“Seems like a bad strategy”: Legal experts warn Trump’s bid for NY mistrial could badly backfire

Former President Donald Trump's lawyers on Wednesday filed for a mistrial in his civil bank fraud case, a far-fetched effort to remove the lawsuit that's threatening to dismantle his real estate empire from his slate of legal battles, The Daily Beast reports.

His defense has been foreshadowing the move in the weeks since the trial began after complaining about the way presiding Judge Arthur Engoron has consistently rejected their legal arguments and rebuked their courtroom theatrics. But Wednesday morning's request, made in a 30-page court filing, rings ironic when accounting for the former president's years of threatening to use his political power against his opponents and weeks of directing the ire of his fanbase against the judge and his principal law clerk.

The motion for the mistrial focuses on Trump's increasing irritation with Allison Greenfield, the attorney and law clerk who serves as Engoron's right-hand legal advisor and has repeatedly blocked the former president's attempts to stymie the New York Attorney General's investigation and delay the court proceedings. Since Engoron issued gag orders preventing Trump — and later his legal team — from directly attacking Greenfield and other court staff, defense lawyers are now filing their complaint.

“This appearance of bias threatens both Defendants’ rights and the integrity of the judiciary as an institution,” they wrote in the filing, claiming that “Greenfield’s unprecedented role in the trial and extensive, public partisan activities, would cause even a casual observer to question the court’s partiality. Thus, only the grant of a mistrial can salvage what is left of the rule of law.”

"Stunning": Court reporters hint at “rumblings” of potential Trump settlement talks in NY fraud case

Whether the request is granted is up to Engoron, who isn't likely to side with the attorneys who have spent weeks trying to stir up drama in the courtroom in an effort to appeal the case in higher New York state courts.

In the filing, Trump's lawyers also gripe that Engoron has contributed to a newsletter tied to the Long Island public high school he graduated from, The Wheatley School, where he is accused of sharing links to newspaper stories about the case. They also bemoaned how Engoron has uplifted Greenfield — a lawyer who is seeking a future position on the New York judiciary — and given her a prominent role in his decision-making process.

“The Principal Law Clerk is given unprecedented and inappropriate latitude,” they wrote. “Indeed, before the Court rules on most issues, the Court either pauses to consult with her on the bench or receives from her contemporaneous written notes. While a Justice of the Court no doubt has ample discretion to consult with his or her Law Secretaries, this unprecedented arrangement exceeds the outer limits of such discretion.”

As MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin notes online, the filing also focuses on Greenfield's campaign contribution history, lists her name and includes her picture. The significance of those details, Rubin said, lies in Engoron's response to Trump's defense telling him about their planned mistrial motion earlier this month.

"[H]e told them he didn’t 'want to hear it in front of hundreds of people' and instructed them instead to submit it as a proposed order to show cause, a specific procedural mechanism for triggering a hearing," Rubin wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Pointing out that Trump lawyer Alina Habba pledged to file that motion "in a delicate manner," Rubin explained that she also understood Engoron to be instructing the defense to submit their proposed order and motion directly to his chambers in order for him to determine whether to hear the motion publicly and whether Trump's supporting papers, which Rubin notes seem to violate the gag orders under protest as filed, should be redacted or sealed.

"That Engoron met with each side privately yesterday cannot be ignored; it’s possible, for example, that Team Trump previewed the contents of its motion for him and filed today with his knowledge and permission," she tweeted.

"But right now, without further clarification, it appears they publicly filed their mistrial motion, brief, and supporting affidavits without such permission—and in a way that likely triggers another violation of the same gag order they claim exemplifies Engoron’s bias," Rubin added.

But right now, without further clarification, it appears they publicly filed their mistrial motion, brief, and supporting affidavits without such permission—and in a way that likely triggers another violation of the same gag order they claim exemplifies Engoron’s bias.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 15, 2023

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

The former litigator also highlighted the "supplemental limited gag order" Engoron imposed on Nov. 3 prohibiting “all counsel … from making any public statements, in or out of court, that refer to *any* confidential communications, in any form, between my staff and me.”

"The brief, however, notes that 'before the Court rules on most issues, the Court either pauses to consult with her on the bench or receives from her contemporaneous written notes,' Rubin pointed out. "That seems like a reference to confidential communications to me, folks."

The brief, however, notes that “before the Court rules on most issues, the Court either pauses to consult with her on the bench or receives from her contemporaneous written notes.” That seems like a reference to confidential communications to me, folks.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 15, 2023

Other legal experts also took note of the irony in the Trump team's mistrial motion online.

"Attacking a judge's law clerk seems like a bad strategy for winning a case—or here, having a mistrial declared," former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance tweeted.

Attacking a judge's law clerk seems like a bad strategy for winning a case–or here, having a mistrial declared. https://t.co/Q5Q2xFd0K9

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) November 15, 2023

"I find this to be little more than a political screed egregiously deficient in proving the facts alleged are commensurate with past cases in which bias has been found," Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, posted on X.

I would like to hear from NY lawyers and those who handle this particular type of issue for their insight, but I find this to be little more than a political screed egregiously deficient in proving the facts alleged are commensurate with past cases in which bias has been found. https://t.co/38wk1J0HbK

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) November 15, 2023

"I find it particularly ironic that Team Trump, which routinely excuses their client’s comments as rhetorical hyperbole and innocent exaggeration, attacks the law clerk for engaging in lesser behavior," he added.

I find it particularly ironic that Team Trump, which routinely excuses their client’s comments as rhetorical hyperbole and innocent exaggeration, attacks the law clerk for engaging in lesser behavior. https://t.co/MGhS7pusOA

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) November 15, 2023

Though judges rarely work alongside clerks in the manner that Engoron does, according to The Daily Beast, clerks often complete the bulk of the legal research and draft court orders that are eventually edited and signed by their judges, a practice that extends up to the Supreme Court.

about the Trump fraud trial

Republican goes on wild rant to push FBI Jan. 6 “ghost buses” conspiracy theory at hearing

Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., during a Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday accused the FBI of secret involvement in the January 6 attack. Higgins during the hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray cited their exchange from a previous hearing. "I asked you, ‘Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the Capitol on January 6, prior to the doors being open?’ You responded. I quote again, ‘I have to be very careful of what I say,’" Higgins recalled, arguing that "we can't get a straight answer" despite a "tremendous amount of evidence." Higgins pressed Wray again on whether the FBI had "confidential human sources at the Stop the Steal rally on January 6th here in D.C."

“Congressman, as we’ve discussed before, I’m not going to get into where we have or have not used confidential human sources,” Wray replied. Wray began to add to his response before Higgins cut him off repeatedly, saying it was time to "move on." Wray insisted on being allowed to answer the question but Higgins launched into a quote from an "FBI informant" who allegedly claimed he was instructed to storm the Capitol with the Proud Boys. “Can you confirm that the FBI had that sort of engagement with your own agents embedded into the crowd on January 6th?” Higgins asked. “If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and or agents, the answer is emphatically not,” Wray said. Higgins then went on to ask about “ghost buses” filled with alleged informants. “Well, it’s pretty common in law enforcement, it is a vehicle that’s used for secret purposes,” he said. “It’s painted over. There’s two buses in the middle here. There were the first to arrive at Union Station on January 6th, zero-five-hundred. I have all this evidence, I’m showing you the tip of this iceberg.” Eventually, Higgins was told he’d reached his allotted time. “I note that all the members across the aisle have been granted time, and I object to my question being closed,” the Republican concluded. “This is a very significant hearing, Mr. Chairman. And these busses are nefarious in nature and were filled with FBI informants dressed as Trump supporters deployed onto our Capitol on January 6th and your day is coming Mr. Wray!”

Your day is coming Mr. Wray… pic.twitter.com/UShDiVEjbj

— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) November 15, 2023

Table manners aren’t dying. They are changing, though

In an October 1985 issue of the “The New York Times,” editors published what was essentially an obituary for dining etiquette, accompanied by a notecard-size illustration of dinner party guests committing various faux pas, from reaching for the rolls to sneezing into the soup . In “Table Manners: A Casualty of Changing Times,” writer William R. Greer argued that general manners had largely been lost on the upcoming generation of working professionals, an opinion supported by experts in the fields that track such social phenomena.

“Over the last 20 years the fundamentals of ‘table manners,’ maneuvers intended to keep the appetites of dining companions intact, like closing the mouth to chew and sipping without slurping, seem to have been lost on many of America's young people,” Greer said. “In addition, a number of these young people seem unaware of the very essence of good manners, which is not to offend, according to the experts.”

Making etiquette for everyone again – despite, or because of, its weaponization

The historians, sociologists, teachers and etiquette experts whom Greer interviewed all generally agreed that, as he put it, dining standards had “reached a low for the century.”

Again, that was in 1985.

Now, nearly four decades later — in a period of profound social and political divide, on top of a general sense of anxiety and malaise stemming from experiencing a global pandemic and its continued fallout — I wonder what Greer would think of the state of dining etiquette and where exactly it fits into the daily lives of most Americans.

To his point, there has undoubtedly been a huge shift over the last century in how table manners, and general societal etiquette, are both taught and implemented, as well as a growing understanding of how those largely Eurocentric social rules have been used to marginalize and discriminate against people from other cultures or backgrounds. When Greer’s experts were remarking on a decline in the fundamentals, they were referencing standards that are captured really well in a 1945 educational video simply called “Dinner Party.”

"Like everyone else, she thinks her etiquette is perhaps not perfect, but good enough so that there are no glaring errors."

The video was produced by Simmel-Messervy, a company that specialized in “social engineering” films, which essentially operated as short public service announcements about topics related to courtesy and behavior, like “Let’s Give a Tea,” “Junior Prom,” “Introductions” and “Obligations.” In “Dinner Party,” the conceit is simple: 15-year-old Betty is hosting her first dinner party for her friend Bob’s birthday. Viewers are instructed by the incredibly dry narrator to look for mistakes in the party guests’ behavior and, unfortunately for Betty, things are off to a rough start.

“Like everyone else, she thinks her etiquette is perhaps not perfect, but good enough so that there are no glaring errors,” the narrator said. “She is proud of her table arrangement and thinks she deserves a word of congratulation — but the housekeeper must tell Betty that she has noticed a few errors.”

A napkin is out of place. The butter knife has been separated from the butter dish. The table setting is missing water glasses. Betty quickly resets the room and the guests soon arrive. Over the next three courses, which span the 16-minute film, the narrator points out various mistakes, while also offering insight into the guests’ emotional states; Betty and Bob have the shakiest understanding of proper table manners and, as a result, spend much of the meal feeling insecure and inadequate.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Per the film, this is a natural consequence of not boning up on your “Emily Post.”

“Poor manners can really interfere with the fun of the party,” the narrator deadpanned after Bob, who was gesticulating wildly while telling an exciting story, knocked over a quarter-full glass of milk. Again, the party resets, but a division is becoming apparent. Where Bob and Betty are fumbling through dinner, Bernie and Helen, one of the other couples at the dinner, are floating through the evening with ease because they have a handle on what’s socially acceptable.

“They know that the object of correct etiquette is not to make life formal and dull, but to make it fully enjoyable,” the narrator declared. “There are reasons for each act of etiquette as in a man assisting a lady with her chair or the order in which people are served.”

The inherent “do this, not that” of “Dinner Party” is reminiscent of the “Highlights for Children” comic strip “Goofus and Gallant,” which debuted in print in 1948, just three years after the video’s release. As “The Atlantic’s” Julie Beck wrote in June, the premise is as simple as it is effective: two panels, side by side, depicting two approaches to the same situation.

“On the left, Goofus does the wrong thing. On the right, Gallant does the correct thing,” Beck wrote. “If Goofus is rude, Gallant is polite. If Goofus lies, Gallant tells the truth.”

Beck’s survey of the comic, which turned 75 this summer, examines how the lessons it teaches have shifted over the decades — which, in turn, reflects the current state of etiquette. On one hand, some elemental truths regarding our behavior have remained pretty static.

“Again and again, I saw Goofus pocket lost money while Gallant chased down the owner,” she wrote. “Goofus left a mess while Gallant tidied up; Goofus bullied and excluded other kids while Gallant welcomed them. If you crack open a December issue from any era, you’ll probably find Goofus being a greedy little gremlin about his Christmas presents, while Gallant rhapsodizes about the pleasures of giving to others”

However, a lot has changed. “Goofus and Gallant,” Beck wrote, has guided its young readers through the etiquette of taking polite messages on the home phone all the way through to being quiet during a parent’s Zoom meeting. This reinforces an important point: Etiquette shifts in real time.

This reinforces an important point: Etiquette shifts in real time.

Do you remember how people started bumping elbows as a greeting during the pandemic? It would have been absolutely absurd to go up to someone in a professional setting in 2019 and attempt to get them to tap elbows, but a year later, you had politicians, professional athletes and college professors using the greeting (even if it still looked a little ridiculous). Overall, humans possess a nice plasticity when it comes to adapting to new codes of conduct, something that is seen every time a new social media platform is unveiled and, in relatively quick order, its users establish how to behave on it.

While it may be tempting to think the inverse, I’m generally swayed by the idea that changes in etiquette reflect changes in society — not the other way around.

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

For instance, in Greer’s article for “The New York Times,” he said experts drew a correlation between the decline in table manners and the “demise of the traditional evening meal, when families gathered to eat and parents were quick to pounce on errant manners. They also point to the growth of fast food and ready-to-eat meals, and the fact that individual freedom has come to be valued over decorum.”

That was true in 1985 and it’s arguably even truer now, which is why it’s perhaps tempting to declare table manners, or even just general manners, dead. Multiple publications, Reddit posts and morning rush-hour disc jockeys certainly have.

That, however, ignores the mountain of evidence suggesting that people do care about behaving properly, even if that understandably looks different than it did in 1945. Just in the last week, pop culture has been saturated with the topic of etiquette:

On cookbook author Alison Roman’s new podcast, “Solicited Advice,” a young dinner party host called in to ask about how to deal with a friend assuming they would bring their partner to the party, despite the fact that they weren’t explicitly invited. There was an entire subplot on the most recent “Bob’s Burgers” about the often ludicrous social mores of the adult cocktail party crowd. 1A rebroadcast a segment titled “The Problem with Politeness and the Matter with Manners” in advance of the Thanksgiving holiday, a prime occasion for etiquette-spotting.

In each of these scenarios, it was interesting to see that the ultimate message delivered wasn’t grounded in an insistence on particular rules or regulations, but rather a broader push towards empathy and care, which very closely mimics the core of etiquette expert Emily Post’s work: “Good etiquette rests on a foundation of consideration, respect and honesty.”

This isn’t to say that setting a good table or learning how to host a multi-course dinner party should become a lost art. It absolutely should not, but let’s also be real about the fact that we live in a world where more people are eating fast-casual than formal dinners. In that scenario, a little courtesy and respect for the employees and fellow diners — ordering politely, leaving the table relatively tidy, etcetera — are more important than which plastic fork you choose to use.

Speaking of Post, for further proof that table manners aren’t dead, last October, Lizzie Post and Daniel Post Senning — the great-great grandchildren of Emily Post and co-presidents of The Emily Post Institute — released “Emily Post's Etiquette, The Centennial Edition.” Its scope has expanded, too. The book covers tech etiquette including video meetings, home security and tipping screens, as well as how to inquire about someone’s pronouns and use them politely in conversation.

The book’s dining etiquette section is still expansive, but The Emily Post Institute helpfully released a “Top 10 Must Know Table Manners” list which details some basics on which most everyone can agree: chew with your mouth closed, keep your smartphone off the table, hold utensils correctly, come to the table clean, use your napkin, wait until you’re done chewing to take a drink, cut only one piece of food at a time, avoid slouching, don’t reach across the table and finally — and perhaps most importantly — bring your best self to the meal.

about this topic

Ex-DOJ official warns Fulton DA’s trial schedule could give Trump a chance to wriggle out of case

Fulton County, Ga. District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading the sprawling racketeering case against Donald Trump and 14 co-defendants in Georgia, said Tuesday that she expects the trial to conclude by early 2025 with proceedings likely to be underway during the final stretch of the 2024 presidential election, The Washington Post reports. “I believe in that case there will be a trial. I believe the trial will take many months. And I don’t expect that we will conclude until the winter or the very early part of 2025,” Willis said during The Washington Post Live's Global Women's Summit.

A spokesman for Rudy Giuliani, who is a defendant in the case, said Willis' prediction proves the case is politically motivated to interfere with Trump's re-election bid. Though she declined to comment on Trump or his co-defendants specifically, she said the election cycle has no bearing on her offices' decisions on case timelines. “That does not go into the calculus. What goes into the calculus is: This is the law. These are the facts. And the facts show you violated the law. Then charges are brought,” she said.

Legal experts voiced concern over Willis' projected schedule. "This trial should be much more ready to go than it is and these delays, I think, are unconscionable and wrong. And I think if this happens and a trial takes place in 2025, if on the off chance Donald Trump wins, he's going to have a serious constitutional argument that a state prosecutor can't interfere with the nation's business and lock up the president of the United States," former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said on MSNBC Tuesday, describing Willis' comments as "disappointing." A 2025 trial conclusion could also "throw a potential wrench into efforts by Cannon to push off the MAL docs case," national security lawyer Bradley Moss tweeted, referring to Trump's Florida federal criminal case. "She either will need to have that done before Fall 2024 or push it off until after Georgia finishes."

“This don’t feel like a victory, bro”: MAGA melts down at GOP speaker for averting shutdown

Far-right House Republicans expressed frustration after newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., moved to avoid a government shutdown by passing a stopgap funding bill with Democratic support on Tuesday.

The bill, which is meant to fund parts of the government through most of the winter, was largely passed as the result of support from Democrats, in a 336 to 95 vote, a fact that incensed the House's far-right Freedom Caucus. As HuffPost reported, Johnson suspended the rules procedure, typically used for legislation with sweeping bipartisan support, as a way to get around the House Rules Committee and GOP threats to block a floor vote.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, was among the conservatives who opposed Johnson's two-step stopgap bill, calling the suspension "asinine."

“We’ll see," he said to reporters when asked if the caucus would retaliate against Johnson the same way they ousted former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "I tend to try to give people grace. I gave Kevin grace, I give Mike grace. Tough job. But I strongly disagree with this play call.”

Republicans manufactured a "crisis" — now they are ready to exploit it

Roy also indicated that Johnson's most recent move may preclude him from supporting the House Speaker in the future.

“It’s hard to fundraise and vote for certain things when you’re getting rolled on other things,” he said.

"Americans gave House Republicans the majority to champion fiscal responsibility," tweeted Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga. "We cannot surrender in the fight to save our nation’s financial future."

Americans gave House Republicans the majority to champion fiscal responsibility.

We cannot surrender in the fight to save our nation’s financial future. pic.twitter.com/h4cdWMOxBh

— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) November 14, 2023

Disgraced former White House adviser Steve Bannon accused Johnson of "abject surrender," arguing on social media platform GETTR that the House Speaker is "without any coherent plan" and claiming that his bill was "worse than unacceptable."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"This don't feel like a victory today, bro," Bannon said, observing how Johnson's office had directed all incoming calls to voicemail after voting took place. "When 209 Hakeem Jeffries-loving Democrats vote for something, it just doesn't feel like a victory. I'm not feeling victorious right now. I kind of got this righteous indignation."

"I think we need to educate Johnson," he added. "We're going to start revelations. We are either going to fight or we're just going to go, 'I need 75 days.' You don't need 75 minutes! This was not brain surgery."

Bannon On The Continued Spending Following The Johnson CR Passing: “This Is The Mentality That Leads Us To This Place” @SpeakerJohnson pic.twitter.com/RVvnUVsEPU

— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) November 15, 2023

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

Johnson pushed back on the far-right narrative on Tuesday.

“We’re not surrendering, we’re fighting. But you have to be wise about choosing the fights,” Johnson said at a press conference, adding that he's not concerned that he will be ousted like McCarthy. “I’m not concerned about it at all,” Johnson said. “Kevin should take no blame for that. Kevin was in a very difficult situation when that happened. This is a different situation.”

But MSNBC host Rachel Maddow predicted that Johnson's time as speaker may be limited amid the far-right revolt.

"I’m sure Mr. Johnson is very smart and capable and knows exactly what he’s doing," Maddow told Stephen Colbert on Tuesday. "But he got this job because the previous guy was driven with pitchforks and torches for having had the temerity to speak to political opponents rather than just wishing them dead. And now he needs his political opponents in order to keep his job. I just, we all know how this ends! This is not a party that is trying to govern."

Minutes before Rachel Maddow walked out on our stage, we got word that the House passed Speaker Mike Johnson's bill to fund the government into the new year. Here's how @maddow reacted.#Colbert pic.twitter.com/BNwj4jVm4z

— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) November 15, 2023

about Mike Johnson

“The OA” creator Brit Marling talks “Murder” and life’s mysteries that sit “inside the questions”

Brit Marling feels drawn to life's biggest questions because everything is a mystery to her. It's what she and her long-time co-collaborator Zal Batmanglij find to be the most intriguing aspects of the world and humanity. Probing the deeper meaning of why was the reason they wrote their now-canceled 2016 Netflix hit "The OA." But now they're back, and this time stronger than ever, asking the same questions that propelled them into success with the "The OA."

In their new FX series "A Murder at the End of the World," which stars "The Crown's" brilliant standout Emma Corrin, the duo explores the world of online amateur sleuthing using technology all the while pondering all of the big questions about our morality, ethics and artificial intelligence. It may sound intense, and it is, but ultimately Marling tells me in our "Salon Talks" chat that she views the world in its complexities but also is deeply interested in the humanity of that. "The world has always felt more charged somehow," she said. "And so I'm interested in the mundane, but I'm always interested in how the mundane meets up with the metaphysical."

Marling may be drawn to mysteries but she's pretty open about her intricate creative process and her deep love of the acting, writing and directing craft. It is so apparent when she talks about "Murder at the End of the World" or "The OA" that she has an endless well of ideas that challenge the very formulaic television format. She and her co-creator are successfully experimenting and subverting all the genre expectations as they move through genres like sci-fi and murder mystery with an ease that inspires creatives and anyone pondering life's biggest questions.

Watch Brit Marling's "Salon Talks" interview here or read a transcript below.

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

Captive in the suburbs: Like "Stranger Things," Netflix's "The OA" taps into the confines of the cul-de-sac

You created “A Murder At the End of the World” with you creative partner, Zal Batmanglij. You both talk a lot about this metaphor of a garden of ideas that you have for all your creative ventures. Can you just tell me who planted the first seed for this show?

It's funny, when you've been working with someone as long as Zal and I have been working together, you really genuinely forget who plants the seed at first. Maybe because ideas take a long time to germinate, but also because we tend to the plants so mutually that you don't even know how they started or where they started. You just know they're growing in the garden there.

But I do know the feelings or the ideas that were there as the idea first started to come together, and I think part of it was that we were just really interested in amateur sleuthing. I found that world fascinating, and we started watching documentaries and reading books about how people would find each other online, and these communities would form. A lot of times it was people who hadn't really found purchase in the place they were from, whether that was a sort of outcast, punk teen who couldn't find his place at school, or a disbarred lawyer or a cop that had been kicked off the force, or a housewife who just felt like, "I spent all my day with my kids, but at night I want to be alone in my attic solving these puzzles."

It was an interesting collection of people, and oftentimes they would as a group solve these cold cases that had been unsolved for decades. That just seems such a positive force of the internet, such a beautiful version of collecting people and giving them a common mission and everybody working together to solve something that couldn't be solved. I think that idea just stuck in our minds, and then Darby Hart as a character sort of grew out of that.

Speaking of Darby, you have Emma Corrin playing this character and they're great in this role. You have talked about how you don't really have a desire to write strong female leads. How do you then subvert this trope when you're working with characters like Darby?

I wrote that op-ed for the New York Times a couple years ago, and I guess the headline's sort of deceptive because it's like, “I don't want to be a strong female lead,” which sounds like I don't want to be a strong female, but it was really that I felt a little, I guess, frustrated by the limitations of the kinds of roles I was seeing come out of Hollywood at that time, which was sort of this idea that if you wanted to be a strong female protagonist, then you can just be an assassin and be a trained killer, and that then is strength.

"I like to think that if I sat down and focused on it, I could do just like a straight-up kitchen sink drama … but I don't know that the world has ever felt like that to me."

It just kind of felt like both ideas of women were thin, whether it was the thin idea of the woman as victim who's just dead at the end of the first act, or whether it was the woman suddenly being given all the weapons and killing people, so then she's the perpetrator. But then that was also kind of thin and it was like, "Where are the roles that feel like the women that we know?"

I wrote that op-ed thinking about some of those things and trying to challenge myself to how do you write characters that feel more robust and complex and that are strong, but maybe strong from a point of listening well or having incredible empathy, or how do we show those characteristics as also being strong rather than too soft or fragile? I think Darby in part was our continued exploration of trying to find that space because Darby's brilliant and she comes up with things that will blow your mind and she's tough and she's courageous, but you also see her in moments be incredibly fragile or vulnerable. I think having that contrast hopefully just feels like a more well-rounded, genuinely three-dimensional female character.

I absolutely do feel like she feels like that three-dimensional character that you're talking about to me, that she really [homes] in on a lot of what you're talking about, this empathetic character, this kind character, but also a drive to do good. Could you speak to that a little bit?

One of the ways that Darby may be different from other detectives we've seen is when Darby comes to the crime scene, I don't think she's the traditional, let's say male cop who comes with the badge and stands over the female victim and is immediately kind of most interested in the serial killer's mind like how did this killer pull off the dark art of what happened here? The mystery often then is a chess game between the cop and the killer, and they're trying to outmaneuver each other, and it's all about the battle of their wits.

I think Darby coming at it from a different angle comes to the crime scene and is more interested in the victim because the victim is probably closer in age and gender to Darby than not, so I think she feels an empathy there often and comes at the investigation from thinking about the life lost and that woman's experience or any person's experience really, rather than just thinking about it from the perspective of the killer, which is maybe a nice turn of events — involves more empathy, more listening, and kind of just a different quality maybe from what we've seen.

Another central focus of the show is artificial intelligence. There's been contentious labor issues surrounding artificial intelligence in the entertainment industry. What are your opinions as an artist who's writing about AI and technology?

I mean, the SAG strike resolved today, which is such a momentous day and so cool that the WGA and SAG both were able to stand up and really demand the protections that artists need. In the case of AI and the entertainment industry, I think sometimes what can happen is technologies out in the lead and things just happen, and then we are all kind of in its wake, following to see what's going to occur.

A lot of artists have been really rightly worried about this kind of over-commodification of storytelling where it's not about a group of humans making a work of art together that also functions as a work of commerce, but instead it just becomes how do we make these stories as widgets as fast as possible, as cheap as possible for as many people as possible?

"Where are the roles that feel like the women that we know?"

This kind of factory model that also was really underpaying everybody, keeping everybody outside of the success of these shows on these streaming platforms — I think people really saw AI as this next step towards that commodification where you just start to strip away human authorship and human performance. An AI model is basically like a large language model; it's basically taking all the works that have been authored before in the past and using that as a dataset and then chopping it up and as a statistical algorithm, deciding what is the most likely next word or paragraph or how would you end this story? And so the algorithm's authoring it, but it is authoring it off of everyone's previous work. I think that's complicated both because everyone's unpaid for that, but also because the history of storytelling is a misogynistic, racist, homophobic endeavor, so if we start making our stories from that body of work, then how are we evolving things forward?

I think in general, probably Zal and I were interested in writing this show in part in talking about the sort of tech billionaires’ futile landscape, their fiefdom and how much power they have and how much power we are surrendering in some ways as we take in the smartphone and take in social media and take in deepfakes and all these things and kind of let the technology drive our lives rather than maybe philosophy being the driving force or ethics or morality or collective thinking of some kind, and technology following behind that maybe in some way.

"A king's ransom": SAG-AFTRA's Fran Drescher calls out "maniacal" Hollywood CEOs for their "greed"

What do you feel that the show is trying to say about technology, if you were able to sum it up?

I think the tricky thing is I think it's hard to sum up, and I think that's maybe why we wrote the show as an attempt to just sort of sit in the questions. We were talking about amateur sleuthing earlier and how cool it is that people all over the world can find each other on the internet and be crowdsourcing the solving of these cases which they can solve because they're applying more hours to it across different people. They're applying different perspectives rather than a lone detective working on something. So all those things are such a positive; that's really beautiful.

At the same time, I feel like my smartphone, it's impossible to not become addicted to that and to watch how my interactions with social media are changing what I value, what I think about my ability to focus or concentrate. Constantly these forces have real positives, real negatives, and there's no answers. There's just an attempt to sit inside the questions of how are these forces shaping our lives and what does it mean and what are the ways in which it's really beautiful? And then what are the ways in which it's maybe more complicated?

Another atmospheric, heavy aspect of the show is actually its setting and the place that it takes place. What role do you feel shooting in Iceland and also the bunker in the hotel – what roles do they play in the show as well?

It's funny because we knew we wanted it to be in a remote landscape, and we knew we wanted it to be cold and sort of intense. We'd written Scandinavia and then we went to go find where we could actually do this, and we went to scout Iceland. Have you ever been to Iceland?

No.

If you can go, go. I was just blown away by the landscape and the people there. There's something about that place that just feels maybe because the weather is really intense and the majesty of the landscape is so striking, but it feels like people live much more in concert with ecology there, but they're not as separated, and that was an amazing feeling to be around. And then it also really became a character, I think, in the story because when you first encounter this tech billionaire’s dazzling hotel built in the middle of these snowy mountains, you're like, "Oh, it's so beautiful, it's so luxurious." Then of course as the story progresses, you're like, "Wow, this is really far away from any other part of civilization and you can't exactly hike out of here." There's nothing, there's no place to go, and the elements are ferocious.

We were talking earlier about showing human fragility. I think you really see all the characters be tested by the environment and by the elements and how for all of our technology, our helicopters and our this and that, we become really fragile when dealing with an ice storm that goes for days on end.

I mean, you were certainly tested. I heard that you had hypothermia while filming this. Can you talk more about what that experience is like?

It's so intense. I thought hypothermia was just getting in the shakes a little bit, but actually your cognition sort of starts to shut down because your blood is leaving everything to just go to your heart to keep your heart pumping. So that was tough. But you know what? I think it was actually also in some ways really informed the rest of the storytelling in this way because I mean, Darby gets hypothermia in the story at some point, so I could actually tell Emma what it was really like to get hypothermia. But I think also probably an important lesson for me to be reminded we're not invincible in the face of sometimes we act without, I think, the proper respect towards the beauty and the ferocity also of nature of which we are a part. It's probably good and important to get checked every now and again and just be like, "Oh, yeah."

Humbled.

Humbled. I have tissue-paper thin skin, and I can wear all the down coats in the world, but being 14 hours outside on a frozen lake is a lot.

Why was this the right move for you post-“The OA”?

"Every time you remember something, you kind of re-author it, and the memory becomes different."

It's funny. I mean, I guess to go back to the metaphor you brought up earlier about the garden. I think when you like telling stories, you kind of, they're like children and you like all your children however they express or come out. This story is different in a sense that I think “OA” was more overtly metaphysical. It's dealing with near-death experiences and people who are saying that they're angels and angelic technologies. It's more obviously metaphysical and fantasy. In this story, I think the way it started to form in our minds, it didn't need that. It also didn't want that. It sort of felt like trying to still give something the feeling of the metaphysical, but with your hands tied behind your back a little bit.

There are no time travelers or anything that's that far out, but I think we talk about time in an interesting way in the story, and we try to do this braid between the present and the past where you feel how much the present actually reshapes the past as you go back and remember it and every time you remember something, you kind of re-author it, and the memory becomes different, and then that comes in and animates the present in a new way. So we try to think about it as telling a story about time that was more circular rather than thinking of time. That became the sort of metaphysical element, but the rest of the story was more obviously grounded.

When talking about both projects, “OA” is obviously sci-fi, this is more murder mystery. What is that like for you kind of switching gears when it comes to genre and subverting these genres and then working in them? And then why is mystery appealing to us?

I think about that a lot, and I wonder if that is because not everybody loves mystery but some people really love it, and I love writing in that space. I mean, the “OA” is a very different story, but it is also still a mystery. And I think that that is because life feels like that to me. Life on a day-to-day basis feels like a capital M mystery that you're trying to get to the bottom of. Who are we? What are we doing here? What are the answers to big questions? And it also feels like a thriller because at least in my own life, I always feel like the forces of antagonism are great, and I am not able as a protagonist to fully meet them. And so that's a big requirement of the thriller is for things to have a little thrill and be scary. You kind of got to feel like you're really up against something.

Both Zal and I tend to be attracted to those genres more. I like to think that if I sat down and focused on it, I could do just like a straight-up kitchen sink drama, just like a family drama, just like happening in a house, but I don't know that the world has ever felt like that to me. The world has always felt more charged somehow. And so I'm interested in the mundane, but I'm always interested in how the mundane meets up with the metaphysical.

Talking about the “OA,” how do you find that courage to move on post such a big cancellation, especially since it still has fans, it still has fans calling for it to return. How do you move on, how do you find that courage to make something new, something that's just as beautiful?

"Shows do come back … so maybe there will be a time where the climate of the industry reaches a place where that flower can grow again in the garden."

It's hard. To be honest, it's so hard to see a story end early, and I think one of the things I try to think about when telling stories is to always really stay inside the joy of the process because that you can be inside of and not control, but you can live it and the results you have no control over.

I think Netflix is amazing because there was this moment in time when it was taking really wild bets, and so bless them for making the “OA.” Very grateful for that experience. Who knows, I mean, shows do come back. “Twin Peaks” came back at some point, so maybe there will be a time where the climate of the industry reaches a place where that flower can grow again in the garden.

But I think a lot about how the only way to really survive doing this kind of work is to try to embed yourself as much as possible on the actual joy and act of making it and of getting to talk to people about it and less about necessarily the aspects of it that are just so wildly out of your control.

“The OA,” it dropped all at once on Netflix and then “A Murder” is going to drop weekly on Hulu. What do you prefer as a creator, and what do you feel like is the right experience for the viewer?

I really think it depends on the story, and I'm so glad you asked this because when we made “OA,” we knew we were on Netflix and we knew it was a drop and so we tried to make something that really deliberately felt like an eight-hour film and could be binged, and that could be an experience you could have of it.

With this one, we were really deliberate because it's a murder mystery, it has to be chapter by chapter, and each chapter has to feel kind of pearled, like it has its own beginning, middle and end, and that you're leaving it on a cliffhanger or a question of mystery every time so that people have a week to kind of think about it, debate about it, ask each other who they thought done it, and then a week later you get some answers.

I know you binged it. I know probably some other people down the road will binge it once it all comes out, but I think it was really designed to be sort of parsed out a week at a time because there's a lot of layers in there and there's a lot to think about.

You and Zal said you would be returning to “The OA” at some point. Would you stay true to the five season arc that you had built out, or has the story changed?

I think the fundamentals of it haven't. We had mapped out a sort of beginning and middle and end of these five parts, and I think that architecture still holds. Of course, as the world changes, you have to change with it and let new things in with it. But I kind of think of stories as like earthquake-proof buildings. You have to have some poles in the ground, but they have to have some flexibility to move with the times a little bit.

I am sure that, I mean, we're all different people already than we were when we ended “The OA.” Just what we've all been through in the last couple of years with the pandemic and we're all different from who we were then, and that would of course enter the story, but I think the heart of it remains the same, and the revelations hopefully remain the same.

"A Murder at the End of the World" streams new episodes weekly on Hulu. Watch a trailer via YouTube.

Watch more

"Salon Talks" with multi-hypenates

“Potential to intimidate”: Ex-Trump lawyer warns he could be jailed over “citizen’s arrest” call

Ty Cobb, who served as Donald Trump's White House lawyer, predicted that the former president could be jailed for targeting his perceived opponents on social media.

On Tuesday, Trump reposted a post on his Truth Social platform from a user calling for a "citizen's arrest" of New York Attorney General Letitia James and New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron. "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LITITIA JAMES AND JUDGE ENGORON PLACED UNDER CITIZENS ARREST FOR BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND HARASSMENT," the user wrote in the post, which has since been deleted.

Cobb argued during an appearance on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that Trump is putting himself in hot water by going after the prosecutors, judges and staff in his civil and criminal cases across the country.

"I believe that, at some point, comments like this will result in Trump not only being sanctioned — which will probably be the first order of business — but at some point these types of comments will result in him being put in jail pending some of these trials," Cobb said.

Cobb, who defended Trump's White House during special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, said that the circulation of the post in and of itself butts up against on-and-off gag orders imposed to tamp down his attacks.

"This is an actual incitement": Legal experts alarmed after Trump pushes "citizen's arrest"

Gag orders for Trump's Washington, D.C.-based criminal case accusing him of trying to overturn the 2020 election results and incite the Jan. 6 Capitol attack are currently awaiting an appeal. Engoron has instituted two partial gag orders in the New York civil trial, first barring Trump and then his legal team from commenting publicly on court staff.

"These are the types of incendiary attacks that do lead to violence," Cobb explained. "He specifically asked people to conduct a citizen's arrest."

"Detention of either James or Engoron would be a crime if committed by any individual who was so motivated by the president's remarks," he continued.

The attorney then compared the validation one could feel from Trump's repost to the former president's "Stop The Steal" rally speech when he said: "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The social media repost is "much like what he did on Jan. 6," Cobb said. "It continues to be off the rails in terms of the extent to which his invective infects these proceedings and has the potential to intimidate witnesses."

Cobb went on to assert that Trump's push of "petty dictator-type talk" while the world is reeling from serious events "diminishes him and the United States every day."

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade echoed Cobb's sentiment in a statement to Newsweek, calling Trump's repost "incredibly reckless."

"Trump's statement is incredibly reckless in light of the history of people responding to his dangerous rhetoric. Someone could take violent action in response," she told the outlet.

She explained that Trump may make himself susceptible to further sanctions from Engoron, pointing to his previous gag orders.

"In addition, Trump risks incurring the wrath of Judge Engoron in the New York civil case," McQuade said. "Currently, the gag order imposed by the judge relates solely to comments about court staff, but this statement could prompt the judge to expand its scope."

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

But Palm Beach State Attorney Daron Aronberg pushed back on suggestions that Trump will face harsher punishments, citing how he has been given extra "deference" as a former president.

"Trump continues his barrage of attacks against judges and lawyers, but the gag order in New York doesn't go beyond court staff, so I don't expect any sanctions for this until that changes," he wrote on X/Twitter.

"If any other defendant did this, they would face real punishment," Aronberg said. "As a former president running for the White House again, Trump has been given extra deference for his inflammatory words."

about Trump's fraud case

“Utter embarrassment”: “Pathetic” GOPer runs to Fox News to brag about challenging witness to fight

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., claimed he was acting in honor of his home state's "values" when he challenged a union leader to a brawl on Tuesday during a contentious Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing.

Mullin at the hearing read a tweet composed by Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, in which the union boss called the lawmaker a "Greedy CEO who pretends like he’s self made. In reality, just a clown & fraud. Always has been, always will be. Quit the tough guy act in these senate hearings. You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy.”

“This is a time, this is a place to run your mouth," the Oklahoma Republican then said to O'Brien. "We can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here." Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., halted the heated banter after Mullin stood up and reached for his wedding band, telling the Republican, "You're a United States senator. This is a hearing, and God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress. Let's not make it worse."

During a Tuesday night sit-down on Fox News, Mullin elaborated on his response to O'Brien's attack, which host Sean Hannity lauded, claiming that anything else would have been "gutless."

Bernie Sanders prevents near brawl after Republican stands and dares union chief to fight at hearing

“What did people want me to do?" Mullin asked. "If I didn’t do that, people in Oklahoma would be pretty upset at me. I’m supposed to represent Oklahoma values.”

During another interview with far-right outlet Newsmax after the near-brawl, the former mixed-martial arts fighter seemed to yearn for the days when physical force was used to resolve disputes in Congress.

“Sir, you know what? I’ll be honest… Mike Tyson said it best: social media has given us this anonymity and people forgot what it’s like to get punched in the face,” said anchor Carl Higbie.

“That’s right. You know, some people are real strong behind a keypad, but when they get called out, it’s completely different,” Mullin replied. “People’s asked me, too, ‘Is this becoming of a U.S. senator.’ And, I’m like, man, I’m a guy from Oklahoma first. In Oklahoma, you don’t run your mouth like that, and if you do run your mouth like that, you’re expected to be called out on it. And, what would happen if I didn’t call him out on it? I’m not looking for a street fight; the last time I got in a fight, I got paid for it."

“Every once in a while, you need to get punched in the face," Mullin added.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Higbie then asked if there were any Senate rules permitting "two consenting adults" to physically fight.

“Well, we looked into the rules, and you know, you used to be able to cane,” Mullin said, referring to the infamous 1856 caning of Republican senator Charles Sumner, Mass., over Sumner's anti-slavery views. “You gotta remember, President Andrew Jackson challenged nine guys to a duel and won nine times. And, so, at the end of the day, there is precedence for it if that’s what someone wants to do. And in this case, I challenged him once — you and I talked about it — he didn’t answer, he continued to run his mouth after that, continued to send out tweets. And so, this was the first opportunity we’ve seen."

“At the end of it, he’s like, he tried to say, ‘Hey, I didn’t mean it like that. You know, I’d rather just go have a cup of coffee,’" Mullin continued. "And I was like, ‘Fine, let’s go have a cup of coffee if that’s what you want.’ But, I don’t think that’s what he means, I think he got called on the carpet and I think he got really nervous. Because when he stood up, the look on his face was a little bit different.”

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

Sanders blasted Mullin's conduct after Tuesday's kerfuffle.

"It's pretty pathetic," Sanders told CNN. "We have a United States senator challenging a member of the panel; who is head of one of the larger unions in America, which had just negotiated a very good contract of their workers: The Teamsters."

"This country faces so many crises," he added. "We have massive income and wealth inequality. We have a housing crisis. Our health care system is collapsing, it's broken, it's dysfunctional — we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Climate change is threatening the entire existence of the planet. And this is what goes on in a senate hearing."

"Is the media more interested in a confrontation than why we have massive levels of incumbent wealth and inequality," Sanders asked. "We have to ask ourselves after 50 years the average worker today is earning less in real dollars than 50 years ago while the people on top are doing phenomenally well."

"That to me is kind of an important issue that Congress should be discussing and media should be covering."

Even Fox News host Laura Ingraham trashed Mullin's behavior and gave rare praise to the committee chairman.

“I never thought I’d say this, but Bernie Sanders seems to be the voice of reason here,” she said. “Everything you just saw was a complete and utter embarrassment. It shouldn’t be what is projected to our kids from our nation’s Capitol. Reminder to all of you, yeah, the children are watching. You’re supposed to be the adults in the room.”

about GOP meltdowns

Republicans in Congress are throwing an institutional tantrum

You know how it is when toddlers get tired. They get cranky. They cry, pout, and sometimes even try to hold their breath until they turn blue if they don't get their way. When this happens, you know it's time to give them a bottle and put them to bed. Later, there can be the problem of handling an unruly teenager, defiant and hostile, challenging every rule and refusing to acknowledge any authority. Sometimes it's enough to take away the car keys and ground them for a while. In other cases, intense therapy or even military school, as in the case of young Donald Trump, is seen as the only way to get through to them.

But what do you do when adult elected officials suddenly start behaving like screaming toddlers and teenage bullies in the halls of Congress? Is there any authority that can step in and quiet the tantrums? And when this increasingly anti-social behavior is happening in the shadow of a party leader and presidential candidate who exalts violence and cruelty, can we really just chalk it up to frustration and fatigue?

What do you do when adult elected officials suddenly start behaving like screaming toddlers and teenage bullies in the halls of Congress?

That question was asked repeatedly when all hell broke loose on both ends of Congress on Tuesday and nobody knows the answer. We aren't talking about the usual partisan sniping. Something disturbing and bizarre is happening within the Republican Party, which has now viciously turned on itself. Here are some of the incidents that took place in just one day:

On the overgrown toddler front, we have House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, who has been appearing on every right-wing media outlet fulminating about the "Biden crime family" and waving around a $200,000 check repaying a personal loan from Biden's brother as if it's a smoking gun. (It is not.) At a hearing on Tuesday morning, Comer had a complete meltdown when confronted with the fact that he himself had engaged in some big money loans to his own brother that appeared to feature some very shady back and forth dealings. Comer got so agitated that he called Rep. Jared Moskowitz, R-Fl., who was dressed in a blue suit … a smurf:

Comer flips out when he gets confronted on the loan to his brother by Moskowitz pic.twitter.com/LO5YqqZtdQ

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 14, 2023

Yesterday’s hearing has me feeling a bit blue pic.twitter.com/aOxAB5IPDF

— Congressman Jared Moskowitz (@RepMoskowitz) November 15, 2023

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

It could have been worse. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., failed in her privileged resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas this week, due to eight Republicans voting with all the Democrats to refer the matter to committee, which is how it's supposed to be done. One of those Republican members, Californian Darryl Issa, was asked about it and he said that Greene "lacks the maturity and the experience to understand what she was asking for," prompting Greene to tweet a meme of former President Trump saying, “She said he’s a p‑‑-‑y.” Then she embellished it with another post saying "We all know what he's lacking…" with emojis of tennis balls.

But let's give her a few points for restraint. Unlike some of her colleagues, at least she didn't threaten anyone or resort to physical violence.

Tennessee Congressman Tim Burchett was giving an interview to an NPR reporter when he suddenly lunged forward and exclaimed that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy had elbowed him in the back. A chase ensued with Burchett running after McCarthy demanding to know why he did it which McCarthy denied, later telling reporters, "If I'd wanted to hit him, he'd know it."

News — Rep. Tim Burchett accuses Kevin McCarthy of a "sucker punch" to the kidneys and describes heated scene as he chased the former speaker down the hallway.

Said he's the type of the guy who as a kid would "hide behind his mama's skirt."
McCarthy denies it was intentional pic.twitter.com/fBvOUxMb5z

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 14, 2023

We were soon reminded of a passage in former congressman Adam Kinsinger's book, in which he claimed that McCarthy, always surrounded by his security guards, purposefully shoulder-checked him hard when he passed him in the hallways. Who knew MyKevin was such a physical brute?

Naturally, Florida bomb thrower Matt Gaetz had to get in on the act. He quickly filed an ethics complaint against his nemesis, McCarthy, for elbowing Burchett. (This was obviously in retaliation for an interview in which McCarthy slammed the "crazy 8" who defenestrated him, specifically mentioning the ethics complaints still pending against Gaetz.)

Bernie Sanders prevents near brawl after Republican stands and dares union chief to fight at hearing

We have come to expect the House to be more than a little bit fractious lately and there have been whispers about physical threats being bandied about ever since the GOP speaker battle began. But yesterday even the Senate got a little piece of that hot bully boy action for itself. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, the former congressman turned freshman senator from Oklahoma, has been trash talking with Teamster President Sean O'Brien on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter over O'Brien referring to him as a "greedy CEO." At a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Mullin challenged him to a fight right then and there:

.@SenMullin (R-OK) challenges Teamster President Sean O'Brian to fight during a Senate hearing on cooperate greed. Chairman @BernieSanders tried multiple times to reclaim order and asked the Senator to direct a question to the witness. pic.twitter.com/C7PAXicoD2

— CSPAN (@cspan) November 14, 2023

That actually went on for some minutes and it didn't get any better. Mullin made the rounds of all the right-wing cable shows and explained that there is nothing wrong with what he did because there's "presence" for it. They used to be able to cane, for instance.

Question: Are there any actual senate rules— could you guys go bare knuckle?

Mullin: We looked into the rules. You used to be able to cane. Andrew Jackson challenged 9 guys to a duel.. And so at the end of the day, there is presence for it pic.twitter.com/zznZbVYtHH

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 14, 2023

In an interesting coincidence, Mullin had an earlier altercation with Rep. Burchett over the McCarthy vote and kicked him out of his daily workout group. According to The Hill:

Burchett confirmed that he was booted from the early-morning workout, saying the senator “berated” and “yelled at him” until he left — which Mullin denied — and that Mullin’s friendship with McCarthy was the main reason.

The bad blood within the party is boiling over.

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

The conventional wisdom among the Beltway wags is that everyone is simply exhausted and at their breaking point. But why are they so tired? We aren't in a great depression or a world war. The pandemic is no longer a crisis and these people didn't care about it anyway. They're upset because they can't always get their way so they're staging an institutional tantrum. The drama is all of their own making.

It's easy to laugh and make fun of the clown show but this is actually very serious. The phenomenon has been growing slowly for years as extremists accumulated power and began to make unrealistic demands on the system. Donald Trump exacerbated the problem with his personal character flaws and lack of understanding or respect for democracy itself and now the party is fully engaged in a war with everyone in the country including itself.

The good news is that in spite of all this drama, they did manage to pass a short-term continuing resolution without spending cuts, thereby temporarily avoiding a government shutdown. It only happened because the MAGA extremists decided they would not hold their new speaker to the standard they held McCarthy and allowed him to pass it with Democratic votes. But Matt Gaetz has made it clear that Speaker Mike Johnson on borrowed time. It's hard to see how this ends well. For any of us.

about Republicans' antics in Congress

“Stunning”: Court reporters hint at “rumblings” of potential Trump settlement talks in NY fraud case

Rumors of potential settlement talks on Tuesday swirled around the Manhattan courthouse where former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial is taking place.

Frank Runyeon, a reporter for Law360, on Tuesday cited a “very curious” 25-minute delay in the trial resuming after an afternoon break. Trump attorney Alina Habba walked out of the chambers "alone” before the New York attorney general’s team went in, Runyeon wrote on X/Twitter, linking the incident to Trump recently complaining about a “low-ball settlement offer.”

New: Very curious. Sitting here & 25 min late on our planned return.

Trump atty Habba walked out from chambers, alone. Then, AG’s attorneys head in.

Recently, Trump complained about a low-ball settlement offer…

Settlement bid afoot?

They return. We continue. Who knows.

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) November 14, 2023

Trump's attorneys have already appealed Judge Arthur Engoron's pre-trial summary judgment holding Trump, his eldest sons and his company liable for persistent fraud and have signaled that they plan to push for a mistrial.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, who has been reporting from the courthouse during the weekslong trial, also reported “rumblings that the private conversations we’ve observed between each side and the court reflect some sort of settlement negotiation.”

Rubin noted that Habba would make sense as Trump’s proxy in potential settlement talks because aside from being his outside counsel she is also listed as the legal spokesperson and general counsel for his Save America PAC. “She just might be the best positioned to negotiate on behalf of Team Trump,” Rubin wrote.

Remember: Habba is not just outside counsel to Trump in this case; she is, as her Instagram bio reflects, the legal spokesperson for and general counsel of Save America. pic.twitter.com/E7886UV1Oh

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 14, 2023

"This is an actual incitement": Legal experts alarmed after Trump pushes "citizen's arrest"

“Why do folks believe the private conversations today between each side and the judge reflect settlement conversations? In part because of Trump’s Truth Social post” on Monday, Rubin wrote in another post.

Trump on Monday claimed that Judge Arthur Engoron “asked me to settle for a MUCH LOWER AMOUNT, at a settlement conference, but I said NO, I DID NOTHING WRONG!”

Trump two weeks earlier also claimed that the attorney general’s lawyers “want to settle.”

“Why should I be forced to settle when I did nothing wrong?” he wrote.

Rubin noted that the only publicly reported settlement conversations date back to September 2022, before the lawsuit was actually filed.

“Moreover, that reporting discusses many settlement overtures from the Trump Organization to the attorney general, but does not reference any settlement conferences before Judge Engoron. So what is Trump talking about and when did it happen? Stay tuned,” Rubin wrote.

Moreover, that reporting discusses many settlement overtures from the Trump Organization to the attorney general, but does not reference any settlement conferences before Judge Engoron. So what is Trump talking about and when did it happen? Stay tuned.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) November 14, 2023

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman tweeted that we should learn soon if settlement talks are indeed happening.

“This would be an absolutely stunning development, but I can’t think of a better explanation for Kise’s being outside the court room for so long mid trial,” he wrote.

The Daily Beast’s Jose Pagliery also reported on Tuesday that Habba met privately with the judge, “probably seeking a settlement to quietly end his bank fraud trial.”

But Pagliery predicted that it would be “a cold day in hell when the Trumps & New York AG agree to shelve this trial.”

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

“The judge might drown Trump in fines ranging from $250 million to a gazillion dollars. And the entire Trump Org could end up in receivership soon,” he wrote. “What would the Trumps counteroffer?”

New York attorney Paul Golden told Newsweek that while Trump settled his Trump University case in 2018, "it is possible the public would view a settlement of the current fraud case very differently."

"In the event Trump is considering settlement, and thus far we have not seen any evidence of it, he would have a great many issues to consider, including how a potential settlement would affect his brand, his businesses, and real property, and what kinds of fines would be at stake,” Golden said, adding that the case is "unusual in one major respect: most attorneys never have to consider whether a settlement would affect one's client's ability to win the presidency."

about Trump's fraud trial

Is Gen Z’s “bed rotting” trend self-care or reckless self-indulgence?

Too often in the modern age, social media trends influence our lifestyle choices and self-care routines. It can be unclear where some trends come from and they aren't always backed by evidence. One recent TikTok trend, known as "bed rotting," involves individuals choosing to spend prolonged periods in bed, doing little else.

While initially seen as a form of relaxation and self-care, some experts caution against the potential detrimental effects on mental health and overall well-being, such as increased sleep issues, social isolation and less overall productivity.

With over 165 million views for the term, TikTok users are clearly interested in the phenomenon, with one sleep science expert, Vanessa Hill, sharing that bed rotting “is 100% backed by science.” Hill highlights that this trend isn't just about lazing around but instead serves as a means to normalize the importance of rest in our lives. In a world where productivity is often held as the ultimate goal, bed rotting encourages us to break the cycle, permitting ourselves to do less without the weight of guilt.

Wait, is white noise harmful for sleep now? How these bland vibes can be bad for baby — and you

Beneath the surface, bed rotting carries subtle advantages. Many of us are trapped in the relentless pursuit of productivity, which can have adverse effects on our mental and physical health. Trends like bed rotting offer a moment of respite, a chance to reflect, and an opportunity to prioritize our health, both mentally and physically.

However, bed rotting does have its critics, especially within the wellness community and the medical field. For individuals grappling with depression or anxiety, bed rotting may not necessarily provide the ideal relaxation strategy — and may even make the problem worse.

The excesses of escapism

Excessive bed rotting has the potential to lead to social isolation, a risk factor for depression and anxiety. This is especially concerning for children, who have unique social, developmental and emotional needs that require interaction and physical activity for their holistic development. While rest is undeniably vital, striking a balance is key.

Courtney DeAngelis, PsyD, a psychologist at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, weighs in on the bed rotting debate in a statement to Health. She acknowledges that, when practiced in moderation, bed rotting can have a calming effect on the body, providing respite from stress and exhaustion, particularly for individuals engaged in physically or mentally demanding roles.

When practiced in moderation, bed rotting can have a calming effect on the body, providing respite from stress and exhaustion.

However, spending excessive time in bed can impede meaningful connections with friends and family, potentially increasing stress levels. Our beds should primarily serve as sanctuaries for sleep and intimacy. When they become spaces for lounging, our brains may struggle to distinguish between rest and other activities, which can lead to sleep disruptions.

DeAngelis also underscores the importance of avoiding bed rotting right before bedtime, as engaging in activities like working or watching television can “confused your body at night” and hence inhibit one's ability to fall asleep promptly. Instead, she suggests reserving the bedroom for sleep and intimate activities while moving other leisure activities to an alternative space.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Setting limits and avoiding overindulgence

To prevent the adverse effects of excessive bed rotting, DeAngelis emphasizes the need for setting time limits. Although bed rotting may offer temporary relief, it should not become a daily habit or a go-to solution for fatigue, tiredness or depression. Moderation is the key to a healthy relationship with bed rotting.

The bed rotting trend offers an intriguing perspective on modern self-care. By allowing ourselves to take a break, we can alleviate the pressure and anxiety that often accompany our hectic lives. Nevertheless, it is vital to approach this trend with caution, as overindulgence can result in social isolation, disrupted sleep, and a negative impact on overall well-being.Striking a balance between rest and productivity remains essential.

While recognizing the benefits of bed rotting, it’s important to remain aware of the potential consequences to make informed decisions about these routines. Your bed serves many purposes. Preserving this association can lead to improved mental and physical health in the long run.

about sleep

“Like erecting a dam with a chain link fence”: Supreme Court refuses to get why people hate them

The funniest part of the new "ethics code" released by the Supreme Court this week is that it kicks off with laughable language that lets everyone know that the corrupt right-wing justices have no intention of following their own rules. In the very first paragraph, for instance, the justices address the public perception that they "regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules," by simply shrugging it off as a "misunderstanding." To which court observers immediately responded with, "Holy gaslighting, Batman!"

It's not just the payola, but what it represents: an imperious court stacked with far-right justices who have become petty tyrants.

As much as Chief Justice John Roberts and the five other Federalist Society stooges on the court may believe otherwise, they cannot convince the American public that we just imagined the drumbeat of stories of billionaire patronage of these alleged public servants. They cannot wish away the mountains of evidence tirelessly compiled by ProPublica showing that billionaire and Nazi memorabilia enthusiast Harlan Crow spent years lavishing Justice Clarence Thomas with luxury vacations, while also buying his mom a house and paying tuition for his nephew. Nor can they wish away the story of Justice Samuel Alito being wined and dined in a private plane to Alaska on a billionaire-funded vacation. In part, these stories are so memorable because of the much photographic evidence the fine team at ProPublica dug up.

4/ In June 2019, Thomas boarded Crow's private jet to Indonesia for 9 days of island-hopping on Crow's yacht.

Had Thomas chartered the jet and yacht himself, it could have cost him over $500K. pic.twitter.com/nLK3V67yh7

— ProPublica (@propublica) April 6, 2023

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito took a luxury fishing trip to Alaska with billionaire Paul Singer, whose hedge fund then had repeated business before SCOTUS over the years that followed.

Alito never disclosed the trip or recused himself from Singer's cases. (THREAD) pic.twitter.com/mVWEInOUfa

— ProPublica (@propublica) June 21, 2023

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

So this ridiculous "code of ethics" serves to expose how much the justices don't understand — refuse to understand, really — why it is that most Americans hate them so much. It's not just the payola, but what it represents: an imperious court stacked with far-right justices who have become petty tyrants. Men (and one woman) who not only believe they are above basic rules, but that the rest of us should be forced into servitude to a fundamentalist Christian belief system. If it were just the bribe-taking, most people wouldn't care so much. But it's that the money serves the larger goal of stripping basic rights away from most Americans.

To be certain, most of the mainstream media treats the Supreme Court ethics scandal and the court's unpopular decisions as discrete issues. On the surface, this makes a rough sort of sense. Alito didn't write the Dobbs decision, which ended decades of abortion rights, because hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer gifted him a fancy vacation. Thomas didn't gut decades of gun regulation because Crow suggested it while they sipped wine and admired Hitler's paintings. These men are authentically hateful trolls who have spent decades longing to make ours a nation of back alley abortions and escalating gun violence.

But in a much deeper sense, which I suspect most Americans understand, the billionaire benefactor schemes are deeply intertwined with their far-right decisions that are unjustified by either law or history. Both are rooted in the despotic attitudes that the Federalist Society has bred in its hand-picked judges. The Federalist Society judges have been repeatedly flattered into believing they are destined to rule over the little people like kings. Alito feels entitled to his billionaire-funded vacation for the same reason he cites a 16th-century witch-burner to justify abortion bans. Same story with Thomas, with his incoherent arguments decimating gun safety laws. They get fancy vacations and taxpayer-funded security, while the peasants have to suffer forced childbirth and random mass shootings.

"Peak gaslighting": Legal scholars shred Supreme Court's spin on new "unenforceable" ethics code

The other conservative justices are less obnoxious about it, but they, too, ascribe to this hierarchical worldview, where they are monarchical authorities and the rest of us owe unquestioning obedience. When the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Roberts to testify about the court and ethics issue, he ignored the request for two weeks before issuing a condescending refusal, claiming "separation of powers" as the reason. This is an insulting excuse, as the separation of powers is tied directly to a checks-and-balances system, which should include congressional oversight of judicial ethics.

Americans are starting to see the conservative legal community, as organized by the Federalist Society, for what it is: A collection of pompous jerks who are cosseted by wealth and privilege, sitting around deciding the rest of us don't deserve even basic rights.

The irony is that the Judiciary Committee chair, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has not hidden how much he'd rather not be dealing with the corruption of the Supreme Court. Durbin has repeatedly punted responsibility to Roberts, and in such a way that indicates a willingness to accept empty gestures in lieu of real reform. But Roberts and his crew were unwilling to offer even a token nod to the idea that they owe anything to the public that pays their salaries.

"Now it's up to Chief Justice Roberts and the other Justices to act on ethics reform to save their own reputations and the Court's integrity"

[the Court takes no action on ethics reform]

"Ah, well," pic.twitter.com/LU1t4aARCj

— Jay Willis ✌️ (@jaywillis) September 25, 2023

This contempt basically forced Durbin's hand. He's been moving towards Senate hearings where Crow would be subpoenaed, along with Leonard Leo, the shadowy figure behind the Federalist Society. Republicans are desperate to keep this from happening. They're pulling out all the stops to threaten Durbin into backing off. This "ethics code" is just the latest move, an effort to create the illusion of reform that's just good enough to give Durbin an excuse to give up dealing with the court's corruption.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Republicans aren't this frantic because they worry that Thomas's free yacht trips, in and of themselves, will lose them the 2024 election. It's because this all goes straight back to the abortion issue, which has already proved to be a massive loser for Republicans. Direct, if forced, testimony from Crow and Leo could paint a damning picture of how the current Supreme Court operates. Americans will be invited to think about Alito and Thomas, swirling expensive brandy in crystal glasses, as they discuss their wish to force working-class women to have more babies, who can then be put to work as the court also rolls back child labor laws. People are already angry enough about Dobbs. They'll be even angrier when reminded that billionaires think families should be forced to raise a dozen kids on a minimum wage.

The good news is the "ethics code" is so obviously useless and unenforceable that it's impossible to pretend it's a real thing. Durbin was even forced into a mealy-mouthed statement about how it "falls short."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says SCOTUS' code of ethics “marks a step in the right direction,” but appears to “fall short”:

“The court's new code of conduct does not appear to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable for any violations of the code.” pic.twitter.com/di1X9VMF9i

— The Recount (@therecount) November 13, 2023

Legal experts in the media have been more robust in their criticism. Law reporter Elie Mystal didn't hold back on MSNBC, saying, "This is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is like erecting a dam with a chain link fence. It's a giant waste of time for everybody."

"This is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is like erecting a dam with a chain link fence. It's a giant waste of time for everybody."@ElieNYC on the Supreme Court issuing ethics guideline specific to justices. Watch more via @TheReidOut: https://t.co/jCthdGTW5R pic.twitter.com/95257wyCun

— The ReidOut (@thereidout) November 14, 2023

It's not just that the ethics code is voluntary at best, and so likely to be ignored by all but the liberal justices. It's also that the "misunderstanding" language indicates that Federalist Society Six won't even allow that it was a bad idea for justices to accept millions of dollars worth of gifts, and largely without even meeting the low bar of disclosing it under federal law. You cannot reform if you refuse to accept that you did anything wrong.

But again, the reason that this goes beyond your typical D.C. scandal, which most Americans ignore, is that the justices bring this scorn for justice, ethics, and rule of law to their decisions. The Dobbs decision is the most infuriating, but it's also a symbol of a larger constellation of unjustifiable rulings undermining human rights, democracy, and basic safety. Americans are starting to see the conservative legal community, as organized by the Federalist Society, for what it is: A collection of pompous jerks who are cosseted by wealth and privilege, sitting around deciding the rest of us don't deserve even basic rights. This fake "code of ethics" is yet another reminder of how out-of-touch and cruel these justices really are.

about the Supreme Court's ethics scandal

Polling expert sees a “basic flaw” in Democrats’ 2024 strategy: “An informed and engaged electorate”

An overwhelming majority of the American people feel like the country is heading in the wrong direction. The American people are also divided – division driven by Republicans – on basic questions of fact and reality. For example, a majority of Republicans believe in Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election, that Trump is a “victim” who is being “persecuted” with 91 felony charges and multiple civil trials, that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was somehow both a peaceful protest by MAGA and an attack by “Antifa." None of these things are true.

In addition, a large percentage — and depending on the poll, outright majorities — of both Republicans and Democrats are unsatisfied with having to choose, again, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Thus, a growing desire for new presidential nominees from the Democrats or Republicans — or even a third-party candidate(s).

In all, there is a growing lack of faith across partisan divides in the country’s governing institutions and leaders. Tens of millions of Americans are disaffected, angry, and in response looking for answers from conspiracy theories, right-wing Christian extremism, demagogues, echo chambers, disinformation, false populism – and yes, violence.

So while it is true that last Tuesday in elections in Ohio and other parts of the country, voters pushed back against the Republican fascists and larger right-wing, as seen from the GOP's response to those setbacks, they do not care that their policies are unpopular. Predictably, the Republican fascists and their forces’ solution to losing an election is less democracy and not more of it.

McDaniel says Republicans can win on abortion because the American people are were they are pic.twitter.com/M4oYT4IFu5

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 12, 2023

In an attempt to make better a sense of where we are in the Age of Trump and what comes next, I asked a range of experts for their thoughts and suggestions.

These answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

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

I’m pessimistic. I’ve felt as if our democracy has been circling the drain for nearly half my life, ever since the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the 2000 election and I can’t shake the feeling we’re nearing the final flush. I’m old enough to remember when both Republicans and Democrats called our system a “democracy.” When Republicans began saying “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” it was clear they’d realized their views were highly unpopular and demographically they had only a few decades left to even compete.

"Dr. King said the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I think he may have spoken too soon."

They gave up trying to win by persuasion, and they were going to do whatever they could to trick people into believing absurdities, and to rig the system in their favor. They’ve succeeded in turning much of the public against the media, against our institutions, against academia, and against vulnerable minority groups, and they’ve made white nationalism popular again. They’ve surrendered to a cult of personality and they’re openly excusing and advocating for political violence. I don’t see how we come back from this. The rot has gone too far. Dr. King said the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I think he may have spoken too soon.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

For almost the entirety of human civilization, we’ve been warlike, tribal, and ruled by authoritarians of one degree or another. Democracies are falling all across the globe, and America is on the verge of re-electing an authoritarian who’d seek to ally our nation with the Orbans and Putins of the world. We may be about to learn that liberal democracy wasn’t an evolutionary step, instead it was a brief interlude between tyrannies. An aberration that barely lasted a handful of centuries. I’m making sense of it by changing my view of my work. I have a trophy on my mantle with the engraved motto “Give light and the people will find their own way.” I don’t feel any more as if I’m doing that. These days, I feel as if I’m speaking to future generations that will arise long after this darkness is gone. I’m chronicling the downfall of democracy for them. Hopefully, someone in 2123 will be able to cut and paste some of my cartoons into their history report.

We’ve been told for decades that every election was “the most important election of our lifetimes,” because they were. And more often than not, during my lifetime, we’ve chosen wrong. There are now six Christofascists on the Supreme Court who are eager to erase all the progress made during the 20th Century. They’ve already done irreparable damage on multiple fronts. If we re-elect Biden, there’s a chance we can knock that back down to five (though I’m pretty sure Clarence Thomas will cling to his seat as if his initials were RGB, so it’s a very slim chance). But if we elect another Republican, within a decade there’ll probably be 7 or 8 Heritage Foundation fascists on the court and it’ll be game over for our democracy. But I have serious doubts that the 2024 election will go democracy’s way. This isn’t 2020. The House is full of MAGA cultists now who probably would overturn the results of a close election. Decent people would denounce it, we’d create some brilliant columns and cartoons about it, win some Pulitzers, and millions of Americans would take to the streets to protest, for about a month or two. Then the fascist Supreme Court would rule in MAGA’s favor. It may not even get that far, because voter suppression efforts have been proceeding without much coverage since 2000, and in a few states that should go for Biden, those votes may not end up being cast, and if they are, they may not end up being counted. Their 2020 insurrection will most likely turn out to have been just a dry run.

Where are we in the story that is Age of Trump?

"It was damning": Brian Stelter excavates Fox News' culture, the Big Lie and Tucker Carlson's exit

We’re closer to the book being burned, and a new one being written by the white nationalists who’ve anointed themselves the arbiter of proper history. The only hope I have right now is that it seems impossible for Trump to escape prison. But that hope is tempered with the knowledge that the entire neo-Confederate party has decided that laws don’t apply to them. It’s only a short step from there to them deciding that verdicts don’t apply to them either. What gives me the most fear is that we don’t have a real understanding of the magnitude of this fascist movement.

Matthew Dallek teaches at George Washington University and is the author of “Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right.”

It’s hard to make sense of recent events. I’m concerned with several obvious and somewhat related developments. We have now experienced the effects of climate change like never before, yet it’s hard to see a way forward in which the world’s leading emitters combat this threat with speed and unity. (My nine-year-old commented that the human species probably won’t exist in a few hundred years, a sentiment that may be as apt as it is unsettling.) Totalitarianism, in the United States and around the globe, has become emboldened in recent months. Putin's Russia has allied with China, North Korea, and Iran. Hamas has committed one of the most horrific acts of terror I’ve seen in my lifetime. To paraphrase Yeats, by way of Joan Didion, the center does not appear to be holding.

"I have serious doubts that the 2024 election will go democracy’s way. This isn’t 2020."

Still, in the United States, there is cause for hope because democracy remains at least somewhat resilient. A majority of the public seems still to be committed to free and fair elections and to the peaceful transfer of power. Most Americans still appear to back values like pluralism and tolerance. The mobilization in the wake of the overturning of Roe has been inspiring and one of the most impactful progressive movements in memory. Three years ago, Biden beat Trump at the ballot box. Last year, a pro-democracy coalition prevented election denialists from winning control of the Senate. And since January 6, the judiciary has become something of a democracy bulwark. Trump is facing 91 criminal counts, and some of his former lawyers have pled guilty to forms of election interference. Thanks to the Justice Department’s often unheralded efforts, scores of insurrectionists are now convicted felons. Authoritarianism has gone mainstream, securing a foothold in the GOP, but there's a case to be had that it is a minoritarian movement.

Where are we in the story that is Age of Trump? We appear to be in the middle rather than at the end of this story. As I attempt to argue in my recent book “Birchers”, the radicalization of the American Right occurred over several decades. It was partly made possible by changes sweeping the nation and the world – the end of the Cold War, the Great Recession, growing income inequality, often racist reactions to the nation’s first Black president, and a decades-long diminution of faith in federal power, to name a few factors. Trumpism, then, is fairly deeply stitched into the political culture, so a knockout blow, in the form of a single election result, seems dubious. Ending the Trumpocene is probably going to mean the defeat of MAGA candidates over many years. Losing, time after time, may eventually force the GOP to take less conspiratorial, less bigoted, and less radical paths.

I fear the rise in antisemitism in the U.S. and Europe and the silence and implicit justification of Hamas’s horrific acts by some on the American left. I fear the killing of innocent Palestinians and the surge of Islamophobia in this country, too. I fear that a wider war will erupt in the Middle East and that certain forms of hate have become normalized in the United States. The erosion of people’s commitments to bedrock values like reasoned debate, tolerance for others, and civil rights is another cause for concern. But it’s impossible to predict the future for a good reason: Sometimes, the unanticipated happens. Crises and times of insanity can occasionally yield to hopeful, unforeseen outcomes. Maybe the two-state solution makes a comeback. Or perhaps efforts to combat antisemitism become even more focused.

It’s possible to envision a time when Trump's political career has ended, when Netanyahu is out as Israel's Prime Minister, when Hamas is severely weakened, when the liberal project – a robust welfare state, principles of freedom for all and human rights, and international alliances—surges anew.

Rachel Bitecofer is a political analyst and election forecaster.

We’ve been trapped on an out-of-control train and now the track is getting bendy! It will get increasingly intense as we enjoy this last winter of discontent. So what I would tell people is it’s a marathon, not a race.

In terms of the 2024 election, by avoiding a competitive Democratic Party primary, Democrats had a big edge on Republicans in terms of party unity. The terror attack on Israel and the war launched in response has undermined that advantage and left Democrats vulnerable to being attacked for supporting terrorism. It will take months to ascertain how much impact this will have on Democrats in 2024 but it is highly concerning.

"The mobilization in the wake of the overturning of Roe has been inspiring and one of the most impactful progressive movements in memory."

Folks, 2024 is the end of the “game” whether you want it to be, or not. Beat Trump and American democracy likely makes it through this turmoil. Lose and it's game over, folks. Personally, I am ready for the final act of the Trumpocene.

My greatest fear right now is the House of MAGA and Preacher of the House Mike Johnson. Believe it or not, Kevin McCarthy’s entire rise and fall from Speaker of the House was invisible to average Americans. They don’t read news; they don’t watch TV news programs like "Meet the Press." Democrats still don’t understand this basic flaw in their strategy, an informed and engaged electorate, and I have about 6 months left to convince them that if they don’t center a messaging campaign about how crazy the House Republicans are, no one will ever know, even as they shut down the government and gut the government. If we want voters to know that we face an existential crisis from Republican extremism, we have to tell them.

Mia Bloom is a professor of communication and Middle East studies at Georgia State University. She is the author of several books, including "Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror." Her most recent book (with Sophia Moskalenko) is "Pastels and Pedophiles: Inside the Mind of QAnon."

Many people who are familiar with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have knowledge of terrorism understand this to be a very dangerous time and many of us are very anxious. We know there are no good solutions, certainly anything the President does has the danger to backfire. Netanyahu is a terrible leader and only interested in his own political survival. And so, his priority does not seem to be Israel’s safety. Biden cannot abandon Israel as many countries are seemingly moving away from it because the optics from Gaza are terrible. As countries come to terms with the loss of Palestinian life, despite a genocidal terrorist group hiding in its midst, the ability to support Israeli policies will become more difficult what is most troubling is the effect the conflict is having on youth and the left, it is splintering the Democratic Party. In some ways this way is the best outcome for Putin and Trump who are reaping the rewards of Democratic disarray and increasing skepticism about Ukraine.

Unless President Biden steps in aggressively and is able to curtail Netanyahu’s blood lust, it has the potential of damaging 2024 election prospects. Biden is seemingly losing the youth support upon which he relies, and members of his own party (the Squad) are vocal critics of his Middle East Policy. The Abraham Accords are unraveling first the Saudis postponed normalization, Bahrain has recalled its ambassador to Israel, and our allies in the region will be under extreme pressure to side with the Palestinians – even if that means against the US. It’s a lose lose situation.

We are still either at the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end of the story that is the Age of Trump. So many things can change on a dime. I am sadly fearful and somewhat hopeless.

about the road to 2024

Building the mandate for MAGA: Why Trump is choosing a harm offensive over a charm offensive

On Friday, former President Donald Trump insisted in a court filing that he was being denied his due process rights. One day later, he told the audience at a political rally that if elected president, he will strip those rights from anyone who opposes him. And it’s not an empty threat — his right-wing team has been developing ready-to-implement plans for doing just that.

Much ink has been spilled about each one of these events, but it is their combination that should cause alarm among all Americans who care about democracy. A government with one law for the rulers and one for the ruled is rightly called “fascist.” Fascism is often defined as “a political movement that embraces … the forceful suppression of any opposition, all overseen by an authoritarian government. Fascists strongly oppose Marxism, liberalism and democracy, and believe the state takes precedence over individual interests.”

When we say the shoe fits what Trump is selling, don’t believe us: Believe him and his key lieutenant, Stephen Miller.

Trump used a filing before Washington, D.C., federal district court Tanya Chutkan asking her to allow his trial to be televised to claim he had been denied “his inalienable rights, including . . . the rights to: a fair trial . . . [and] due process.” He complained that Chutkan’s rulings have placed "the interests of his political opposition above the precious protections that American patriots have fought and died for,” and that “this case has all the unfortunate badges of a trial in an authoritarian regime, lacking . . . due process.”

Then on Saturday, Trump painted a different vision of his own future administration that would afford no “precious protections” or due process to its political foes.

Trump threatens to handle the "vermin": MAGA has got a hold of the Nazi playbook

“We pledge to you,” he told his rally audience in Claremont, New Hampshire, “that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

He had used the identical language in a social media posting earlier that same day.

Trump loyalist Stephen Miller filled in the blanks on Sunday. In a New York Times Magazine interview, he said that the second Trump Administration would build “vast holding facilities” for immigrants “on open land in Texas near the border.” And Miller made clear that, contrary to what the Supreme Court has said about deportation, Trump would try to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport “suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without due process.”

As for detention camps, Nathan J. Robinson, editor of the Current Affairs Magazine, wrote on Monday:

Trump’s team . . . [is] serious about this. . . . I don’t think we should assume that this ends with undocumented immigrants.

That’s not to say that in 2025, Americans would walk quietly, or allow others to be hauled into detention camps without resistance. But if you believe it “can’t happen here,” history begs to differ.

In this century, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio ran what he bragged were “concentration camps” in the 110 degree desert heat for brown-skinned people his deputies picked up.

Last century, ten weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt shamefully ordered Japanese Americans to be rounded up and interned in desert camps. The Supreme Court upheld the detentions in Korematsu v. United States. It took the Court 74 years to repudiate that ruling.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

History tells us that “emergencies” other than war can be used to justify suspending constitutional rights. Hitler abolished freedom of speech and justified phone taps the day after the Reichstag fire in February 1933. The Nazis, of course, blamed Jews and communists by calling them poisoners of native blood and “vermin.” In Hitler, his biographer Joachim Fest quotes these words from his subject:

Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. [S]hould I not . . . have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?”

Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, made clear that Trump's “vermin” covers more than disfavored religious groups or people of non-European background. (There’s a significant history of that in America with respect to native Americans and Chinese-Americans, among others.)

If the courts stand in his way, he will, like strongmen in other countries, turn on them and seek to bend them to his will.

Dehumanizing opponents also helps “encourage [totalitarian leaders’] followers to engage in violence," according to Professor Ruth ben-Ghiat, New York University scholar of fascism.

Ironically, in trying to brush off that critique, Steven Cheung, Trump’s campaign spokesman, confirmed it. He predicted a grim fate for people who suffer from what he called “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“Their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”

Maybe you’re wondering why Trump’s presidential campaign seems to have chosen a “harm offensive” instead of a “charm offensive.” Consider these possibilities.

First, it energizes his base and arouses its violent elements. He wants them amped up for when he faces jeopardy in criminal trials or if something sidetracks his nomination.

Second, if he wins, he wants to be able to say that he has a mandate for a totalitarian plan to jail enemies and end American constitutionalism as we know it.

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

Trump’s Project 2025, a blueprint his hardcore troops are preparing for screening loyalists and transitioning to a Trumpist state, involves far more than imprisoning opponents. It is, as the Atlantic’s David Graham encapsulates it, “un-American.” That’s because Trump’s “ideas contravene basic principles of the Constitution or other bedrock bases of American government.”

On Monday, Graham laid out 12 basic elements of Trump’s vision including the argument that “a presidential candidate should be immune from prosecution” and “Trump normalizing insults and “attempts to intimidate judges and prosecutors.”

You can be sure that Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the Court, including those appointed by Trump, have been watching those attacks on the judicial system and not liking them. And Roberts, in particular, has made a point of repudiating the Korematsu decision that approved American detention camps.

But it would be foolhardy for Americans to hope that the courts will save us from Trump’s dark vision of this country’s future, with one set of laws for himself and his cronies and another for his opponents and groups he scapegoats. If the courts stand in his way, he will, like strongmen in other countries, turn on them and seek to bend them to his will.

Americans who care about preserving our 234-year-old republic should reject Trump’s proposed double standard and express our outrage at Trump’s anti-constitutional plans for detention camps and for prosecuting rivals and critics if he is elected. The best way to do so is to mobilize now and make sure that he cannot claim an electoral mandate in 2024.

More than ever we should pay heed to what former President Barack Obama said six years ago in his farewell address: “It falls to each of us to be…anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy. Embrace the joyous task we have been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours because, for all our outward differences, we in fact all share the same proud type, the most important office in a democracy, citizen.”

about Trump's threats

For some, the drug ketamine can be a lifesaver. But recent shortages have made it hard to get

Samira Rostami has been getting massages for decades to relieve stress, but in the summer of 2021, a masseuse tried a new technique that would do the opposite of calming the body.

The masseuse targeted the joints around the base of her skull, pressing deeply into her spinal cord. The next day she was bedridden with fissures of pain radiating across her upper back as if someone was trying to tear her muscles in two. Over the next few months, the pain worsened such that she could no longer swallow pills or food. Barely able to hold her head up, she spent a year sustaining herself on meal replacement shakes.

“I was at a doctor's appointment almost daily from Monday through Friday for about six months after the injury, begging anyone and everyone to figure out what was wrong with my neck,” Rostami, a communications professor in San Diego, California, told Salon in a phone interview.

Women's pain is often brushed off in medicine. When will it be taken seriously?

It took seven months after her injury for doctors to diagnose her with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Although this condition varies with each patient and some achieve remission, CRPS has been called the most painful condition, usually affecting hands or feet and spreading throughout the body. The pain can be so intense that some patients opt to have an affected limb amputated. Opioids or other analgesics often don’t work against it but one treatment that has shown some promise is ketamine, an anesthetic administered through infusions that can have psychedelic properties.

Since May of 2022, the ketamine doses Rostami receives monthly were one of the only things she has found that can improve her condition. But this year, it became increasingly hard to find when a national shortage caused her clinic to cut down on her appointments and eventually cancel some until they could restock. For Rostami, that meant finding an alternative clinic that didn’t take her insurance or going without treatment.

“When there’s a national shortage, they have to cut back on how many treatments you can get,” Rostami said. “It just depends on how much pain I’m in that month, if I want to spend $2,000 for an infusion, or if there is availability in San Diego and I can find a clinic.”

Doctors have increasingly been prescribing ketamine off-label for mental health conditions like treatment-resistant depression.

Originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1970s as a local anesthetic, ketamine is also a dissociative psychedelic that can produce dream-like effects or out-of-body experiences. It targets a chemical messenger in the brain called glutamate that regulates memory, cognition and mood.

Although it has not been approved to treat mental health conditions or chronic pain, doctors have increasingly been prescribing ketamine off-label for mental health conditions like treatment-resistant depression and pain conditions like CRPS. Some patients report negative side effects and don’t react well to it, but others undergo profound experiences in which they can see their past trauma in a new light, find long-sought pain relief or leave behind crippling anxieties.

One in every six Americans experiences depression and up to one in three of those people won’t respond to first-line treatments like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Meanwhile, the opioid overdose crisis has led physicians to cut back on writing pain medication scripts with the unintended consequence of leaving many patients with chronic pain with even fewer treatment options. Some patients are desperate for a way to relieve their psychiatric or physical pain, and some doctors are frustrated at not being able to help them. Ketamine is filling this treatment gap for many in both treatment spaces.

Nancy, a mother of three who runs an animal rescue center in Houston, Texas, who asked to use only her first name, started going to a ketamine clinic to treat her depression in 2021. After it worked for that condition, she decided with her doctor to start ketamine in a different dosage to treat her fibromyalgia, which has put her in debilitating pain for 30 years. However, the latter is not covered by her insurance and is going to cost her $1,350 per treatment, a cost which “has to be worth it,” she said.

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

“At this point, nothing else is helping and I am not able to be the mom I want to be and do the rescue work I want to do,” she told Salon in a phone interview. “Life is pretty miserable right now with this much pain, so I feel like I have to try something.”

Like many practitioners in what is sometimes called the “psychedelic renaissance,” what led Dr. Steven Radowitz, the chief medical officer of Nushama ketamine clinic in New York, to psychedelic medicine was frustration that many patients had stopped responding to treatments he was prescribing, as well as a belief that psychedelics had the potential to address the underlying issues related to mood disorders that could facilitate deeper healing.

“What this does is it opens people up to see life in a different way, a more open way,” Radowitz told Salon in a video call.

New research illuminates how the human brain creates its own psychedelic drugs

In 2019, the FDA approved Johnson & Johnson’s isolated formulation of the ketamine molecule, esketamine (sold under the brand name Spravato as a nasal spray), for treatment-resistant depression after it was shown to improve symptoms in clinical trials. (Esketamine is a slightly different from racemic ketamine that is typically given at clinics.)

This led to a dramatic increase in the number of clinics offering ketamine therapy for conditions for which it is not approved, even though the same level of rigor hasn’t been applied to research examining ketamine for mental health conditions, said Dr. Gerard Sanacora, a psychiatrist at Yale University who studies ketamine.

“There's just really a lack of good data demonstrating the safety and the efficacy of those forms of treatment,” Sanacora told Salon in a phone interview. “That doesn't mean they're not safe or not effective, but we just really don't know.”

Yet there are some promising results from scientific research. One study in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found ketamine infusions improved suicidal ideation, depression and anxiety, although that was a retrospective chart review and not a randomized clinical trial. Another study found ketamine reduced suicidal ideation within three days, but it’s unclear whether these effects were upheld in the long term. Similar findings were published last week in a meta-analysis looking at ketamine as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. A fourth study published in June in the New England Journal of Medicine found ketamine worked just as well as electroconvulsive therapy among patients with depression.

In 2018, three professional medical organizations including the American Academy of Pain Medicine published guidelines for using ketamine infusions to treat chronic pain, citing a few randomized controlled trials that showed it was effective, although the "level of evidence varies by condition and dose range."

“Some people have had to delay treatment, which for patients who have suicidality, it's a very big deal,”

However, some in the medical community fear the cart has gone before the horse with the number of ketamine clinics that have popped up in recent years. In a study published last week in JAMA Network Open, a survey of 17 ketamine centers in Maryland found seven failed to disclose any potential adverse effects and one falsely claimed ketamine was FDA-approved for depression and was not addictive. (Ketamine can be addictive, but the risk is generally considered low, especially when given under clinical supervision.)

Dr. Padma Gulur, a pain management specialist at Duke University studying ketamine, said clinics need to have specific protocols in place: ensuring patients are medically evaluated before treatment to reduce the risk of a bad reaction, for example, and monitored after dosing because of ketamine’s sedative effects.

“It has potential, but it is also not without risk,” Gulur told Salon in a phone interview. “Even if it gives you some short-term gains, it may not give you long-term benefits, at best. Or, potentially, there may be long-term harm we are not aware of yet.”

Perhaps due to increased demand, manufacturing or supply chain issues, racemic ketamine used in these infusions has been in shortage since 2018. In an October survey of 126 ketamine providers across the country conducted by the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners (ASKP3) — which has issued some best practices for ketamine clinics to follow — 61% had to cancel appointments due to the shortage, said ASKP3 president Dr. Sandhya Prashad.

“Some people have had to delay treatment, which may not sound like a big deal, but for patients who have suicidality, it's a very big deal,” Prashad told Salon in a video interview.

“It has potential, but it is also not without risk.”

Dr. Brent Turnipseed, the medical director of a ketamine clinic Roots Behavioral Health in Austin, Texas, said the shortage has forced his team to turn toward compound pharmacies to fill their supply so patients are not left out to dry.

“We’ve been pivoting quickly to try to figure out any option we can for our patients, but it's been stressful,” Turnipseed told Salon in a phone interview.

Last month, the FDA issued a warning acknowledging the increased interest in compounded ketamine products such as oral tablets called lozenges, outlining the risks of using a drug like ketamine without the supervision of a healthcare provider. In addition to sedation and dissociation, long-term use of ketamine can lead to urinary problems as well as psychiatric events, the agency stated.

“Consumers should be aware that compounded drugs pose a higher risk to patients than FDA-approved drugs because compounded drugs do not undergo FDA premarket review for safety, effectiveness or quality,” a spokesperson told Salon in an email.

The agency did not respond to questions about what was causing the shortage and what was being done to ameliorate it. During the pandemic, federal agencies loosened regulations that allowed for substances like ketamine to be prescribed via telehealth appointments, which could be affecting supply.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

One of the most common safety concerns highlighted by the FDA's adverse event tracker for ketamine is drug "misuse," but some evidence suggests recreational ketamine use in the U.S. remains low, with fewer than 2% of American adults having used ketamine in their lifetime, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The University of Michigan’s 2022 “Monitoring the Future” study, which looks at drug use among high school students, also showed no increase in the portion of students having tried ketamine since 2004. In the clinical setting, it is administered by practitioners and not intended to leave the office.

Although there did seem to be a ketamine clinic boom during and after the COVID-19 public health emergency, that seems to be dying down, Prashad, of ASKP3, said. This year, two major chains of ketamine clinics, Field Trip and Ketamine Wellness Centers, abruptly shut down, leaving many patients scrambling for other options. The situation was especially dire as many patients had come to rely on the treatment to maintain their mental health. In the ASKP3 survey of ketamine providers, 8% said the shortage caused them to shut down or consider shutting down their clinic, further reducing access to a treatment that has provided many with relief when other therapies don’t work.

“I have witnessed it with my own patients and with my own eyes that this is truly a life-saving treatment for some people,” Sanacora, at Yale, said. “But the potential for things to go wrong is real and that really does need to be mitigated.”

about drugs and mental health

What is the pūteketeke, the bird John Oliver is obsessed with? Here’s what makes this fowl so weird

The bird has a mullet. It eats its own feathers with such gusto that it regularly vomits them back up. And — thanks to a British comedian who identified with its awkward mating habits — it is now New Zealand's Bird of the Century.

It eats its own feathers with such gusto that it regularly vomits them back up.

Meet the pūteketeke, also known as the Australasian crested grebe.

The pūteketeke garnered international headlines after being vociferously championed by "Last Week Tonight" host John Oliver, who wanted the charismatic waterfowl to win an award for Bird of the Century that is given through a process of voting by the New Zealand conservation group Forest and Bird. Although Forest and Bird usually holds its annual contest to anoint a lucky bird as Bird of the Year, the organization decided to crown its 2023 winner as Bird of the Century to honor the organization's centennial anniversary.

Pigeons seem to dream of flying: A new study unlocks tantalizing secrets about the minds of birds

While the contest is not known for being a celebrity-studded affair, Oliver gave it an infusion of star power when he took to the airwaves to plead the pūteketeke's case. In addition to advocating for it on his own program, Oliver also sponsored ad campaigns in London, Mumbai, Paris and Tokyo; flew a banner over a beach in Brazil; and even appeared on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon" while dressed in a giant pūteketeke costume.

“They are weird puking birds with colorful mullets. What’s not to love here?” Oliver proclaimed to his audience. He also expressed admiration for the bird's parenting skills, in which both males and females raise their young equally, and he joked that he could identify with their mating ritual, as the birds will “grab a clump of wet grass and chest bump each other before standing around unsure of what to do next."

Oliver concluded, “I don’t just want the pūteketeke to win. I want it to win in the biggest landslide in the history of this competition."

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

In the 1980s the New Zealand population of the Australasian crested grebe was at a precipitously low number of roughly 200 birds.

Thus, one can understand Oliver's passion for pūteketekes. In addition to the trivia that Oliver listed, the pūteketeke is also fascinating because of its beautiful appearance. The Australiasian crested grebe is moderately-sized with a lengthy and slender neck and a large black bill. Its head contains a double black crest and also has cheek frills colored bright chestnut and black. It also has dark chestnut-brown upper plumage with silvery white underneath.

But this bird was almost driven to extinction. In the 1980s the New Zealand population of the Australasian crested grebe was at a precipitously low number of roughly 200 birds. Thankfully, conservation efforts allowed the population to increase to roughly 400 birds by 2004 and 600 birds by 2012. To this day, the New Zealand population of the birds remains under 1,000.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Their nests are made of sticks and waterweeds and can float on the water, and the females usually lay clutches of 5 to 7 eggs. Although they primarily eat fish, they also can consume aquatic invertebrates. They also apparently consume votes, as a record 350,000+ individuals from 195 countries voted in the contest, beating the previous record of 56,733 verified votes.

"Pūteketeke began as an outside contender for Bird of the Century but was catapulted to the top spot thanks to its unique looks, adorable parenting style, and propensity for puking," Forest and Bird chief executive Nicola Toki said in a statement.

Took added, "We're not surprised these charming characteristics caught the eye of an influential bird enthusiast with a massive following."

about birds

It really does take a village: Study links mother and child wellbeing to multiple caregivers

A new study published in the journal Developmental Psychology proves it really does take a village to raise a human. The study’s lead author, Dr. Nikhil Chaudhary, an evolutionary anthropologist at Cambridge University, found that infants in hunter-gatherer societies received “attentive care,” and physical contact, for nine hours a day from a maximum of 15 different caregivers. The findings suggest that children are “evolutionarily primed” to expect high levels of care from several people, in addition to their parents. Notably, the mother's support system in the observed groups would respond to half of the infant's cries.

Chaudhary said that for more than 95 percent of human evolutionary history, humans lived in hunter-gatherer societies where mothers and infants had more support than children do now in Western societies. “Contemporary hunter-gatherer societies can offer clues as to whether there are certain childrearing systems to which infants, and their mothers, may be psychologically adapted,” Chaudhary said in a statement.

Dr. Chaudhary and his colleague Dr Salali studied the Mbendjele BaYaka hunter-gatherers who reside in the Republic of Congo. Through their observations and analyses, they found that older children and adolescents are very involved in caring for infants, which they speculated could also boost their confidence as caregivers and act as a protector against anxiety as a first-time parent. The authors of the study also said that in hunter-gatherer communities, childcare is viewed as a way to give parents a break. In Western societies, it’s often primarily used to allow parents to work. Ratios of caregivers to infants were five-to-one in the observed hunter-gatherer groups. In the U.S., daycare centers typically have one caregiver looking after multiple children.

“The nuclear family system in the west is a world away from the communal living arrangements of hunter-gatherer societies like the Mbendjele,” Chaudhary said.

André 3000 makes his comeback, the Beatles are No. 1 and more music news

One-half of the infamous hip-hop group OutKast, rapper André 3000, is an elusive musician. He hasn't really released music since the height of OutKast's popularity in the early aughts, earning them the title of one of the best-selling hip-hop groups of all time. We all know the duo's catchy Billboard No. 1 hit "Hey Ya" because it's still a major part of our music library.

For the most part, the rapper has stayed out of the public eye. Other than featuring other artists' songs or just random social media sightings of the rapper playing the flute while he roams the world — André 3000 is a bit of a mystery. Well, that is until now. Seventeen years after OutKast's last album "Idlewild," André is back in the spotlight with a new comeback album called "New Blue Sun," but this time there's no rapping just flute playing. The album set for release on Nov. 17 will have no singing, bars, beats, or sub-bass according to NPR. He solely will be playing flute and many different kinds of woodwind instruments.

The rapper-turned-flautist said it's not like he's tried writing raps and has many unreleased songs in his vault but "in these times, it just comes harder for me to do it and I don't know why . . . I have songs but it's not like rap things that I really feel happy about sharing. And really, that's the most important part. I have to feel happy about sharing it. That's why 'New Blue Sun' was something that I realized, whoa, I really want people to hear it."

André isn't the only artist that has made a comeback in music recently. Here is a list of musicians who are having a resurgence or are releasing new music.

"Now and Then" is a beautiful Fab Four reunion. Too bad it's not a Beatles song

Beatles's final song "Now and Then" hits No. 1 in the UK

The British rock band is having a resurgence with their final song "Now and Then," scoring their 35th Top 10 song in their career. "Now and Then" debuted on the Billboard charts at No. 7 and it currently is a No. 1 hit on the UK charts. The song is the last Beatles song which was finished by artificial intelligence and includes John Lennon's raw vocals and George Harrison's guitar playing.

“There it was, John’s voice, crystal clear. It’s quite emotional," McCartney said in the band's announcement posted to their website. "And we all play on it, it’s a genuine Beatles recording. In 2023 to still be working on Beatles music, and about to release a new song the public haven’t heard, I think it’s an exciting thing.”

After the band's UK No. 1, Ringo Starr posted on his X account: “What’s happening it’s all happening number one in England UK incredible a few more facts will come on the screen. Peace and love everybody. It’s a beautiful day.”

The new "1989 (Taylor's Verison)" floods the Billboard charts

Mega pop star Taylor Swift is currently on the international leg of her billion-dollar Eras Tour but she also just released her rerecording of one of her most popular albums "1989." The album that snagged the singer a slew of Grammys in 2016 including album of the year debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts. One of the album's vault songs is also sitting at No. 3 on the Hot 100, potentially due to whisperings that it may be about former beau and singer Harry Styles.

But that's not the only reason why Swift is dominating right now. Her relationship with Chief's tight end Travis Kelce has taken over social media and has fueled more of her album sales. He even showed up at her round of shows in Argentina where she preformed new songs from "1989 (Taylor's Version)." Let's face it, Swift is always going to be running the music discourse.

Foo Fighters and H.E.R.'s new release

The rock band and the R&B singer have teamed up to announce their single "The Glass" which will come out on Nov. 17. It is a recording of their performance from "Saturday Night Live" earlier last month. The song is one of the singles off of the Foo Fighters most recent album "But Here We Are."

According to a statement, H.E.R.'s version of the song is “nothing short of a revelation — a stunning and singular vocal/guitar performance that wrings new sonic and emotional dimensions from the original.”

Edith Piaf biopic will be made with AI

The French singer's life story will be told through an animated biopic that is heavily produced with AI elements, Warner Music announced Tuesday. This is big news for the industry as the film will combine the use of AI, music and film as the actors' strike largest issue with the Hollywood studios was stipulations regarding AI.

Warner Music said it worked with the late "La Vie en Rose" singer's estate to develop the project named "Edith." The movie will rely on “AI technology trained on hundreds of voice clips and images.” A press release said that Piaf's regenerated voice will narrate the film. It will also feature songs like “La Vie en Rose” and “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien.”

“Animation will provide a modern take on her story, while the inclusion of archival footage, stage and TV performances, personal footage, and TV interviews will provide audiences with an authentic look at the significant moments of Piaf’s life," the statement said.

about music

Bernie Sanders prevents near brawl after Republican stands and dares union chief to fight at hearing

A heated exchange at a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing Tuesday almost devolved into a fistfight after Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., rose from his chair to call out Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, Politico reports. During the hearing, Mullin, who has previously had verbal altercations with O'Brien, read a post on X/Twitter in which the Teamsters president wrote called the senator a "Greedy CEO who pretends like he’s self made. In reality, just a clown & fraud. Always has been, always will be. Quit the tough guy act in these senate hearings. You know where to find me. Anyplace, Anytime cowboy.”

“This is a time, this is a place to run your mouth," Mullin told O'Brien after reading the post. "We can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here." O'Brien responded in kind, telling Mullin, "That's fine. Perfect." Upon the two agreeing to "do it now," the Oklahoma senator told the Teamsters president to "stand your butt up then." O'Brien retorted, "You stand your butt up, big guy," as Mullin rose from his seat and fidgeted with his wedding band. Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., then interjected the exchange, motioning to Mullin to sit down. "You're a United States senator," he told the Oklahoma Republican, who returned to his seat. "This is a hearing, and God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress. Let's not make it worse," Sanders continued after assuring Mullin that he'd have his time and rejecting O'Brien's request to respond. As the Vermont senator attempted to diffuse the situation, Mullin and O'Brien traded more jabs. Sanders quickly squashed it, shouting, "hold it" and banging his gavel.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) challenges Teamsters leader Sean O’Brien to a physical fight, standing up midway through a Senate HELP Committee hearing.

Chair Bernie Sanders (I-VT) repeatedly attempts to break them up: “You’re a United States senator.” pic.twitter.com/E4U624cDsS

— The Recount (@therecount) November 14, 2023

“Illegal scheme”: Legal experts say ex-MAGA lawyers’ statements “clearly” implicate Trump

One of Donald Trump's former attorneys has told prosecutors in Georgia that a top aide informed her that the former president was "not going to leave" the White House despite losing the 2020 election, according to video recordings obtained by The Washington Post and ABC News.

The disclosure emerged in a confidential interview with the attorney, Jenna Ellis, who spoke with Fulton County investigators. The onetime Trump lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of “aiding and abetting false statements and writings,” last month in exchange for her testimony.

She informed prosecutors that Dan Scavino, who served as Trump's deputy chief of staff at the time, remained undeterred by her assessment that the president was running out of options to contest Joe Biden's victory and told her "the boss" would refuse to leave the White House.

“And he said to me, you know, in a kind of excited tone, ‘Well, we don’t care, and we’re not going to leave,’” Ellis said in the video.

“That’s game over”: Legal experts say new Jenna Ellis revelation is beyond “devastating” for Trump

The newspaper also obtained portions of statements from lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, and Georgia bail bondsman Scott Hall. Their videos provided insight into previously undisclosed details about the attempts made by Trump and his allies to overturn his defeat.

Powell in her proffer detailed her plans regarding the nationwide seizure of voting machines and asserted that she was in frequent communication with Trump throughout her efforts to overturn the 2020 election—although both now assert that she was never his attorney.

As prosecutors pressed her on why Trump was looking to her for legal advice and ignoring the counsel of White House attorneys and others who told him that he had lost the election, Powell said “we were the only ones willing to support his effort to sustain the White House. I mean, everybody else was telling him to pack up and go,” The Post reported.

While Ellis’s statement could be used to “prove Trump’s intent” to overturn the election, Powell’s statement could be used to “show Trump’s knowledge of an illegal scheme,” former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, told Salon.

“It is important to remember that these statements alone do not make up the prosecution’s case, and are only parts of the mosaic they must assemble to show a clear picture of criminal conduct,” McQuade said.

Expert: Trump aide Dan Scavino may face "superseding indictment" after Jenna Ellis spills the beans

Trump and 18 co-defendants pleaded not guilty in August to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The indictment alleges that Trump and his allies were involved in a "criminal enterprise" with the intention of maintaining his hold on power during the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.

Four defendants including Chesebro, Ellis, Powell and Hall have since agreed to plead guilty to reduced charges and avoid jail time in exchange for their cooperation in the case.

Proffer sessions are typically conducted between the prosecution and the defense to determine whether a prosecutor will allow a defendant to plead guilty. A prosecutor will ask a defendant for a “proffer” of what the defendant knows about the case and what information the defendant is willing to reveal to the prosecution, and whether the defendant is willing to testify at a trial, Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“If the defendant’s information and cooperation satisfies the prosecutor, then the prosecutor will allow the defendant to take a favorable plea deal, often pleading guilty to a crime well below the maximum sentence that could be imposed if the defendant was convicted after a trial,” Gershman explained.

The statements made by defendants “clearly show” that Trump was deeply involved in the conspiracy to keep himself in office and prevent Biden from assuming the presidency, he added.

“Trump was the principal player in the conspiracy to delegitimize the election and remain in office regardless of the result,” Gershman said. “Indeed, Ellis was told by one of Trump’s key advisors – Dan Scavino – that Trump explicitly stated he would remain in office regardless of the result. He didn’t care what happened. He wouldn’t leave.”

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

From Powell’s statements, it seems “absolutely clear” that the former president knew about the conduct of his fellow conspirators to disrupt the results of the election and specifically “intended to promote chaos,” thereby attempting to remain in office, Gershman continued.

The proffers are important since they “lock” the cooperating defendants into testimony that Trump refused to accept the results of the election, regardless of what his lawyers told him, Neama Rahmani, former federal prosecutor, told Salon.

“Powell’s video is also helpful because it shows her proximity to the former president, despite the defense’s argument that she was on the fringes and not part of his inner circle,” Rahmani said.

Trump, who is running for the GOP presidential nomination, is facing four criminal cases. In Georgia, the statements from witnesses could help prosecutors establish Trump's mindset during his challenge to Georgia's election results.

“Proving Trump’s knowledge and intent will be critical to the prosecutors convicting Trump of the criminal charges,” Gershman said.

about the Fulton County case

Burger King closures rack up: “Struggling” chain may shutter whopping 400 locations this fiscal year

You may want to grab a Whopper while it's hot.

Six more locations of the mega fast food chain Burger King have shut down, one of which had been open for at least 40 years, according to Insider. The news follows the shutterings of 26 restaurants in March and 27 in April. Nancy Luna writes for the outlet:

In May, Joshua Kobza, CEO of Burger King's parent company, Restaurant Brands International, said the chain would close up to 300 to 400 restaurants during the fiscal year. That would be equal to the number of closures the struggling chain closed during the pandemic.

Kobza — who succeeded José Cil as CEO in March — said in May that he "would emphasize that there is a fair degree of uncertainty regarding exact numbers, and this will depend, to some extent, on the pace of recovery in the business, which we've already begun to see." Last September, Burger King reportedly announced a $400 million plan that "called for the chain to upgrade 800 of the company's top-performing restaurants."

The recently closed units were located in Florida, Nebraska and New York. The Burger King location that closed in Long Island, N.Y., will be replaced by a McDonalds, GreaterSayville reports.

Take it from Taylor Swift, keeping secrets is good for your mental health, new research finds

Over the weekend, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s relationship started a new chapter in their love story. Swift performed the ultimate public display of affection as a popstar by personalizing a song lyric for him.

During Saturday’s performance of “Karma” in Argentina, she sang: “Karma is the guy on the Chiefs, coming straight home to me” (the lyric is usually “Karma is the guy on the screen, coming straight home to me.”) For those who aren’t keeping tabs on this celebrity couple, Kelce plays for the Kansas City Chiefs. Fans in the stands and across the internet, and even her dancers, literally screamed. Kelce, who was nearby, was caught bringing his hands to his face and breaking out in the sweetest smile. His emotional reaction suggests that this fearless creative move on Swift’s part likely came as a surprise, which meant she was keeping quite the secret, possibly from many in her orbit.

"We all keep the same kinds of secrets": An expert on what our secrets mean and why we carry them

Swift is no stranger to holding secrets in light of turning something into a surprise. The 1989 star is known for her surprise songs on her Eras Tour. She’s even hosted secret, fan-only listening parties to preview new albums for fans in the past. The Swiftiverse is actually full of secrecy, but not that kind that boosts stress hormones, negatively affects blood pressure and keeps people from sleeping at night. And according to a new research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, such secrets could actually be the reason why Swift has energy to make sparks fly night after night on tour.

Not all secrets are bad, and if you’re keeping a “positive” or “good” secret, it can actually have the opposite effect.

Based on a handful of experiments led by Michael Slepian, an associate professor of business at Columbia University and author of “The Bright Side of Secrecy: The Energizing Effect of Positive Secrets,” keeping a secret can actually be good for your health. In a phone interview, Slepian told me that typically secrets are burdensome and can cause fatigue. When someone keeps a secret, it’s due to external pressure or fear of what others might think. This can be physically and mentally exhausting, Slepian said, and can actually be quite harmful to a person’s health, especially when a person’s mind is ruminating over that secret. The catch is that not all secrets are bad, and if you’re keeping a “positive” or “good” secret, it can actually have the opposite effect.

“We wanted to look into positive secrets. This is still secrecy, but now when the mind revisits this kind of secret, we see a very different kind of effect,” Slepian explained. “When people are thinking about their positive secrets, or even the more they think about their positive secrets, the more energized they feel.”

In the study, Slepian and his colleagues recruited 500 people and found that 76 percent of them said the first thing they do upon learning good news is share it with someone else — which is fair. But we know, not all good news can be shared right away, such as engagements, pregnancies or surprise birthday parties. In the next five experiments, researchers probed to better understand how sharing good news, or keeping good news a secret, affects a person’s mental health.

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

In one experiment, the researchers showed people a list of 40 types of good news, like buying a gift for someone or reducing debt. Researchers then asked the participants to select which good news bits they currently had themselves, and then, which ones they’ve kept a secret. Then they were asked to reflect on the good news they kept secret while others were asked to reflect on good news that wasn’t kept a secret. Participants proceeded to fill out a survey to rate how energized the news made them feel. The researchers found that people who reflected on their good secrets felt more energized than those who just reflected on good news that they didn’t keep a secret.

This can be because the secret keepers are anticipating a really exciting revelation — like surprising your new boyfriend with a personalized song lyric, which can be reinvigorating.

“For a lot of our secret good news, we intend to reveal it, and so there is that difference when people do intend to reveal their secret good news, that intention to reveal itself is energizing,” Slepian said. “Maybe people are anticipating how happy the other person is going to be to learn some news, or they're anticipating getting to celebrate the good news with someone.”

Swift aside, I asked Slepian what defines a “good” secret. The two words aren’t usually in the same sentence.

“The difference is in the eye of the beholder,” he said. “But the way we define it when we're running our studies, is we would say a negative secret is a secret that you feel bad about, and a positive secret is a secret about something you feel good about.”

When asked why the researchers focused on the idea of feeling energized, Slepian said it’s because previous research has suggested that keeping a secret can be draining and fatiguing. However, he found it’s not the secret itself that creates problems. It’s the mental gymnastics of keeping it that is fatiguing and can make people feel isolated.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

On the other hand, it seems that when people keep a good secret with the intent of sharing it, it’s no longer so problematic to the secret keeper. Slepian added that next in his research, he wants to explore the benefit of feeling control over keeping a secret, which could be why keeping good secrets is energizing.

“Part of what makes positive secrets vitalizing and energizing, rather than fatiguing and burdensome, is that we feel in control of them,” Slepian said. “Maybe if we make people realize the control they have over their negative secrets, maybe we can see some of the benefits or at least reduce some of the costs of our prototypically negative secrets.”

Or maybe the answer is to only keep good secrets.

about mental health

“The View” host mocks RFK Jr. for working out in jeans: “That’s a serial killer move right there!”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a hot topic on Tuesday’s episode of “The View” as the show’s hosts took turns roasting the 2024 presidential candidate for his choice gym apparel.

The discussion began with the panel expressing their disgust over a recent photo of RFK Jr. walking out of an airplane bathroom barefoot. Kennedy reportedly went into the bathroom sans shoes or socks and walked out in the same manner towards his seat.

“You can’t unsee it. And for a man who is so concerned about what he puts into his body, he’s gonna need a tetanus shot after that flight,” Sara Haines said, referring to Kennedy’s long-standing anti-vax history. Sunny Hostin chimed in, calling Kennedy’s mile-high shoeless strut “so disgusting.”

“I used to think it was folklore that you could actually get infections in your feet,” she added.

The mocking of RFK Jr. continued when co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin took the opportunity to disclose another one of his bizarre habits:

“A friend of mine was working out in a gym, and ran into RFK there. He works out in jeans,” she said. “That might be even weirder than walking barefoot into a public restroom. That’s a serial killer move right there.”

“Listen, sometimes you don’t have time to stop when everybody else is in their shorts and everything, and you go, you get some exercise in when you can!” Whoopi Goldberg said.

“I’m stunned”: Reporter watches Republican chase Kevin McCarthy in Capitol for throwing an “elbow”

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., on Tuesday accused former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., of elbowing him and chased him through a Capitol hallway. NPR reporter Claudia Grisales tweeted that she has "NEVER seen this on Capitol Hill," recounting how McCarthy "shoved" Burchett while she was interviewing him. Burchett shouted at McCarthy and a "chase ensued." McCarthy denied that he had elbowed him. "You got no guts, you did so, … the reporter said it right there, what kind of chicken move is that," Grisales recalled Burchett shouting. "Did you see that?" Burchett asked the reporter afterward, who admitted "I'm stunned too."

"I ran after McCarthy and I said, 'What'd you do that for?' He acted like, 'Oh, I didn't do anything,'" Burchett later told Politico, which added that the Republican called McCarthy a "jerk" after the incident. “He needs to go back to Southern California," Burchett told reporters, later adding: “I can still feel it … It was a clean shot to the kidney.” McCarthy, meanwhile, denied Burchett's claim. “I didn’t shove or elbow him, it’s a tight hallway," McCarthy told CNN.

Rep. Tim Burchett claims on CNN that Kevin McCarthy hit him from behind with "a clean shot to the kidneys" and calls him "a bully" pic.twitter.com/CCLQvNuWHw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 14, 2023