Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“The Marvels” debuts with the lowest box office for a Marvel movie ever

"The Marvels" has not flown further, faster or higher in its disappointing $47 million opening weekend box office. The sequel to 2019's billion-dollar success "Captain Marvel" flopped, earning itself the lowest opening weekend in the 15-year-long franchise's history with over 30 films.

The film has made $61 million overseas but still, it is not a confident showing for the Marvel franchise that is grappling with what people have deemed "superhero fatigue" for its bombardment of Marvel shows and films after "Avengers: Endgame." "The Marvels" may have opened with the lowest box office of a Marvel movie this year but the studio has been showing signs of distress with the critically and audience-panned “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and “Eternals.”

While "The Marvels" is generally favored by critics and the audience, debuting with a 62% Tomatometer and 85% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, that's based on fewer people watching. The last Marvel film in theaters earlier this year was "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania," which debuted with a $57.2 million opening box office — only slightly better than "The Marvels."

In an interview with CNBC, Disney CEO Bob Iger said over the summer that Disney would be scaling back its Marvel projects including the plethora of new Marvel TV shows. It will address a "diluted focus and attention" to adjust to faltering audiences and dwindling box office numbers for the studios' films. 

 

Women cook more homemade meals than men in nearly every country worldwide, new survey finds

An annual survey by Gallup and Cookpad found that the “cooking gender gap” has widened in 2022 as women are cooking more meals at home than men worldwide. Since 2018, the survey has tracked how often people around the world prepare and eat home-cooked meals. It found that women cooked an average of 8.7 meals per week in 2022 while men cooked an average of 4.0 meals per week. As a result, the gender gap between women and men increased to 4.7 meals per week, which the survey noted is “a significant difference.”

From 2018 to 2021, the cooking gender gap was narrowing, the survey explained. Although men have consistently cooked at lower rates than women, the former made some progress in closing the gender gap over the past four years. This was likely influenced by the onset of the pandemic, Andrew Dugan, a research director at Gallup, told NPR

“By 2021, the gap had narrowed to 4.0 meals per week (i.e., women cooked four more meals per week than men on average), compared with a gap of 5.2 meals in 2018,” per the survey.That trend, however, backpedaled in 2022: “While women’s overall cooking rates in 2022 remained steady at an average of 8.7 meals per week, this figure fell to 4.0 for men, representing a 0.7 meal drop from the year before. The cooking gender gap also varied across other major demographic groups, including employment status, household size, marital status, age and income and education levels, just to name a few. 

Northern Africa had the most significant gender gap among world regions in 2022, with women cooking an average of 7.5 more meals per week than men. As for employment status, women continued to cook more often than men, regardless if they were self-employed or employed full-time or part-time. Self-employed women cooked an average of 6.7 more meals than their male counterparts per week, while women employed full time cooked 4.2 more meals on average per week.

“Solidly pro-Trump ruling masquerading as neutral”: Experts rip Judge Cannon for setting up delay

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's indictment for charges that he illegally retained national security documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after leaving the White House on Friday issued an order indicating that she would give the former president more time to review prosecutors' plethora of evidence ahead of the trial, which is currently slated for May 2024. 

Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon also noted in her that she would consider delaying the start of the South Florida trial in a continuation of timetable talks from a hearing earlier this month. “Without expressing any view on the merits of those anticipated motions, it is evident that the parties are at odds on significant issues related to the scope of discoverable information in this case, and that such disagreements will require substantial judicial intervention,” Cannon wrote in the Friday order. She also observed that she anticipates a significant amount of debate over the “unusually high volume” of evidence.

At the Nov. 1 hearing, Cannon underscored the 1.3 million pages of evidence that prosecutors have handed the defense, coupled with thousands of hours of security video captured at Trump's West Palm Beach estate. 

“I am not quite seeing a level of understanding on your part to these realities,” Cannon said to Jay Bratt, a prosecutor on Smith's team, during a discussion over whether Trump's legal team would be able to effectively review the evidence over the next six months. 

Cannon also cited the complexity and time constraints stemming from the wealth of evidence and Trump's additional prosecutions in D.C., New York City, and Fulton County, Ga.

“It is clearly in the best interest of Justice for President Trump to have adequate time to prepare and file motions, as he works to defeat these hoaxes and marches back to the White House,” said Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement Friday.

National security lawyer Brandon Van Grack, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team, warned that although Cannon did not formally postpone the start of the trial her order "SUBSTANTIALLY delays the trial."

He noted that he delayed pre-trial motions from November 3 to February 22 and the schedule does not account for motions filed under the Classified Info Procedures Act (CIPA).

"Second," he added, "Court rightly notes its interpretation of Section 4 under CIPA will require more time for DOJ to brief. The Court’s decision flipped the discovery standard on its head & DOJ will have more material & a greater challenge to seek to prevent providing docs to the defendants."

"Third, Court continues to hold DOJ to unrealistic standard," Van Grack concluded. "For example, it criticizes DOJ for not establishing a facility in the district to handle classified info when investigation began on Feb 22, 2022—even though in 2022 DOJ didn't know whether & where it would bring charges."

We need your help to stay independent

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman tweeted that Cannon's order "sets the stage for a delay of three months or more, while pretending not to, & ignoring all the points that the DOJ made."

"It's a solidly pro-Trump ruling masquerading as neutral," he wrote. 

"The more you review it, the worse Cannon's order looks," he added in a separate tweet, noting that Cannon ignored the DOJ's arguments and that her scheduling order "encumbers" judges in D.C. and Fulton County with a "scheduled date that won't hold."


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


 Litman added that the order also "repeatedly puts scheduling question in terms of Trump's due process right of having enough time to prepare for trial (inc in light of other trials), suggesting she'll adopt that basis when she imposes the next big delay."

Unleash the kangaroos, New Hampshire!

If you don’t think kangaroos are terrifying, you’re lying to yourself. They’re buff-as-hell Australian mega-rabbits who will drown a dog without a second thought, and can hide anything they want in a freaky little slime-pouch. A baby? A gun? Who knows. Stop asking and just run. Red kangaroos, the largest species, can hop at 35 mph, with a 25-foot jump that can get as high as 10 feet. The biggest males can get up to 200 lbs., like the internet-famous Ripped Roger, who stood 6 feet, 7 inches and is probably on his way to steal your girl right now. 

They’ve also got raptor-sharp Freddy Krueger claws geared for gutting opps and gouging eyes. They throw hands with a punch force of about 275 pounds. They can kick you in your chest with 759 pounds of pure, down-under thunder. And when they bite, they come down on you with the same chomping power as a grizzly bear at 925 PSI. There’s a reason a group of them is called a mob. 

I regret to inform you that the kangaroos have also messed with Texas. Wild mobs of them are running loose in the state. Well, I mean, two really. Two kangaroos. But that’s how many were on the Ark and now look where we are. Besides, these Texas roos are built different; they’re straight-up beef kings. Loose roos are also flexing on South Carolina. One escaped from local farmer Raford Bussey in 2018, though nobody knows exactly how a kangaroo ended up on a Bussey farm. We do know, however, that these magnificent aggro-bros fight each other often. It’s brutal. Sometimes they even push each other off cliffs. Sick. 

And now two Republican state lawmakers want to make New Hampshire the 14th state to legalize the farming and ownership of kangaroos. I am begging you all not to stop these men. This is what America needs right now. 

Republican state Rep. Tom Mannion has filed a bill that would make it legal to own not only kangaroos but small-tailed monkeys, raccoons, foxes and otters — without requiring a permit — after a constituent contacted him on Twitter (or X, as no one calls it). Mannion’s colleague, GOP Rep. Michael Granger, has since filed a bill that would legalize kangaroo farming, an industry some groups say offers sustainable local food production.

Though roos are so abundant they aren’t typically farmed in Australia, would-be US kangaroo farmers stand to learn a lot from the nation as they grow into the new livestock trade. The selective hunting of about 3 million roos annually in Australia is carefully regulated by most accounts. Licenses are portioned out only after annual government headcounts, and apply only to four non-threatened species with few natural predators and routine population booms. To get a license to hunt them, you’ve got to be a skilled and humane marksman; you have to kill the animal with a single headshot

He ran flat-out for 200 yards, so full of primal terror that a fountain of puke started erupting out of his guts all over the fairway as he was running.

Even so, the culling of kangaroo herds in Australia is the largest for-profit wildlife slaughter in the world outside of commercial fishing. It’s a grim job, and it’s attracted heavy activist pushback. Australian ecologists, however, have repeatedly supported commercial harvesting as a necessary aid to the nation’s kangaroo population management. As The Washington Post reported, those calls were echoed by eight wildlife scientists and 25 conservation, farming and Aboriginal organizations in 2021. 

These aren’t just herds of wild javelina, justifiably rooting up plush Sedona golf courses in their natural habitat to find some grubworms during a drought. Kangaroos are far worthier opponents. They will not only take over golf courses, they will hunt you down. 

Like the 90-strong mob that took over the Royal Canberra Golf Course in Canberra. One guy was just heading back to the fourth tee to retrieve his fancy golf-club sock he forgot, when he got a little too close to a roo and startled it. Next thing you know — boom! — kanga-rage, baby! The marsupial bolted after the dude, ready to hop straight for the guy’s neck. Guy ran flat-out for 200 yards, so full of primal terror that a fountain of puke started erupting out of his guts all over the fairway as he was running. 

Four of his boys saw him hauling ass and blowing chunks at top speed which, if you think about it, must have looked absolutely insane until they saw the rampaging murderoo behind him. At which point, they had to come running toward the roo, bellowing and brandishing their golf clubs like cavemen on the fifth hole, just to get it to stop charging. 

Whatever beer they drank afterward must have been the best of their lives, but the whole thing shook up the club enough that it had to do something. So it hired a veterinarian who now goes out on the course, sneaking around and stalking kangaroos with a tranquilizer dart-gun. Once a male roo gets knocked out with a tranq dart, the vet rips the kangaroo’s nuts off with an open-air vasectomy.


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


Kangaroos don’t just wake up and choose violence, though. They’re usually shy, curious little fellows. But if you threaten them or if your dogs (which look like predatory dingoes) get too close, they will fully end you.

Ever slapped a kangaroo in the face? I have not. But when a super-jacked kangaroo tried to drown his dog Hatchi, mixed martial arts trainer Mick Maloney jumped in the water and slapped the hell out of a roo. This beast was mad strong, though, and Maloney had to go hard to save Hatchi — wrestling the roo in the water until he could blind it with splashes and get Hatchi to the shore. 

“I was like ‘this thing’s just got out of jail’ or something,” said Maloney

Another man who beat some kanga ass said he went toe-to-toe with a crazed roo because it was “trying to rip my little dogs out of the yard.”

“He gouged me on the top of me head, he bit me finger, he shredded me down the arm a bit and he gored me in the back of the leg,” said former boxing trainer Cliff Des.

Then there was the Twitch streamer who tried to pet a kangaroo last month right before it gave her that outback clapback.

"I’m your friend! I said be nice,” she chided the roo. “He f**king punched me! Ow! My God!” 

I’m moving different. And kangaroos fart different — with 600 times less methane-per-fart than cows.

One of the earliest known boxing movies, a 1896 black-and-white reel, showed a kangaroo kicking a kid’s ass in the ring. And in 1962, a kangaroo flattened former boxing champion Freddie Mills with a KO during a circus fight. Some may think kangaroo boxing was a cruel chapter in the world’s history — and maybe they’re right — but now the roos have gotten too strong. It’s time to take them down a peg, and put them to work for the American people as climate-neutral icons of sustainable farming. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, my general position on meat eating has always been that you should ethically and sustainably eat as many different animals as possible, even if only once, so you can absorb all their powers. 

Have you ever eaten donkey blood? I have. I spooned it down with abandon in the Andes Mountains once. Because what if I have to fight a donkey someday? I want to know with unshakable certainty that if I ever find myself locked into life-or-death donkey combat, I could look straight into that animal’s beautiful, merciless eyes and find no fear in my heart. Having savored its flesh between my teeth, I will thus fight like a true donkey warrior. Neither do I fear monsters of the watery depths. The first time I ate calamari, I knew I could chew through any live tentacle like a Johnsonville brat. 

This is America. I shouldn’t have to fear kangaroos if I ever have to battle them for my freedom — I should be able to eat them right now with a side of french fries and 750 ice-cold milliliters of Mad Dog 20/20. It’s no surprise that Indigenous people have eaten lean, high-protein kangaroo meat for more than 40,000 years. Hell, I’m Googling right now which restaurants serve roo-burgers just so I can assert some dominance and quell the anxiety attack. 

We need your help to stay independent

And, no, it’s not just about my own selfish desires. American farmers need a climate-friendly win here and roo herding could offer that. According to the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, the meat and hides (exported to 70 countries) account for about $133 million a year. 

With all the climate-damaging methane production and cruelty of factory farms, I’m looking for ways to change our country’s food supply chains. I’m moving different. And kangaroos fart different. They produce 600 times less methane-per-fart than cows. They also eat less than cows, so sustaining a herd is less demanding on agricultural supply and overall less expensive for farmers. It seems to be thanks to a bacteria in baby kangaroo poop that, in an artificial cow stomach, cows could be shown to also produce less methane. It also seems to get the cows buff, but I dare not ask how that happens. 

So the question isn’t whether New Hampshire should legalize eco-friendly kangaroo farming — of course it should — but how we should prioritize this miraculous new boon of a sustainable natural resource for the betterment of our nation. And, more specifically, do kangaroos know how to fire AR-15s, or should I just stick to Brazilian jiu jitsu? 

An earlier version of this article originally appeared in Salon's Lab Notes, a weekly newsletter from our Science & Health team.

“Has the media not learned anything?”: New York Times ripped for “sugarcoating” Trump’s “Nazi talk”

The New York Times is facing intense criticism over a headline on an article about former President Donald Trump's Veteran's Day speech calling his political enemies "vermin." 

The Times article, according to screenshots of the headline, was originally titled "Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction." Based on a Sunday social media post stating the original headline and linking to the article, the outlet appears to have since changed the headline to "In Veterans Day Speech, Trump Promises to 'Root Out' the Left."

According to The Washington Post, the GOP frontrunner vilified his domestic opponents and critics during the Saturday speech, calling them "vermin" and suggesting that they present a greater threat to the nation than countries like Russia, China or North Korea. The comments also drew a sharp rebuke from historians who connected the language to that of fascist dictators Hitler and Mussolini.

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said near the end of his remarks, regurgitating false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”

Trump went on to state that the threats against the country from forces outside the United States are "far less sinister, dangerous and grave" than the internal threats. 

"Our threat is from within," he said. "Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not going to want to play with us.”

Trump used the New Hampshire speech to reiterate his messages of vengeance and grievance as he dubbed himself a "very proud election denier" and bemoaned his ongoing legal battles by again taking aim at the judge overseeing his New York civil trial and special counsel Jack Smith, who has brought two federal indictments accusing the former president of illegally retaining national security documents and scheming to overturn the 2020 election.

“The Trump-hating prosecutor in the case, his wife and family despise me much more than he does and I think he’s about a ten,” Trump said. “They’re about a 15, on a scale of ten. … He’s a disgrace to America.”

In his remarks, Trump also portrayed himself as a victim of a political system bent on going after him and his supporters. But his use of the word "vermin" in the remarks and in a Truth Social post on Saturday drew magnified backlash.

“The language is the language that dictators use to instill fear,” Timothy Naftali, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, told The Washington Post. “When you dehumanize an opponent, you strip them of their constitutional rights to participate securely in a democracy because you’re saying they’re not human. That’s what dictators do.”

Longtime Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe called Trump's comments "straight-up Nazi talk."

New York University historian Ruth Ben Ghiat told the Post via email that "calling people 'vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”

“Trump is also using projection: note that he mentions all kinds of authoritarians ‘communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left’ to set himself up as the deliverer of freedom,” Ben-Ghiat added. “Mussolini promised freedom to his people too and then declared dictatorship.”

Presidential historian Jon Meacham warned on MSNBC that "to call your opponents vermin and to dehumanize them is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes."

We need your help to stay independent

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung pushed back on the comparisons, telling the Post that “those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.”

Fascism expert and Yale University professor Jason Stanley, however, echoed the historians' sentiments during a Sunday MSNBC appearance, telling host Mehdi Hasan that Trump's speech "doesn't echo 'Mein Kampf'" — the title of Hitler's 1925 autobiographical manifesto detailing his political ideology — "this is textbook ‘Mein Kampf.’” 

“Any antisemite will hear this vocabulary as directed against Jews,” Stanley argued.

Ian Bassin, the founder of nonpartisan group Protect Democracy compared The Times headline to Forbes', which reads "Trump Compares Political Foes to 'Vermin" on Veterans Day — Echoing Nazi Propaganda."

"One of these might save us from a nightmare; the other might help deliver it. Cmon NYT. Do better," Bassin, a former associate White House counsel, wrote on X/Twitter.


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


"The Washington Post's headline — late in arriving, but on the mark when it did — makes the original header at the New York Times sound almost surreal: 'Trump takes Veterans day speech in a very different direction,'" New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen said, highlighting the Post's "Trump calls political enemies 'vermin' echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini" headline. "That's quiescent."

"Has the media not learned anything?" tweeted former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman. "BE TRUTHFUL means not sugar coating lies and branding the material editorializing. Trump plays on that weakness."

"I study the breakdown of democracy, and I don't know how to say this more clearly," Brian Klaas, a political scientist at University College London, warned on MSNBC. "We are sleepwalking towards authoritarianism."

Trump’s sister Maryanne Barry dies at 86

Former federal Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of former President Donald Trump, has died at 86, according to The New York Times. Sources told the outlet that Barry was found early Monday morning at her Manhattan home. No cause of death was specified.

Barry, the widow of the late attorney John Barry, served as a federal judge in New Jersey — a position longtime Trump fixer Roy Cohn was credited with helping her attain during the Reagan administration, according to the Times. She was later appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by then-President Bill Clinton. Barry, who previously served as a federal prosecutor, abruptly retired in 2019 amid scrutiny over the Trump family’s tax practices. Their younger brother, Robert Trump, died in 2020 and a funeral was held at the White House.

Confidants told the Times that Trump “seemed to heed the words of few people as much as he did his sister’s” but they had a “significant fissure” in their relationship toward the end of his presidency after their niece Mary Trump released audio of Barry criticizing Trump. "All he wants to do is appeal to his base," Barry said in the recording as reported by The Washington Post in August 2020. "He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this."

“It’s all a charade”: Jack Smith busts Trump trying to “hoodwink” judge in new filing

Special counsel Jack Smith has called out Donald Trump's legal team for allegedly misleading his office regarding the former president's position on televising the proceedings of his Washington, D.C. election subversion trial.

Trump's defense attorneys on Friday submitted a filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the trial that is scheduled to begin in March, arguing that the use of television should be employed to illustrate the trial's unfairness. 

“The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. President Trump calls for sunlight,” wrote Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche. “Every person in America, and beyond, should have the opportunity to study this case firsthand and watch as, if there is a trial, President Trump exonerates himself of these baseless and politically motivated charges.”

“There is a high risk that proceeding behind closed doors under these circumstances would serve to further undermine confidence in the United States justice system, while continuing to prejudice President Trump’s rights,” they added.

Lauro over the summer said in a Fox News interview that the "first thing we would ask for is: Let’s have cameras in the courtroom so all Americans can see what’s happening in our criminal justice system. I would hope the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we take the curtain away and all Americans get to see what’s happening.”

As Politico noted, the Friday filing did not mention a decades-long federal court rule that bans the broadcasting of criminal court proceedings. Smith's team of prosecutors did cite the rule, however, in urging Chutkan to reject media outlets' efforts to televise the trial, which they asserted has already garnered significant interest.

Politico also reported that Trump may be hoping to use his Washington trial — the first of four criminal prosecutions to be scheduled — to reiterate claims of election fraud, as well as "confirming what many have long viewed as a symbiotic relationship between Trump and the mainstream news media, whose ratings and readership is indisputably boosted by coverage of the polarizing former president." The MAGA legal team claimed that Trump’s attorneys said he prefers TV coverage of the Washington trial in part because it will allow the public to “hear all the evidence regarding an election that President Trump believes was rigged and stolen.”

In a November 3 filing submission, Smith's team observed that "Counsel for former President Trump has requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position" in the choice to broadcast the proceedings; however, Trump's Friday filing seemed to be a clear endorsement of news organizations' bid. 

On Sunday, however, Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein shared the latest filing from the special counsel, which claimed that Trump's legal team had deceived the prosecution about Trump's position on the television broadcast proposal. 

"On November 3, 2023, the United States filed an opposition to applications of a coalition of media organizations seeking to record and broadcast the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump," Smith's team wrote. "In advance of that filing, the Government sought the defendant’s position on the applications, and his counsel requested that the Government represent to the Court that he took no position. The Government accurately reported that to the Court. On November 10, however, the defendant reversed course and filed a response in support of the applications.  The defendant’s response did not engage with the relevant Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure or cite any applicable caselaw, and instead made false and incendiary claims about the administration of his criminal case, United States v. Trump. The Government requests an opportunity to respond to the defendant’s claims and is prepared to file its proposed reply, which is four pages, immediately upon receiving leave from the Court."

We need your help to stay independent

"Sooo…Trump tried to hoodwink Special Counsel, but instead gets busted by the DOJ for the lies and gamesmanship," tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang. "Good lawyers that have good cases don’t play stupid games like Trump’s counsel is doing here."

"Trump tried to get away [with] a fast one, and Smith is calling him on it," wrote former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. "It's all a charade on Trump's part anyway," he continued in a separate tweet. "DOJ accurately advised Chutkan she doesn't have the power to order the trial to be televised — the Judicial Conference would have to change its policy. So it's just a phony stance by Trump to suggest he wants transparency & US doesn't."

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, in an interview with MSNBC's Jen Psaki, argued in favor of televising the trial.

"Whether there's cameras in the courtroom or not, it's going to be a circus every day of every week," Kaytal said. "The judge will of course exert some reign over that, but I don't think that's a reason not to let the American public see exactly what's happening."

In regard to speculation that Trump's filing, devoid of any legal citations, showing that he  "doesn't really mean it," Kaytal argued, "that's part and parcel of Donald Trump's legal filings generally."

"They're very light on law, if any at all," he said. "And I think Trump genuinely wants this."


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


Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance seemed highly skeptical of Trump's seeming desire for cameras in the courtroom, arguing in her "Civil Discourse" newsletter that the ex-president is likely using it "as a strategic measure to paint himself as martyr and the government as a Soviet-style prosecution."

"Trump says he now favors cameras," Vance wrote. "He condemns the Biden administration’s political prosecution of its 'leading electoral opponent,' labeling it a 'show trial.' His lawyers write: 'this case has all the unfortunate badges of a trial in an authoritarian regime, lacking legitimacy or due process.'"

Vance warned readers not to be "fooled" by Trump's filing.

"Trump does not really want cameras in the courtroom. They would expose the truth and expose him for what he truly is. He understands what happens when his testimony and the testimony of others about him is made public—he has undoubtedly read the recent New York Times/Siena poll that shows him losing in key swing states if he’s convicted in a criminal case. He saw how people had their eyes opened when the House January 6 committee proceedings were televised. Trump likes his solo appearances outside of the courtroom, but he fears the reality of the actual proceedings and the truth," she wrote.

“Federal courts have traditionally disallowed cameras out of concern for a defendant’s due process rights," she added. "Here, Trump has effectively mooted that argument. He has waived the argument on appeal. There is no reason, other than the existence of an outmoded rule, to prevent the public from observing this most important of trials.”

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

You might think that after being confronted with the party's leading candidate for president ranting in public about "Communists, Marxists, Fascist and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" on NBC's "Meet the Press," the chair of the Republican National Committee would be compelled to say something other than "I am not going to comment on candidates and their campaign messaging." But not Ronna McDaniel.

There was a time when a person who would say such a thing would not be the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. Oh sure, there were always Republicans who said things like that. It's right out of the McCarthy era to denounce the phantom "commies" who were allegedly destroying the country. But they weren't presidential candidates with massive followings. They were cranks like Sen. Joe McCarthy who, with his close adviser Roy Cohn (who went on to advise Donald Trump in later years) ruined a lot of lives with his outlandish accusations. But even he was eventually repudiated by his own party.

Trump's definition of "Communists, Marxists, Fascists and Radical Left thugs," it should be understood, isn't really about ideology, about which he has zero knowledge. They are old Cold War epithets that he first heard as a kid and have come back into fashion on the far right. He's applying them to his political enemies who are Democrats and certain Republicans who he believes have betrayed him. The rest of his post on Veterans Day, which Kristen Welker failed to recite on "Meet the Press" went like this:

The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within, Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

We need your help to stay independent

I'm so old I remember when Hillary Clinton said in a speech that you could put half of Trump supporters into a "basket of deplorables" and the media had a full-fledged meltdown with the Trump campaign getting the vapors and issuing a breathless denunciation:

Just when Hillary Clinton said she was going to start running a positive campaign, she ripped off her mask and revealed her true contempt for everyday Americans.

It was rich then and it's even richer now.

Today, Trump is on the stump threatening daily to exact revenge on his political enemies, which includes Democrats, the press, election officials, the Department of Justice and anyone else he believes has crossed him. It is the main theme of his campaign. But calling these enemies vermin takes it to a whole new level and one which has even more resonance than usual with the current discussion of antisemitism. He's now blatantly using the language of Nazi Germany to degrade and dehumanize Jews in the 1930s. 

If I had to guess, I would say that Trump didn't come up with that word himself. He's more of a "rats" guy than a "vermin" guy when it comes to rhetoric. And the fact that he repeated the exact phrase from the teleprompter at a rally later in the day on Saturday indicates that it was a speech writer's work not his own, although it certainly reflects his feelings on the matter. I suspect it was either written or inspired by his righthand fascist, Stephen Miller, featured heavily in yet another chilling article in the New York Times about the Trump agenda for his second term.

We know he plans to purge the executive branch of civil service employees and turn the entire branch into a patronage grift for cronies and sycophants to do his bidding and nothing else. And we've learned that he will gut the Department of Justice and plant right-wing lawyers like John Eastman, the architect of the coup attempt after the 2020 election. They will implement the Insurrection Act on the first day of the term to have in place the mechanism to deter and quell any demonstrations like the Women's March that took place in 2017, dwarfing the inauguration crowds (which Trump has never gotten over.) 

None of that is secret and it's obviously just the tip of the iceberg. The latest Times exposé relates to their plans to completely shut down all immigration and begin a draconian deportation program:

Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.

It goes without saying that he plans to ban immigrants and asylum seekers entry to the country, But he's got plans to deport millions of people based upon Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" which he relentlessly flogged during his 2016 campaign as well. And, yes, there will be "camps" to hold people for whatever purposes they choose, without due process. He will pay for all this with military funds if Congress refuses to allocate taxpayer money for it. 


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


They plan to revoke visas for any foreigners they might disapprove of for any reason. They will end birthright citizenship "by proclaiming that policy to be the new position of the government and by ordering agencies to cease issuing citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards and passports to them." Trump has promised to deny entry to all Communists and Marxists and asked his rallygoers what should be done with "all the ones that are here." They chanted "deport them, deport them." Whether that only applies to foreign-born commies is left up to the imagination. Much of this will depend upon the Supreme Court but it's obvious that Trump will have no problem defying their orders. Who will stop him? 

Trump's rhetoric in this regard is also right out of the Nazi playbook:

“Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.”

The man in charge of drawing up these plans is Stephen Miller, who spoke to the Times about the plans for a second Trump term:

Mass deportation will be a labor-market disruption celebrated by American workers, who will now be offered higher wages with better benefits to fill these jobs. Americans will also celebrate the fact that our nation’s laws are now being applied equally, and that one select group is no longer magically exempt.

I don't think I need to explain the economic consequences of that.

It's clear that Trump and his henchmen are planning a Nazi-style administration and they aren't trying to hide it. His campaign told the Times to speak to Miller who generously shared his agenda with the paper. They want people to know what they are plotting. This time no one should assume that it's just hyperbole. As Miller told the Times, 'bottom line President Trump will do whatever it takes." Don't doubt it. 

“This is a stupid strategy”: Michael Cohen thinks Trump is marching his kids into a “perjury trap”

Former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen told MSNBC that he thinks former President Donald Trump is taking a risk by having his oldest sons testify in his New York fraud trial.

Cohen, who testified earlier in the trial, told the network that it made no sense to him that Trump’s legal team would put Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump on the stand again before Don Jr.’s scheduled testimony on Monday.

"It makes no sense to me,” he said. “What's the strategy here that they're trying to employ? First and foremost, as you appropriately and accurately stated, the issue of liability has already been decided. This is specifically a case about disgorgement. How much?"

Cohen argued that both Don Jr. and Eric Trump already flirted with perjury on the stand when they were called by the New York attorney general’s team and called out Ivanka Trump for repeatedly saying she could not recall details about the questions she was asked.

“They keep talking about Joe Biden’s cognition, she’s the only one who seems to have forgotten things 30 times,” he said.

"What I will tell you is that Donald Trump, he has to know that this is a stupid strategy. It's only a strategy that benefits him, for whatever reason, and I don't know the answer, it can only benefit Donald,” Cohen told the outlet.

"Which is interesting because, as a parent, you would think that his goal would be to protect his children," he added. "Instead, what he is doing is he is putting them in the line of fire. They're all perjury traps. None of them, including Ivanka, who has no idea what's going on anywhere."

We need your help to stay independent

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade also questioned the choice of Trump’s attorneys to mount a defense by relying on the testimony of his sons.

While the testimony will allow the Trumps to “provide the narrative they want to tell” and go on the “offensive” in the case, “I think it's going to be very difficult for Donald Trump Jr. to really have a lot of credibility here,” McQuade told MSNBC.

"His whole strategy, when he testified previously, was to distance himself from knowledge about these things. That it was all about the accountants, ‘I don't really pay much attention to this, sure, maybe I signed off on these things,’" McQuade said.

"But remember, he gave that press conference at the end of his testimony where he said 'I relied on accountants to do, wait for it, accounting,'" she added. "It's going to be difficult for him, I think, to now say anything with any authority, other than to repeat what he's already said."

Former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb predicted “more posturing and contentiousness” from the Trump family once the defense portion kicks off, he told The Messenger.

But former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner told the outlet he thinks Don Jr. may have a tougher time on cross-examination in his defense case than when he was called by the AG’s team.

“It is very hard to use a witness who has previously testified that he does not remember important details of an event to provide exculpatory details about that event,” Epner said.

Mike Johnson’s “biblical” economics: Using Christian nationalism to “enhance plutocratic wealth”

Newly minted Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has been generously described as a “Christian Nationalist in a nice suit." The Louisiana Republican wants to nullify the Constitution in order to make America into a White Christian theocracy. A White Christian Nationalist flag hangs outside of Johnson's office in D.C. as (further) proof of his loyalty to that cause.

As part of that project, Johnson wants to take away women's civil and human rights, end the right to privacy, and criminalize gay and lesbian people. Johnson’s “Christian values” also include giving even more money to the very richest Americans and corporations and destroying the country’s already threadbare social safety net. But, as seen with last week's elections in Ohio and other parts of the country, because the Christian right’s politics are so extremely unpopular with the majority of Americans, there is a desperate effort by the right-wing propaganda machine to throw Johnson’s previous statements and policy positions down the memory hole.

"Their big lie is that the United States was founded as a government of, by, and for reactionary Christians."

This attempt to present Johnson as a relatively “normal” and “mainstream” “social conservative” as opposed to an outright fascist and member of the American Taliban is seen in his recent “interview” with Fox News where he played the misunderstood victim who is being unfairly persecuted by the mean liberals and secularists because he is a "good Christian":

"I just wish they would get to know me….I’m not trying to establish Christianity as the national religion or something. That’s not what this is about at all."

In an attempt to better understand Johnson's rise, the dangers that he and the Christofascists represent to American democracy and what may come next, I recently spoke with Katherine Stewart, the author of “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism." This is our second conversation about the right’s plans to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

We spoke only a few weeks ago, and now Mike Johnson, a white Christian nationalist, is speaker of the House. How are you navigating these suddenly shifting tides?

For those of us who have been paying attention, the election of a hardline Christian nationalist as speaker is not a surprise. But more importantly, I’m encouraged by the reaction, at least from much of the press. The days when Johnson’s Christian nationalism could be waved aside as simply “social conservatism,” or just a quirky part of America’s rich tapestry of belief — those days are gone, and there has been some excellent reporting out there that has exposed Johnson’s deep ties to the authoritarian movement in our midst. Dozens of writers have brought his extremist positions, and his connections to extremist organizations, to light and connected the dots. Whether that information reaches the people who need to hear it the most is uncertain, but we take what we can get.

We need your help to stay independent

Who is Mike Johnson? What do we know about him?

Johnson is a creature of the modern Christian nationalist movement. He built his career through organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has for decades served as the legal juggernaut of the Christian Right, and he has adopted the theocratic positions representative of the movement. His anti-abortion extremism, his election denialism, his climate denialism, his bogus commitment to “religious liberty” – these aren’t just a laundry list of bad ideas. They are part of the package of the Christian nationalist movement and its anti-democratic aims. I’d like to stress that his economic positions – his desire to defund the Internal Revenue Service, which is a gift to rich tax cheats, his efforts to slash government services to the impoverished — reflect the movement’s understanding of “biblical” economics – which works to enhance the plutocratic wealth of its super-rich funders.

Let’s review some other key facts:

"Christian Nationalists were the backbone of Trump’s attempted coup because the movement does not believe in democracy."

*Johnson was instrumental in advancing Donald Trump’s attempted coup against the United States government.

*Johnson wasn’t just the legal muscle for the young-earth creationist outfit, Answers in Genesis. He blogged on the organization’s website and spoke at a conference it hosted in 2022.

*He has advocated the criminalization of gay sex.

*He says he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.

*He has bashed democracy in his speeches.

*He has spoken at events and conferences organized by Seven Mountains dominionists, he has praised dominionist religious leaders, and referred to his work in Congress as part of a “spiritual battle.”

*He does not believe in human-caused climate change.

*He has blamed school shootings on birth control and abortion.

*He has proposed cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so severe that they would leave millions of Americans in misery.

Some reporters express surprise that one politician could hold so many cruel and fanatical positions. But I see a highly representative, plain-vanilla apparatchik of the Christian nationalist movement. This movement is the actual base of MAGA, and it is now the dominant faction in the Republican Party. It is grounded in a much more fundamental lie than Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election. Their big lie is that the United States was founded as a government of, by, and for reactionary Christians.

How is Mike Johnson a product of right-wing institutions and movement building?

Mike Johnson spent a decade as a lawyer and spokesperson for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is most famous for engineering the Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn Roe v Wade and to grant conservative Christians a license to discriminate against people of whom they disapprove. The ADF runs a budget of $102 million dollars per year and sits at the center of a network of donors and politicians committed to obliterating any wall separating church and state. It also works to divert taxpayer money to conservative and reactionary religious organizations.

An association with the ADF makes the careers of people like Johnson. Early in his career, Johnson attempted to criminalize gay sex in Louisiana and his political career follows from there. In 2023 he won a “True Blue” award from the Family Research Council, one of the leading policy groups of the movement, for his unwavering devotion to its aims.

 Some people tie Johnson’s climate denialism to the fact that he comes from a fossil fuel-dependent district in Louisiana, but there’s more to it than that. Christian nationalists tend to see everything through the lens of a supposedly biblical mandate for dominion over the earth and all its people. So climate denialism is extremely congenial to this movement.

Similarly, election denialism isn’t just something Johnson did just because it was politically expedient for him to suck up to Trump. He didn’t just do it because it was good for his career. Christian Nationalists were the backbone of Trump’s attempted coup, and that’s because this movement does not believe in democracy.

What is Mike Johnson an example of in terms of a political type?

If you want to know what Johnson stands for, you need to remember that he delivered a speech at a 2013 anti-abortion gathering in which he praised “18th-century values.” I don’t want to get too hung up on a “type” because the interesting point for us to remember is that he is unrepresentative of anywhere near a majority of Americans. Some of his views do have support, but every single one is opposed by majorities. Put them together and you have an overwhelming majority against him. So, the question is: how did Mike Johnson end up with so much power? What is it about the structure of our politics that gives us these incredibly unrepresentative leaders?

There are a number of factors, but several are really significant. One is that the internal dynamics of the Republican Party have tilted very much in favor of the extremists. Gerrymandering and division between red states and blue states has produced a world in which Republicans must compete mainly against other Republicans, and where – thanks to the religious right’s voter turnout machine — the candidate furthest to the right has the best chance of winning.

"Fascists are relentless, determined, and uncompromising, and in the end they eat the center-right."

A second dynamic is the fact that Christian nationalists have captured a disproportionate share of safe Republican House seats. In an excellent recent analysis, Michael Podhorzer, who is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, shows us how right-wing evangelicals have captured this disproportionate share — mainly because they succeed in winning wherever there is a safe red district with an evangelical majority.

There are other factors too, including the fact that propaganda and disinformation bubbles leave many people in the dark about who and what they are really supporting with their vote.

Will the Christian Right and larger neofascist movement ever moderate or change?

In recent years, some representatives of the movement have made noises about moving toward an economic populism. Figures including Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance, and some others argue for what can look like left-wing redistribution programs. I think the chances of grafting that kind of economic populism onto this authoritarian movement are extremely low, given the fact that many of the funders of the movement are determined to obtain policies that will help them increase their vast fortunes, including low taxes for the rich and the privatization of public resources. Another factor that makes it unlikely is the long and successful history of indoctrinating the base in the allegedly deep connection between free market fundamentalism and biblical fundamentalism.

So much of the mainstream political writing and commentary on the Age of Trump and the escalating democracy crisis is very much “downstream." It is focused on the surface and output instead of what is driving these changes at a much deeper level. This leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of how the democracy crisis was decades in the making and is not something sudden or a surprise.

You’re right, we need to keep pursuing the long perspective. In my reporting on Christian nationalism, I try to bring in the fact that forms of this phenomenon have existed in America from the beginning of the colonial period. I also try to draw attention, when I can, to the extraordinary increase in economic inequality over the past 50 years and its role in driving some of these events.

There are also plenty of inspiring examples of the American past to draw upon, from emancipation to the success of the progressives in the early 20th century and the efforts of FDR and Truman to build at least a somewhat fairer economic system. And of course, we have to understand much of what we’re seeing in American politics today in terms of backlashes to the Civil Rights and women’s rights movements. So yes, it is difficult in a 24-hour news cycle to tell complex stories, but there are so many great writers out there doing this work. We must keep supporting them and amplifying their voices.

What did you "see" in the recent "struggle" over who would be the next Republican Speaker of the House?   

In one respect, there is nothing new. The House Republicans over the past 10 years have been viciously divided between the so-called “chaos caucus,” a small hard-line caucus, and a larger but ineffective establishment group. Over the past decade, the establishment mainstream has nominally held the speakership even as the chaos caucus had ultimate control. The only difference now is that the speaker is no longer a nominal establishment figure but rather is a hardliner.

Remember that establishment figures such as John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor left because they couldn’t take the crazies. It was the chaos caucus that took down Kevin McCarthy, who was notionally an establishment figure even though he did nothing substantive to criticize Trump’s coup attempt or rein in the extremists. The game was to pretend there was someone reasonable in that seat. But since the real driver was sitting in the passenger seat and grabbing the wheel, they crashed the car.

Does Johnson have a better chance of uniting Republicans around a hardline agenda of abolishing Social Security and Medicare, defunding the IRS, abolishing gay marriage, banning some forms of birth control and a total ban on abortion, funding religious organizations with taxpayer money, and basing the law on a certain reactionary, fundamentalist interpretation of religious principles? It’s unclear. The “establishment” was basically saving the chaos candidates from their own extremism. It let them shriek and howl while holding up their drastically unpopular policy positions. The calculus doesn’t really change just because Johnson has been put in the chair. So, he will either try to find ways to placate the maniacs while preventing them from blowing up the Republican Party along with our national economy or go all in on theocratic authoritarianism. The thing to remember is that those ideas are so out of step with what most Americans want — and even what most Republicans really want.

Mike Johnson’s Christian Nationalist beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. There is an entire system of propaganda, indoctrination, and knowledge production that he is a product of.

Outside observers don’t appreciate the extent to which many Christian nationalists live in an insulated world where up is down – not just in current events but in the interpretation of American history. The hermetic quality of their history is perhaps best represented in Mike Johnson’s admiration for David Barton, the political propagandist who poses as a “historian” to spread the distortions of Christian nationalist history. For over three decades, Barton has peddled a falsification of the American founding, according to which America’s founders were Bible-thumping Christians intent on building a nation that would pound the Bible truth into every schoolchild across the nation. His revisionist claims have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, but that does not diminish his popularity among Christian nationalists, and it has not lessened Johnson’s admiration. David Barton has had a “profound influence on me and my work and my life and everything I do,” he said. Barton, in turn, has celebrated Johnson’s elevation as a turning point in the Christian Right.

Parroting Barton’s talking points, Johnson has disparaged the constitutional principle of church-state separation by misreading Thomas Jefferson. “Jefferson clearly did not mean that metaphorical ‘wall’ was to keep religion from influencing issues of civil government,” Johnson wrote in a Facebook post. “To the contrary, it was meant to keep the federal government from impeding the religious practice of citizens. The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.” Johnson has been praised by many other movement leaders, including Michael P. Farris, the CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom and the founder of Home School Legal Defense Association; Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council; and Bob McEwen, Executive Director of the Council for National Policy.

Once you understand where he is coming from and who he runs with, it’s easy to understand how Johnson’s fanatical policy positions fall into place. Johnson’s decision to join in Trump’s conspiracy against the United States government wasn’t just opportunism; it follows directly from Christian nationalist doctrine. Christian nationalists believe that the function of government is to impose a specific set of what they call “biblical” values on everybody; they’ll take democracy if it delivers on the promise, but they’ll just as happily dispense with democracy if it votes for the wrong values or the wrong people. That’s why Johnson, like many movement leaders, insists that we live in a “republic,” not a democracy – because he believes in a system ruled by the righteous few, not of, by, and for the people.

The cruelty that runs through Johnson’s politics is also quintessential Christian nationalist. It’s worth reiterating here: Johnson doesn’t just want to express his disapproval for gay people; he wants to punish them. He doesn’t just want to balance the budget; in fact, his plan to defund the IRS would substantially increase the deficit. The point of drastic cuts to the social safety net is to make life harder for the less privileged. He wants everyone in America who does not conform to his vision of a “biblically sanctioned” society to feel like they don’t belong.

Many people argue that this cold and punitive spirit has little to do with the Christian gospels, and they are probably right about that. That’s because Christian nationalism is a political ideology, not a theology — specifically an authoritarian ideology. And like all authoritarianism, its guiding impulse is to coerce and dominate. What it offers to its many rank-and-file supporters is not better economic prospects – quite the contrary – but the sense of superiority and satisfaction that comes from exercising cruelty on the less fortunate.

On that point, how do you intervene against those who are outside of the Christian Right's political project and therefore continue to underestimate the serious nature of its challenge to American democracy?

We need to continue to bring out the facts, and not just the well-known facts. People may have the sense that Trump had cheerleaders on the New Right, for example, but if we can help them to understand the New Right’s connections with the fascist past, they have a greater understanding of the threat that movement represents.

Also, we also shouldn’t shame people for being late to the realization of the threats we face. It’s a natural human thing to want to tell yourself that everything is fine. We should just be grateful whenever the message gets through.

One of the great and recurring errors I saw in these discussions of Johnson and the power struggle in the House (and about Trump and the MAGA movement more generally) by the mainstream news media is the easy narrative of "disarray" and "chaos." I see an old pattern in history playing out where fascists and other illiberal forces continue to consolidate power over the more "traditional" and "mainstream" elements of the “conservative” party and movement.

You are right on.

Historically, the decisive move in the rise of fascism is the capitulation of the center-right. Traditional conservatives delude themselves into thinking that they can control the movement, and they tell themselves that the alternative on the Left is worse. But fascists are relentless, determined, and uncompromising, and in the end they eat the center-right.

This is the drama that has played out in the Republican House. The so-called “chaos caucus” was manipulating events behind the scenes. Now, with Mike Johnson, they are out in the open and in control. Most of the so-called “moderates” have already folded.

The movement has produced, in Mike Johnson, a true believer whose views would surely make him unelectable in any fair national election, and it has placed him second in line for the Presidency. With Johnson, it is fair to say, America’s homegrown iteration of authoritarianism has scored a major victory.

What comes next?

I think we need to stay focused on the next election. If we can win an election, and it is decisive enough, we can start to address structural reforms, such as the influence of big money on our judiciary and politics, gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that disproportionately benefit right-wing voters, the influence of malevolent propaganda operations, and a host of other issues. If we don’t win elections, those challenges are much harder to meet. We also need to help people see the big picture and understand that elections are not just about front-runners. They are about judges, voting rights, economic issues, institutions, personal liberties, and the future of democracy itself.

Joe Biden’s economy is, honestly, pretty amazing: How come he doesn’t get credit?

If the economy is so bad, why are shops and restaurants so packed?

I understand that anecdotal evidence is hardly worth mentioning, but it does make you wonder if people are as concerned about the prices of goods and services as polling data says they are. As you stand in line at that restaurant or circle the mall parking lot looking for a space, do you wonder about the disparity between what people apparently tell pollsters about the economy and what you can see with your own two eyes? 

My wife and I are pretty conservative, at least in terms of economic consumption. When we splurge on a meal out, we tend to share a main dish and a salad. That’s both financial and dietary economy; we simply cannot finish the huge portions many restaurants typically serve. Part of that is a consequence of getting older, but it might also be that we can’t eat that much because somewhere along the line we made a conscious practice of not eating that much. I suspect that was connected with raising our daughters and paying for college. 

But when we eat at restaurants now, we notice what appears to be freewheeling spending all around us — trays of upscale cocktails and appetizers, pricey entrées and desserts. When we travel to see our grandchildren, the story is the same: Whether we’re in Nashville, Knoxville, Charlotte or Lexington, the restaurants are full. People seem to be spending money like there’s no tomorrow (and maybe there’s something to that).

It's easy to question the economic woes of someone who drives a $50,000 pickup, or complain about the guy in our town who drives around in an absurdly tricked-out golf cart flying a full-sized American flag. It’s entirely possible those individuals are Trump supporters who believe — or claim to believe — that Joe Biden is doing a terrible job with the economy, in the face of nearly all available evidence. Some of those dressed-down folks packed into the restaurants may feel the same way, despite the splurge-spending. 

Biden’s bad economy? What does that even mean? Never mind the lowest unemployment numbers in decades and the other telling economic data points: Just look around. Even the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal acknowledges how strong the economy has been under this president:

Not only has economic output made up all the ground lost during the pandemic but it is above where it would have been had the pandemic never happened, judging by what the Congressional Budget Office projected in early 2020.

So what gives? Why do so many people tell pollsters that they think Trump and the Republicans would do a better job with the economy when that has literally never been true in my lifetime? (When Republicans claim they’re great with the economy, there must be a “worthless statement clause” buried in the fine print.)

Why do so many people tell pollsters that they think Trump and the Republicans would do a better job with the economy when that has literally never been true in my lifetime?

Polling makes clear that Trump’s “working-class” supporters are not with him primarily over economic concerns. They must secretly suspect by now that he has no clue about managing the economy (and is a terrible businessman). They back Trump for his simplistic and often incoherent answers to complex issues. They love him for the hatred of others he promotes and the “anti-civic purpose” he gives them license to feel. Floating nonsensical or self-canceling conspiracy theories and “owning the libs” are easier (and a lot more fun) than actually trying to formulate policies to help move us forward as a nation in this fraught world. The old political button that read “Vote Republican: It’s Easier Than Thinking” isn’t even sarcastic in the age of voter suppression, book banning, Christian nationalism, and self-serving fake history.

 As New Yorker satirist Andy Borowitz said in a recent Salon interview, that put-down by Democrats has long been embraced as a winning tactic by the GOP:

I'm a little bit hesitant to say that the Democrats are the party of smart people and the Republicans are the party of ignorant people. But I think the Republicans caught on a little bit sooner to the fact that this whole projection of anti-intellectualism was a vote-winner, and they really made it their brand.

Americans like simple. They want a snappy slogan, not a complex and nuanced story without obvious villains. Democrats, for their own reasons, still haven’t wrapped their heads around that. 

MAGA voters tend to be more well-heeled (and not in the Ron DeSantis sense) than working-class Americans in general. They often pretend to be down-home guys and gals, but consider how many of the Jan. 6 rioters flew into Washington and stayed in nice hotels before they stormed the Capitol. We could assemble a considerable list of supposed good ol’ boys in Congress who attended Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford, where they presumably battled the liberal elites.

One inconvenient truth is that the ethos of a consumer society teaches us that enough is never enough. Our especially rapacious form of capitalism tries to fuel and amplify our desires and enable as many thoughtless purchases as possible. My wife and I recently traveled to the city where I grew up, for the funeral of my best childhood friend. I could barely recognize the place, or navigate through the endless rows of restaurants, strip malls and big-box stores sulking shoulder to shoulder along all the main streets. Of course, the city we live in now looks much the same.

In many other affluent democratic countries — the ones where happiness is considered to be highest — people actively think about what they are consuming and why. But it isn’t surprising that citizens of countries with better government services and robust social safety nets have the mental and emotional space to do that. 

The Republican economic message to Americans remains steadfast: Every man for himself (It’s every woman for herself too, but for much of the GOP, women are still secondary and highly troublesome considerations, mostly meant to be controlled and manipulated). The Ayn Rand winner-take-all ethos and the thoroughly disproved trickle-down theory, which holds that helping those who need no help will somehow lift everyone up, continue to be trotted out in debased, zombified form. It’s unclear whether anyone still believes these deeply wrong and simplistic ideas, but plenty of people still embrace the myth that one day they might just get to join the billionaires’ club. 

It’s unclear whether anyone still believes the Republicans' ludicrous economic theories, but plenty of people still embrace the myth that one day they might get to join the billionaires’ club. 

Republicans tell people what they long to hear, while Democrats are forever hamstrung by trying to tell people what they need to hear in order to function as responsible citizens in a democracy. But busy, overworked, stressed-out people don’t want complexity, and most people have no abiding interest in politics. But they do crave neatly packaged explanations that blame their own problems, and the world’s, on somebody else.

So while Republican voters keep on complaining about the Biden economy, they also keep on consuming like mad. They don’t like the higher prices of the last few years, which is understandable enough, and it doesn’t matter to them that all industrialized countries saw similar rates of inflation during the post-pandemic recovery, or that the inflation rate in the U.S has come down faster than in most other countries. 

Any economist or political scientist will tell you that presidents don’t usually have much effect on the economy, but in fact Biden’s policies, especially on infrastructure spending and revitalized manufacturing, are making a difference. “Build Back Better” wasn’t a big hit as a slogan, but it was a reasonable strategy that has led to better economic times.

Another way to consider the packed shops, planes and restaurants of this moment is to reflect that we were bottled up for too long by the various strains of COVID-19 and that the apocalyptic thinking spread by our former president and his political party has affected too many of us. The worsening crisis of climate change hangs over us all, whether or not we want to think about it. We have one more or less functional political party, while the other one, a bizarre cult led by men super worried about their masculinity, talks endlessly about societal collapse and civil war. As Michael Stipe sang way back when: “It’s the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine).” We all want comfort in hard times, and we definitely all want to get out of the house and see our friends, even if we know we are just wishing the pandemic to be over.


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


Many of the people thronging the bars and restaurants are millennials (and even Gen Z members) who feel trapped by student debt, working jobs that don’t pay them enough to let them plan for the future. They may have concluded that absent a big score, they’ll never be able to buy their own house or have kids.

Our younger daughter belongs to that generation, and says that’s the situation for most of her friends and colleagues. When you feel your personal economic future is bleak, it makes sense to live your life in terms of short-term enjoyment. George Orwell wrote in his memoir “Down and Out in Paris and London” that the poor in England would spen money on small luxuries, like a pack of cigarettes or a decent cup of tea, because poverty “annihilates the future.” Not too many of the millennials in those restaurants live in actual poverty, but when they look around them, they sure must feel cheated out of the old-school American dream.

Many of the younger people thronging bars and restaurants have probably concluded that absent a big score, they'll never be able to buy a house or have kids.

All that said, the fact is that Joe Biden’s economy is historically strong. That doesn’t seem to matter. Too many people buy into the shameless rhetoric of MAGA candidates who tell them what they want to hear, and maybe what they’re thrilled to hear (especially about their freedom to behave badly against others), rather than mundane or complicated facts about how responsible governments and economies work.

Our problem isn’t that democracy is failing us. We need more of it, not less — along with a return to the study of civics as part of our education. What’s failing us, and failing the world, are the dull-witted politicians we send to Congress and state houses who try to push their religious views on the entire country and embrace a ruthless, predatory, unthinking capitalism, that lowers nearly everyone’s standard of living but elevates a tiny minority to incalculable and unhealthy levels of wealth.

Last week’s election results in Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky and elsewhere offered heartening evidence that many voters are resistant to deceptive campaigns, and proved how out of step with public opinion the current Republican Party and its captive Supreme Court really are. But while abortion rights are clearly a potent issue for voters (including a lot of independents and Republicans), Democrats need to make a better case about how much Joe Biden has accomplished for the economy in general and for working-class Americans in particular.

Facing near-total opposition by Republicans in Congress (the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act got exactly zero GOP votes), Biden got the massive bipartisan infrastructure bill passed. His manufacturing plan invests in rural areas and will transform local economies. He’s the first president in many decades to stand with organized labor and support its fight for better wages and benefits. He continues to work on alleviating the crushing student debt that limits so many young adults’ lives. He has taken on Big Pharma, moving to lower prescription drug prices and health care costs for older Americans. He is working to stop the junk fees hidden in so many transactions. He rejoined the Paris climate accords and has done far more to address that crisis than any previous president. 

But what really needs to change is the predatory character of present-tense American capitalism, where profit too often comes from the suffering of others. That would allow our younger generations, and all of us, to lead better and happier lives. Biden has done his part, but he can’t fix that on his own. The Republicans don’t want to, and won’t even try.

Bibi Netanyahu’s Bible lessons: How he pushes Gaza war to Jewish and Christian far right

“You must ‘remember what Amalek has done to you,'” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admonished on Oct. 28, as he announced the “second phase” of Israel’s war in Gaza, the ground invasion that is now underway.

To many non-Jewish people around the world, the reference likely seemed obscure or meaningless. In the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, Amalek is a nation whose soldiers ambushed the Israelites as they made their way to the Promised Land. Following the attack, which the Israelites were able to beat back, God instructed them never to forget the near-catastrophe, and to wage an eternal war until no trace of Amalek’s existence remained. 

Netanyahu is notoriously secular in his private life. But he is nothing if not a shrewd politician, and scripture is the language he has chosen to sell this war both to Jewish supremacists in Israel and right-wing evangelical Christians in the U.S.

The victims of Hamas’ vile Oct. 7 attack, in which more than 1,400 Israelis died, lived within what is sometimes called the “Gaza envelope,” meaning the sparsely populated regions of southern Israel along the Gaza border. It’s an area heavy with kibbutzim — Israel’s famous intentional collectives, traditionally based around agriculture — and its residents are known for being largely secular and left-leaning.

For example, when Maoz Inon was asked whether losing his parents in Hamas’s terror attack had affected his political views, he pleaded not for revenge but for a reassessment of basing Israel’s security “on military might.” 

Likewise, Yotam Kipnis, in eulogizing his father, said, “We will not stay silent while the cannons roar, and we won’t forget that Dad loved peace. He wasn’t willing to serve in the territories. Do not write my father’s name on a missile, he wouldn’t have wanted that.”

Tom Godo, whose son lived and died in Kibbutz Kissufim, blamed Netanyahu’s government for the disaster: “The fingers that pulled the trigger and murdered, the hands that held the knives that stabbed and beheaded and slashed, were the loyal and determined emissaries of the accursed, messianic and corrupt government [of Israel].” 

Even after spending 16 days as a hostage in Gaza, 85-year-old peace activist Yocheved Lifshitz held onto her belief in reconciliation. Upon her release, she took the hand of her Hamas handler and bade him “Shalom” (peace).

Given that most evangelical Zionists believe that when enough Jews have populated modern Israel, the apocalypse will come and “a sea of human blood" will fill the land, it’s difficult to see their support for Israel as a heartfelt commitment to the protection of the Jewish people.

It’s not the families of those murdered on Oct. 7, nor the family members of hostages now held in Gaza — who have been sleeping in tents outside military headquarters in Tel Aviv, demanding the release of Palestinian political prisoners in exchange for their loved ones — to whom Netanyahu is invoking Amalek. It’s the ideological descendants of Kach.

That would be the religious-nationalist Kach party, founded in 1971 by Brooklyn-born Rabbi Meir Kahane, who argued for “the immediate transfer of the Arabs” out of Israel and the occupied territories, referring to Palestinians as “dogs.” In 1984, the only occasion when his party won a seat in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, Kahane introduced legislation to ban both marriages and sexual relations between Jewish people and Gentiles, and revoke the Israeli citizenship of all non-Jews.   

Kach was so blatantly racist and supportive of violence that it was prohibited from running in Israel’s next election, banned entirely in 1994 and eventually defined as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. 

We need your help to stay independent

But the Kach legacy lingers on, and in some ways is stronger than ever. Kahane himself was assassinated in New York in 1990, but nearly 30 years later his former follower Itamar Ben-Gvir formed the Jewish Power party, an ideological offshoot of Kach. After merging with other far-right fundamentalist parties last year to form Religious Zionism, they won the third-largest share of Israel’s parliament seats. Ben-Gvir, a settler in the occupied West Bank who has faced hate speech charges in the past, is now the national security minister. This is the audience Netanyahu is addressing with his talk of Amalek — but it’s not the only one. 

On Oct. 8, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, an evangelical group that claims to represent millions of pro-Israeli Christians, issued a statement in which ICEJ president Dr. Jürgen Bühler claimed that the brutal Hamas attack “was not launched due to grievances over the Israeli ‘occupation’ or any real dangers to the al-Aqsa mosque. Rather, it was driven by the ancient ‘Spirit of Amalek,’ which has always targeted Jewish women and children, and the old and weak and feeble of Israel.” 

On Oct. 24, Christians United for Israel, another right-wing evangelical group that boasts a membership of over 10 million, raised $25 million in a single night in support of Israel (and roughly $100 million that week). Standing beside CUFI’s Pastor John Hagee, who in 2008 referred to Hitler as a “hunter” sent by God “to help Jews reach the promised land,” was Gilad Erdan, Israel's ambassador to the U.N.


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


Given the belief of most evangelical Zionists that when enough Jews have populated the modern State of Israel, the apocalypse will come and “a sea of [Jewish and Muslim] human blood" will fill the land, it’s difficult to see their support for Israel as a heartfelt commitment to the protection of the Jewish people. But amid clear signs of declining support for Israel among younger Jewish Americans, Israel has for years courted evangelical support. That isn’t necessarily working either: Polling suggests that support for Israel among younger U.S. evangelicals is also rapidly declining, dropping from 75% to 34% between 2018 and 2021. 

Religious nationalism may be soaring in Israel, but that’s not the trend in America. Some people of faith, like Adam Strater, the senior Jewish educator for Georgia Hillels, are even reclaiming the story of Amalek as a model for Jews to reject “the evil impulse,” described in the Zohar, and to “make the moral choice to reorient the tradition towards a shared sense of solidarity, and ultimately, liberation.” Given the rapidly climbing toll of death in Gaza — with more than 10,000 people killed to this point, including thousands of children — such changes could not be more welcome or come soon enough. 

Adam Driver hilariously dismisses a rude question during a screening of “Ferrari”

During a screening of “Ferrari” on Sunday at the Camerimage Film Festival in Poland, Adam Driver pulled no punches when it came to shutting down an audience member who lobbed a rather rude question his way during the Q&A portion of the event.

After viewing the biographical sports drama directed by Michael Mann and co-starring Penélope Cruz, Shailene Woodley and Patrick Dempsey, a man used his time with the mic to snub the film's crash scenes and it was not received well by Driver, who portrays Enzo Ferrari in the lead role of the film, inspired by the 1991 biography "Enzo Ferrari: The Man, the Cars, the Races, the Machine" by motorsport journalist Brock Yates.

“What do you think about [the] crash scenes? They looked pretty harsh, drastic and, I must say, cheesy for me,” the audience member asked Driver. “What do you think?”

“F**k you, I don’t know? Next question,” the actor replied.

Watch the moment here:

According to Variety, Driver was in attendance at the festival to accept the Special EnergaCamerimage Award for an Actor, as well as introduce “Ferrari,” one of the entries in the Camerimage Main Competition.

‘Tis the season to love or hate on Mariah Carey

At the stroke of midnight on Oct. 31, Mariah Carey revealed on her social media a short video of herself, frozen in a block of ice. 

Halloween characters like "Friday the 13th's" Jason Voorhees and Ghostface from "Scream" help thaw her out of hibernation, using hairdryers, as Mariah herself hits one of her signature high notes, breaking free from the ice and alerting us once again that the Christmas season, also known as Mariah Carey season, has officially begun. Mariah Carey season started 30 years ago for me, and hasn’t ended yet.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzFtem_oImy/

When I met Mariah Carey, she told me she loved me.

I was 16. The boy I was in love with, my friend since fifth grade, got us tickets to Mariah’s first set of concerts for her Music Box tour.

My understanding was Mariah was nervous to perform live and had arranged for a series of practice concerts including two at the Mullins Center at U-Mass Amherst. My friend snagged us two tickets, using his brother’s clout as an employee at the U-Mass stadium to secure us 16th row floor tickets for $10.50 each.

Mariah needn’t have feared performing live. Only 25 at the time, she  delivered some of the most incredible vocals I’d ever hear live. Her eight-octave range was on mighty display for the hour and a half set. She moved from one side of the stage to the other, not a lot of choreography or back-up dancing to distract from the voice. My young gay heart fluttered, and I thought, “It doesn’t even make sense that she can sing like that.”

It's my personal belief that every gay man gets at least one diva to call his own. I’ve ridden in cars with Kelly Clarkson gays, smacking the roof as they thumped out the beat to “Since U Been Gone,” and been pushed to the edges of dance floors by my Beyoncé brethren, ready to show off their “Single Ladies” choreo. Mariah has long been my girl.  

I have my straight brother to thank for first exposing me to Carey. I was in high school, draped in my goth gear, a dedicated listener to the Cure, Depeche Mode and Erasure, when my older brother played me a cassette single of Mariah’s debut single, “Vision of Love.” The release lined up pretty closely to my coming out of the closet, and perhaps I was looking around for a power ballad diva to declare, “Here I am,” the way I just had . . . and there she was.

Boys my age were supposed to like Metallica, Grateful Dead and Public Enemy, not bops like “Dreamlover.”

Over the years, I’d grow into my new Queer identity at a similarly fast rate as Mariah was establishing herself as a one-name icon. With every boy I kissed, with every new life experience, Mariah was putting out a new album to coincide with the changes in my own life. Before the end of the decade, she put out seven discs of new music that formed the soundtrack to my 20s.

From the jump, a huge segment of the population seemed to hate on Mariah as much as I loved her. When I listened to her second album, “Emotions,” released in 1991, my heart jumped at the titular song’s final high notes, as Mariah reshaped the world of pop to account for what she could do. After Mariah, other singers tried to emulate and put as many syllables into their phrasing as Mariah did effortlessly. It was a stylistic change we still hear in today’s pop music, and I felt honored to be alive for it. Her one sentence, 40-plus note runs annoyed many, yet delighted me. I said at 16 and I say it still, she could just sing “la la la,” and I’d listen.

Still, loving Mariah as I was still getting comfortable in my own Queer skin in the ‘90s felt like a covert affair. Boys my age were supposed to like Metallica, Grateful Dead and Public Enemy, not bops like “Dreamlover.” When I bought a Music Box concert t-shirt at the Mullins Center, it went unworn, tucked neatly at the bottom of my drawer, moved from my home in Massachusetts to college in Ohio, to all my homes since, never to be worn for fear of someone commenting that only queers like Mariah Carey, or just insulting her generally.

I’ve heard every dis of Maria imaginable since falling in love with her. She sings with no heart. She’s all show and no substance. When she liberated herself in the late ‘90s from her marriage to Tommy Mottola, brought more hip-hop  into her albums, threw away all her turtlenecks and wore more revealing clothing, there were new reasons to hate on her. Now she was somehow deemed slutty for wearing short skirts and bikinis. I got an up-close lesson in sexism from the world that saw Mariah and reduced her, defined her, by how much cleavage she showed, not her growing list of No. 1 songs, most of which she’d written. Forget that her sustained note on the word “anymore” on her cover of Badfinger’s “Without You” goes on for 15 glorious seconds, forget that she already had two Grammys – let’s talk about her hemline.

Still, not wanting to draw attention to myself by wearing her t-shirt, I was a covert MC fan, though anybody who knew me knew I was a stan before stans were a thing. I even saw “Glitter,” quietly defending my Mariah while also appreciating the over-the-top melodrama of the romantic musical drama. The 2001 film proved a box-office and critical bomb, though to die-hard fans it’s still a campy classic as fun to cringe at as "Showgirls" or Cher and Christina Aguilera’s “Burlesque,” with some soundtrack cuts like “Lead the Way” where Mariah’s vocals soar as high as they ever did. 

Folks are divided about “All I Want for Christmas Is You” as they’ve always been about Mariah herself.

I’ve heard horror stories, too, of how Mariah is in person, how she’s a right diva, but the night we met, she was everything I hoped she would be. At 16, leaving her concert with the first boy I ever loved, I was timid and scared when he suggested we hop a fence around the Mullins Center, go to the back and see if we could catch her. His idea seemed nuts to me; I’d never seen anyone famous before other than on a stage and hardly believed they existed off of them. At the backdoor of the venue, we waited with a dozen other fans, each smartly holding thick black markers and concert programs, while I stood next to my friend and wondered what any of us were doing there.

Signed Mariah Carey concert ticket (Courtesy of Jason Prokowiew)When Mariah stepped out the back door, she was glowing, petite and beautiful and also larger than life, with that shock of early Mariah curly brown hair cascading down to her shoulders. If I were straight, I might have fallen in a different kind of love, but my love was uniquely Queer and all Mariah’s, if she would have it. My friend pushed me into the throng of fans waiting to interact with Mariah. I stepped out of several people’s ways, hoping in my shy heart that she’d cut off the interactions, hop into her awaiting limo and drive away into her even brighter future.

As the crowd jostled to get closer to Mariah, I found myself face to face with Mariah. On another day, I might have thanked her for flailing her hands in the air as she sang, because that’s what I did now, alone in my room, pretending I could hit all her notes as I danced around, unleashing a tightly held, more stereotypically feminine energy into the air, two fingers in my ear as I mimed hitting her biggest notes, keeping up with her endless runs.  

On that day, all I could muster was “I. Love. You.” Each word felt heavy on my tongue as I labored through the simple sentence, stunned by the glow that surrounded her.

“I love you, too,” she said, effortlessly, breathily. I had nothing for her to sign, nothing else would come out of my mouth, and I handed her my ticket stub as I stared at the curves of her cheekbones. Another fan handed her their marker, and she chicken-scratched her initials onto my ticket before moving on to her next admirer. My mouth hung slightly ajar.

Many of the divas of my youth are legacy artists now, putting out albums without as much hoopla as they once garnered. Janet and Madonna still tour. We’ve lost greats like Whitney, but I can still count on Mariah’s return each year around this time, as the tinkle of sleigh bells right around Halloween lets us all know, Christmas is coming, and so is Mariah. Her ubiquitous “All I Want for Christmas Is You” hits and then dominates the airwaves once again, in rotation with classics like “White Christmas.”

Mariah Carey: Merry Christmas To All!Mariah Carey: Merry Christmas To All! (James Devaney/CBS)

Mariah herself leans into this legacy, this joke that she’s in some sort of stasis the rest of the year, waiting to thaw out and dominate Christmas, hence this year’s video and last year's.

Folks are divided about “All I Want for Christmas Is You” as they’ve always been about Mariah herself. My friend Shannon Williams believes it should be the “national Christmas song.” My friend Eliza Andrews calls it “the worst: overplayed and oversung.”

It’s not my favorite either. Mariah’s catalog is too expansive for that, but it keeps Mariah in the public consciousness year after year, in a world that usually doesn’t give much room to its pop divas to thrive past their 30th birthdays.

And Mariah milks her position as caretaker of Christmas in genius ways. In her 2022 CBS holiday special “Mariah Carey: Merry Christmas To All!" in the midst of her holiday set she inserted a medley of some of her biggest pop hits, from “Honey” to “Heartbreaker.” I imagined a flurry of downloads as newbies heard bops like “Fantasy” for the first time, and ‘90s kids went full-on nostalgia mode.

Some 30 years after Mariah told me she loved me, I dug my concert t-shirt out of storage. It’s tighter now, but I wear it proudly. Mariah has been through a lot and her music has seen me through a lot. I owe it to my diva not to be ashamed. It’s Mariah season, and I’m dressed for it.

Biden’s allies are encouraging him to go harder on Trump

As the race for presidency in 2024 moves further along and Donald Trump continues to gain traction by way of his numerous campaign sideshows, President Joe Biden is reportedly being encouraged by his peers to kick things into high gear and metaphorically put his Crocs in sport mode when it comes to handling his main opponent.

According to NBC News, five people close to the matter relayed intel suggesting that Biden plans to "increasingly attack" Trump throughout the duration of his campaign, and there's been recent evidence that his efforts here have already begun. According to two of the outlet's sources, "Biden personally made the decision to criticize Trump on more than policy during an event Thursday with the United Auto Workers after he had privately expressed dismay that union members might support his predecessor over him."

Examples of this new approach were noticeable on that day in question, with Biden saying, “Since I came off the sidelines to go toe to toe with Donald Trump, we haven’t stopped winning." To which he later added, “The truth is, this guy can’t get tired of losing." 

“The fight that he has in him is starting to come out,” one Biden ally close to the White House said. 

3 simple baking tips from “The Great British Bake Off” for perfect pies this Thanksgiving

For some people, Thanksgiving dinner is the perfect time to revel in a slew of comfort foods, like turkey, green bean casserole and mashed potatoes. But for others — including myself — the annual holiday is the best time to enjoy its greatest dessert staple: pie.    

Whether you’re a fan of classic apple pie or something more decadent, like chocolate pecan pie, you can agree that pies are arguably the highlight of a Thanksgiving feast. Of course, making pies from scratch is a whole different story. There’s prepping the dough and putting together the filling. Then there’s assembling the pie and baking it to perfection.

It’s all quite intimidating and overwhelming to do on your own, which is why “The Great British Bake Off” is here to help! These helpful tips and tricks are guaranteed to elevate your pie-making game and give you a much-needed confidence boost in anticipation of Thanksgiving.

The colder the dough, the better the pie

Perhaps the most important tip to keep in mind when making pie is to make sure your dough is kept nice and cold during every single step. That means adding cold, diced butter and ice water into your homemade pie crust. That means popping your dough into the refrigerator immediately after making it. And that means chilling your dough after you roll it out, shape it into your pie pan and fill it.

The colder the dough, the easier it is to crimp the edges of your crust, which will yield a prettier pie. Cold dough will also make for a flakier pie crust — because no one wants their crust to be tough or chewy.

To help keep your dough incredibly cold, the baking experts also suggest chilling “your ingredients, bowl and anything else coming into contact with your pastry-in-progress.” You can also run your fingers under cold water before working with your dough. You can even stash your rolling pin and other necessary kitchen utensils in the fridge for a few minutes before handling the dough.

Also the colder the filling, the better the pie

We’ve all probably had (or even made) pie that’s devoid of a bottom crust. Well, to clarify: It’s not that there’s absolutely no crust at the bottom of the pie but rather, the crust becomes so wet from the filling that it’s practically non-existent. In the world of "Bake Off," that's what's infamously become known as "soggy bottom."

When it’s time to add the filling into your pie, make sure they’re cool before they go on top of your fresh pie crust. Hot filling will result in a soggy bottom, meaning all your filling will seep out once the baked pie is cut into and served.

Blind baking works wonders for your pie

Blind baking is the process of baking a pie crust without the filling. Some recipes call for it and others don’t. But regardless, it’s essential to always blind bake your pies to help keep the crust from becoming soggy due to a wet filling.

Ceramic baking beads are often the go-to when blind baking. But if you don’t have them on hand, you can also use uncooked rice or copper coins on top of a sheet of baking parchment, according to “The Great British Bake Off” experts.

Additionally, the experts recommend baking pie crust in the middle of the oven: “This lets the hot air circulate around the whole pastry case and cook it evenly. If the edges are browning more quickly than the rest of the bake, cover them with tin foil to stop them from catching any more.”

How modern air travel got so miserable — and how to make for smooth flying instead

Over the course of the next month, I am taking four substantial roundtrip flights. My daughters, meanwhile, are both traveling home from thousands of miles away, twice, to spend the holidays together. And on the one hand, what a privilege to live in an age in which virtually any point on the globe is accessible. On the other hand, it's unlikely all this getting around isn't going to have some real moments of suck.

There are few recent book titles that pack the immediate resonance of legal scholar and Vanderbilt law professor Ganesh Sitaraman's "Why Flying Is Miserable: And How to Fix It." Flying is so miserable for so many of us in the U.S., the notion of fixing it barely seems an option. J.D. Power’s 2023 North American Airline Satisfaction Study found passenger dissatisfaction on the rise from the year before, though travelers in first and business class report better experiences. For the rest of us back in economy, though, air travel is often fraught — especially as we enter the busiest travel season of the year.

It actually doesn't have to be this bad. As Sitaraman explains, there are reasons it takes longer to get from place to place, and why the journey is so unpleasant. His book is a fascinating history of modern capitalism, an investigation into the wide-ranging ripple effects of airline deregulation and a clear-eyed call for action. I recently talked to Sitaraman via video chat about why airlines are abandoning smaller cities, how deregulation led to narrower seats and why it's wise to prepare for the worst when you head out to the airport. 

 This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

One of the most interesting points in the book is the death of access. People who do not live in New York or Chicago or L.A. or Miami have a really hard time getting from point A to point B. As we're thinking about holiday travel, this is a real sticking point for a lot of people in a lot of places in America right now.

What's happened is that airlines are doing two things. One is they are reducing service to cities. If you look at the big airlines, since the pandemic, 74 cities have lost service from one of the airlines. That's a huge number of airlines, a huge number of places that have less competition, and have really lost access to a whole bunch of places they would have had access to already. Some cities have lost all service for major carrier carriers. I talked in the book about Toledo, Ohio, Dubuque, Iowa. These places used to have big airline service, at least would get them to a hub and now have lost that also. The airlines are abandoning places. 

"It's much more inconvenient for passengers because now we have to connect where maybe we didn't have to before."

The other thing is that airlines have moved — and this is a multi-decade trend — from point-to-point service with nonstop flights from one city to another to a hub and spokes model. That has really gotten more and more hub-oriented with what people call "fortress hubs," these huge airports like Dallas or Atlanta, that are dominated by one airline, which routes a lot of traffic through that hub. And for the airlines, this is really efficient. It means they don't have to run as many point-to-point flights for to a lot of different cities, they can just run everything to Atlanta or Charlotte or Detroit, wherever your preferred hub is. Then you connect and you go somewhere else. It's much more inconvenient for passengers because now we have to connect where maybe we didn't have to before. 

It's also much more fragile for the system. If you have high winds in Dallas one day, a third of the flights around the country might be delayed. If the hub and the network goes down, it has cascading effects all throughout the whole network. 

The last part is really bad for communities, because economic growth, tourism, friends and family visiting, business, conventions, all of these things are dependent on being able to get to places. If you lose all air service, it's a lot harder to imagine a young entrepreneur with an idea of that's going to be the next Fortune 500 company starting up that company in a place that has no airline service, or even maybe one flight a week. You really need people to be able to get there for that to be a viable business. That's a real problem across the board. In the book. I talk a lot about geographic equality problems because I think they're a real part of the problems of our system, and they don't get that much attention. And a huge part of the country should be outraged at this and should be clamoring for change.


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


Take me back to an early inflection point, with airline deregulation in 1978. 

To understand what airline deregulation is, it's helpful to give a little bit of historical context. There have really been three big periods that we can think about. The first, I'd call the stable system, was from the 1930s to the 1970s. Congress created a regulatory system called the Civil Aeronautics Act, run by the Civil Aeronautics Board, which was a federal government agency. The idea was, we should have stable, reliable airline service all throughout the country.

The Civil Aeronautics Board, the regulator, allocated routes to different airlines. They made sure they were just and reasonable prices that they set for all the different flights. They made sure the airlines didn't go bankrupt. They made sure they didn't need any bailouts. They tried to wean them off of subsidies when this was just a starting out business and industry. They effectively treated airlines like utilities. The idea was, this was an important public service. We had a period of regulated competition. There was competition, it was often over service quality, and there are a number of different airlines that competed. But that was the system.

In the 1970s, a number of advocates for deregulation said, this stable system we have is a cartel. Market competition is better than thinking of airlines like infrastructure or utility. They said, "Imagine if you had 200 stable airlines, and imagine that you could have that with cheaper prices, and no real downsides. All we have to do is let the airlines fly wherever they want, whenever they want, and charge whatever they want. And in the market world of doing that, everything will be great." 

"We didn't end up in the dream world of deregulation. What we got was basically 'The Hunger Games.'"

But we didn't end up in the dream world of deregulation. What we got was phase two, which was basically "The Hunger Games." In the 1980s, you have this cutthroat competition between the airlines, where they're attempting to break their unions and reduce pay and benefits for workers. They're engaging in all kinds of anti-competitive behaviors to push new entrants out and organize themselves in more scaled ways. This is when you see the hub and spokes system move to create more efficiency and power in different routes. There's dozens of bankruptcies and mergers in this period, all kinds of chaos. 

Over time, that chaos then settles into where we are now, which I would call phase three: monopoly capitalism. You don't have much choice, you get bad service, and bad prices. If you've ever sit in coach on a long flight, you're going to end up with a bad back in the process. Where we are now is we have less competition today than we had during regulation. We have more concentration at airports, and we have all kinds of daily miseries. I've never heard anyone say they love how small the seat is in an airplane or they loved paying all the extra fees for their baggage and to pick their seats. That's where we are now, this switch from a more utility like model to a market competition model.

Often in a lot of markets, competition is great, and it works really well. But in this sector, it doesn't work very well. That's why we've ended up with concentration instead. What I argue in the book is we need to take seriously the economic dynamics of this sector. They're different than making coffee mugs or selling office chairs. 

We need your help to stay independent

As consumers, the costs have shifted to have what used to be a basic experience is now premium experience, that we have to pay quite a bit extra for. 

One of the things that economists like to say is, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We are paying for all of the things — we're just paying for them in different ways. It may be that you're paying for them with additional upgrades or service fees are you're paying for them in your time by waiting a longer and longer period, having to spend an entire day to get from one place to another. There's a real cost, a real downside to this system we have that, for passengers is pretty miserable.

That was one of the surprising things I found in doing the research for the book is how many of the deregulators later on, some of them actually just devalued the other values we might have. Alfred Kahn, at one point, even says he didn't think it was a legitimate concern to care about the quality of service on an airline. Well, other people would probably disagree.

This then gets flipped to the rage that consumers feel. I'm sure you too have witnessed people screaming at the gate agent, screaming at the flight attendant. There is a level of tension when you go to the airport. How do all those elements feed into each other? If we had a better-regulated system, is it possible that people wouldn't be as volatile when they're traveling?

Obviously I can't speak for every single person. But I think in general, we would have a lot less hot tempers and volatility if we had a different system. The reason why is it all comes back to policy choices. The big policy choice of deregulation was to design a structure that when the airlines work within it, what they're trying to do is maximize their profits, cut all their costs. What that means is it creates a whole system that is less convenient for passengers. In the regulated era, the system of competition we had was actually quality of service focused because they couldn't compete as much on price and they had a guaranteed revenue, because the regulators didn't want them to go bankrupt and wanted them to be a successful industry. 

"We need to focus on the dynamics that are pushing the airlines overall to make the system that is kind of miserable for all of us."

In that era, you had competition for things like, "Who can have the best service inside the airplanes?" You have piano bars and steak and free alcohol and all of this stuff. That's how they were competing, not today with, "How much can we shrink the seats to become smaller and smaller?" And a byproduct when you have shrunken seats is that people are closer together. They're a little bit more irritated because they don't have any elbow room, where somebody puts the tray down in front of them and they're irritated because they don't have space.

All of those things are a function of these other dynamics. If we try to just address all the problems on a one-off basis, we're basically putting band-aids on what is a much bigger issue. We need to focus on the dynamics underlying this that are pushing the airlines overall to make the system that is kind of miserable for all of us, instead of one that is a favorable one for all of us. I think we can have that kind of system. We just need to set rules in place to do it.

I will sacrifice certain perks for a more minimalist experience if that means I pay less money. What a lot of us didn't bargain for is, "This is going to suck. And I'm not really saving any money. It's not that cost-efficient." It's just a brutally unpleasant experience that's become normalized.

That's one of the most dangerous things about it, is the combination of it being normalized, and a feeling of powerlessness, that there's nothing you can do about it. That this is what we have to live with. Part of the reason I wrote the book is that we do have alternatives. Partly learning from history, and this is not to say that the past was the past was perfect, but we can see there are different ways we could do this. We don't have to have it be the way it is right now. We can imagine a better future instead of the one that we have. Getting people to think, "I don't have to be so powerless, I can actually push people in Congress to do something about this," that's my hope. 

I recently spent two months in Europe, where there's an efficient train system. You can get from city to city, you can even go long distances, because you're having an experience that feels civilized, and human. We don't have that here. We don't have alternatives. Meanwhile, the demand for travel has gone up. We as American consumers assume we're going to fly. And now, as you say, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of flights out of a small concentration of hubs every day.

There's a couple of pieces to this. One is, how do we think about our national transportation policy? It's not just about airline policy or rail policy or cars. It's actually about all of them interconnected. Maybe if we had a system where we didn't focus as much on cars, we could take more trains or airlines. You can imagine a system that uses all three in a kind of interconnected way, along with buses and subways and other things to create a transportation system as a whole, as opposed to just a highway system and a bus system and a train system and an airline system all individually. 

The second is, rail went through the same kind of similar deregulation process in the 20th century also. There just used to be a lot more train tracks around the United States that were in active use than there were than there are now. Part of our story here is the combination of deregulation there too, plus, again, investing in what we want as our kind of core infrastructure, is how we can make our transportation system better. That, again, is really a policy question. It's possible we could do any of this, we just need to do it.

Let's get into that. We are not traveling less. We're not going to give up those seats. What as activists advocating for change can we do? And are there any things we can do to make different choices as consumers?

As consumers as passengers, the biggest thing I'd say is, be prepared for the experience. You're going to have delays. If you don't, it'll be great. But if you're prepared for it, you're less likely to be irritated when it happens. Mentally prepare yourself that this might be what happens and be ready. Bring a snack, you know, have a book that you want to read. Then you'll be in a better place when something bad happens. Trying to build your day where you're doing really short turnarounds or connections, you're leaving almost no time for any delays. Then you're frustrated because you miss a meeting or, or aren't able to see your friends or miss the birthday party. You need to plan for all of that being possible. 

The second thing is, whether we're able to make changes in the short term or the long term is really about people getting more active in directing their outrage and disgust and irritation toward Congress. Ultimately, the airlines are working in the policy regime that Congress has given them. Congress makes the rules here, and it decides we're going to have a system that works in a certain way. The airlines will comply with the rules that Congress sets. The real problem here is Congress that has set bad rules that aren't solving our problems. The way we address that is people need to be more upset about that. And here's the thing, a lot of people fly. There's a lot of people in every district in the country and every state in the country who can go to their members of Congress and say, "This is outrageous." This should be a really popular issue for congresspeople to take on. And I think part of what they need is just a push, because it's their job to listen, and to do something about these kinds of things.

If you could pick one thing to focus on and change, what would that be?

To me, it would go back to actually where we started. The geographic concentration of hubs, the loss of service to different cities, have effects in a whole bunch of different ways — from fragility and delays and cancellations to convenience and access — to economic growth and opportunity. If we could do something about that problem, it would address a lot of other problems and have a lot of other benefits. That's where I feel like the bang for our buck in making changes there is pretty high. 

Jan. 6 “QAnon Shaman” is running for Congress

Jacob Chansley, the man known as the "QAnon Shaman,” who was sentenced to three years in prison back in 2021 for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, has furthered his plans to run for Congress. 

According to NBC15, using information sourced from CNN, "Chansley has filed paperwork to run as a libertarian in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District," campaigning for an opening made available after U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko opted out of reelection to focus on spending more time with her family. 

As AZcentral highlights, "Arizona law prohibits people convicted of felonies from voting until they have completed their sentence and had their civil rights restored. But the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit felons from holding federal office." After his sentencing in 2021, Chansley was released to a halfway house and claims to have since disavowed the QAnon movement.

If he does in fact move forward with his plan, Chansley will be running against Ben Toma, Arizona House Speaker; Blake Masters, who lost a 2022 bid for U.S. Senate; Abe Hamadeh, a 2022 candidate for Arizona Attorney General; state Sen. Anthony Kern of Glendale, who AZcentral points out was also at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; Trent Franks, who resigned from the seat amid controversy in 2017; Seth Coates; Isiah Gallegos; Jimmy Rodriguez; Rollie Stevens; and Brandon Urness. 

 

Cracks on the road to Christian Dominion: Is the shadowy “City Elders” group collapsing?

When Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., looked out over his audience at the Tulsa Marriott on an evening in early November, he might have thought he was seeing the future of America. Hern was the headline speaker at the annual fundraising banquet for City Elders, a Tulsa-based Christian right group with national ambitions. The funds raised that night were earmarked for “expansion.”

In theory, that means expanding City Elders’ national network of county level committees of Christian right activists who want to function as the de facto government in their local jurisdictions. The group may well succeed in strengthening the political capacities of the Christian right. But its efforts have also exposed significant cracks on the road to Christian dominion that could derail the goal of building the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. These flaws may provide hope and opportunities for those who want to resist the advance of theocratic forces in public life — and defend and advance human and civil rights and constitutional democracy.

The name City Elders is both a biblical reference and a description of the group’s focus on county seats as the planned locus of theocratic action. The group seeks to develop a permanent infrastructure to select and elect candidates for local entities such as school boards and county commissions, and then exert ongoing influence. There are statewide City Elders groups in Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Virginia, and start-ups in Arkansas and Texas, at least. They hope to play a bigger role going into the 2024 elections. (Such as in the U.S. Senate race in Virginia.)

But an examination of the videos and speeches at City Elders events over the past year reveals a group that may be significantly weaker than it claims to be — a possible bellwether for the fortunes of the greater Christian right.

Hern, the Oklahoma Republican who briefly attracted national attention during his short-lived campaign for House speaker, is himself a Baptist. Most of his audience at the City Elders banquet were Pentecostal and charismatic Christians (some of them outside the major Protestant denominations). But City Elders leaders know they need powerful allies on the road to establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth. 

Hern and other right-wing Christians in politics, including newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, have largely avoided media scrutiny over the religious dimension of their politics. But their involvement with aggressively theocratic elements of the New Apostolic Reformation (discussed below), including City Elders, is becoming increasingly toxic as public awareness and media attention increase. Theocrats know this, and they are scrambling to adjust.

This also comes at a time when tensions in the wider evangelical community are high. Many evangelicals believe their churches have become too political, and should focus more on spiritual and community matters. Others are fractured over theological issues and perceived political opportunism.

"Taking territory" — by any means necessary

City Elders has apparently gained remarkable levels of power and influence. Republican candidates and elected officials at all levels speak at their events. The November national conference, titled “Take Your Territory,” was an excellent example.

Joining Hern as conference headliners — all billed as “bold, territory-taking leaders” — were former Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and State Sen. David Bullard. Two prominent Christian right leaders were also featured: Bill Ledbetter, a Southern Baptist minister and “Senior Statesman” who belongs to the Council for National Policy, a secretive national conservative leadership group; and Apostle Dutch Sheets of South Carolina, a top figure in the New Apostolic Reformation who has played a dynamic political role in the Age of Trump. 

Videos of City Elders events during the past year, however, suggest that the group’s leading supporters are getting squirmy as the larger society gets wise to their anti-democratic intentions.   

Jesse Leon Rodgers, the founder and chairman of City Elders, declared in a promotional video for the conference that God had told him to be “prepared… to take possession” of what he called “our inheritance.” Paraphrasing scripture, he said, “the Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. It’s an inheritance, but we must take it.”

But that is not, in fact, what the good book says.

André Gagné, author of the forthcoming book “American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times” and a theology professor at Concordia University in Montreal, told Salon that there’s more to Rodgers’ words than may meet the eye.

Videos and speeches from City Elders events over the past year reveal a group that may be significantly weaker than it claims to be.

“The call to ‘take your territory’ and ‘take possession of our inheritance,’” Gagné said, “is inspired by the war narratives found in the biblical book of Joshua — in which Israelite leaders are ordered to tell the people that they ‘will… take possession of the land the Lord your God is going to give you.’ They were to expel the inhabitants from the land they believed God had given them as an inheritance.

“Charismatic leaders obsessed with war narratives that involve either the total subjugation or destruction of the enemies of the ancient Israelites are suggesting that these are precedents for conquest and the establishment of God's Kingdom in America.” 

Gagné was referring specifically to the above-mentioned New Apostolic Reformation, a neo-charismatic evangelical movement that remains little known to most Americans but has been covered in recent years by the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Christian Century and The Atlantic, along with Salon — largely because many figures in the movement are involved with far-right politics and have suggested the possibility of violence, fueled by theocratic visions of Christian dominion. 

The NAR is a vital part of the Christian right and the Trump coalition. Leading figures such as Apostles Paula White-Cain, Dutch Sheets and Lance Wallnau are longtime Trump associates who, among other things, were deeply involved in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and have continued to advance false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. NAR leaders were also prominent in the 2022 gubernatorial campaigns of right-wing GOP candidates in both California and Pennsylvania.

The NAR poses a radically different paradigm than traditional denominational Christianity of any stripe. As mentioned above, the NAR generally opposes denominations and doctrines, seeing them as bureaucratic obstacles to the advancement of “the Body of Christ” and the Kingdom of God on Earth. (This is known as the “sin of religion.”) The NAR seeks to restore the Christian church of the first century as the group’s leading figures understand it, to be led by what the book of Ephesians calls the “five-fold ministry,” comprising the church offices of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. 

Gagné is concerned about what he describes as an opportunistic misinterpretation of a key passage in the Gospel of Matthew, which Rodgers has used to justify the seizure of “territory” in the United States today.

Many who invoke the language of Matthew 11:12, that “the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force,” are wrongly conflating it with the war narrative in the book of Joshua, Gagné says.

“Read in context, that passage is clearly not a call for Christian violence,” he cautions. “Rather, it warns of violence directed against the Kingdom of God by the political and religious opponents at the time of John the Baptist and Jesus. In fact, both John and Jesus were put to death by the political powers of the day!” 

"We are Plan A. There is no Plan B."

The City Elders national conference was not live-streamed, but Sheets, who leads a large international NAR network, may have previewed his conference remarks in a broadcast last year titled “Taking territory for Christ.” 

Sheets explained then that what Jesus wants, he “will do through us. We are Plan A. And there is no Plan B.” Sheets listed words from scripture that he says apply to Plan A, including “fight,” “warfare” and “endurance,” adding that the words “victory,” “overcomer,” “conqueror,” “power” and “authority” apply as well.

“There is hope for America,” he said, if listeners do not put their destiny in the hands of “sinners, politicians, Satan or demons.”

We need your help to stay independent

Sheets envisions Christians (of the right sort) populating what he and the NAR call the Ecclesia, meaning literally the Church. City Elders invokes the role of elders in Old Testament Israel who met at the gates of their ancient cities, where important commercial transactions occurred, court was held and public announcements were made. City Elders seek to organize “spiritual leaders” to protect and advance the kingdom of God, as they see it, from non-biblical influences. They see their contemporary function as protecting their counties from ungodly government, and utilizing civil government to advance the Kingdom.

"God has destined for us … to have dominion"

Rodgers’ goal of gaining political power goes back to 2015, when he says he and his wife had a vision while driving a church van. “God showed us both the barriers and the hindrances of the adversary for the church to advance,” he said, “and enter into its prophetic purpose and its, what I call, ‘reigning role.’”

“You see, God has destined for us, the people of God, to be the leaders and the influencers and to have dominion,” Rodgers said. “Not to be subjugated, but to rule. That doesn’t mean rule over, it simply means to have the transcendent influence, to be the influencers, to be the policy-makers.”

Rodgers and others have deployed “influence” as a weasel word, meant to deflect attention from, shade or soften the unambiguous meanings of “rule,” “reign,” “govern” and “dominion.”

"God has destined for us, the people of God, to be the leaders and the influencers and to have dominion,” said the City Elders founder. “Not to be subjugated, but to rule."

Rodgers' role in politics seems to have originated with his role as the state representative of Watchmen on the Wall, a project of the Family Research Council,  which organizes thousands of clergy to pray for the nation. The Washington-based FRC has been the leading Christian right political organization since the mid-1980s, and its 40 state political affiliates play important political and policy roles in their respective state capitals.

City Elders appears to be ramping up its 2024 political program in sync with FRC. The group’s website features a section on Culture Impact Teams (still largely blank) which are FRC units established in churches to conduct electoral and policy-related activities. City Elders also lists such concerns as City Councils, School Boards, Voting Mobilization and more.

Meanwhile, City Elders’ shadowy political activities have drawn the attention of the Daily News-Record in Harrisonburg, Virginia, which detailed the group's involvement with candidates in this year’s state and local elections. The politicians involved were reluctant to talk about it, and City Elders barred reporter Ashlyn Campbell from attending a meeting. That may have been because City Elders leaders are far from nonpartisan. Two Virginia leaders, Kevin Harris and David Grembi, for example, are members of the Augusta County Republican Committee Leadership Team

Rodgers recently declared, “I believe 2024 is going to be the beginning of the Church — and you and I — taking territory which has been lost — lost politically, spiritually, economically, culturally — in every dimension.” He says they seek to  “take it back.” In so doing, he concluded, “We are going to see the glory of God.”

To that end, Rodgers says City Elders seeks to provide the “Biblical Model of City Governance,” and envisions “Church, Business and Civic leaders” serving on “Governing Councils” in “every county seat of America.” As grand as Rodgers’ religious and political vision may sound, there are lots of blank spots. Actual elders are not named on any of the group’s websites around the country (except in Kansas) nor is the selection process explained. In other words, it’s entirely possible this is mostly smoke and mirrors. While the lack of transparency may suggest a shadowy cabal bent on unearned political power, it might also signify that there’s not much there there — or, more simply, that the group’s membership and goals cannot withstand too much daylight. 


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


Rodgers, who was once a missionary in Singapore, quietly created City Elders in Oklahoma in 2017, established “City Elders” as a trade name of his Gateway Ministries in June 2018, and launched publicly in 2019. The group’s growing political influence drew the attention of The Frontier, an Oklahoma investigative news outlet, which reported that City Elders had a 12-member executive committee, including state GOP chairman David McLain and Tulsa County Election Board Vice-Chair George Wiland. But by this year, the executive committee appeared to have dwindled down to three. 

The perplexing inner workings of City Elders notwithstanding, the group may have hit on a workable model to implement its religious and political vision. 

Unlike similar past efforts at creating councils of backstage Christian right power brokers, City Elders comprises not only clergy but also conservative Christian business and civic leaders. Apostle Joseph Mattera, who until recently was convening apostle of the U.S. Coalition of Apostolic Leaders, says, “City Elders is perhaps the greatest model in the nation combining churchplace [sic] and workplace leaders as gatekeepers to influence society in each county in the United States.”

"You were made for war"

Apostles Jim Garlow of California and Mike and Cindy Jacobs of Texas, who spoke at City Elders events this year, joined Mattera in this assessment. Their remarks are in keeping with Rodgers’ vision, but they also reveal an agenda that has generated profound concern and increasing political backlash.

Speaking at a City Elders banquet in Tulsa in September 2023, Garlow, a former megachurch pastor who helped organize an anti-marriage equality California ballot initiative in 2008, outlined the group’s political vision.

(Garlow has been in the news recently because, like Christian right theorist David Barton and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he has been close to recently elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson for decades.) 

Garlow thinks City Elders is the right model for conservative Christian political development — and preparation for the literal fall of the U.S. government. He cited the story of an unidentified military officer who served in Afghanistan and now foresees the “collapse” of the government of the U.S. This officer drew an analogy between the current state of America, and Afghans who didn’t care about the central government in Kabul — but who “cared about their valley.”

Paradoxically, he also offers a vision for a model national leader: Viktor Orbán, the authoritarian prime minister of Hungary, who Garlow says “may be one of the best leaders in the world… probably the most biblically grounded.” (Orbán has advocated what he calls “illiberal Christian democracy,” although he nominally belongs to a mainstream Calvinist denomination, is married to a Catholic and rarely attends church.)

Apostle Jim Garlow believes City Elders is the right political model for conservative Christians — to prepare for the literal collapse of the U.S. government.

Garlow says that the book “Live Not by Lies,” by American conservative Rod Dreher (who now lives in Hungary), “teaches us how to organize … in the situation in which we find ourselves.” That situation, in Garlow’s view, seems to involve potential governmental collapse and potential religious civil war. He says, “What you’re going to do as City Elders, under Jesse’s leadership — the vision he’s given — you’re going to start watching your valley.”

He held aloft the City Elders strategy manual, stating, “I've gone through major parts of this [and] this is a strategy that is executable!” He envisions using it to take power across the country, “county by county by county.” (The City Elders website says, “Join us as Governing Councils are built in every county seat of America.”) One key point in the manual, Garlow said, is making the transition to “dominion.”

“Now the ‘dominion’ word, boy, the left gets nervous about that one!” he exclaimed. “Oh, ‘Christian nationalists’ … ‘Dominionism,’ they have a whole string of words. They’re just terribly nervous. However, it just simply means that we are going to fast and pray and declare the word and let God be God! It’s that simple.”

It’s not that simple. The idea of “taking dominion” has been well developed over many decades, most prominently by the late Apostle C. Peter Wagner, whose 2008 book “Dominion: How Kingdom Action Can Change the World” made the case for taking societal dominion by conquering the “seven mountains of culture,” meaning government, family, religion, education, business, arts & entertainment, and media. His meaning is unambiguous.

Garlow’s attempt to downplay the meaning of “dominion” seeks to deflect attention from the visions of violence expressed by many (although not all) NAR leaders in books, articles, sermons and broadcasts for decades — and even in his own talk.

Seeking to rally the City Elders banqueters, Garlow told another military anecdote, this one about a Marine who had served during the comparatively peaceful Cold War period between the end of the Korean War and America’s involvement in Vietnam. This Marine, Garlow said, was disappointed that he never got to go to war.

“If you're made for war, that makes sense,” Garlow said. He told his audience that like that Marine, “you were made for war” — but that unlike him, “you are not between wars.”  

Garlow also sought to minimize the theological differences in the room, saying, “Some people believe in a five-fold ministry. Some don’t — but I must tell you that all of you are prophetic and you are apostolic, whether you like it or not!”

There was very little applause at that line, but Garlow soldiered on. What was actually important, he said, was not how many people attend Sunday services but “how many are deployed into action, who are actually threats to the enemy of God.” 

"We put structures in place … we disciple our nation"

One indication of City Elders’ success (or at least its ambition) was reported by two of the group’s Virginia leaders, Brad Huddleston and Kevin Harris, on an AM radio talk show in 2022. Huddleston claimed that Oklahoma City Elders had become so important that the governor speaks at the group's meetings and “there is hardly a piece of… legislation [that] before it gets passed, that doesn’t go through City Elders out there first. So they are sort of like a model for the rest of the states.”

Harris claimed that “we hold 11 of the 12 positions on the Republican Party” (without explaining at what level) and that they were interviewing candidates for school board in several rural Virginia counties. “We’re vetting them,” he said. “We’re grilling them… to make sure that they fit the mold.”

Generally speaking, City Elders’ inability to substantiate its most important claims is more the rule than the exception. “Five new county seats have opened up for City Elders just TODAY!!!” Rodgers recently announced on Facebook, without saying where that was happening or offering any concrete details.  

Apostles Mike and Cindy Jacobs of Texas spoke at a City Elders event in Tulsa in January 2023. Cindy Jacobs pointed to some of the group’s strengths, but could not help but display some of its weaknesses as well.

She pointed out that City Elders is more inclusive of women, and also more racially and ethnically diverse, than some past Christian right efforts. She mentioned a 1990s movement called Elders at the Gate, which comprised pastors but not business leaders, calling it a “white men’s club” and saying that invitations in her city had come with  “a little asterisk… [which] said ‘women not invited.’”

Looking around the room, she exclaimed, “Look at all these women!… You go, girls!”

She had a point. City Elders, like NAR more broadly, is far more welcoming to women than other conservative evangelical movements. Although not quite as inclusive as it might like to be, City Elders is also undeniably multiracial, multiethnic and multinational. That diversity has added considerable political strength to their movement.

While headliners at the national conference this year were all white men, a number of women and people of color are visible in photos of a recent City Elders meeting in Lynchburg, Virginia, posted on Facebook.  

Jacobs warned,  “We're going to have pushback — oh, believe me, we're going to have a lot of pushback.” 

“We're going to be accused of being Christian nationalists, but that's going to be a badge of honor.… I am not ashamed of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and I will give my life to see this be one nation under God. Amen!”

“We're going to be accused of being Christian nationalists," said Apostle Cindy Jacobs. "But that's going to be a badge of honor."

Jacobs, like others on the Christian far right, is willing to own being a Christian nationalist. (For some, it’s good branding.) Like Garlow, however, she sounded defensive about the vision of religious and political dominion she and her movement seek, saying that Dominionism “has got to be one of the most controversial words from the Bible,” but adding, “the Bible does say at the very beginning… we are to take Dominion.”

Achieving that, she said, will require a “biblical worldview” and “a biblical revolution.” She offered no further details, except a chilling prediction that their movement will get so big that newspapers will advise, “Don’t get on these people’s hit list.”

Jacobs did not deny that she favors conquering the above-mentioned seven mountains of culture, but insisted that “doesn't mean that we become dictators and we're not trying to make people have a theocracy. That's why we have to have Revival and Reformation, because we change the hearts of people — but then we put structures in place, a framework, we disciple our nation.”

End game

City Elders will no doubt continue to seek to organize groups in as many counties as they can, but the group’s silence and evasion on many things is at least as significant as its demagoguery and doubletalk. Nowhere in any of their materials, or the speeches and broadcasts I listened to while preparing this article, did I hear any indication of respect for the institutions of democracy, the religious and civil rights of others, or the bedrock value of equal rights under the law. For City Elders and their NAR sponsors, elections are primarily about using the tools of electoral democracy to degrade it, erode it and end it.

Politicians who seek out City Elders and rely on them for support should understand this. So should anyone who wants to defend and advance democracy.

“Covering him as a normal candidate”: Extremism scholars say TV news “normalizing” Trump’s threats

Trump recently made alarming statements, including advocating for "ideological screening" of migrants, making divisive remarks about "liberal Jews," and praising Hezbollah, but his inflammatory remarks barely received any news coverage. 

Major TV news networks highlighted only about 22 minutes of coverage. Collectively, within the two weeks following each comment, major broadcast and cable news outlets provided less than two hours of coverage for the four comments combined, according to a new report by Media Matters for America.

The trend suggests the networks have become desensitized to Trump's frequent extreme comments even though they have covered such rhetoric in the past — like when Trump suggested the execution of Joint Chief of Staff head Mark Milley. Networks highlighted the former president’s comments, but their infrequent coverage of his inflammatory statements raise questions about why certain comments are covered and some are not. 

“If we don't call out the rhetoric as extreme, we risk making it normal and acceptable,” Libby Hemphill, a professor at the University of Michigan's School of Information and the Institute for Social Research, told Salon. “Those are the downstream risks of desensitizing. Again, focusing on the impacts these statements have, like increasing antisemitic behavior generally or raising the temperature in the Middle East conflicts, helps people understand why they're dangerous, who they impact, and why speech matters.”

Trump’s recent comments about vowing to implement rigorous ideological screening of immigrants to the U.S., particularly suggesting he would turn away anyone who doesn’t like “our religion,” received little coverage. Broadcast news “totally ignored the comments,” Media Matters pointed out. Meanwhile, cable news devoted just under seven minutes of coverage and CNN and MSNBC each devoted about three minutes, with Fox News devoting less than one minute. 

Trump also made a statement on "liberal Jews'' voting to “destroy America & Israel” during the Rosh Hashanah holiday and received criticism from advocacy groups for its incendiary language and association with antisemitic tropes. Broadcast news outlets, including MSNBC (covering it for 9 minutes), CNN (covering it for just over 3 minutes), and Fox (ignoring it), did not bring attention to the statement in the subsequent two weeks, Media Matters found. 

“The coverage is normalizing extreme positions on issues and failing to challenge the dehumanization of migrants and ‘bad’ Jews that Trump paints as enemies,” Donald Haider-Markel, a University of Kansas political science professor who studies domestic extremism, told Salon. “When his dehumanizing comments are not challenged by the news media, viewers go along. If the dehumanization sticks, it makes support of political violence against ‘enemies’ more likely.”

This is partly why we’ve seen an uptick in support for political violence in polls, especially in the recent polling by Public Religion Research Institute, he noted. 

One-third of Republicans today believe that true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save the country, compared with 22% of independents and 13% of Democrats, according to a poll by PRRI that was published last month. Those percentages have increased since 2021, when 28% of Republicans and 7% of Democrats held this belief. 

Journalists can cover Trump's statement more like they cover extremists than how they'd cover a traditional politician, Hemphill said. For instance, rather than focusing on his specific statement, the story could be about the “targets” of the rhetoric. Trump doesn't need to be the narrative, they added. The story could also be about the reaction rather than the statements.

“I think you already see the consequences of underreporting and normalizing his rhetoric in polling about the 2024 race—in many polls Trump is running even or ahead of Biden even with his ever more extreme rhetoric,” Haider-Markel said. “The news media has not learned any lessons from the period 2015-2020 and is covering him as a normal candidate doing and saying normal candidate things.”

It’s not just his extreme statements that TV news frequently disregards, but also his “gaffes,” Media Matters reported. Cable news consistently allocates significant airtime to discussing Biden's age while largely overlooking Trump’s. 

“In fact they need to be providing more analysis of [Trump’s] statements as well as providing warnings such as ‘the following language may disturb some viewers/listeners,’” Haider-Markel said. 

We need your help to stay independent

The former president has also made other dehumanizing remarks when discussing migrants suggesting they were “poisoning the blood of our country.” The comment went unnoticed by all networks until MSNBC host Medhi Hassan highlighted it a week later. MSNBC dedicated about 12 minutes of coverage, while CNN allocated about 10 minutes. However, both broadcast news outlets and Fox News continued to overlook the statement.

While Trump’s comments praising Hezbollah as "very smart" received the most coverage compared with the other comments, it still received minimal coverage, Media Matters pointed out. Despite being covered more than the other statements, the former president's comment praising Hezbollah as "very smart" received minimal attention. ABC and NBC combined provided just over 1 minute of coverage, with CBS omitting any mention. CNN dedicated 14 minutes, Fox News 17 minutes, and MSNBC around 28 minutes, with over half of that time coming from Morning Joe. Trump made these comments just days after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.

While the Republican front-runner's inflammatory remarks frequently face criticism from advocates and political opponents, the sparse coverage of his extreme statements could shift public opinion of him, experts say. 


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


“Voting requires accurate information,” Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told Salon. "Given Trump’s stature, the public clearly needs to be aware of what he is thinking and saying, just as they need to know the same for all the presidential candidates.”

The most important thing is for news coverage to report on the facts, Beirich explained. In the case of Trump, his words are obviously newsworthy as a presidential candidate, and the public needs to know about his “recent divisive and violent remarks.”

Providing context through reporting relevant analysis from experts on potentially harmful rhetoric is crucial, she added. “We can’t shy away from the topic when it is coming out of the mouth of possibly the next US president.”

Failing to report on Trump’s incendiary remarks could “cloud” voters’ ability to make good decisions at the ballot box, but it’s not just about Trump’s statements, Beirich said. 

“The public needs to know about policy plans, such as the program being designed for the next conservative president by the Heritage Foundation, called Project 2025,” she added. “This is all essential to make informed choices. And we have to remember Trump is not a fringe candidate. He could very well win next November, so voters need to know all about him to make their decisions on who to support, just as they need to know about the other candidates.”

“America’s béchamel:” How Campbell’s canned cream of mushroom soup became a Thanksgiving staple

Every November, the rhythm and layout of my local grocery store is swiftly, but methodically altered. Whatever nearly-stale Halloween candy left in stock is pushed further and further down the catch-all discount aisle, while the endcaps swell with competing bags and boxes of stuffing mix. “Busy preparing for the big day?” laminated posters hung near the butcher’s counter inquire. “Let us handle the turkey.” 

Then, in a fluorescent-lit clearing near the dairy refrigerator, a pair of stockers spent two shifts constructing a pyramid made of cans of Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom soup. It’s taller than I am and the slick, classic red and white labels create a festive pattern, the whole thing a monument to the soup’s now-intrinsic place in holiday preparations.

Of course Campbell’s wasn’t the first to invent cream of mushroom soup; food historians speculate that its creation was a natural extension of French béchamel, a velvety sauce made by whisking milk into a roux until the mixture thickens and becomes smooth. However, they were the company that canned and commercialized the product in such a way that it has become a holiday staple, with 50% of their annual sales of cream of mushroom soup taking place between November and January of each year. 

Founded in 1869 by Joseph A. Campbell and Abraham Anderson in Camden, New Jersey, Campbell's Soup Company began as a small canning business, producing a range of preserved goods such as tomatoes, vegetables, jellies, condiments and soups. A pivotal moment came for the company, and future Thanksgivings across the continent, in 1897 when chemist John T. Dorrance, who was the nephew of a company executive, invented a method to condense soup by removing water, leading to the introduction of condensed soups. 

We need your help to stay independent

Fittingly, when Campbell’s first introduced their condensed cream of mushroom soup to consumers in 1934, it was the first of their products to be marketed as both a soup and a sauce. To further reinforce this point, the company tasked their home economics department — also based at Campbell’s headquarters in Camden — with creating a recipe for a feature that would appear in the Associated Press in 1955. There were two stipulations: The recipe had to be based on ingredients that the average home cook would have on hand, and it had to include Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom soup. 

Dorcas Reilly, who was one of the first full-time members of Campbell’s home economics department, took the challenge in stride. After a few casserole prototypes that included ingredients like celery salt and cubed ham, Reilly eventually settled on the final recipe for her “Green Bean Bake.” It was made with five simple ingredients: canned or frozen green beans; half a cup of 2% milk; one teaspoon of soy sauce; a healthy handful of fried onions (traditionally French’s); and, obviously, one can of cream of mushroom soup. 

Initially, the recipe was positioned as just a normal weeknight side — and a popular one at that. According to Smithsonian Magazine, Reilly, who created other midcentury comfort favorites including Campbell’s tuna noodle casserole and Sloppy Joe’s made with tomato soup, was once quoted as saying: “We all thought this is very nice, [etcetera], and then when we got the feelings of the consumer, we were really kinda pleasantly shocked.” 

"Then when we got the feelings of the consumer, we were really kinda pleasantly shocked."

The “Green Bean Bake” really took off as a holiday dish once the name was slightly altered to the now-famous Green Bean Casserole and printed on the side of Campbell’s cream of mushroom soup cans. 

In the ensuing decades, both condensed cream of mushroom soup and the numerous casseroles which it thickens and binds have suffered some reputational decline. Where canned condensed soups once represented the height of industrialized food technology and teased promise of weeknight convenience and freedom from at least some domestic labor, now there’s a sense that using them as an ingredient is low-class, lazy or both. However, I’d argue that assumption is worth reconsidering. 

In his 2008 article “Thanksgiving Slumming with Cream of Mushroom Soup,” The Houston Press’ Robb Walsh discussed coming to terms with the fact that Campbell’s had its place even in the most gourmet kitchens on occasion. 

“Some time back, when I was a more earnest foodie, cream of mushroom soup was anathema to me,” Walsh writes. “I had eaten gallons of the stuff in my childhood. My mother made everything from tuna casserole to beef burgundy with it. But I had higher principles. The red and white can was nowhere to be found in my pantry. And then I tried to make creamed spinach.” 

Intuitively combining fresh spinach and heavy cream over heat produced disastrous results, so Walsh reached out to a chef friend who recommended he just use cream of mushroom soup and frozen spinach, instead. “I was shocked. This guy worked in a famous fine dining restaurant. And he was recommending mushroom soup?” Walsh said. “Then he said something I’ve never forgotten, ‘Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup is America’s béchamel.’”

"Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup is America’s béchamel.”

This is a point of view that’s echoed in food historian and folklorist Lucy Long’s more academic writing on the subject. 

“Mass-produced, commercial foods have been a significant part of American food culture since industrialization enabled their development in the late 1800s,” Long wrote. “While they seem like the antithesis of home-cooked folk foods, they have frequently been incorporated into family and community tradition. Green bean casserole illustrates how such a product can become a meaningful tradition that expresses both regional culture and individual creativity. It suggests the processes by which all of us adapt commercial foods to fit our own histories, needs and tastes.”

That’s the reason that, at least according to Campbell’s, 20,000 American families will make green bean casserole this holiday season — which means that at least 20,000 cans of cream of mushroom soup will be sold this holiday season, too, cementing its spot as an unsung Thanksgiving staple. 

Eric Adams’ blame shifting: Asylum seekers aren’t the source of New York City’s homelessness crisis

New York City’s dual homelessness and migrant crisis could be poised to get much worse as the Adams administration presses ahead with mid-year austerity measures as federal COVID aid dries up and tax revenues lag.

New York City’s Human Resources Administration has seen a “precipitous drop” in the rate of cash assistance and SNAP [food stamp] benefits applications being processed within the required 30 days, reports the New York City Council Committee on Oversight and Investigations. As a consequence, as winter sets in, tens of thousands of the city’s most vulnerable residents could be at a much greater risk of eviction and homelessness, according to Council Members Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan), Diana Ayala (D-Bronx/Manhattan) , and Shekar Krishnan (D-Queens).

At a Nov. 2 hearing of the City Council’s Committee on Oversight and Investigations, Council Members questioned the Adams administration about the recent Mayor’s Management Report which documented a marked decline in everything from how long it takes to re-occupy a vacant New York City Housing Authority apartment to how long the Department of Finance takes to process Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) applications.

“The Independent Budget Office identified many indicators across various city agencies that demonstrate the City’s struggles to adequately maintain its buildings and infrastructure, and deliver services to New York City residents,” testified Louisa Chafee, Director of the New York City Independent Budget Office. 

Chafee continued. “The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) reported substantial timing increases in several of its critical indicators, attributing the delays to an increase in demand with no comparable increase in staffing to address specialized areas. Most notably, the average times to prepare vacant apartments and to turn them around more than doubled from 2022, with both metrics reaching over 365 days.”

IBO said HRA’s processing of cash assistance applications within the required 30 days had dropped “down to 29 percent of all applications from 82 percent one year ago (though the definition of timeliness was 45 days at that time). Regardless, the decline has real-world impacts on how quickly applicants receive cash assistance and is also the subject of a Legal Aid and New York Legal Assistance Group lawsuit in progress against the City. There were also sizable changes in processing supplemental food assistance (SNAP) benefits within 30 days: the metric has declined to just under 40 percent of all applications from 60 percent one year ago and 92 percent two years ago.”

Council Member Gale Brewer, chair of the Committee Oversight and Investigations, told Work-Bites after her hearing that she was seriously concerned about the marked deterioration of the city’s completion rate of public works as well as the processing of welfare benefits by HRA that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers rely upon to survive. 

We need your help to stay independent

“That’s why I kept raising the issue of the 26,000 application backlog for cash assistance—my God—that’s not a ‘should we go to a play tonight?’—that’s a lifeline,” Brewer said. A couple of times during the hearing Brewer asked HRA officials to confirm both the actual and budgeted headcount for their agency but never got an answer. “They were asked twice and its been asked at a previous hearing and they don’t have it so we are following up with a letter,” Brewer told Work-Bites. 

The chair of the oversight panel pressed NYCHA officials for an explanation why thousands of public housing units remained vacant for many months at a time. “It’s hard for the public to understand” that there are thousands of vacant public housing units “when we have all these people who need homes,” Brewer observed during the hearing.  

Eva Trimble, New York City Housing Authority, Chief Operating Office conceded her agency had 4,900 vacant units but explained that it took four to six months just to perform the necessary lead and asbestos abatement necessary to get the units back online.

In addition to Trimble, Jill Berry, Human Resources Administration, First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Social Services; Jeff Shear, Department of Finance, First Deputy Commissioner; and Eric Macfarlane, Department of Design and Construction, First Deputy Commissioner; also testified on behalf of the Adams administration. 

Krishnan, who has extensive experience as a housing attorney, told the administration panel the existing massive backlog in welfare assistance would have a cascading impact on struggling parents with children who will find themselves stuck in ”Housing Court taking off days from work in a traumatic eviction case that should have never been brought in the first place.”

“As housing becomes more and more difficult to obtain in the City of New York—we are building less and less affordable housing, it’s imperative that we do whatever we can to make sure  people are not displaced unnecessarily,” Ayala said during the hearing.

The Council panel heard testimony from the administration that their agencies were still having trouble filling a wide array of key civil service titles ranging from tax auditors to architects and engineers as a consequence of post-pandemic attrition.

The vacancies persist as the same agencies are being ordered to make five percent across the board budget cuts by Mayor Adams who maintains the reductions are necessary due to a multi-billion dollar hole blown  in the city’s budget by the ongoing migrant crisis, slowing tax revenues and the end of federal COVID aid.

“Since the large influx of asylum seekers to our city began last spring, we have warned New Yorkers that every city service could be impacted by this crisis if we did not get the support we needed,” Adams wrote back in September when he announced the round of budget cuts. At the time, the administration estimated it was scrambling to handle 10,000 asylum seekers a month and that the ongoing influx  would require the city to spend $12 billion through the end of FY 2025.

The Council’s review of the imploding performance metrics follows the Adams administration asking the courts to release it from the terms of 1981 consent decree that granted the homeless a ‘right to shelter’. In its court filings, the city asked to be relieved of the legal obligation due to an influx of undocumented migrants that it maintains have overwhelmed the city’s shelter system that’s gone from housing 45,000 people a night in April of 2022, to over 116,700 as of October — a 159 percent increase.

Anthony Wells is president of DC 37’s SSEU Local 371 which represents 20,000 city social service workers at HRA and in just about  every other mayoral agency as well as NYCHA and the  Health + Hospitals Corporation.

Wells told Work-Bites the city faced an “unprecedented” convergence of formidable challenges—a pre-existing homelessness and mental health crisis compounded by the unfettered influx of undocumented migrants. At HRA, Wells said the agency initially had “thousands of vacancies” after the pandemic but was “trying to catch up by looking at adapting eligibility requirements” to consider applicants with only “a high school diploma and some experience in customer service.” 

Wells expressed concern about the 125,000 social service workers that are employed  by non-profits that have contracts with the City of New York to care for the homeless and migrants but are paid so little they often qualify for some form of welfare benefits themselves.

“For the unionized workforce DC 37 we are getting contracts that address the needs of our members but we need to organize more of the non-profits so those workers are not having to collect food stamps,” Wells told Work-Bites. “We are definitely concerned  and that’s why DC 37 is working on organizing in the non-profit sector so hopefully that will change.”

Dan Kroop, president of the Association of Legislatives Employees, the union that represents hundreds of City Council Members staff members, says his members who handle constituent services know first-hand just how daunting the city’s social service system can be.

“The key thing is when these systems fail it ends up making its way to Council Members offices and the expertise that the aides have is key in terms of helping constituents navigate the problem,” Kroop told Work-Bites. “But then there is the difference made when the Council Member’s staffer reaches out to the agency’s intergovernmental affairs office and says, ‘What’s going on with Mrs. Smith’s SNAP application’ and that can unstick the bureaucratic morass—our members can get somebody on the line to really understand the problem and then translate all of that back to the person involved.”

The day after Election Day,  Mayor Eric Adams tried to reset the news media narrative that his administration was reeling from the early morning Nov. 2 FBI raid of the Brooklyn home of his top campaign fund-raiser Brianna Suggs, 25, by holding a Blue Room media availability with his top staff.

Adams decision to hastily return from Washington D.C  before the start of a high profile meeting that same day with the White House on the nation’s immigration crisis was seen as a panicked response to what the New York Times reported was a criminal probe “focusing on whether the mayor’s campaign conspired with the Turkish government to receive illegal foreign donations.”

At the Nov. 8 press conference Adams insisted that his campaign had scrupulously complied with campaign finance law and that his snap decision to return home was a manifestation of his hands-on management style.

“I had a 25-year-old staffer that I saw grow up as an intern that had a traumatizing 

experience in her life,” Adams told reporters. “There was a professional part of maintaining my staff and my city but I think sometimes we miss the fact that there is a human part to life. As a human being I was concerned about a young 25-year-old staffer that went through a traumatic experience and although I am the mayor, I have not stopped being a man and a human.”

Yet,  Adams told reporters that he did not speak with Suggs the day of the raid  because he “did not want to give any appearance of interference.”

He did say he was not going to SOMOS, the annual political retreat in San Juan, Puerto Rico convened by New York State Legislature’s Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force.

“I told all my team members if they go, they have to pay their own way to go because we are dealing with a serious fiscal crisis in the city beyond our imagination and me using taxpayer dollars right now is not the best thing to do and I made the determination that I am going to remain here,” Adams told reporters. “We still have to produce the November plan that is a few days away and some of these cuts are just frightening. It is going to break our hearts.

The arts are the first step towards conquering the addiction crisis

In the last five years we have solved the scourge of peanuts. When I grew up if you had a peanut allergy you were screwed. Now just mention to an airline that you have one and they'll (likely) pull every peanut off that plane. Mention it at a conference, they might just ban it from everybody. So why are we so understanding when someone has a peanut allergy, which is a very real thing, but we are unable to wrap our head around how to help the 116,000 people that die each year and is the leading cause of death amongst Americans age 18 to 49?

The answer is the average person doesn't think a peanut allergy is a moral failing. The average person doesn't think “Can't Uncle Sean just pull it together and not have a peanut allergy this Christmas?”

We won't be able to truly have deep conversations about what is killing our children, our loved ones and ourselves, until we change the national narrative about what addiction and substance use disorder actually is at its core. In my opinion, the only way to do that is through the arts.

When Barack Obama ran for president, he was opposed to gay marriage. Nowadays you can't repeat what he said and run for City Council as a Democrat. Was Barack Obama really against gay marriage or did polling tell him it wouldn't be popular? The national narrative was that people weren't ready for it. What changed?

The way national narratives on AIDS have changed can be a guidepost for what we could be approaching addiction.

I'd say the arts. It all comes down to the TV that we watched, the movies that came out, the books that we read. Ellen came out as queer and we all thought maybe her career was over. It wasn’t. “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” aired on TV and we thought it was amazing that perhaps men might actually look in the mirror before leaving the house. The conversation changed to acknowledging that the gay community is and has always been a part of who we are.

The narrative has changed. More people are out. There is less shame in our lifetime. We need the arts to do that for the 40 million Americans struggling with substance use disorder. The crisis that costs the U.S. economy 1.5 trillion a year. Yep, with a T.

In the 1980s Reagan didn't want to talk about AIDS. So, Larry Kramer and the Public Theater staged “The Normal Heart.” At the end of each performance, Larry stood out front and handed out pamphlets with information about HIV. The conversation was unstoppable. Reagan eventually acknowledged it. Larry Kramer and the arts led the way and saved lives.


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


The way national narratives on AIDS have changed can be a guidepost for what we could be approaching addiction. Thirty years ago, the guys in my high school thought if you got AIDS, it was your fault and it was a death sentence. I have very clear memories of my friends mourning the death of basketball player Magic Johnson on the night we learned he was HIV positive. He’s still alive (and hopefully reading this.)

The arts can break the national narratives around addiction by portraying the multiple and vast ways of recovery.

Addiction is very similar. Yes, if you don’t talk about it, and don’t get help, you will almost inevitably die. But just like AIDS, it’s not anyone’s fault, and you can live a full life. We’d all rather have Stage 1 Cancer than Stage 4 so the goal should be the same: early conversation, early detection, changing the national perception about what it means to be ill — so that if you're one of the people that struggles with pills, or booze, you do exactly what every person does when they get diagnosed with cancer. You walk into work the next day, tell your boss, select family friends, get multiple doctors’ opinions and collectively, as a community, start figuring out a way to fight.

If you had cancer, friends would support you, people would bake for you, your in-shape friends would run marathons for you. Bless their hearts. Why? Because even if you are a smoker or even if you eat cheeseburgers all the time, like me, people don't currently think of cancer as a moral failing. It’s hereditary, it gets a lot of people, whatcha gonna do? Interestingly, at one point we did paint cancer as the victim’s fault. Another narrative that has changed in our lifetime. It’s possible.

So, what should the arts be doing? They can break the national narratives around addiction by portraying the multiple and vast ways of recovery. When I was trying to get sober, TV had told me that if you wanted to get sober you had to go to a sad church basement where seven people would sit in a circle and chant your name.

I can't imagine why the average person doesn't want to do that.

Anyone that's actually been to a series of AA meetings knows that despair is far from the truth. Yes, there is the occasional chant that still catches me off guard, but there’s also some of the funniest stories I’ve ever heard. There are people ready to help you. Smart, hilarious, great people.

Let's also be clear: you can get sober, you can spend years in recovery, help save others and have nothing to do with AA at all. Not a lick.

But until there’s a conversation about addiction not as a moral failing, there won’t be a conversation about the many ways it can be fought.

Until there’s a conversation about addiction not as a moral failing, there won’t be a conversation about the many ways it can be fought.

Honestly, I can't think of a single show I've ever seen where a person in recovery shows up and their relapsing isn't a plot point. Admittedly, it's a great way to end season one – or they take a drink right before intermission? Who saw that coming? Everyone. Because it’s the only narrative the arts provide. So, it’s what we expect.

We need plays, movies, books, operas, TV shows that show the many ways that people can make positive change in their life. People in recovery walk amongst you, California sober people (which means they don't drink but they smoke pot) walk amongst you,  people who have actively decided to ‘deal with the issues in their life in the order with which they may kill you’ walk amongst you. They need to be represented in the art the public consumes.

We need your help to stay independent

The arts can show the world the full breadth of recovery, the full breadth of humanity, and like gay marriage, change the narrative in our lifetime.

At the end of Tony Kushner's "Angels In America," a character says, “We won't die silent deaths anymore.” The arts said that once, meant it, and lives were saved. People are alive because of that play. The next crisis is upon us, and it’s time for the arts to step up once again.

Trump jokes that DeSantis walks like he’s wearing ice skates due to his use of height boosters

During a campaign event in New Hampshire on Saturday, Donald Trump did a whole little comedy routine about Ron DeSantis, poking fun at his height and the alleged use of lifts in his boots, which he was quick to point out he doesn't need to wear himself.

"I'm not wearing lifts either, by the way," Trump said to the crowd, ramping up to the LOLs. "I don't have 6-inch heels." From here, he goes on to perform an impression of DeSantis walking around during a recent event they both attended.

"The greatest moment of the debate was when Ron DeSanctimonious was walking off the stage and his feet, it's weird, cause his cowboy boots have a high heel outside but the inside you got a big deal going on (makes swopping motion with his hand here), and he's walking like this (does a silly walk along the lines of something you'd see Nicolas Cage do in one of his stranger roles). He's walking off the stage like he's trying to balance himself. I thought he was wearing ice skates."

Watch here: