financial cost, to the patient.

Megan Jeyifo, executive director of Chicago Abortion Fund, knows firsthand the challenges people face when traveling state lines to access abortion care. Since Dobbs, Illinois has seen an influx in patients from the south. Data from the Society of Family Planning #WeCount found that after Dobbs, Illinois saw the biggest increase in out-of-state abortions. 

At the Chicago Abortion Fund, Jeyifo and her colleagues help provide medical referrals and financial support to people who are facing barriers to access abortion services. Jeyifo emphasized it is “traumatizing” to travel for this care. 

“People 100 percent internalize the difficulty that they face in accessing care, and can view it as a reflection of the morality of that care,” Jeyifo said. “I think part of our job as abortion funds is to say ‘It is not your fault this is hard. This is hard by design because politicians want us to not have control over our own bodies, and how we start or grow our families.’”

"This is hard by design because politicians want us to not have control over our own bodies."

Then there’s the financial component. Jeyifo told Salon it’s almost unheard of that insurance will cover the procedure when traveling from a state where there’s limited access to abortion care. Medicaid will not cover a patient if they travel out of state for an abortion either. Jeyifo said the average support cost, like for lodging, CAF provides a patient is $380. The average voucher they provide for the procedure itself is $480. And that’s just an average.

Between the cost of flights and the cost of Chicago hotels, Jeyifo said it’s very easy to spend up to $1,500 or $2,000 on one person's travel expenses. Notably, it’s estimated that only one in three Americans can comfortably cover a $400 emergency expense. Frequently, CAF has to help arrange childcare for a patient, too. 

“We are literally supporting people that have to bring their children with them on an 11 hour or more one-way car trip,” Jeyifo said. “And that is a status quo, that is normalized at this moment. Childcare is a really huge barrier for our callers.”

Dr. Jennifer Kerns, a professor in the department of obstetrics gynecology and reproductive sciences at UCSF and staff physician at Trust Women, an abortion clinic in Kansas, said she sees firsthand the burden of people having to travel out of state for an abortion — sometimes to even have access to medication abortion.

“Some people are traveling by car, up to 12 hours just to drive to the clinic to access medications,” Kerns told Salon. “We routinely hear about how long it's taken patients to garner all of the resources needed to make arrangements, to make this trip, and we're only seeing the patients who actually ended up getting to us — we're not seeing the patients who made attempts or can't take that much time off of work or can't find anybody to watch their kids.”

We need your help to stay independent

In the lawsuit of women suing states, like Texas, for being unable to obtain proper healthcare while pregnant due to abortion restrictions, the stories reveal the massive burdens and barriers women face when having to travel out of state, too. At 15 weeks pregnant, one plaintiff suing Texas had to travel to a clinic in Colorado to undergo a selective reduction abortion procedure after learning one of her twins had the highly fatal genetic condition trisomy 18. The procedure and cost of travel totaled thousands of dollars, the lawsuit said

Kimberly Inez McGuire executive director of URGE (Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity), told Salon this is especially for difficult for young people.

“Young people in this country are facing just extreme levels of economic precarity,” McGuire said. “They're struggling to find jobs that pay well, they're struggling to find jobs that have any paid sick time, and depending on the care that someone needs, it might be required that someone take one to three weeks to travel if they’re seeking abortion care.”

Traveling to access abortion care can turn someone’s life “upside down,” McGuire said. 

“People are having to decide if they're trying to pay rent, or buy this very expensive plane ticket,”McGuire said. “There are support networks out there, but there's never enough, right? It’s uprooting peoples’ lives, and it’s why we have got to end these abortion bans.”

The Floor Action Response Team did not take its acronym into consideration

To break up the monotony of an otherwise average Thursday, amid ongoing news coverage of the former president's third day of his criminal trial, the House Freedom Caucus has revived a team of conservative lawmakers. Their objective, as described by Politico, is to "take shifts monitoring the chamber floor to prevent their own party leaders from making unilateral moves that could curb their power." This initiative is known as the Floor Action Response Team, the acronym for which is very much FART.

As Business Insider points out, the team is not new, although news of its new life is currently trending on X (formerly Twitter) as many users trip over themselves to rip out (sorry) jokes about its name. In 2022, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) discussed it during an appearance on a Blaze Media show, saying, "Myself and other members of the House Freedom Caucus, we have a Floor Action Response Team. F-A-R-T, I'm a mother of four boys, I can appreciate that."

It seems as though FART is now primarily concerned about "the removal of its members from the Rules Committee or changes to agreements made at the beginning of this Congress with former Speaker Kevin McCarthy," per Politico, adding that this could all be troubling for Speaker Mike Johnson.

 

 

All 12 jurors seated for Trump’s hush-money trial after he’s called out for his “disrespect”

After three days, all 12 jurors have been seated for Donald Trump’s hush-money trial — seven men and five women — in addition to one alternate, following a shakeup that occurred after two potential jurors were dismissed earlier in the day. 

According to a report from Axios, one juror was excused "after prosecutors said they found a news article showing that someone with the same name as his juror had previously 'been arrested in Westchester for tearing down political advertisements.' And the other was let go after telling the judge "she 'definitely has concerns now' about what has been publicly reported about her, noting that some of her friends, colleagues and family indicated that she had been identified as a possible juror."

After being sworn in by Judge Merchan on Thursday, the seated jury was instructed to not discuss the case and were then escorted out of the courtroom, receiving stares from Trump, still seated at the defense table. Earlier in the day, Trump was called out for his disrespect towards the jury pool during the selection process, with a a pool reporter noting that "when the defense is introduced to the potential jurors seated in the audience, Trump does not stand up like his legal team does to turn and face them."

"In my over 20 years practicing criminal law, I have never observed a defendant refuse to stand and face the jury," comments former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti in a post to X (formerly Twitter.) "Any competent lawyer would tell their client that his fate is in the jury’s hands and they will watch everything he does.Trump’s disrespect for the jury is unwise."

 

 

Orlando Bloom faces his daredevil fears and asks, “What is the thing you consider to be your edge?”

In his inspiring new reality series, “Orlando Bloom: To the Edge,” the actor takes risks and tests his limits by training for and participating in three extreme sports, wingsuiting, free diving and rock climbing. The idea is for Bloom to face fear and push himself mentally, emotionally and physically. For Bloom, the closer he gets to death, the more alive he feels.

It is a very “don’t try this at home” series. Bloom trains for weeks with professionals who teach him skydiving, and he practices a breathing technique for free diving called a “death table.” He is guided by experts who monitor him, and he calls his partner Katy Perry every night to assure her that he is OK.

"In some ways, I feel comfortable in a hurt locker that’s familiar to me."

The three hour-long episodes showcase his adventurous spirit well, and they allow viewers to live vicariously through his passion. He does have a few scary moments, but also some fun ones, like a tandem skydive with his 80-year-old uncle (who is an experienced skydiver, and who proves you are never too old to jump out of a plane if you want to and are properly trained.) 

Bloom’s ability to find comfort in discomfort is compelling. He spoke with Salon about his new series and going “To the Edge.”

What made you decide “I want to go wingsuiting, free diving and rock climbing, and I want to record my experiences?” I thought about skydiving once as a way of conquering a fear of falling, but you take it to the edge!

COVID was a very challenging time for everyone on the planet. We were all confronted with fear, and I felt the fear around me. It was palpable in my environment and in my life. I wanted to come out of that. I wasn’t super afraid, but I was aware of the fear, so what would be a cool thing to do? People who are living clean, simple lives – there are people who live in a Blue Zone. We didn’t get any hits on that from a studio, so how about we throw you out of plane or down to the bottom of an ocean or send you up a mountain? That played to the narrative in my life of being somewhat of a thrill seeker. The opportunity for me to confront some of those fears allowed me to learn a lot from the people in the show, like [skydiver] Luke Aikins, [free diver] Camila Jaber and Mo Beck, this wonderful adaptive climber. It was set for me to go on a journey of self-discovery and learning. I used my Buddhist practices to help me overcome the moments of fear I was experiencing. That has been a great tool in my life.

In the series, you appear to be an adrenaline junkie. Where did this risk-taking begin? And why do this when you indicate you have so much to lose?

I think in my early life, I enjoyed the feeling of being on the edge as it were. Probably undiagnosed ADD and being slightly impulsive. I was working with the best of the best in their fields and learned to be less impulsive and more considered, and educated, and follow protocols. Adrenaline junkies are supreme athletes. They dedicate their lives to the thing they do. You may see a 15-second clip on social media, but you don’t see the hours, months and years it takes to execute some of these daredevil feats. Maybe it feels like there is a screw loose, but they are experts, and I looked up to them and I welcomed the challenge whilst shaking in my boots at times and being terrified.

I couldn’t do it! What is your threshold for pain? You acknowledge you have had lots of injuries over the course of your life, including breaking your back. Why do you find comfort in discomfort?

Part of that is my particular path through this lifetime, but I did have my fair share of accidents and injuries in my childhood. I think in some ways, I feel comfortable in a hurt locker that’s familiar to me. Without going into some giant therapy session, we are imprinted through our childhood, and I am a result of some of that. Going on this journey with the show is taking charge and taking responsibility for most of that — overcoming my impulsive nature and attempting to become more considered in my actions. That was necessary for me. Breaking my back at a young age and feeling that physical pain was a life-changing thing that I survived. When you overcome obstacles in your life, they become badges of honor in some ways and inform your process as you move through the world. That has been true for me. If I can survive that, I can do this.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

All those adages seem to make sense because they’ve been around a long time. 

Why keep doing this, especially as you get older? I find I’m less mobile as I age and take less risks. Is this your last chance to do these things? Your 80-year-old uncle jumps of out a plane with you, so I guess you are never too old!

Age didn’t really come into it. It was more overcoming the fear and the obstacles and getting the lessons I needed. That was something that revealed itself for me to do at that time in my life. It was on my path. The opportunity presented itself, but initially, I hadn’t thought of doing a daredevil experiment. It was more about meeting Blue Zone people and seeing people who learned to simplify things down to the essence, and therefore, were living more content and happy lives. In a way, it did hyperfocus me to be in the present in any given moment, but obviously in those extreme circumstances, you are forced to be supremely present. But the takeaway is being present for my life and the people in it and endeavoring to do that more. 

It’s obvious because we are speaking that you survived, but what about failure? You talk about being intimidated by some of the activities you pursue but also that failure is not an option. Your buddy Kris says in the series that he would stop if he was in the same situation. You are very hard on yourself. Very demanding. If you don’t accomplish your goals, how do you cope with that? 

"I had stage fright as a kid which I never talked about that much. That was my greatest fear."

I think the most interesting lessons in life come through the mistakes we make and the obstacles we overcome. It is not how you go down, but how you get up. In my daily life I am constantly making mistakes and I am hard on myself. I’m learning to be less so. It’s a daily struggle probably for all of us. The show will hopefully inspire people to do something that pushes them to their edge. I can get lost in an algorithm on my phone and having the self-discipline to stop and be here now is an ongoing journey. 

Failure is something that is unique to each person. Seeing the opportunities for growth through the challenges we are presented with is the thing. My Buddhist practice — I’ve been chanting since I was 16 — has taught me we are born, we are going to grow old, get sick and die. that’s a given, so how do you navigate that with grace and accept that there is no easy path? There are so many things where I think, “I did so much work on that, and it didn’t land.” Well, get up and try again. That’s what you are here for. That’s just how I am.

How does facing your fear and conquering it help you as a person or even in your acting?

I had stage fright as a kid which I never talked about that much. That was my greatest fear, and I used to conquer that every time I went on stage. When you push yourself to the edge and reveal to yourself your greatest challenge — whatever it may be. You said you would never do any of these things. What is the thing you consider to be your edge? Make that a habit and lean into that and through overcoming and pushing your edge you get that clarity of mind or that moment or that feeling that I can tick that off the list. Maybe it didn’t work, but I gave it my best shot.

"Orlando Bloom: To the Edge" begins streaming Thursday, April 18 on Peacock.

“You can watch on the TV … at Rikers”: Jimmy Kimmel may host next Oscars to spite Trump

Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump can't seem to stop beefing.

During the "Jimmy Kimmel Live" Wednesday night monologue, Kimmel responded to Trump's recent Truth Social tirade aimed at him, the latest in a series of ongoing jabs between the two. "Stupid Jimmy Kimmel, who still hasn’t recovered from his horrendous performance and big ratings drop as Host of The Academy Awards, especially when he showed he suffered from TDS, commonly known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, to the entire World by reading on air my TRUTH about how bad a job he was doing that night, right before he stumbled through announcing the biggest award of all, 'Picture of the Year,'" Trump wrote on Wednesday morning. 

The ex-president also mistakenly confused the "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" host with actor Al Pacino, writing how he  “stumbled through announcing the biggest award of all, Picture of the Year." He concluded Kimmel was the "WORST HOST EVER OF THE ONCE VAUNTED ACADEMY AWARDS!"

In response, Kimmel said, “That must be why they asked me to host the show again next year. Which I wasn’t planning to do, but now I might. Maybe you can watch on the TV in the rec room at Rikers with all the guys.” 

At the 2024 Academy Awards, Kimmel notably read Trump's negative review of his Oscars-hosting performance. “I’m surprised you’re still [up]. Isn’t it past your jail time?” the comedian said on stage. 

Trump is currently on trial in Manhattan after being indicted in March of 2023 on charges related to the 2016 hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

“Quiet on Set” accused of unethical filmmaking practices and deceiving interviewees

When "Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV" premiered in March, it garnered an immediate and explosive response from viewers. And it's no surprise — the multi-part docuseries from Investigation Discovery endeavored to expose candid revelations about systemic abuse at children's television network Nickelodeon through investigative research and testimony from interviewees, many of whom were former child actors. Specifically, "Quiet on Set" illuminated toxicity spawned by one of the network's most successful creators, Dan Schneider, and marked the first time that former actor Drake Bell would publicly recount the sexual abuse he endured by his dialogue and acting coach at Nickelodeon, Brian Peck.

“They were more interested in resurfacing that awful footage than listening to survivors’ experiences.” 

However, since the show debuted, some of its participants have leveled unsavory allegations at the show and its directors, Mary Robertson and Emma Schwartz. In a sit-down with IndieWire published on Wednesday, "Quiet on Set" interview subjects Raquel Lee Bolleau — who starred on "The Amanda Show" — and Alexa Nikolas of "Zoey 101" claimed that they were misrepresented and that their sensitive statements were used to further the series' success by amplifying prurient content from Schneider's tenure at Nickelodeon. 

“After watching the show, I saw that it was not at all what I signed up for,” Bolleau told the outlet. “I also saw that I was surrounded by people who have one agenda, and that one agenda is their own success. It’s a horrible word to even use in this context: success.”  

Nikolas, an activist in the kids' entertainment space who has long been outspoken about Schneider's reported behavior, told IndieWire that she was "livid" upon seeing that a seemingly sexualized clip of her on "Zoey 101" was used in the series without sufficient context. The clip, which Nikolas discusses during her appearance on "Quiet on Set," seems to mimic pornography: Her character, Nicole, accidentally squirts neon green goo onto the face of the character Zoey (Jamie Lynn Spears), effectively creating a “cum shot.” 

“They made me feel like my story was going to be heard, and it wasn’t,” Nikolas said. “They were more interested in resurfacing that awful footage than listening to survivors’ experiences.”  

Speaking to how she feels her adolescent trauma was transmogrified into cultural cannon fodder, Nikolas said, “[Schwartz and Robertson] feel like they have a license to it and that they’re able to do whatever they want with it,” she said. “That’s how Dan felt, too . . . what is different from them to Dan Schneider? I don’t see a difference. I only see a crossover.”  

While IndieWire's report indicated that Nikolas was given early access to the first two episodes ("Quiet on Set" is a four-part series with an additional bonus episode), Bolleau for her part said she was not. The former "The Amanda Show" actor stated how this experience was "retraumatizing" for her, as she learned about Bell's assault for the first time when the series was released in two parts. 

“I knew I couldn’t trust them the moment I watched those four episodes,” Bolleau said. “In my interview with Emma, I speak so much about how close Drake and I were — so much so that it really would’ve painted an understanding of why I’m so hurt right now." Bell's disclosure about being the then-teenaged “John Doe” from the 2003 criminal case was "effectively used as a narrative reason for audiences to return between 'Quiet on Set' Episodes 2 and 3 with Bell sitting down silently before credits rolled," per IndieWire. 

“To know that you’re about to reveal something like this, and you don’t even care to nurture the real conversation, even to support who he was then and who he turned into, how dare you?”  Bollaeu added. “You had two years. You had two years to shape. You had two years to nurture. You had two years to develop. You had two years to bring together. You had two years to build. You had two years to get your stuff in order. There’s no way that this should be falling apart the way that it is.” 

According to what Bolleau and Nikolas told IndieWire, "Quiet on Set" was structured as a sort of strategic "silo-ing" that kept interviewees ignorant of the docuseries' actual intentions. "They call the result a 'manufactured consent,'" the report reads, "that’s effectively left them unable to critique the producers without criticizing the platform that also helped survivors like themselves."

“They pieced together a story and a narrative that they had on their own,” Bolleau, who reportedly had less insight into the investigation's purview than Nikolas, argued. “The reason they kept us all apart and from knowing specifics was because they knew if we all got together, we would start sharing and exchanging experiences and figuring out what this really is and what it means for us.” 

"They kept trying to push Brian Peck [and other criminal allegations] on me,” Bolleau continued. “And I said, ‘Listen, I don’t know that. I can talk about my own story, and we can go real deep if you want to do that. But if you want to talk about that and put words in my mouth, I’m not going to say anything that I did not experience. And I’m not going to say anything that you think I should say to support what you’re trying to create, because that’s not who I am. I’m sorry.’ Maybe they didn’t like me because of that.”  

“I dare them to air my entire interview now,” she said. “Do you want to know why? Because there is a part in my interview where I stop Emma in the middle of the interview and I said to her, ‘Hey Emma, what is this about? Is this about Dan? Is this about Nickelodeon? Or is this about ‘The Amanda Show’? You need to help me understand because your questions that you’re asking me right now are not lining up with what we’ve been talking about over the past year.'”

Bolleau's allegations bear strong resonance to those of Marc Summers, who hosted Nickelodeon's "Double Dare" game show from 1989 through 1993. Summers, who appears in the first episode of "Quiet on Set," accused Robertson and Schwartz of being "unethical" in their filmmaking practices, per a different report from IndieWire published earlier this month.

During an episode of "Elvis Duran and the Morning Show," Summers claimed he was "ambushed" by producers.

“They asked me what I thought of Nick, and the first 10 to 12 seconds, from what I understand, in this documentary is me saying all these wonderful things. But they did a bait and switch on me,” Summers said. “They ambushed me. They never told me what this documentary was really about. And so they showed me a video of something that I couldn’t believe was on Nickelodeon. And I said, ‘Well, let’s stop the tape right here. What are we doing?'”

Per Summers' recounting, the footage that prompted him to abruptly depart from filming was a clip of pop singer and former Nickelodeon star Ariane Grande in a sexualized scene. Though Summers ultimately walked out upon learning that "Quiet on Set" would expose Schneider and Peck, his brief interview was still included as part of the final product. Robertson and Schwartz refuted Summers' claims, telling IndieWire in a statement, “We are clear with each participant about the nature of our projects."

“I left. So I got a phone call about six weeks ago saying you’re totally out of the show. And I went, ‘Great.’ Then they called me about four weeks ago and said, ‘Well, you’re in it, but you’re only in the first part of it because you talked about the positive stuff of Nickelodeon,'” Summers said. “What they didn’t tell me — and they lied to me about — was the fact that they put in that other thing where they had the camera on me when they ambushed me. And so, now we get into a whole situation about who’s unethical.”

“Seeing him get handed that phone, you’re just like, ‘Oh, my God,'” Nikolas said. “That makes me deeply uncomfortable to think that in that way I was told what the documentary was about and that others weren’t. That makes me regret sitting down.”  

In "Breaking the Silence," the hasty follow-up to the rest of "Quiet on Set," award-winning journalist Soledad O'Brien moderates a conversation with Bell, and separately, the return of "All That" cast members (plus a new participant and fellow alumn of the sketch comedy show). 

At one point in the episode, while speaking to cast member Brian Hearne and another former "Quiet on Set" participant, his mother Tracey Brown, O'Brien plays a never-before-seen clip of Bolleau. Bolleau in the new footage describes a sketch called "The Literals," in which Amanda Bynes would repeatedly spit in her face every time she prompted her to "spit it out."

“I was so mad that the director hurried and put me on the side of the set and was like, ‘Listen, Raquel. Breathe in, breathe out," Bolleau recalls in the clip. "'She’s the star of the show.’ He said, ‘Don’t make too much of a problem. I’m going to ask her not to spit in your face. But you have to keep your cool.’”

Upon seeing the previously unreleased footage, Brown said "That's racist, period.”

“That hit me really hard,” Hearne said. “To just be told you don’t matter in that moment you’re being spit on? And it’s like, this person matters more than you.”

Now, Bolleau has spoken out to set the record straight on the airing of the clip, which she said she was not told about.

"I had no clue,” she said. “Honestly, I was still catching my breath from watching the first four episodes that were gut-wrenching for me. So then to throw this fifth episode out there with zero context around what I said . . . and to make me wake up and be a headline the next morning with zero context from my own words about how that situation even came about, honestly, I’m at a loss for words.”  

“I’m part of the problem”: Male reporter apologizes to WNBA’s Caitlin Clark after awkward exchange

Newly minted No. 1 WNBA draft pick Caitlin Clark is on top of the world right now with a surprise appearance on "Saturday Night Live," lucrative new sponsorship deals and drawing the nation's eyes to women's basketball.

On April 15, the former University of Iowa point guard and current NCAA's all-time top scorer was drafted to The Indiana Fever. At a press conference to introduce the new member of the Fever to the team and sports world on Wednesday, the star athlete was met with a room full of press, including columnist Gregg Doyel of The Indianapolis Star. The interaction has caught steam online for its awkwardness but most importantly, it has received criticism from sports journalists for unprofessionalism directed towards female athletes. 

As a young, female athlete with a growing fanbase in a male-dominated sport, there are bound to be awkward interactions with the press, especially male reporters. High-profile athletes like Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka are examples of women in sports who have faced this type of uncomfortable interaction with the press.

When it was Doyel's turn to pose a question to Clark, he first made a heart gesture with his hands. Clark's fans know the gesture because she flashes it to her family at every one of her games. The heart gesture – often used by music stans and Asian media stars and their fans – is now synonymous with Clark and has even been featured in a State Farm commercial she was in. However, when Doyle made the gesture, Clark said, "You like that?"

Doyle responded, "I like that you're here."

Clark clarified why she does the gesture, telling him, "Yeah, I do that at my family after every game.”

Then Doyle said, "Start doing it to me, and we'll get along just fine."

A clip of the short interaction has amassed 41.6 million views on X, leading to online criticism from journalists like Dana O'Neil at the Athletic, posting, "Sometimes life isn't hard. If, for example, as a professional, ethical, impartial reporter it would not occur to you make a heart at, say, Victor Wembanyama, don't make one at Caitlin Clark."

Another sports journalist, Shireen Ahmed who works for CBC Sports said, "Almost every one of my women colleagues & students in sport media and sports journalism are sharing that clip of Gregg Doyel and Caitlin Clark with disgust. We are rightly furious and fed up. His creds should be revoked and offered to an unentitled journalist who respects women."

Howard Megdal, an independent sports journalist also said, "I am angered and sickened by this. It is incumbent upon reporters to come to press conferences with knowledge and respect. And players cannot, and should not, be treated this way. This is a problem well beyond this specific dynamic. So many of us work every second to build trust."

After the incident created uproar among fans and sports journalists, Doyle took to X on Wednesday evening to address his actions.

"Today in my uniquely oafish way, while welcoming @CaitlinClark22 to Indy, I formed my hands into her signature [heart]. My comment afterward was clumsy and awkward. I sincerely apologize. Please know my heart (literally and figuratively) was well-intentioned. I will do better," he said.

Late in the evening, the columnist wrote a piece at the Indy Star expressing guilt and remorse. He opened the column, "I’m devastated to realize I’m part of the problem. I screwed up Wednesday during my first interaction with No. 1 overall draft pick Caitlin Clark of the Indiana Fever."

He continued to mention he's known locally for "awkward conversations with people"  before "asking brashly conversational questions." Doyle said he has done this with plenty of male athletes — not female athletes. He added, "Male and female athletes should be treated the same," listing gendered issues in women's sports like fair and equal coverage, respect, compensation and terminology.

We need your help to stay independent

Doyle shared that stories are usually written about viral insensitive men, "I decided to write about that idiot. Me." 

Further into the column, Doyle explained that he did not understand where he took a misstep in the interaction until "a woman I deeply respect told me, 'But Caitlin Clark is a young woman, and you don’t talk to a young woman the same as you would a young man.'”

Nonetheless, Doyle noted he felt like he offended Clark and her family. He continued, "After going through denial, and then anger – I’m on the wrong side of this? Me??? – I now realize what I said and how I said it was wrong, wrong, wrong. I mean it was just wrong. Caitlin Clark, I’m so sorry."

As of Thursday, Clark has not responded to the apology. The rising WNBA star has been at the center of multiple conversations around WNBA athlete salaries as President Joe Biden has stated, "Women are not paid their fair share." Reportedly, Clark is also on the verge of accepting a lucrative, eight-figure endorsement deal with Nike.

“Trump testifying would likely be a gift”: Legal experts say DA “has boxed Trump in” at trial

Prosecutors in New York plan to question former President Donald Trump about his recent spate of high-profile courtroom losses to challenge his credibility should he take the stand in his hush-money trial, a filing publicly released Wednesday indicates.

The list of the former president's misconduct, originally submitted to the court in March by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, includes Trump's more than $460 million civil fraud judgment from earlier this year, gag order violations, verdicts from civil federal juries finding him liable for defaming and sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll, and sanctions for what a judge said was a "frivolous, bad faith lawsuit" against Hillary Clinton, according to CBS News. The lawsuit, dismissed in 2022, accused Clinton and others of plotting to hurt Trump's 2016 campaign by claiming he colluded with Russia's government.

"This does not surprise me at all in the sense that the prosecution wants to be able to bring in this kind of information," David Schultz, a Hamline University professor of legal studies and political science, told Salon, adding that "the prosecution has boxed Trump in in a really interesting way."

The district attorney's notice is for a Sandoval hearing, in which a judge determines the scope of what cross-examination of a defendant can entail and whether a defendant's "prior bad acts" can be raised should they choose to testify, CBS notes. 

Under normal rules of evidence, raising a those acts is oftentimes "not admissible" in court, Schultz explained. But the defendant testifying does offer the prosecution more "leeway" in potentially bringing up a broader array of information in order to "question his credibility and truthfulness."

"Basically, if a defendant claims to be telling the truth, prosecutors want to be equipped to challenge that claim," added Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a Selendy Gay PLLC partner and former assistant U.S. attorney. Should Trump choose to testify and "assert he did not commit" the alleged crimes, prosecutors from Bragg's office should be able to "question him on his well-documented history of intentionally making false statements." 

The former president has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. He has denied all allegations in the case, which revolves around a hush-money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels near the end of his 2016 presidential campaign to keep her quiet about an affair she alleges they had. 

The trial began on Monday and jury selection is underway. Presiding Judge Juan Merchan indicated Thursday that he intends to hold the hearing Friday, MSNBC legal correspondent Katie Phang reported

In the newly released filing, Bragg indicated he plans to mention that the former president previously "testified untruthfully under oath" in his civil fraud case. He specifically noted that Trump claimed his public comments about Judge Arthur Engoron's clerk, which earned him a partial gag order in the case, were instead about a witness. Engoron determined that as "the trier of fact, I find [Trump's] testimony rings hollow and untrue." 

Bragg also outlined his intention to raise that Engoron found Trump had "repeatedly and persistently falsified business records, conspired to falsify business records, issued fake financial statements, conspired to issue false financial statements and conspired to commit insurance fraud."

The presumptive Republican nominee has denied wrongdoing in the civil fraud suit and is appealing. He has also accused the attorneys and prosecutors in both cases of having political motivations in bringing the cases. 

Trump's attorneys have signaled that they believe Bragg's proposed topics should be off-limits for prosecutors. Merchan, however, will make the final determination about which subjects are admissible.

We need your help to stay independent

"Judge Merchan is likely to permit questioning about acts that bear directly on Trump’s credibility and veracity but will keep out those that are likely to create undue prejudice, merely suggest that Trump has a propensity to commit crimes or include salacious details (such as sexual assault)," Aganga-Williams told Salon.

Schultz said that he thinks Merchan will allow prosecutors to mention cases that have judgments but believes the judge will "draw the line" at "other allegations that have not been adjudicated yet." He noted that if Merchan permitted the prosecution to raise "everything and the kitchen sink," Trump, if found guilty, could claim the judge "abused his discretion" in allowing "too much prejudicial information to come in" and appeal. 

"When you bring this information in, it really does become a case within a case," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Salon. "All of a sudden we're talking about [E.] Jean Carroll again, we're talking about false business records to banks, Hillary Clinton. It can give rise to a lot of collateral issues, distract the jury and can be prejudicial." 

But all of these considerations are "only relevant" if Trump decides to testify, he added. 

Trump told reporters on March 25 that he "would have no problem testifying" at the trial, stating that his testimony "could also make me more popular because the people know it's a scam."


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


Choosing not testify, however, cannot be held against him because the Fifth Amendment prohibits the jury from taking it into consideration. Even then, Schultz said, jurors "effectively" do it anyway. 

"Juries want to hear from the defendant, and I think in this case, especially, they're going to want to hear from the ex-president of the United States," he said. 

Should the former president take the stand, his defense attorneys have to concern themselves with his "hot temper" and ensure they control their client while being "very scrupulous" in imparting to Trump that he can't lie under oath, Schultz explained. Trump being caught lying would both "hurt" him with the jury and "make it possible" for prosecutors to request to bring even more information in to "further impeach" him. 

Rahmani said he expects Trump will testify during the trial both because "this is as much political as it's legal" and because Trump previously testified in his civil fraud suit.

He speculated that the former president will either further deny the affair and "blame his accountants" for the false business records, or admit to an affair with Daniels and say he paid her so not to "embarrass his family." While Rahmani believes the latter outcome is "unlikely," he said it could reduce Trump's charges from felonies related to campaign finance violations to misdemeanors if true. 

Aganga-Williams argued, however, that Trump taking the stand would be a "terrible decision that would put him on the road to a conviction" because of his "history of lying."

"Trump testifying would likely be a gift to the government," he said.

GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw: Some Republicans “want Russia to win so badly” they may oust Speaker Johnson

House Speaker Mike Johnson's, R-La., decision to hold a long-delayed vote on aid for Ukraine could cost him his job because some of his fellow Republicans would much prefer the government in Moscow to the one in Kyiv, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said Thursday.

In February, the U.S. Senate passed a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine and Israel, but only this week did Johnson promise to hold a vote in the lower chamber, saying he intends to break the package up into separate bills. That comes as Ukraine's military is running out of ammunition and Russia is making territorial gains.

But Johnson's decision has thrown the Republican caucus into turmoil. The party's base has been suspicious of Ukraine ever since former President Donald Trump falsely accused its government of intervening in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Now the more extreme MAGA wing, led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., is in open revolt, threatening to do to Johnson what they did to his predecessor, former Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

Speaking to CNN's Manu Raju, Crenshaw — who is backing Trump's 2024 bid for the White House despite Trump previously declining to endorse the Texas Republican's own reelection — was frank about what he thinks is going on.

"I guess their reasoning is they want Russia to win so badly that they want to oust the speaker over it," Crenshaw said. "I mean, it's a strange position to take. I think they want to be in the minority too. I think that's an obvious reality."

Crenshaw added: "I'm still trying to process all the bulls**t."

Dickey Betts, legendary Allman Brothers co-founder and guitarist, dies at 80

Dickey Betts, the singer-musician whose versatile compositions helped define the apogee of Southern Rock in the '70s and '80s, died at age 80 in his Osprey, Florida home. The news was announced by his family on Instagram. "Dickey was larger than life, and his loss will be felt world-wide," the post said. His manager David Spero told Rolling Stone that Betts had been suffering from ill-health for several years, including cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Betts spent most of his musical career in the Allman Brothers, a band founded by brothers Duane and Gregg Allman and whose sound emerged from a fusion of rock, country, and electric blues. Though Duane died in a 1971 motorcycle accident, the band continued to surge in popularity, helped in no small part by Betts' natural musicality and ardent mastery of voice and Gibson Les Paul guitar alike. Betts represented country's strongest influence in the band's musical style—his big hit "Ramblin' Man" sets the lyrics of a man “born in the back seat of a Greyhound bus rollin’ down Highway 41” to buoyant music evocative of untroubled wanderlust. He also composed or contributed to other staples of the band's repertoire, including "Blue Sky," "Pony Boy," and "Straight from the Heart." 

The band was often riven with competing egos, scorching tempers, and escalating drug use that led to its first dispersal in 1976. They rejoined in 1978, then split again in 1982; a final re-unification in 1989 lasted until 2014, when most of the band members peacefully parted ways. Betts did not last for even half that timehis rowdy behavior angered the now-sober Gregg Allman, who ejected him from the band in 1993.

Betts reconciled with Allman before the latter died in 2017, and attended his funeral. But until his retirement in 2018, he spent the rest of his performing days separately from Allman Brothers like a true ramblin' man.

In a statement from the Allman Brothers Band, family, and crew, they write:

With deep sadness the Allman Brothers Band learned today that founding member Dickey Betts has passed away peacefully in his home in Sarasota, Florida, following a period of declining health.

Dickey wrote quintessential Brothers songs including “Blue Sky,” “Rambling Man,” “Jessica,” “in Memory of Elizabeth Reed” and many others. His extraordinary guitar playing alongside guitarist Duane Allman created a unique dual guitar signature sound that became the signature sound of the genre known as Southern Rock.

He was passionate in life, be it music, songwriting, fishing, hunting, boating, golf, karate or boxing. Dickey was all in on and excelled at anything that caught his attention.

Betts joins his brothers, Duane Allman, Berry Oakley, Butch Trucks and Gregg Allman, as well as ABB crew members Twiggs Lyndon, Joe Dan Petty, Red Dog, Kim Payne and Mike Callahan in that old Winnebago in the sky touring the world taking their music to all who will listen.

Our condolences to his immediate family, Donna, Duane & Lisa, Christy & Frank, Jessica, and Kim.

Play on Brother Dickey, you will be forever remembered and deeply missed.

 

What are the concerns surrounding the newly emerging bovine H5N1 influenza virus?

The confirmed presence of bird flu in American dairy cattle in a March 25 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) — and a case in Texas where a human working with cattle was infected — has put Canadian public health experts on high alert.

But, what is bird flu and what do we know about influenza in both poultry and cattle?

Bird flu, also called avian flu, refers to infection caused by the avian influenza Type A viruses. In the wild, influenza viruses generally spread among migratory waterfowls, such as ducks and geese. Within avian species, domestic poultry are highly susceptible to infection with Type A avian influenza viruses, including H5N1.

Canada itself is amid an H5N1 avian influenza virus outbreak, with over 11 million domestic poultry estimated to be affected and culled to date. In fact, a major concern for the Canadian poultry supply chain is the incurred financial loss from culling birds.

This virus is highly contagious among domestic poultry and can spread through an entire flock within a matter of days. The most common route of transmission from an infected bird to a non-vaccinated bird is via direct physical contact or contact with virus-contaminated surfaces with bodily fluids such as oral mucus and feces.

 

Bird flu in mammals

Non-avian species, like mammals, can also become infected with the H5N1 virus. In Canada, sporadic cases of mammals becoming infected with bird flu have been reported in raccoons, striped skunks, red foxes, cats and dogs.

As of March 2024, various reports from the USDA, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the presence of H5N1 in dairy cattle across eight states, of which Idaho, Ohio and Michigan are the most northern states bordering Canada.

Although there are no known reports indicating the current bovine strain has made its way into Canada, there is no doubt that it is getting too close for comfort. As of March 27, 2024, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has established various primary control zones in Alberta to prevent the spread of H5N1.

The emerging bovine H5N1 virus is novel to the cattle industry, a backbone of the Canadian food and agriculture industry. The close environmental relationship between humans and cattle would seem to make both species more vulnerable to influenza transmission, but that is not the case.

Interestingly, only a few cases of cattle-to-human influenza transmission have been documented. In contrast, pigs are the main mixing vessel for avian influenza A viruses, as exemplified in the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic. The 2009 swine H1N1 virus was a mixing event that led to mammalian adaptation, a process that is not straightforward in any intermediate host. A natural mixing event in pigs would result from exchange of genetic material following co-infection with both an avian and human influenza virus.

However, in the current scenario, the emerging bovine H5N1 strain that has infected American dairy cattle has undergone a specific adaptation in an enzyme called polymerase. Changes to this viral enzyme are concerning, as it could allow for faster adaptation and maybe even support cattle-to-cattle transmission.

            Diagram showing route of infection from birds to mammals to humans
The proposed transmission cycle of the H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. Pigs might be considered the natural intermediary rather than cattle. The current transmission chain is worrying due to a lack of information about this new host and its response to infection with H5N1. (Nitish Boodhoo)
           

         

This raises numerous questions for which the answers are not yet clear. Among these, the key questions are:

  1. How are dairy cattle getting infected?
  2. Is viral transmission from infected to non-infected cattle, or strictly direct contact with contaminated surfaces or infected birds?
  3. Are cattle relevant as an intermediary in the transmission chain of Type A influenza viruses such as H5N1 from poultry to cattle, eventually infecting humans?

The answers will support new regulations to control H5N1 spread within dairy cattle and to other farms, poultry, mammals and humans. The greater concern would be if this virus has entered the pig industry.  

 

Are there vaccines against H5N1 for humans and livestock?

According to a CDC report, the H5N1 viral strain that infected a human in Texas is closely related to two candidate vaccines. It is also reassuring to know that the World Health Organization maintains a list of candidate vaccines that could be mass-produced against H5N1 influenza viruses. In fact, some countries maintain a small stockpile of vaccine doses against H5N1, should there be a need to vaccinate at-risk populations.

Until such an outbreak event occurs where vaccines against H5N1 for people might be required, the Canadian government has a list of preventive measures that people can take.

Members of the public need to keep their distance and avoid direct contact with wild birds that look sick or have died. People should also avoid touching surfaces where there are likely to be bird droppings.

As for livestock species, both the American and Canadian governments have been reluctant to approve the use of vaccines in the poultry industry. The long-standing strategy against avian influenza has been eradication, and not vaccination, by culling all infected and affected chickens. While it has been successful at preventing the virus from becoming endemic, it may not be economically sustainable with H5N1 outbreaks predicted to occur on a yearly basis.

In the wake of this unprecedented news, efforts have to be directed to study avian influenza transmission from poultry into cattle. Such proactive efforts will hopefully generate necessary data to establish a decision-making framework to safeguard our livestock industry and protect human health.

 

Nitish Boodhoo, Research Associate, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph

 

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

 

Despite the backlash, Food Network’s new strategy is actually working in their favor

Food Network has entered a new era of programming, much to the dismay of many longtime fans and longtime hosts. The cable network — which garnered acclaim with shows like Giada De Laurentiis’ "Everyday Italian" and Ina Garten’s "Barefoot Contessa" — is straying away from stand-and-stir television and instead, revamping its lineup with a slew of reality competition shows. 

In recent months, many household Food Network personalities have shared their thoughts on the network’s perceived transformation. Some even left the network for good. Last February, De Laurentiis cut ties with the network after serving 21 years as a host and chef personality. She revealed in an Instagram post that she had signed a multi-year deal for an unscripted series production with Amazon Studios, instead. Then in May, Rachael Ray announced that she was moving on from “Rachael Ray” after 17 seasons to produce new stand-and-stir cooking shows in partnership with A+E Networks.

“Food Network has a terrific formula — but they have a formula,” Ray said. “They like games, competitions, stuff like that. That’s not the type of programming I want. I want a little more freedom to be in charge of the actual content, rather than just hosting something. I don’t want to host anything. I just want to make shows.”

Chef Robert Irvine also criticized Food Network after it canceled his hit show “Restaurant: Impossible" for no longer fitting the network's idea of what its viewers want to watch. “I don't think any amount of fans telling Food Network to bring it back will do anything.. to change their mind,” Irvine said in response to a fan. “They have a different idea of what the viewers want and @Rest_Imposs isn't in that…so we will move on and see what happens next…when i know i will let you know lol.”

Food Network’s latest critic is Valerie Bertinelli, who confirmed earlier this year that she had been cut from “Kids Baking Championship” by the network. Bertinelli took to Threads to express her disappointment with Food Network’s new content, saying, “I fell in love with Food Network two decades ago because of all the amazing ITK (in the kitchen) shows.” In addition to praising Ray's “30 Minute Meals” and programs hosted by De Laurentiis and Garten, Bertinelli said, “I learned so much. It's sad it's not about cooking and learning any longer. Oh well, that's just business, folks.” 

Bertinelli’s post was in response to a viral thread from cookbook author Marlynn Schotland, who said, “I miss actual cooking shows on @foodnetwork. Remember those? Do you know what this world does NOT need? Yet another cooking competition show.”

Despite the mounting criticism, Food Network’s strategy is actually proving to be beneficial, hence why network executives haven’t made any initiative to return to prior programming. Food Network, which usually sees hikes in viewership amid the fall and holiday seasons, garnered more viewers last summer, per Variety. Food Network is among the Top 5 non-news/sports cable networks across total day ratings for adults aged 25-54, behind Nick at Nite, TNT, USA Network and TBS. At the time, Food Network was averaging 113,000 viewers in the 25-54 group, according to Nielsen’s Live + 3 Day data. The network’s average weekly primetime viewing rate has risen 4% year-over-year among the 25-54 group and 6% among all viewers.

As for specific shows, Food Network’s Sunday primetime competition “The Great Food Truck Race” was at the top of the leaderboard with more than 8.9 million total viewers across Food Network, Max and Discovery+. The Monday night show “BBQ Brawl” was watched by more than 8 million viewers across the linear TV channel and streaming services through the first two weeks of its new season. Tuesday’s “Supermarket Stakeout” reached more than 11.4 million viewers, which is an 11% hike from its previous season.   

Other shows that have helped heighten network viewership included “Guy’s Grocery Games,” “Beat Bobby Flay,” “Outchef’d,” “Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives,” “The Kitchen” and “Girl Meets Farm.” Only one of those shows is a stand-and-stir food program.

Today, stand-and-stir television may be sparse, but it’s also evolving thanks to social media. Stand-and-stir content is quite popular on YouTube (think Joshua Weissman or Andrew Rea, a.k.a ‘Binging With Babish’), often being more intimate yet also unfiltered. Similar to stand-and-stir television, stand-and-stir YouTube offers viewers a sense of escape and ultimately encourages them to be adventurous by trying their hand at making something new.


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


There’s also TikTok where stand-and-stir content tends to be more fast-paced. Tiffani Thiessen — the actor-turned-kitchen-star who hosts “Dinner at Tiffani's" on the Cooking Channel and “Deliciousness" on MTV — explained the distinction between Food Network shows and TikTok cooking while speaking with celebrity chef Nick DiGiovanni. Thiessen said that when she first started cooking on TV, “the stand and stir was slow. It was very conversational,” but as social media rose to popularity, “the cuts are fast; the recipes are fast.” The speed of TikTok has made cooking content “a whole different ball game than what I was doing,” Thiessen said.

Food Network’s strategy may not be appealing to those who adored the network’s educational programming, but it’s certainly smart. The network's new lineup is catering to people’s growing “hunger” for reality television, a ubiquitous multibillion-dollar entertainment industry. Approximately 79% of adults who watch television in the United States watch reality shows, per a report from the independent market research platform Gitnux. Additionally, approximately 60% of prime-time television in the United States is reality programming. Reality TV shows have also contributed to 21% growth in unscripted programming on TV.

Food Network may no longer be stand-and-stir television central, but other cooking channels like Magnolia Network and Cooking Channel are still serving viewers a platter of in the kitchen programs to enjoy. Only time will tell if those networks will follow in the footsteps of Food Network and add reality television to their own lineup.

“What Jennifer Did”: 8 things missing from Netflix’s doc of a woman who schemed to kill her parents

In 2010, Jennifer Pan devised a plan to kill her parents. The 24-year-old Vietnamese Canadian woman who grew up in a Toronto-area suburb appeared to be a typical daughter of immigrants. However, Jennifer struggled with the pressures of balancing cultural expectations put on her by her parents, and this led to her extreme actions.

The Netflix documentary "What Jennifer Did" focuses on the young woman's journey to ultimately conspiring with her ex-boyfriend Daniel Wong to hire a hitman who murdered her mother Bich Ha Pan and severely injured her father, Huei Hann Pan. Everyone who was involved in the murder and conspiracy, namely Jennifer and Daniel, is currently serving life in prison. While the documentary film directed by Jenny Popplewell sits on the streaming service's Top 10 movies in the U.S., it has been under fire for using artificial intelligence to alter photos of Jennifer and omitting key details about Jennifer's life and her relationship with her parents.

However, a 2015 Toronto Life feature by Karen Ho gives a fuller picture of the story, including the Pan family's dynamics. Jennifer grew up being told to achieve, not just academically but with nonstop piano lessons, competitions and figure skating. When she did fail to meet her parents' expectations by dating Daniel, the disapproval took a toll on Jennifer. The Netflix documentary leaves large gaps that the article fills in to create a more comprehensive picture of the circumstances leading up to Jennifer's plan to murder her parents.

Here are the 8 key details "What Jennifer Did" leaves out:

01
How Jennifer spent her free time while pretending to attend university

In the documentary, it's revealed that Jennifer failed to graduate high school and did not get into university . . . but had lied to her family that she was admitted to Ryerson.

 

Ho's article reveals that the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to perpetuate that lie. For four years, instead of going to class, she would go to libraries to research relevant science topics to take notes as proof she was going to school. She forged transcripts. At some points, she spent time at cafes and visited her boyfriend Daniel at his university. But she also picked up day shifts at a restaurant in her hometown, She also taught piano lessons and then bartended at a pizza parlor where her boyfriend worked as kitchen manager. When her dad asked about her studies, her mom would defend her and say, “Let her be herself."

02
Jennifer fooled her parents into allowing her to live with a friend

After pretending to attend Ryerson University for two years, her dad asked if she was still going to transfer to the University of Toronto. She lied again and said she had been accepted into the school's pharmacology program.

 

To keep up the charade, Jennifer suggested that she move in with a friend downtown for three nights a week. Her mom, Bich, convinced Hann it was a good idea because of Jennifer's daily commute. But Jennifer never stayed with her friend. For three days out of the week, she stayed with Daniel and his family at their home. Jennifer was also lying to Daniel's parents. She told them that her parents approved of her long stays, also rejecting their request for both families to meet.

03
Jennifer's parents followed her to her fake job

"What Jennifer Did" alludes to Jennifer feeling like she was being watched and followed by her parents but leaves out an incident involving the blood-testing lab SickKids, revealed in Ho's story. The web of lies Jennifer had constructed about her academic career slowly began to disintegrate when she said that she had volunteered at SickKids. Since the job required spending late nights at the lab on Fridays and weekends, Jennifer suggested spending more time at her friend's place.

 

But Hann noticed that Jennifer never wore a uniform going to work or even had a key card to get into the lab. Following those suspicions, her dad insisted that her parents drop her off at the hospital for work one day. When they dropped her off, Jennifer ran inside and then hid in the emergency room's waiting area for hours until they left. The next day, her parents called her friend who admitted that Jennifer was never stayed there. When Jennifer came home, she confessed that she didn't volunteer at the lab, she never even went to the Univerity of Toronto and had been staying at Daniel's the whole time. This focused her parents' disapproval on her relationship with Daniel.

 

Hann attempted to kick her out but Bich pleaded to let Jennifer stay. They confiscated her phone and laptop for two weeks, and she was only allowed to use them while her parents were around. She was also subject to surprise checks of her messages. She was prohibited from seeing Daniel and forced to quit all her jobs except the piano. Her parents also began tracking the miles on her car.

 

Jennifer still had not revealed that she failed to graduate high school and never went to Ryerson. 

04
Jennifer snuck out to see Daniel and was caught

The Pans' disapproval of Daniel was distinctly clear in the documentary because of his previous marijuana possession charges and lack of professional work. However, the article revealed their disapproval did not stop Jennifer from seeing him. 

 

In February 2009, Jennifer wrote on her Facebook, “Living in my house is like living under house arrest.” Once she regained enough of her parents' trust, she was able go out, which is when she'd see Daniel between her piano lessons.

 

One night she stuffed her bed full of blankets to make it look like she was asleep and snuck out to Daniel's house. The next day Bich went into her daughter's room to discover Jennifer wasn't home. This led to Hann and Bich to order Jennifer to come home, apply to college to become a pharmacy lab technician or nurse and cut off her contact with Daniel for good.

05
Jennifer concocted a story about being assaulted to win Daniel back

The documentary was clear that a part of Jennifer's motivations for the murder plot was to be able to have the freedom to see and date Daniel as she pleased. She felt like Daniel was all she had. But the article painted a darker picture of the lengths Jennifer would go to in order to get his attention.

 

At this point, Daniel was tired of dating someone who had to lie to her parents in order to see him, so he broke up with her and moved on to someone new named Christine. This left Jennifer heartbroken and desperate. She created an elaborate and gruesome fiction in the hopes that he'd feel moved to reconcile with her.

 

She told him that she opened the door for a man who showed her a police badge. She claimed that when she let him in, a group of men pushed in, overpowered her and gang-raped her in her home. Days later she also told Daniel that she had received a bullet in an envelope. She claimed that the assault and bullet missive were warnings from Daniel's new girlfriend Christine, threatening Jennifer to leave him alone.

06
Jennifer claims she was scammed in her first attempt to kill her dad

In "What Jennifer Did," it briefly mentioned that Jennifer had met with someone previously about a plot to kill her parents, but it never gave any details about the meetings she had with the person. In the article, Jennifer is painted as growing incredibly frustrated with her familial circumstances. So in 2010, Jennifer met up with a former friend from school, Andrew Montemayor, who commiserated with her over difficult fathers and imagining a life with them dead. This planted the seed for murder. He then introduced Jennifer to his roommate, Ricardo Duncan.

 

According to Jennifer, they devised a plan for Duncan to kill her father at his workplace's parking lot. She claimed she paid Duncan $1,500, but he ghosted her. In July 2010, she said she realized she had been scammed.

 

However, Duncan tells a different story, saying that when she asked him to kill her parents, he was offended and said no. Also, he stated that she only gave him $200, which he returned immediately. 

07
During the actual murder attempt in her home, Jennifer paid the hitmen

 

Eventually, Jennifer reconnected with Daniel to create another plan to murder her parents that involved at least two other men. Although the documentary details the events of Nov. 8, 2010 – when three men entered the Pan home, killed Bich and seriously injured Hann – Ho's Toronto Life story includes an extra detail.

 

Jennifer claims that one of the men, Eric Carty, had tied her hands behind her back and forced into her bedroom where she had to give him approximately $2,500 in cash. She went to her parents' bedroom where Carty found $1,100 in U.S. dollars in her mother’s nightstand.

08
The fallout of the trial on Jennifer's family, including her brother

At the end of the documentary, the audience is told that Jennifer and the men included in the murder plot are serving life sentences. Ho's story, however, goes into the emotional fallout of Jennifer's trial and how it has affected her family.

 

The story reported that the 2014 trial lasted about 10 months. When the jury read the first-degree murder conviction, she did not show any emotion. But when the press left the courtroom, Jennifer began to cry uncontrollably. She automatically received no chance of parole for 25 years.

 

The judge also ordered a no-communication order between Jennifer and her family at the request of her father and brother, Felix – the latter of whom was never mentioned in the documentary. Her lawyer said of the order that “Jennifer is open to communicating with her family if they wanted to."

 

Furthermore, Ho reported on Hann's victim impact statement, which read, “When I lost my wife, I lost my daughter at the same time. I don’t feel like I have a family anymore . . . Some say I should feel lucky to be alive but I feel like I am dead too.”

 

The story also stated that now Hann is unable to work because of his injuries, suffers from anxiety attacks, insomnia, nightmares and chronic pain. His son Felix moved to the East Coast to escape the controversy surrounding their family. He said Felix suffers from depression. Hann also addressed Jennifer: “I hope my daughter Jennifer thinks about what has happened to her family and can become a good honest person someday.”

 

The documentary updated that last year, Jennifer, Daniel, and two other men involved with the crime –  Lenford Crawford and David Mylvaganam – had all their convictions overturned. They are currently awaiting retrials. In an interview with CBC News in 2023, one of Jennifer's lawyers said, "Her fight is not over." 

"What Jennifer Did" is streaming on Netflix.

 

Urbanization is isolating fruit-loving birds and forests are paying the price

Fruit-eating birds — also known as frugivores — come in many colors and sizes, from the tiny yellow Palm tanager and the bright Blue red-legged honeycreeper (Thraupis palmarum) to the Toucan-like black, gray, white and orange Great hornbill (Buceros bicornis). They are also essential to the preservation of tropical forests, with 70 to 90 percent of their tree species depending on frugivores to eat, spread and excrete their seeds. This, in turn, allows forests to serve an important role storing carbon and reducing the impact of human-caused climate change.

Yet according to a recent study in the journal Nature Climate Change, frugivores are struggling to perform this essential ecological service because of human activity. As humans fragment the forests — that is, break large forests into smaller patches through construction and other environmentally destructive practices — the scientists learned that they restrict the movement of important frugivorous birds. This has a climate change consequence, as it reduces their ability to store carbon by up to 38 percent. In Brazil, the scientists learned that the birds can handle at most 435 feet (133 meters) of distance between forest patches to be able to easily move through the landscape.

The researchers also broke down how different species of birds are able to spread the types of trees that protect against climate change. Ultimately larger frugivores like the Curl-crested jay (Cyanocorax cristatellus) and the Toco toucan (Ramphastos toco) are more important in performing this function.

"Given that the movement of larger frugivores is disproportionately affected by fragmentation, the limitation of their movements may strongly limit the recovery of large, late-succession trees, ultimately reducing the carbon storage potential of recovering ecosystems," the authors write.

For actor Matthew Modine, biking is a “tool for consciousness” and facing life’s uphill battles

As the son of a drive-in theater manager, actor Matthew Modine grew up watching movies. “I always enjoyed films that were about problem-solving,” he told me on "Salon Talks." “And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems . . . I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution.” Ideologically, Modine believes that actors have a personal responsibility for impacting people’s lives. And he lives it. Citing Native American sensibility, he notes, “What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at [the] totality of our decisions, the things that we do.”

That sensibility is at play in every role he takes. Nearly 40 years ago, he passed on the lead role of Maverick in "Top Gun," which eventually went to Tom Cruise and was the highest-grossing domestic film of that year. He found the story’s focus on “war pornography” disturbing, he said. “I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that 'those people are bad and we are good.' And 'We're right, you're wrong.' I just thought the whole movie was silly.” Modine's more recent roles, like Vannevar Bush (the scientist and creator of the Manhattan Project) in "Oppenheimer," can be hard to square with his stance on nuclear power. While he was honored to portray Bush for director Christopher Nolan as an important part of history, he balanced it by executive producing a documentary called “Downwind,” about the lethal effects of nuclear testing on American soil.

Modine has been living what he advocates for many years as an environmentalist and also riding bicycles since he arrived in New York City as a struggling actor (he relied on a beach cruiser to get to auditions). So when his latest film "Hard Miles" (in theaters April 19) came along it had strong appeal: overcoming adversity, solving problems and cycling as a metaphor for freedom. Modine plays cycling coach Greg Townsend on a 760-mile bike trip that he rides with incarcerated students from Colorado’s Rite of Passage’s Ridge View Academy (a medium-security correctional school). Cycling from Denver to the Grand Canyon, the characters — based on real people — struggle mentally and physically, learning many life lessons. "It's always about how much you're willing to push yourself," Modine said of the journey.

Watch my "Salon Talks" here on YouTube or read our conversation below to hear more about why Modine believes so strongly in building a career that reflects his personal values and politics and why he thinks his "Stranger Things" co-star Millie Bobby Brown and her fiancé Jake Bongiovi (the son of Jon Bon Jovi) asked him to officiate their upcoming wedding.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Did you ride here on your bike?

I didn't. No, I just finished work, so it was a short walk from the New York Public Library over here.

Tell me a little bit about your character Greg Townsend in "Hard Miles."

It’s based on a true story. Greg Townsend worked at this academy. He's a bicyclist. And he got the idea that what if I was able to teach these young people how to build bicycles so that they would create something that they would be proud of, that they would have their input and their life put into the building of a bicycle, that they'd be proud of the thing that they created. And then what if I took them on an arduous ride so that they could see that the world is bigger than the troubled home that they came from, that they could see that the world's bigger than the gang that they were a part of before they ended up in this facility?

"I never wanted to play bad guys."

If you're looking for a visual, imagine the horse that has the blinders on, and he's not able to have any peripheral vision. He's just able to see this part of the world. And so what Greg was able to do was to take them out into the world and help them expand their vision, to help give them peripheral vision, and see that there's much more to life than the little problems that are consuming them in their actual lives.

And the real Greg Townsend, tell us about him.

Greg was there for most of the filming. He always rode his bike to work. And there were some extraordinary . . . When we were in Northern California up near Mount McKinley, not only did he ride about 30 miles to get to the location, but he did a vertical mile to get up the mountain to the location. And he'd get up there and not even breathing hard.

How old is he now?

He's about 60.

I'm so impressed.

Yeah, me too.

“Hard Miles” is a journey film and a triumph over adversity film — physical and mental. This is the story of these real hard-luck kids. They are juvenile offenders sort of given a second chance, but not valued or validated except by your character, and perhaps the social worker who's along for the ride. She's a great balance for you in the film.

She really is, yeah. You needed her. Cynthia [Kay McWilliams] is a wonderful actor. And she grounds the story. Without her, I don't know how the story would've worked. It'd be very different.

We need social workers to help level the field of some of these emotional reactions.

Absolutely.

You've been a cyclist since you were 18, coming here to New York as an impoverished actor. I've read the story about you getting a beach cruiser to ride around New York to your auditions. “Hard Miles” is set in Grand Canyon Village, 6,000-something feet above sea level, and these roads are no joke. What was your training like for the film?

The training was on-the-job training because there wasn't a lot of time from the time that the boys, the younger kids in the film were cast to going on location and filming. They were sort of training on the job. And doing hard miles. The movie is appropriately titled. And you do a take and they say, "OK, let's do it again," and you have to ride back and do it again.

So, we did a lot of miles in riding up and down the mountains and, "Let's do it again." And then I think the hardest thing was when we rode through the Navajo Nation, and just at the rim of the Grand Canyon it was 115 [degrees], and the heat coming up off the blacktop made it even hotter. The agony that you see as we're pedaling through that long, long road through the desert, there was no acting involved. You just had to put your head down and go and push.

That's crazy. I did a road trip Arizona through Diné, actually, territory, and Navajo in August. It's brutal out there.

Yeah, it is brutal.

There are a lot of metaphors in this film, among them that life can be uphill and feel like a challenge for anyone. What does cycling represent for you in real life?

Well, bicycling is one of the most tangible ways of explaining democracy. When the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote, the women were not really allowed to drive carriages. They weren't allowed to ride horses, but there were no rules about the bicycles, so the bicycle became a symbol of freedom for women's rights and women's equality. I think that's amazing. 

But I think that for young people today who are so caught up in their phones and social media, the thing about a bicycle is that if you want to be present and in the moment, ride a bicycle, because if you're looking at your phone when you're riding a bicycle, particularly around a place like New York City, you're just asking for trouble, you're asking to get hurt.

"That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate."

The bicycle is a tool for consciousness and awareness and also a kind of meditation that, especially on a hard ride where you're going through the desert . . . And we show that in the film the kind of nightmares and memories that people start to go through as they're suffering. And it's a sort of way of sweating those things out of your body. I made a movie a long time ago called "Vision Quest," and there I think are similarities in the journey that Louden Swain goes on in "Vision Quest" that echo the journey that these kids go on. In wrestling, you're always wrestling against yourself. You're seeing how far you're willing to push yourself. And I think when you're part of a Peloton, riding bicycles, that it's always about how much you're willing to push yourself to be able to discover your personal strength and vulnerabilities.

Well, those who know me know I couldn't agree with you more, that cycling is therapy for me and it really is a way to sort of get everything out. And it's meditation, if you understand it. You have a very long history in TV and film. What draws you to these kinds of triumphant stories?

I suppose my father was a drive-in theater manager, and I grew up watching movies. And I always enjoyed films that were about problem solving. And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems. I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution. There's so much suffering in the world that why wouldn't we want to go and learn about people that are reducing that suffering and finding solutions to problems that make our lives better? I'm attracted to those kinds of stories.

I know because of that background of the drive-in theater and seeing how movies and television affect people's lives, that when you come into people's homes on a television, when you're projected onto a motion picture screen larger than life, when you stand on a stage and do a play, the things that you do and the things that you say will have an impact on people's lives. I absolutely respect that, that people are going to be impacted. And so it can be a tool of propaganda that is detrimental to society, or it can be something that . . . My grandmother used to say that, "The room is full of monsters when it's dark." And she said, "It only takes turning on the light to make the monsters go away.” That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate.

In 2020, you told Salon's Chauncey DeVega that you have chosen, "in my personal life to be on the right side of history." Can you explain what that means to you today?

I'm reading a book right now called “The Pursuit of Happiness.” And Benjamin Franklin was someone who kept slaves, George Washington was someone who kept slaves, and they all recognized that it was a cruel and inhuman thing to do, but they all appreciated the luxury and the convenience that came with owning another human being to do things that you didn't want to do. Now, I think that Benjamin Franklin is one of the brightest, most moral people in our nation's history and the fact that he recognized, the fact that he was doing something that was wrong and cruel, but so he did get on the right side of it. Abraham Lincoln was for slavery until he was against it.

"What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born?"

What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at the circumstances in its totality of our decisions, the things that we do. So, I'm an environmentalist, and I do everything that I can to be on the right side of that history, to leave the world a better place for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. They say that we don't plant trees for ourselves, we plant them for our great-grandchildren because we will never enjoy the shade of those trees. So that kind of Native American wisdom that that story comes from, the planting trees for our great-grandchildren, that's where that seventh generation comes in.

I actually have a production company called Seventh Generation Stories. It’s the same concept, which stems from the conservation philosophy from the Iroquois Confederacy, the First Governance. It says that you should always leave things in a way that will be better for seven generations living afterward. And it's why in indigenous culture it's auspicious to have a centenarian and an infant alive at the same time because it doesn't happen that often. So, it's a beautiful way to live. I try to live that way. Sounds like you do as well.

I try. What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born? We live unfortunately in the United States that I don't know that we're even a democracy anymore, we're a corporatocracy and we're making decisions that are based on financial gain. And with eight billion people on the planet, it's unsustainable. We can't make decisions that are just based on finance and profit. It won't work. We're consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainable pace.

You have shown in your film choices over the years that the personal is political by turning down roles that became huge blockbusters. Examples include Maverick in “Top Gun,” Marty McFly in “Back to the Future,” and Charlie Sheen's character in “Wall Street.”

I did, yeah.

Are you sorry about any of those choices?

Marty McFly I would've loved to have done. But Eric Stoltz is a dear friend of mine, and they had let Eric go. He was playing the part, and then they said, "You have 24 hours to make a decision about replacing him." And I wanted to know, "Why did you fire Eric Stoltz?" That didn't make sense. But in fact, I can't imagine a better actor than Michael J. Fox playing that part. I'm 6’3.

Can you fit in a DeLorean?

[Laughs]. And this is not to make Michael J. Fox small, but there's something about . . . If you think of a Jack Russell and a Labrador, let's say that it needed a Jack Russell. And Marty McFly and Michael J. Fox, he was that Jack Russell. Michael J. Fox in that movie is always on the front of his foot, leaning in, ready to fight.

He was relentlessly attentive and determined.

So, I didn't turn that down for political or philosophical reasons. I just didn't see myself playing the role.

But “Top Gun,” absolutely. I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that those people are bad and we are good. And we're right, you're wrong. I'm right. I'm smart, you're stupid. I just didn't want to be a part of something like that. I just thought the whole movie was silly. It was what I would call war pornography.

There's plenty of it.

People like war pornography. There's a big market for it.

You mentioned your environmentalism. You executive produced a documentary called “Downwind,” released last year and narrated by Martin Sheen, that chronicles the lethal effects that nuclear testing has had on American soil, and specifically on U.S. citizens who are downwind from toxic chemicals. Many of them are indigenous people in the Southwestern states. So, tell us how you square our own politics with playing roles like the brilliant nuclear scientist that you just played in “Oppenheimer,” Vannevar Bush, creator of the Manhattan Project.

Well, to be invited to be part of the ensemble of Christopher Nolan's “Oppenheimer” was a great honor. And it's the second time I've worked with Christopher and his wife Emma. They're incredibly talented, gifted storytellers, and so it was an obvious honor to do it. And then a bunch of actors that I hadn't worked with that I really admire, including Matt Damon. Robert Downey [Jr.] and I started out in the business at the same time, so it was nice to reconnect with Robert. I'm really pleased for him and all of the success that the film brought him. Cillian Murphy, I'm just a great admirer of him, and he lived up to everything that I hoped that he might. He was extraordinary, and such a gentleman, so Irish in all the best qualities of being Irish. A poet. He really is a poet.

But that's an important story to tell about . . . When I started kindergarten in San Diego, Imperial Beach, California, we were still crawling under our desk, doing duck and cover drills, and it was frightening. I remember very vividly, there was a song that came out, "The End of the World." And of course it's a love song, but to me . . . I remember asking my older brothers, "Does this mean, because crawling under the desk, that the end of the world is near?" And they terrified me and said, "Yes, of course." And then the Vietnam War happened, and all the instability that comes to a child through those kind of horrors. Death and destruction seems so imminent.

Always. And even more so. It continues.

So my brother Maury, he's the one that got me really involved mentally about the Downwinders. I was watching the news and he was being arrested on CNN, handcuffed. And the microphone came pushed into his face, and they said, "Why are you protesting?" And my brother said, "They know they work. Why do they have to test them?" And I think it was the most important simple statement ever made, that since the Trinity Test that Oppenheimer covers, why did they need to keep testing them — especially after dropping them on human beings twice in Japan, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that caused the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people? So, why do we need to keep testing them? And there's no logical explanation for why they need to keep testing them. And they're talking about starting it up again, and testing them in our near future.

I have memories of not being able to drink the milk when Three Mile Island had leaks here in New York when I was a kid. I think most of the past few generations have had some experience, unfortunately, with this awareness, this fear of being poisoned to death.

I was in England when Chernobyl happened. My wife was nursing and they said, "It's not a problem unless you're a nursing mother," which my wife was. Because the radiation gets in the breast milk. And yeah, it's a real nightmare. It's a real nightmare.

Last question, I'm going to throw one away for the Gen Z-ers. It’s been widely publicized that you're going to officiate "Stranger Things" castmate Millie Bobby Brown's wedding. Yes? How did this come about?

She asked me. She must have talked to Jake, and they had a conversation. And I honestly don't know how it happened, but it's a great honor. I had married a dear friend of mine during COVID. It was an outdoor wedding. It was extraordinary when you think that people are coming together that when you say, "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here," it's "we" – it becomes a kind of beautiful spiritual gathering of people . . . because this is not an arranged marriage, this is a marriage of choice, and there's something that's beautiful about that. To be the person who gets to officiate, and to join those two people, and give them some, I don't want to say advice, but share some thoughts about the journey that we can make together as human beings, I'm really chuffed that they asked me to be the guy that does it.

And where can everyone see "Hard Miles"?

It opens on April 19th at 600 theaters across the United States, so I encourage you to go see it in a movie theater because it's really beautiful. The photography is stunning. And it's just fun to go be in a room with a bunch of people and experience a movie together. Quite different than watching a movie sitting on your couch and being disrupted by your phone. Going to a movie theater, having grown up with my father's drive-in movie theaters and movie theaters in Utah, there's nothing like it. It's better to go to movies with people and watch it together.

Trump juror quits over fear of being outed after Fox News host says she should scare Trump

By the end of Tuesday, seven jurors had been selected to determine whether Donald Trump should be the first president ever convicted of a crime. By Thursday morning, when the Manhattan trial resumed, there were just six.

According to Judge Juan Merchan, the juror was excused after later expressing doubt that she could remain fair and impartial. In particular, she said that friends and family had already reached out to ask if she was serving on the jury.

Those calls came after numerous media outlets reported potentially identifying biographical information about the woman, including her job and the neighborhood she called home. Fox News Jesse Watters highlighted the juror's details while reading through public pool notes about the selected members. "This nurse scares me if I'm Trump," Watters said.

Other outlets including NBC News, CNN, CBS News, and ABC News also publicized details about the juror, including additional identifying information.

Watters has alleged without evidence that "liberal activists" are lying to get on the jury, a claim that Trump himself has repeated on Truth Social, potentially violating a gag order.

Jury selection is continuing Thursday. Trump is facing charges that he falsified business records to cover up a hush payment and affair with Stormy Daniels to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty.

Judge Merchan implored journalists to be more careful going forward, asking that they exercise "common sense" before reporting jurors' biographical information, NBC News reported.

"Jurors are real people with families, lives, and jobs," tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. "If one juror came forward and vocally expressed concern about her safety, that concern is likely in the mind of the *other* jurors. Their safety must be ensured in order for our legal system to work."

This article has been updated to correct Watters' quote about the juror.

Meghan Markle taps into food influencing with a new lifestyle brand and Netflix cooking show

Meghan Markle is honing in on her passion for food with a new lifestyle brand and a new cooking show. Just one month after the Duchess of Sussex announced the launch of her lifestyle brand, American Riviera Orchard, Markle revealed that she’s producing her own cooking show that will premiere on Netflix in the upcoming months.

The show, which was formally unveiled by Markle and her husband Prince Harry’s Archewell Productions company, will “celebrate the joys of cooking, gardening, entertaining, and friendship,” per Deadline. Leah Hariton, best known for her work on “Selena + Chef,” will serve as showrunner alongside Michael Steed, who has directed episodes of “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction” and “Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown.” The series will be produced by Sony Pictures Television’s The Intellectual Property Corporation, which is behind Hulu’s “The D’Amelio Show” and A&E’s “Leah Remini: Scientology & the Aftermath.”

On Monday, the Daily Mail reported that Markle’s cooking show will not be filmed in her Montecito home, where she currently resides with Harry and their two children, Archie, 4, and Lilibet, 2. The show will instead be filmed at a different house in their California town, the outlet specified.

The name and release date for Markle’s show have not been announced at this time.

As for Markle’s American Riviera Orchard, the brand revealed its first product on Tuesday: a jar of strawberry jam. The jam earned positive online reviews from several of Markle’s closest companions, including fashion designer Tracy Robbins and Argentine socialite Delfina Blaquier.

“Thank you for the delicious basket!” Robbins wrote on her Instagram Stories, per People. “I absolutely love this jam so not sure I'm sharing with anyone 🙂 @americanrivieraorchard Thank you M! [white heart emoji] #montecitogoodness #americanrivieraorchard.” In a second post, Robbins offered a close-up shot of the product with the caption, “@americanrivieraorchard breakfast, lunch and dinner just got a little sweeter [white heart emoji].”

Blaquier echoed similar praises, writing in a caption, “Strawberry [strawberry emoji] jam makes me happy. And I [red heart emoji] your jam @americanrivieraorchard.”

An inside source told People earlier this month that Markle’s lifestyle brand “will reflect everything that she loves — family, cooking, entertaining and home décor.”

“Meghan finds the name American Riviera Orchard perfect. It feels authentic to her. She can’t wait for the website to launch,” the source added. “She is excited about her latest, personal venture. This is something she’s been wanting to do for a while. She is excited to share her style and things that she loves.”

Markle is also pursuing trademarks for exclusive rights to sell cosmetic products, home décor, stationery, linens, small kitchen appliances, condiments, yoga equipment, gardening gear, pet accessories and more under the American Riviera Orchard name.


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


Although Markle’s brand and recent product release have largely received utmost praise, several royal family enthusiasts slammed the brand for being “cheap” and poorly designed. Critics bashed Markle’s calligraphy — a skill she studied and then taught while working as an actor — which can be seen on the jam’s label. Others also claimed the jam’s labels were peeling off of the glass jars.

“Anybody notice the label on the promo jams Meghan Markle is sending to ‘friends’ is literally peeling off? Not a good start,” wrote one social media user on X (the platform formerly known as Twitter). Another user commented, “Cheap labels coming off. This is what people were waiting for?”

In what’s being described as the “ultimate relatability grab,” Markle’s new projects are an opportunity for the duchess to rectify her public persona following the drama and racism she faced as a brief member of the British royal family. This isn’t Markle’s first foray into the world of food and home entertaining. Markle used to run a now-defunct lifestyle and food blog called the Tig. She was also famously in the midst of preparing “engagement roast chicken” for her husband when he proposed to her back in November 2017.

Following a wave of lead-spiked applesauce pouches, FDA urges Congress to enforce mandatory testing

Following a wave of reports of lead-contaminated applesauce pouches last fall, the head of the FDA, Dr. Robert Califf, is urging Congress to pass legislation that would mandate that food manufacturers test for lead in products imported into the country, as reported by Berkeley Lovelace Jr. of NBC News. Currently, there is no such mandate for testing, nor does the FDA "currently set limits on heavy metals in most foods," further exacerbating the issue. 

Many of the pouches, which were marketed as children's food, identified as containing lead last year were produced in Ecuador, with some reports noting that the contamination may have been intentional. According to NBC News, "due to budget limitations, the agency often has to rely on the food manufacturers themselves to do their own testing," however, those measures obviously weren't thorough enough to keep the lead-packed products from hitting supermarket shelves. 

This isn't the only recent instance of consumer advocates raising the flag over lead levels in children's food. Recently, Consumer Reports released guidance to the USDA suggesting they remove Lunchables, which reportedly contain "higher levels of sodium" and "high levels of lead," from the National School Lunch program. As Salon Food reported, The US Department of Agriculture currently permits two Lunchable kits, Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Stackers and Extra Cheesy Pizza, to be served to nearly 30 million children through the program. 

 

 

 

“Oh, it’s daddy”: George Conway overheard Trump’s call to Ivanka revealing fears about affair claims

When former Playboy model Karen McDougal went public about her alleged affair with former President Donald Trump, she claimed that the Republican candidate compared her to his daughter, Ivanka.

"He said I was beautiful like her," McDougal recalled in a 2018 interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

While that conversation aired, Trump placed a call, according to conservative attorney George Conway, whose former wife, Kellyanne, was working for the Trump White House at the time.

“I was sitting at dinner with my ex-wife, with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and the phone rings,” Conway told MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Wednesday. “And Ivanka goes into the kitchen and answers the phone. ‘Oh, it’s daddy.’ And what did daddy want to know? Whether they were watching Karen McDougal. So, he was very, very concerned about it.”

McDougal is one of the women that Trump is reported to have paid off via his connection with the National Enquirer, which purchased the rights to her story for $150,000 and then never published anything about it. Another such payment, to adult film star Stormy Daniels, is the subject of Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, where he is charged with falsifying business records to influence the 2016 election.