Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The FDA is recalling more apple cinnamon fruit pouches due to increased illnesses linked to lead

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expanding its recall of apple cinnamon fruit puree products amid new reports of illnesses linked to potential lead contamination.As reported in an Oct. 28 safety alert, federal health officials, along with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDA&CS), are looking into reports of four children with elevated blood lead levels. Following the investigation, the NCDHHS identified WanaBana Apple Cinnamon Fruit Puree pouches as a “potential shared source of exposure,” thus leading the company to issue a voluntary recall.

On Nov. 3, the FDA said it now has reports of seven "adverse events" from Oct. 17 through Nov. 1. In addition to WanaBana, two additional companies — Schnucks Markets of St. Louis and Weis Markets of Sunbury — are being subjected to recalls because their cinnamon applesauce products may contain high levels of lead.

Because the aforementioned products all contain “extremely high concentrations of lead,” consuming them “could result in acute toxicity,” the FDA warned. Lead exposure in children is often difficult to detect because most children have no obvious immediate symptoms. Short term exposure could result in headache, abdominal pain and vomiting while longer term exposure could result in lethargy and muscle aches — just to name a few symptoms.

The cinnamon applesauce products are sold through online and in-person retailers such as Amazon, Dollar Tree and Schnucks and Eatwell Markets grocery stores. The FDA is advising parents and caregivers not to buy or feed the recalled products to children. Parents and caregivers of toddlers and young children who may have consumed the recalled products should contact their child’s healthcare provider about getting a blood test.

Key takeaways from Biden’s massive executive order on artificial intelligence

It’s going to take time for tech leaders in both government and private sectors to figure out all the implications of President Joe Biden’s sweeping new executive order regulating artificial intelligence. Since its Oct. 30 release, the 63-page executive order has triggered a whole-government avalanche of agency policy briefings, inquiry launches and press statements. The world’s tech titans have likewise exploded into a flurry of activity, from individual social platform rants to joint statements to the United Nations. Digital rights advocates, meanwhile, are leery of the order’s lack of protection against government surveillance tech.

“AI is all around us,” Biden said while signing the order. “To realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology.”

Related

Rage against machine learning: Lessons from the Luddites in an era of exploitative technology

Congress still hasn’t moved on AI regulation but the Biden administration has been pushing ahead. The most recent order is the administration’s capstone effort after a year of AI-driven controversy in the capital, which started with a series of sobering Congressional hearings on the topic in May. After leading AI firms offered voluntary commitments to the White House on their use of AI in July, the Biden administration rolled out its blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) then released its AI Risk Management Framework.

Agencies will have between 90 and 365 days to comply with the new order — with different deadlines per agency. Here are the main takeaways from the sprawling executive order, and what we know so far.

National security: DHS takes the wheel

The order directs the National Security Council to create rules for the military’s use of AI. But among the alphabet-soup of federal agencies now mobilized toward new AI policy rollouts, none seem to be granted wider authorizations than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“The President has asked the Department of Homeland Security to play a critical role in ensuring that AI is used safely and securely,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement.

“There remain substantial concerns about the department’s surveillance activities. Perhaps the Department will have to improve its own record before it can reliably lead others on AI governance and safety.”

The DHS’ mandate in the executive order is vast and still vague, but it gives the agency charge over AI development in some of the most powerful areas of government. DHS will create a board to work with the Defense Department on possible threats to cybersecurity threats to critical infrastructure. DHS will also be in charge of addressing any potential for AI to create chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats.

“The AI Safety and Security Advisory Board, which I look forward to chairing, will bring together industry experts, leading academics and government leaders to help guide the responsible development and safe deployment of AI,” said Mayorkas, adding that his 2023 AI Task Force has previously “developed guidance on the acquisition and use of AI technology and the responsible use of face recognition technologies.”

Noting the DHS’ poor track record of data handling, Tech Policy Press CEO Justin Hendrix said the broad mandate may be cause for concern.

“A new Brennan Center report considers its use of automated systems for immigration and customs enforcement, finding a lack of transparency that is in tension with the principles set out in the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Earlier this year, reports emerged about an app using facial recognition deployed by DHS that failed for Black users,” Hendrix wrote.

“There remain substantial concerns about the department’s surveillance activities. Perhaps the Department will have to improve its own record before it can reliably lead others on AI governance and safety,” he said.

Renika Moore, the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program Director, attended the order’s signing. She said that while she is encouraged by the Biden administration’s whole-of-government approach, the order “kicks the can down the road” on protecting people from law enforcement’s use of AI tech.

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

The ACLU’s Cody Venzke, a senior policy counsel, also pointed to the government’s own unchecked use of AI-driven surveillance.

“The order raises significant red flags as it fails to provide protections from AI in law enforcement, like the role of facial recognition technology in fueling false arrests, and in national security, including in surveillance and immigration,” Venzke said in a statement. “Critical work remains to be done in other areas, including addressing the government’s purchase of our personal information from data brokers.”

Immigration: New paths possible

Some parts of the order could prove promising for Democrats, however. The order aims to roll out a long-overdue update to immigration laws, opening a potential citizenship path for noncitizen AI experts and STEM students, as Biden seeks to bolster the US’ thin tech ranks.

"Unless Congress acts fast to infuse more visas in the legal immigration system, the changes in the executive order may prove to be only window dressing."

“​​This change, if it were to go into effect, would be a significant change that would allow U.S. employers to sponsor noncitizen AI professionals for permanent residence without going through the burdensome labor certification process. The list of Schedule A occupations has not changed for decades, so it is high time that the list be expanded even beyond AI occupations to include others for which there are a shortage of U.S. workers, such as other computer occupations,” wrote immigration experts Cyrus Mehta and Kaitlyn Box.

“However, the executive order itself in many instances merely directs the relevant agencies to ‘consider initiating a rulemaking’ to implement the changes… Unless Congress acts fast to infuse more visas in the legal immigration system, the changes in the executive order may prove to be only window dressing,” the two said in an article distributed by the LexisNexis Immigration Blog.

Notably, LexisNexis secured a $22.1 million government contract to circumvent state sanctuary laws by tracking down and surveilling immigrants on behalf of Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE). Echoing Hendrix’ concern over DHS data-handling, ICE’s immigrant detention numbers have grown in recent weeks but no one is currently certain how many people are locked in its custody since the agency routinely defies Congressional orders to publish its numbers.

Digital rights and consumer privacy

Although government contractors like LexisNexis may or may not be exempt from the specifics of the order, other government contractors that pool Americans’ data may have to re-evaluate any potential use of AI.

Legal intelligence firm JD Supra weighed in on the shifting landscape that private companies would be facing while pursuing government contracts.

“The executive order requires implementation in the form of agency-issued guidance and potentially legislation to effectuate some of its more ambitious aspects. Given the executive order’s tight deadlines, in the coming months we expect to see new agency-level AI policies, as well as requests for information and requests for comments on proposed rules,” the firm wrote.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has already begun work on building the framework for those new agency-level policies. It has also rolled out a new AI Safety Institute Consortium.

“This notice is the initial step for NIST in collaborating with non-profit organizations, universities, other government agencies, and technology companies to address challenges associated with the development and deployment of AI,” the institute wrote in its Nov. 2 document. 

Initial reactions from privacy advocates are cautiously optimistic — but not without skepticism. The non-profit Future of Privacy Forum called the Biden plan “incredibly comprehensive” and echoed its call for bipartisan privacy legislation. 

Related

Barbie and the dark side of generative artificial intelligence

“Although the executive order focuses on the government’s use of AI, the influence on the private sector will be profound due to the extensive requirements for government vendors, worker surveillance, education and housing priorities, the development of standards to conduct risk assessments and mitigate bias, the investments in privacy enhancing technologies, and more,” the group said in a statement.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation was among several civil rights groups that advocated for Congress to act on such protections in an October letter to Congress.

Following the order’s release, EFF analyst Karen Gullo said she was glad to see anti-discrimination provisions and clauses aimed at “strengthening privacy-preserving technologies and cryptographic tools.” But, she said in a recent interview with the AARP, the executive order is “full of ‘guidance’ and ‘best practices,’ so only time will tell how it’s implemented.”

Alexandra Reeve Givens, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology, saw the usefulness of the order in addressing ongoing AI problems in workplace, housing, and education issues.

Startups: Register computers with the government?

The largest flashpoint in the debate around this order has centered on the new requirements it creates for companies that are developing large-scale AI models — in particular, any models that could be capable of posing a threat to national security. Those companies will have to disclose the results of their safety tests to the government. However, no one yet knows how to determine what could be a threat.

In the meantime, any companies training large language learning models using computing power above a particular threshold (100 million billion billion operations — a threshold which has never been met) will have to report their plans to the government.

“The order’s focus on computing power thresholds and potential restrictions on fine-tuning and open-source models raises concerns about the impact on smaller entities and the broader AI community,” writes John Palmer for Cryptopolitan. “While there are elements of the order that could be beneficial for innovation and talent in the AI industry, the potential for regulatory capture and the centralization of AI power remain significant concerns.”

Well-known venture capitalists in tech like Bill Gurley are echoing this caution against regulatory capture, noting the security implications behind greater calls for transparency in AI development. Gurley thinks that more protection of open source AI models is required, not less, if politicians are concerned over AI’s ability to impact voting decisions and manipulate truth.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“If you believe that, wouldn’t you be more comfortable with an open source model where academics can see all the code, what’s happening, and what data sources are in this thing versus a proprietary system where you have no visibility?,” he told Barrons’ Tae Kim.

Big names in the startup world aren’t the only ones afraid to see AI power centralized, though. Meta’s Llama-2 and Mistral AI’s Mistral 7B could both stand to lose footing. Yann LeCun, chief AI scientist at Meta, tweeted that he is kept up at night by what could happen “if open source AI is regulated out of existence.”

“A small number of companies from the West Coast of the US and China will control AI platforms and hence control people's entire digital diet. What does that mean for democracy? What does that mean for cultural diversity?” Yann said.

Read more

about artificial intelligence

Mix up oats, brown sugar and sweet potato for the most perfect fall chocolate chip cookie

I recently made sweet potato-chocolate chip cookies, and now my confidence is higher than student debt in America. 

A few things before I drop this recipe, beginning with the fact that I know we’re in between spooky and Thanksgiving season and that everything is supposed to be about “pumpkin this” and “pumpkin that.” I get it. Please calm down. I am not here to rob pumpkins of their moment. Also, I am not one of those Black people who religiously reject pumpkin-infused items, like pumpkin spice lattes, pumpkin ice cream or pumpkin tarts (well, maybe pumpkin tarts because that sounds ridiculous). 

But in all seriousness, I do love pumpkin. I once almost lost my Black card over defending pumpkin pie during the Thanksgiving holiday.

Related

All you need is a good blender and 3 ingredients for decadent, zesty lime ice cream

Despite the fact that Thanksgiving is literally a genocide-fest, many of us have learned to reclaim the holiday as the day of family, food, and our love for food, which means violence should not be on the menu. 

So, I rolled up to a holiday function with some pumpkin pies. It was a year after my good friend, an artist whom I call White Boy Sam, introduced me to the foreign pie. I was amazed at how well the relatively healthy pumpkin pie — which isn’t as sweet as some of the traditional pies served at my family’s Thanksgiving — paired with a scoop of vanilla ice cream. I tried to give this experience to my family, and these wild people did everything they could to not treat me like a child of God. 

They called me everything under the sun and, if I’m not mistaken, someone may have whipped a gun out. 

But after going through all that, I still have a love for pumpkin pie and pumpkins; I just don’t happen to use them in this recipe, instead opting for sweet potato. Though for the real pumpkin fans out there, no fear: You can swap pumpkin in for the sweet potatoes, or even get really creative and mix the two together. I’ve never tried that, but I imagine it works well. 

I am not a trained chef, which means everything I make is doable and accessible to everyone, maybe even children. Whenever I have the urge to bake, which is a weekly thing now, I scour the Internet for the simplest ingredients, and then I modify them, cut corners and even try to make them simpler before sharing them with you. The fewer ingredients, the better. For my delicious sweet potato-chocolate chip cookie recipe, I finally got it right with this mix. 

Sweet potato-chocolate chip cookies
Yields
4 cookies 
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
10-12 minutes

 

Ingredients

  • ¼ cup almond butter 
  • ½ cup boiled and mashed sweet potatoes  
  • 1 cup brown sugar
  • 2 tsp cinnamon
  • 1/4 cup organic chocolate chips 
  • 1 cup organic oats
  • 1 banana (mash it up)

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees
  2. In a bowl, whip all of the sweet potatoes, chocolate chips, cinnamon, brown sugar, banana, oats and almond butter. 
  3. Space out scoops of into a baking sheet, size to your liking. I normally make 4. 
  4. Bake in the oven for 10-12 minutes.
  5. Remove from oven, let cool and send me a thank you note.

.

Read more

about this topic

 

Barbra Streisand’s memoir reveals relationship secrets and stage fright dating back to “Funny Girl”

Barbra Streisand is a force to be reckoned with and wants the world to know that. The beloved, acclaimed actress and singer is one of the very few people in the world with an EGOT (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar and Tony) and in her new memoir, she's ready to share how she achieved her six decades of esteem and success.  

In the memoir "My Name is Barbra," Streisand explains why she hated the spelling of her birth name Barbara and the change to drop the extra A. But she also depicted the tale of a Jewish girl who grew up in Flatbush, Brooklyn fighting against all odds to become the legend she is today.

The star goes into details about her childhood discussing experiences like the loss of her father when she was only 15 months old or her mother telling her she'd never make it as an actress because she wasn't pretty enough. It's clear that the ride to fame wasn't easy for Streisand, and at almost every opportunity in her film career, men were fighting to cut her down and clip her wings. 

Related

Why "Funny Girl" matters: a breakdown of the musical, the revival and its casting issues

In her most recognizable role as Fanny Price in "Funny Girl," the star revealed that her tense relationship with co-star and Charlie Chaplin's son, Sydney Chaplin, was so anxiety-inducing it created a deep fear of performance within Streisand. She said that Chaplin was often incredibly cruel to her on stage, which led to panic attacks and stage fright, eventually driving her into therapy.

During "Funny Girl's" premiere in 1964, Streisand and Chaplin engaged in a brief flirtation even though they were both married. But Streisand ended it, which “wounded [Chaplin’s] vanity and pride.” He then retaliated against her every night they went on stage, cursing her out under his breath. She described their interactions as a "nightmare."

“He’d taunt me, calling me a b***h, or worse . . . the most vicious names,” she said. “While the audience assumed he was whispering sweet nothings in my ear, he would actually be jeering, ‘You really f***ed up that scene.’”

Streisand told CBS News that post-"Funny Girl,” she "never lost that, that fear of performing, fear of forgetting my lines."

Other men that she worked with, such as Mandy Patinkin on the Streisand-directed film "Yentl," stated their discontent when Streisand showed no interest on set. She recalled an interaction with Patinkin where he said, "‘I thought we were going to have a more personal relationship,’ ‘What?’ I had no idea what he was talking about. ‘I thought we were going to have an affair.'"

In the span of her six decades-long career, she met and interacted with stars like Elvis Presley, President John F. Kennedy, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and many more. But the starlet found love with her husband and actor James Brolin, who she has been married to for 25 years. It took her three proposals to say yes, she said to CBS.

When asked if there was anyone who could play her in a biopic, she said "I don't know of anyone who can."

Read more

about Barbra Streisand

SNAP recipients purchasing groceries online decreased the share of people without enough food

The share of low-income U.S. families experiencing food insufficiency — sometimes or often not having enough food to eat — fell from 24.5% to 22.5% at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, we found in a new study published in the November 2023 issue of Food Policy.

This 2 percentage-point decline coincided with the rapid expansion of a pilot program that allows the purchase of groceries online with benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP.

First mandated by the farm bill Congress passed in 2014, the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot was initially rolled out on a limited basis in 2019.

Once COVID-19 arrived in the U.S. in early 2020, the pilot was rapidly expanded nationwide because the pandemic disrupted schooling, child care, transportation and in-person retail shopping. All of those changes curtailed access to food — especially for people with low incomes.

Nationally, SNAP online grocery purchases soared to US$155 million in June 2020, from less than $3 million in January of that year.

To investigate whether the rapid rollout of the Online Purchasing Pilot played a role in the food insufficiency decline at that time, we teamed up with Jordan Jones, a U.S. Department of Agriculture economist. We analyzed 12 weeks of data covering April 23, 2020, to July 21, 2020, from the Household Pulse Survey involving approximately 10,000 low-income households.

Because the pilot was rolled out gradually in different states, we were able to leverage the differences in the timing using a two-way fixed-effects model. This method made it possible to determine that SNAP's online purchasing program contributed to the decline in food insufficiency.

The prevalence of very low food security — a condition in which people may skip meals — increased for families with children in 2020. But the impact of the Online Purchasing Pilot was not larger for these households as opposed to those without any kids.

We believe this suggests that the ability to use SNAP benefits online does not resolve some food-related problems, such as those that arise because of school closures.

Low-income children are eligible for free meals at school. While many school districts found creative ways to distribute grab-and-go meals when school buildings were closed in 2020 and 2021, not all families were able to take advantage of those opportunities.

 

Why it matters

SNAP benefits currently help more than 42 million Americans buy food. The maximum monthly amount for a family of four in the 2024 fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2023, is $973 in the 48 mainland states and the District of Columbia.

Online options for using these benefits vary by state. In many locations, they include big stores that sell groceries, such as Walmart, Target, Whole Foods and Safeway and some popular online retailers like Amazon.

Buying groceries online makes life easier for anyone who has trouble purchasing food in person, including people with disabilities, those with limited transportation access or those living in remote locations.

About 1 in 6 Americans pay for groceries online every week and more than half have done so in the past 12 months.

 

What other research is being done in this field

This is one of several studies that have evaluated the impact of temporary food assistance policies at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. One member of our group, Grace Melo, conducted research with a different team that found that the mental health of children in low-income families that got a boost in SNAP benefits did not decline, even though they were disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

 

What's next

Another member of our research team, Kyle Jones, is now researching how this pilot affects what kinds of groceries Americans are buying with SNAP benefits. He also plans to analyze how using the benefits for online purchases changes how much time people with these benefits spend on grocery shopping.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Grace Melo, Assistant professor of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University; Andrea Leschewski, Associate Professor of Applied Economics, South Dakota State University and Kyle Jones, PhD Candidate in Economics, University of Kentucky

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

“Blue Eye Samurai” addresses multiracial shame, “to be ostracized from both sides,” in Edo-era Japan

"Blue Eye Samurai" is an action-packed animated samurai series set in Edo-era Japan and voiced in English by a predominantly Asian cast. Starring Maya Erskine ("PEN15"), George Takei, Brenda Song, Darren Barnet, Randall Park, Stephanie Hsu ("Everything Everywhere All at Once"), Ming-Na Wen and Kenneth Branagh, among others, the series uniquely depicts the discrimination that Japanese women and Japanese of mixed race backgrounds faced during this period. Specifically, Erskine voices Mizu, a mixed-race Japanese woman who pretends to be a man in order to exact a violent revenge.

Salon spoke to co-creator/executive producer Amber Noizumi and director Jane Wu about creating an authentic series that grapples with marginalization and identity formation. 

Amber, could you tell me about the origins of "Blue Eye Samurai" that you and your husband Michael Green co-created and wrote?

"The labels that people are giving me are not what I feel."

Amber Noizumi: We had our first child, our daughter, over 15 years ago. When she was four months old, it became obvious that she had very clear, striking blue eyes. And I remember texting [Michael] and sending a photo of her blue eyes. And he was like [nonchalantly] “Cool.” And it made me stop to ask myself, “Why am I so excited about this? Why do I want a child who looks more white?” And it made me look inward at some of the issues that I had growing up, that I hadn't worked out myself, and thinking, “Why do I think that whiteness is more beautiful?” I didn't even realize that there were some things – from growing up – where I would try to use eye tape, or look at eye makeup tricks on how to make my eyes look more white, or being envious that my brother looked more white than I did. But we started thinking about what it would have been like to have those features in Edo-era Japan, when the borders were closed and it was the most homogenous in Japan . . . We both were just interested in that time period in Japan and thought it would make a really good story that's entertaining, but also delves into some deeper issues.

Related

Let's have a cringey talk about multiracial identity, from "Ginny & Georgia" to Harry and Meghan

Jane, what connected you with Mizu, the lead character of "Blue Eye Samurai"? 

Jane Wu:  I connected with the character in two ways. One, obviously, is a woman in a man's world. And most of my career, I've been in a very men-oriented environment. So I knew how to manage and navigate myself through that world. The other thing that I really related to was, having grown up in Asia, and then having grown up here, I'm neither/nor to both of the cultures. I know what it feels like to be ostracized from both sides. So here, I'm the Chinese girl. And when I go back home, I’m the American girl. The labels that people are giving me are not what I feel. And that's exactly what Mizu has to contend with, except she may not have that much support so there's a lot of self-hatred. And certainly for us growing up here in America, there was a lot of self-hatred saying, "Why am I different? Why am I not included?" That all takes its toll.

How does the show represent race? 

Wu: One thing in Hollywood that I feel like they’ve kind of gotten wrong with this inclusion stuff is that you have a show, and then you have one color of everyone, which I call all the Skittles colors, right? So now you have one Skittle that represents green. And now this green Skittle has all the responsibility of representing that color, which is wrong because that's what stereotyping is. When, in fact, you should have a show with the same colors of Skittles, but different personality types. That's actually inclusion and diversity. You have your difficult people, you have your smart people, you have your not so smart people, you have your bad people, your good. And then that way people can say, oh yeah, they're just like us. So that's why I wanted to work on the show because I wanted to show people that we're not all good guys. We're not all docile. We're not all model citizens. We can be complicated. We can be just as aggressive, or just as outspoken as any other group of people.

Blue Eye SamuraiMaya Erskine as Mizu in Blue Eye Samurai. (Courtesy of Netflix)What does casting Maya Erskine [who is mixed Japanese and white] as Mizu, bring to the character’s struggles with racial identity and acceptance?

Noizumi: So I came to know of Maya through "PEN15." Even though it's the most hilarious show and I would laugh, sometimes I cried sad tears at remembering some of the heartache of being different and trying to fit in with all of your white friends. I knew she had that depth to bring to it. She's just such a versatile actor. We brought her in . . . and she read [the lines of] being made of mixed metal and a creature of shame. And she cried, and I cried, and it was sort of the first time that I had really felt it in that way. To hear her say it and to feel it myself. Just the stuff you carry around – it's sometimes embarrassing to admit because maybe it wasn't that harmful when you were a kid. It was like paper cuts over time that become a gaping wound inside.

Why did you specifically cast Asian voice actors? 

Noizumi: When I was growing up, and I'm in my 40s now, there were very few Asian people on television, and I remember Margaret Cho having "All American Girl." And I don't even remember if it was a good show or funny show, but I loved it because it was a show about Asian people and none of my friends liked it. I was the only one who watched it, and I was always just grasping for Asian celebrities to look to. Somebody who looked like me, somebody whose style of makeup I could copy that might look good on me. It's so important for people to see that and especially if we're doing something about Asian culture, we definitely need to bring those voices forward. 

Wu: Part of why we don't have enough Asian talent is because we don't have enough projects like this to encourage Asian talent, or encourage the younger generation to say, “Hey, we have an opportunity for this. This could be a career!” We just don't have enough of that opportunity. So first and foremost, we want to give the Asian community that opportunity.

"It was like paper cuts over time that become a gaping wound inside."

Tell me about why you had the Asian voice actors speak in their regular accents? 

Noizumi: We found that so many actors were used to having to do this, you know, [air quotes] “Asian accent.” Sometimes during the reads, they were bringing this Asian accent or even just inflection maybe without realizing it, because they were asked to do it so often. So you have to be very careful to say, “No, just speak in your normal cadence and normal accent.” But it's not always clear if somebody has a partial accent from English being their second language. If you hear in some of our cast . . . some inflections of Asian accents; that is just the way those people spoke. Everybody was meant to speak the way they speak. And there are some slightly New York cadences to some people . . . and we had one person who is Australian. But we just wanted people to be able to bring themselves . . . and not be wearing this Asian mask that's been assigned to them by Western culture.

Wu: We all decided early on that this was going to be in English. Because I don't have an accent, you don't have an accent. It's just that simple. Everybody comes as is. 

Blue Eye SamuraiBrenda Song as Akemi and Clyde Kusatsu as Watari in Blue Eye Samurai. (Courtesy of Netflix)Tell me about how the series portrays the limitations placed on women in Edo-era Japan.

Noizumi: Being a sex worker at the time was legal and protected. And there was actually quite a bit of agency among women if they chose to be a sex worker. And we portray that when Akemi [voiced by Brenda Song] does her short stint at a brothel. Those women are actually doing better than most women. Women just have always had those limitations. I mean, in any society, and even now, there are just so many limitations. So for Mizu, she had to choose basically between being a wife, which she tried for a hot minute, or being a prostitute. She didn’t have much else that she could do. To go on a revenge quest, she had to be a man, there was just no other way to do it. 

What do you think Asian American women, as creatives, bring to this series? 

Noizumi: Asian women have had to battle on two fronts of being a woman and then being a person of color. And specifically, there are just so many expectations of Asian women in what people have called the model minority: being expected to always be polite, always have the answer, not be too pushy, not be too ambitious. And most Asian women who have made it this far and pushed into the creative field? They are tours de force because they've had to claw their way to that position, to have their voice heard in the room and in society. 

What do you think Asian and Asian American audiences can take from "Blue Eye Samurai"?

Noizumi: I hope they can see some of themselves represented. And I hope that any amount of otherness or racism they've experienced, they can find some catharsis and they can be proud to see Asian culture represented. Obviously, Japanese culture isn't a blanket culture; we have so many different types of Asian cultures here in the U.S. But it's rare to see any shows that really delve so deeply with striving for authenticity the way we did. I hope that people can see that we tried hard to get it right . . . to make sure the kimono has moved in the right way; that the footsteps were the right way; that you didn't see people walking into buildings with their shoes on. 

Wu: Ooh, such a great question. I'm hoping that they can see themselves represented. That they can see the care and authenticity that we went out of our way to show because our culture matters. We matter. Our voice matters. And I hope this inspires the Asian American community to write more of these kinds of stories. I would love to see specifically Asian American voices come out because we are such a unique voice because we're neither Americans nor Asians. We're somewhere right in the middle. And this puts us in a very unique opportunity to see things that other people, other groups, can't see. And I think it makes for fantastic storytelling. And yeah, I'm really hoping that this inspires others to make stories like this.

"Blue Eye Samurai" is now streaming on Netflix.

Read more

about this topic

“Not credible”: Experts say Cannon’s new orders suggest she “has her thumb on the scale for Trump”

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon is continuously straying from legal principle in her handling of Donald Trump's classified documents case after she rebuked special counsel Jack Smith for alerting her to the former president's motion to delay his Washington, D.C. federal case, legal experts argued. That order, coupled with her signal last week that she may further delay the trial in line with the defense's request, has raised alarms for former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, who described Cannon's criticism of prosecutors as "off base."

"Many people have a sense Judge Cannon has her thumb on the scale for Trump," Vance said on X, formerly Twitter. "Perhaps Judge Cannon needs to remember what this case is about: alleged crimes regarding the treatment of highly classified documents by a former president — allegations that are backed up by evidence collected during execution of a court-ordered search warrant," Vance wrote in her newsletter. "Instead it seems to have devolved into an inexplicable grudge match with the Special Counsel's office on her part."

"Biased or not, Cannon simply doesn’t have game; and she masks it with prickly remonstrations of the government," former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman tweeted. "She needs to go back to judges’ school, except there isn’t such a place. (yes, I know about the little orientation course, but that’s not what I mean.)" Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, told Newsweek that it's hard to understand Cannon's thought process. "Does she believe that the case is too complicated to try as soon as May, even though the lawyers have had months to prepare and will have six more months before May? That's not credible," he said, noting that Trump's D.C. case, though "more complicated," is proceeding swiftly. 

Few kids are getting the latest COVID shots. Is it misinformation or a lack of access?

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, children’s lives were upended. Many schools had lockdowns, causing an unprecedented disruption in learning that many children are still feeling the repercussions of today. The light at the end of the tunnel for many was that a vaccine for kids was on the horizon — eventually.

Unlike the speedy vaccine roll-out that happened for adults, nearly a year and a half into the pandemic, vaccines were still only accessible for children under the age of 12. Parents of young children frequently felt left behind and still practiced social distancing like it was 2020 while their non-parent peers resumed their lives again. It wasn’t until summer 2022 when vaccines were available to young children between six months and five years of age.

Related

The real reason the new RSV shot is hard for some parents to find

Today, vaccines are still on the market for children over the age of six months, including a new COVID-19 shot that became available across the country in mid-September and is formulated to target the most prevalent variants currently circulating. Upon its rollout, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended everyone over the age of six months to get vaccinated with the new booster that was developed to address waning protection and prevent against future strains (the new booster contains coverage against the XBB.1.5 strain and its children, EG.5 and BA.2.86).

Only 7 percent of adults and 2 percent of children under the age of 17 had received the new shot.

However, at the end of October, nearly a month after it became available, the CDC shared data showing that only 7 percent of adults and 2 percent of children under the age of 17 had received the new shot. Looking at the data more closely, only 1.4 percent of children between the ages of 6 months and four years had received the vaccine; and only 2.2 percent of kids between five and 11 years of age.

Data from the same survey showed that parental intent to vaccinate their kids was “mixed.” Only 26.4 percent of parents of unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 months and four years of age said they would “definitely” get their kids vaccinated, while 35 percent were on the fence and 40 percent said they definitely wouldn’t.

“I have been terribly dismayed to see children not benefiting from the protection that vaccination can offer,” Dr. Kelly Moore, president of Immunize.org (a nonprofit organization that works to increase vaccination rates and is funded by te CDC) told Salon in a phone interview. “When you see the hospitalizations or deaths that do occur, this might have been prevented.”

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

The data highlighted an ongoing, and disconcerting, trend: since the roll-out for kids, relatively few kids are getting vaccinated against COVID-19. In May 2023, over a year after the vaccine was available for those over the age of six months, only 13 percent of kids between six months and 4 years-old had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Yet in terms of preventable pediatric deaths, COVID-19 remains one of the highest when compared to other diseases.

Why is it that so few children are getting vaccinated? First, Moore emphasized that the recent numbers presented by the CDC are likely quite low — for both adults and children — because it only captures a month after the rollout. Then, there’s the issue of accessibility.

“Vaccination among children is a little harder to access, going to a pediatrician’s office instead of many families being able to go to a pharmacy, like they can as an adult,” Moore said. “Also, the immunization schedule for the youngest children has been quite complicated for COVID.”

“I have been terribly dismayed to see children not benefiting from the protection that vaccination can offer. When you see the hospitalizations or deaths that do occur, this might have been prevented.”

Indeed, dosage and timing depends on the age of the child and the vaccine. For children between six months and four years of age, multiple doses are still required — the exact number depends on if a child is at a higher risk for severe infection or not. As opposed to just one dose for those five and older. As Moore alluded to, the vaccinations require a bigger effort from parents of young kids, who might not have the time to figure out when or how to get their children vaccinated.

Another reason why so few parents are vaccinating their children is because of a widespread belief that children handle COVID-19 well, and aren’t at risk for severe disease. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that while older people are more likely to die from COVID-19, the coronavirus is one of the top 10 causes of death for children between the ages of 5 and 11-years-old. More than 1,500 kids under the age of 17 have died of the disease — many who had no underlying health conditions.

When it comes to COVID-19, Moore said it’s important to “stay humble.”

“There are still things we don't know about this virus, when it comes to our understanding of COVID and what it's capable of doing to people of any age,” Moore said. “If you're going to make assumptions, then make them on the safe side.”

Indeed, while deaths are relatively low for children from COVID-19, they still happen. Then there is also the issue with long-COVID. Studies have previously estimated up to 25% of children infected with the coronavirus could develop long COVID. A more recent systematic review estimates that long COVID affects 16% of children and adolescents. To make matters worse, many doctors warn there aren't enough clinics to treat these kids.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Vaccine misinformation could be driving low vaccination rates as well. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) survey published in summer 2021, a large majority of parents said they were  “very” or “somewhat” concerned that not enough is known about the long term effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. Some of the parents cited concerns about their children’s fertility. Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines and fertility has been disproved multiple times.

When asked what needs to be done to get more children vaccinated, Moore said “simplifying access” should be a priority. Anecdotally, there have been stories of pediatricians not having the vaccine or some even holding off on recommending it unless a child is considered high-risk. Moreover, the general rollout of the vaccine this year was deeply chaotic and confusing, leaving some patients in the lurch, while folks in other countries may not have access to vaccines at all.

“I have a lot of compassion for parents of young children right now, who are juggling so many different things, and arranging another doctor's visit on top of your job and everything else you have to do is just really hard,” Moore said. “It can be tempting to not think it's worth it, and I think we on the public health side, and in the medical community, we need to do more to make it easier for families.”

Read more

about COVID-19

“Damning”: Legal experts say NY AG got Trump to make “critical admission” in fraud testimony

Former President Donald Trump appeared to confirm that the property valuations that his company submitted to banks and insurers were meant to "induce" loans from lenders while being questioned by prosecutors from the New York attorney general's office, legal experts say.

Counsel for the New York attorney general's office on Monday showed Trump a Deutsche Bank term loan agreement from the early 2010s that Trump had verified and signed. The prosecutor then asked Trump if the intentions to submit values of businesses and the properties of the Trump Organization were "in order to induce lending," Inner City Press' Matt Russell reported.

"You see that?" the prosecutor asked Trump while pointing out the language on the document.

"Yes," the former president answered. 

The prosecutor asked Trump if he believed the document was "true and accurate," and Trump responded, "Yeah, I do."

Related

“Astonishing admission”: Experts say Trump’s “train wreck” testimony damaged his chances at appeal

The admission set legal experts ablaze online with many pointing out how critical it is to the attorney general's $250 million lawsuit against Trump.

MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang called the exchange a "CRITICAL admission by Trump as he admits that the INTENT in making these financial representations was to convince lenders to loan money."

"BREAKING: AG GETS TRUMP TO AGREE THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TRUMP'S PERSONAL GUARANTY WERE TO INDUCE BANKS TO LEND MONEY," New York University Law Prof. Andrew Weissmann wrote in all caps on X, formerly Twitter. "KEY FACT FOR THIS FRAUD CASE."

Trump's testimony also helped Attorney General Letitia James "score points" in several instances, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin reported.

Related

"Verging on a confession": Legal experts say Trump "admitting to more fraud" in word-salad testimony

Dubbing it a "rollercoaster of a day," Rubin said that the former president's testimony demonstrated "that despite having no memory of telling a Wall Street Journal reporter that a particular building was valued at $600 million, a contemporaneous email from his son showed he, in fact, did exactly that.”

In another instance, Rubin reported that James' team “has shown that despite much lower, and sometimes even negative net revenue from leasing that same building, Trump told a Forbes reporter — on tape — that that building ‘threw off’ between $50-60 million per year, another conversation Trump did not recall.”

Rubin added that the former president's testimony also showed that financial statements from nearly a decade ago valued his Aberdeen property in Scotland "as if he could sell thousands of homes tomorrow," when he admitted that he has only used the property to build a second golf course and held onto the 1,000 acres where those residences were supposed to be built. 

"And perhaps most damning of all,” Rubin concluded, “they exposed that despite signing promises to the Town of Palm Beach and the National Trust for Historic Preservation that he would never use or develop Mar-a-Lago as anything but a private membership club, Trump valued Mar-a-Lago on his financial statements as a private residence, as if those contractual agreements were as disposable as Kleenex.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Trump also acknowledged that he'd influenced the valuation of several of his properties on the witness stand Monday, responding, "Yes, on occasion. Both high and low" to a prosecutor's question about whether he ever thought the values were off in his statement of financial condition, HuffPost reported.

When asked specifically about a 2017 statement pertaining to the value of his Trump Tower penthouse in Manhattan, the former president said it "probably" came at his direction.

“Probably, I said I thought it was too high,” Trump said. “I don’t know what’s too high anymore, because I’m seeing things sold at numbers that are very high.”

In earlier financial statements, the former president falsely claimed the apartment was more than 30,000 square feet, a size that was nearly three times as large as the actual square footage. That claim fell apart after a Forbes magazine investigation found that the property amounted to less than 11,000 square feet. 

In a separate line of questioning, Trump also distanced himself from a 2021 financial statement on the grounds that he was busy in the White House "keeping our country safe" from China and Russia.

“Just for the record,” Wallace responded, “you weren’t president in 2021?”

“No, I wasn’t,” Trump replied.

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

The value of Trump's various real estate holdings is the focus of the case against him. Trump Organization executives, including the former president's two eldest sons, testified last week and also largely distanced themselves from the statements of financial condition and blamed the accounting firm in charge of creating them. 

Trump has also repeatedly claimed that a disclaimer clause on the statements shields him from any responsibility. The clause says “don’t believe the statement, go and do your own work,” Trump claimed in an earlier deposition. “The statement is worthless. It means nothing.”

But presiding Judge Arthur Engoron, who repeatedly asked the defense attorneys to get Trump under control as he rambled through questions and attacked him and the attorney general, disagreed.

“The clause does not use the words ‘worthless’ or ‘useless’ or ‘ignore’ or any similar words,” Engoron wrote. “It does not say ‘The values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in 10 or more years.’”

Read more

about Trump's testimony

Mike Johnson and his son’s use of app to monitor each other’s porn intake sparks questions

Newly-elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in a recently surfaced video from 2022 shared how he and his 17-year-old son, Jack, hold each other accountable when it comes to their porn intake by using a third-party software called Covenant Eye to patrol all of their electronic devices. The app creates a monthly habit report for a designated "accountability partner," according to The New Republic. "What it does, real simply, is it has an algorithm and a software—it’s way above my head how it works, but—it scans, you obviously opt into it, but it scans all the activity on your phone or your devices, your laptop, what have you. We do all of it. Then it sends a report to your accountability partner,” Johnson said in the clip. “My accountability partner right now is Jack, my son. He’s 17. So he and I get a report about all the things that are on our phones, all of our devices, once a week. If anything objectionable comes up, your accountability partner gets an immediate notice,” he added. “I’m proud to tell ya, my son has got a clean slate,” 

Some Twitter/X users raised security concerns over the House speaker's use of the app. "A US Congressman is allowing a 3rd Party tech company to scan ALL of his electronic devices daily and then uploading reports to his son about what he's watching or not watching….  I mean, who else is accessing that data?" one user questioned. "'Covenant Eyes' – a third party software monitoring all your devices, Mike Johnson? – WTAF?! With any public office holder, but particularly someone who's second in line to the Presidency, this is a profound national security risk," another user wrote.

 

In this exclusive clip from “The Morning Show,” Billy Crudup’s network CEO loses his grip

As chaotic as “The Morning Show” can be, elements of every episode transform its jumble of emotional subplots into silk and gold. Foremost among them is Billy Crudup’s Cory Ellison, a CEO with a florid master-of-the universe monologue for any situation. He mixes metaphors, sprinkles them with malapropisms and knows nobody will call him on any of it . . . because if they did, he’d accuse them of small thinking.

When Cory needs to assert control over his corner of the universe, he commands a room full of underlings to think less like suits and more like trained assassins. When he needs an equal or rival to think twice about coming for him, he riffs like a jazz great. And sometimes it works. As Greta Lee’s news president Stella Bak tells him, he can make people feel anything is possible. “It’s really effective. It’s probably why I took this job,” she says.

But no conqueror gets to the mountaintop without burying a few bodies – and as the third season careens to a close, Hyperion titan Paul Marks (Jon Hamm) has unearthed a few that are grave enough to end Cory’s career at UBA.

In this exclusive clip from the third season finale, “The Overview Effect,” as Bradley (Reese Witherspoon) is forced to face the damning choices she’s made in her recent past and Alex (Jennifer Aniston) contemplates her future, Cory’s mask slips enough to see a side of him that isn’t entirely confident his career will survive the impending board vote on the Hyperion-UBA deal.

And if you’ve been watching this season, there’s only one person to whom he can reveal that vulnerability without being severely judged or punished for it. Watch the clip, via YouTube.

The “The Morning Show” Season 3 finale releases Wednesday, Nov. 8 on Apple TV+.

 

“Defendant stands alone in American history”: Smith filing torches Trump claim, signals new evidence

Special counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors on Monday in a lengthy filing spelled out exactly why they feel former President Donald Trump should bear the full weight of justice in his Washington, D.C. election subversion case. Smith's indictment charges that Trump spearheaded efforts to orchestrate falsehoods about systemic voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. 

“The defendant attempts to rewrite the indictment, claiming that it charges him with wholly innocuous, perhaps even admirable conduct — sharing his opinions about election fraud and seeking election integrity,” wrote assistant special counsel James Pearce in the filing, “when in fact it clearly describes the defendant’s fraudulent use of knowingly false statements as weapons in furtherance of his criminal plans.”

“[T]he defendant stands alone in American history for his alleged crimes,” Pearce wrote. “No other president has engaged in conspiracy and obstruction to overturn valid election results and illegitimately retain power.”

Politico reported that Smith has also signaled that he plans to introduce new and potentially damning evidence at Trump's trial, which will be overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan and scheduled to begin on March 4, 2024. 

Related

“Complete nonsense”: Legal scholars demolish Trump claim of “presidential immunity” from prosecution

Smith's latest filing came in response to Trump's own efforts to have the entire Jan. 6 case dismissed. In a series of dismissal motions, Trump and his legal team contended that the case violated Trump's First Amendment rights by criminalizing his "political speech and advocacy," claiming that Smith's indictment "does not explain" how the ex-president committed the alleged crimes he has been charged with.

Prosecutors in their rebuttal countered: “The First Amendment does not protect fraudulent speech or speech otherwise integral to criminal conduct, particularly crimes that attack the integrity and proper function of government processes."

“The defendant’s comments about the virtues of the First Amendment, over which there is no dispute, do nothing to unsettle this line of unbroken precedent," Peace wrote.

Related

"Strongly undermines any claim": Experts say damning NY trial doc could blow up Trump's D.C. defense

“Because the Government has not charged President Trump with responsibility for the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, allegations related to these actions are not relevant and are prejudicial and inflammatory. Therefore, the Court should strike these allegations from the Indictment,” wrote Trump attorneys Todd Blanche, John Lauro, Emil Bove and Gregory Singer.

“The indictment must be dismissed because it seeks to criminalize core political speech and advocacy that lies at the heart of the First Amendment,” the filing states.

“Virtually every American, including the cited public officials, had similar access to much of this same information, including a mountain of publicly reported facts and opinions, which were the subject of wall-to-wall media coverage throughout the post-election period and beyond,” the MAGA lawyers added.

“To assert that President Trump, as one voice among countless millions, was somehow capable of unilaterally ‘tricking’ or ‘deceiving’ these individuals, who include some of the most informed politicians on the planet, simply by advocating his opinions on this contentious issue, is beyond absurd.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Trump has maintained that his pressuring state and local officials to discredit President Joe Biden's victory was a form of "advocacy," as he claims he truly thought the election had been stolen from him. Smith and prosecutors have vehemently refuted this claim, however, with Pearce writing in the filing that "Knowing lies are neither opinions nor ‘pure advocacy,’ and in any event, the defendant could not use so-called advocacy as a cover for his scheme to obstruct a governmental function through deceit."

"Were it otherwise, defendants captured en route to a bank robbery could not be charged with conspiracy because their crime did not succeed.”

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

Pearce also cited a list of historical elections referenced by Trump's legal team in their own filings, as Politico noted. These elections, which included those from 1800 and 1960, saw controversies surrounding slates of electors at their core. 

“Notably absent from any of these historical episodes, however, is any attempt by any person to use fraud and deceit to obstruct or defeat the governmental function that would result in the certification of the lawful winner of a presidential election,” Pearce concluded. “The existence throughout history of legitimate electoral disputes does not validate the defendant’s corrupt and dishonest actions any more than the existence of legitimate investment offers validates the creation of a criminal Ponzi scheme.”

Read more

about Trump's DC case

“Astonishing admission”: Experts say Trump’s “train wreck” testimony damaged his chances at appeal

Former President Donald Trump’s rambling testimony at his New York fraud trial on Monday bodes poorly for his chances of appealing the judge’s ruling, legal experts say.

Trump testified for hours at the trial, which is set to determine the scope of punishment he, his two oldest sons and his company should face after Judge Arthur Engoron issued a partial summary judgment prior to the trial finding them liable of persistent fraud. Trump’s lawyers appealed the ruling and have sought to lay the groundwork for additional motions throughout the trial.

Even Trump’s antics in court on Monday appeared to be an effort to try to “goad” Engoron into “some sort of mistake” or say something that could help his team on appeal, former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg told MSNBC.

“Judge Engoron is an experienced jurist, I don’t think that has happened yet and I don’t see that happening,” he said. “From a theatrical perspective, maybe this plays in some other venue. From a legal perspective, this does not play in court,” he added.

Related

"Verging on a confession": Legal experts say Trump "admitting to more fraud" in word-salad testimony

“For all of his attacks, there was one key thing missing from Trump’s testimony, which is any semblance of a colorable defense, and that is Donald Trump through and through,” former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC on Tuesday, adding that the former president was clearly “trying to provoke the judge.”

Trump was “successful today by his metric because we’re talking more about his behavior and his temper tantrums than we are about the fact that the guy committed serious fraud,” he said. “So, it’s a distraction technique, and in some ways, it’s working. It obviously won’t work in the court of law, though.”

Related

Trump “just yelled at the judge” for several minutes — and has been “screaming insults” at NY AG

When Trump did answer the attorney general’s team’s questions, he made “important concessions” that may have further damaged his case, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig told CNN.

“To me, the most important sentence of the day, Trump said something like, ‘I saw those statements, I reviewed them, and at times I gave input.’ And it was a quick little moment, but that’s something that I think the AG’s office is gonna latch onto because he acknowledges he knew them and knew enough to give input into those statements,” he said, according to Mediaite.

“I think his testimony was inherently contradictory and a mess, but there’s some real useful pieces in there for the AG’s office,” Honig added.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, noted that the AG’s counsel got Trump to agree that the financial statements and Trump’s personal guaranty at the heart of the trial were to “induce banks to lend money.”

“Not only is this an astonishing admission, it will damage efforts to argue on appeal that the judge was wrong to grant judgement ahead of trial on the fraud claims,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance. “That is pretty much Trump's last gasp at saving his NY business.”

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

Former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg pointed out that Trump’s lawyers are laying the groundwork for appeal by arguing that the valuations listed in the financial statements were not to be taken at face value while arguing that those statements were still good-faith estimates of Trump’s properties.

"They were laying the record for an appeal with a lot of defense — these weren't material misstatements, nobody relied on the misstatements," Greenberg told CNN. "Again, I think, legally they're not on solid ground there… this idea of good faith, we acted in good faith, that will be something else that they raise on appeal."

The problem for Trump, Greenberg said, is that “a lot of these examples are egregious.”

"This isn't a matter of, 'Well, there's some wiggle room here.' If anybody were to go in and seek a loan from their bank and say, 'Well, my house or my apartment is three times the size of what it is, and 400 percent valued higher than what it is,' like, that's fraud,” she said. “That's not, ‘oh, we got some of the accounting principles wrong.’ That's just plain fraud, and so I don't think he really is going to have much room to succeed on appeal."

Read more

about the Trump fraud trial

A massacre by any other name: Israel’s military is part of the U.S. war machine

The governments of Israel and the United States now appear to be in disagreement over how many Palestinian civilians it’s acceptable to kill. Last week — as the death toll from massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza neared 10,000 people, including several thousand children — top U.S. officials began to worry about the rising horrified outcry at home and abroad. So, they went public with muted misgivings and calls for a “humanitarian pause.”

But Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that he would have none of it, pushing back on Anthony Blinken during the U.S. secretary of state’s third trip to the region since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and vowing that Israel was “going with full steam ahead.” 

Such minor tactical discord does little to chip away at the solid bedrock alliance between the two countries, which are most of the way through a 10-year deal that guarantees $38 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. And now, as the carnage in Gaza continues, Washington is rushing to provide extra military assistance worth $14 billion.

Last week, In These Times reported that the Biden administration is seeking congressional permission “to unilaterally blanket-approve the future sale of military equipment and weapons — like ballistic missiles and artillery ammunition — to Israel without notifying Congress.” And so, “the Israeli government would be able to purchase up to $3.5 billion in military articles and services in complete secrecy.”

 While Israeli forces were using weapons provided by the United States to slaughter Palestinian civilians, resupply flights were landing in Israel courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Air & Space Forces Magazine published a photo showing “U.S. Air Force Airmen and Israeli military members unload cargo from a U.S. Air Force C-17 Globemaster III on a ramp at Nevatim Base, Israel.”

Related

We need an extraordinary act of peace in the Middle East — and I know it can happen

Pictures taken on Oct. 24 show that the military cargo went from Travis Air Force Base in California to Ramstein Air Base in Germany to Israel. Overall, the magazine reported, “the Air Force’s airlift fleet has been steadily working to deliver essential munitions, armored vehicles, and aid to Israel.” 

The horrific atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 have opened the door to protracted horrific atrocities by Israel with key assistance from the United States.

Oxfam America has issued a briefing paper decrying the Pentagon’s plans to ship tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells to the Israeli military. The organization noted that “Israel’s use of this munition in past conflicts demonstrates that its use would be virtually assured to be indiscriminate, unlawful, and devastating to civilians in Gaza.” Oxfam added: “There are no known scenarios in which 155mm artillery shells could be used in Israel’s ground operation in Gaza in compliance with international humanitarian law.”

Now, guided by political calculus, the White House is trying to persuade Israel’s prime minister to titrate the lethal doses of bombing Gaza. But as Netanyahu has made clear in recent days, Israel is going to do whatever it wants, despite pleas from its patron. 

During the last several weeks, “international humanitarian law” has been a common phrase coming from President Biden while expressing support for Israel’s military actions. It’s an Orwellian absurdity, as if saying the words is sufficient while constantly helping Israel to violate international humanitarian law in numerous ways. 

“Israeli forces have used white phosphorus, a chemical that ignites when in contact with oxygen, causing horrific and severe burns, on densely populated neighborhoods,” Human Rights Watch senior legal adviser Clive Baldwin wrote in late October. “White phosphorus can burn down to the bone, and burns to 10 percent of the human body are often fatal.”

Baldwin added: “Israel has also engaged in the collective punishment of Gaza’s population through cutting off food, water, electricity, and fuel. This is a war crime, as is willfully blocking humanitarian relief from reaching civilians in need.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

At the end of last week, the Win Without War organization noted that “senior administration officials are increasingly alarmed by how the Israeli government is conducting its military operations in Gaza, as well as the reputational repercussions of the Biden administration’s support for a collective punishment strategy that clearly violates international law. Many worry that the U.S. will be blamed for the Israeli military’s indiscriminate attacks on civilians, particularly women and children.”

News reporting now tells us that Biden and Blinken want a bit of a course correction. For them, the steady large-scale killing of Palestinian civilians became concerning when it became a PR problem.

Dressed up in an inexhaustible supply of euphemistic rhetoric and double-talk, such immoral policies are stunning to see in real time. And, for many people in Gaza, literally breathtaking.

Now, guided by political calculus, the White House is trying to persuade Israel’s prime minister to titrate the lethal doses of bombing Gaza. But as Netanyahu has made clear in recent days, Israel is going to do whatever it wants, despite pleas from its patron. 

While, in effect, it largely functions in the Middle East as part of the U.S. war machine, Israel has its own agenda. Yet the two governments are locked into shared, long-term, overarching strategic interests in the Middle East that have absolutely no use for human rights except as rhetorical window-dressing. Biden made that clear last year when he fist-bumped the de facto ruler of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship that — with major U.S. assistance — has led an eight-year war on Yemen that has so far cost nearly 400,000 lives.

The war machine needs constant oiling from the news media. That requires ongoing maintenance of the doublethink assumption that when Israel terrorizes and kills people from the air, the Israeli Defense Force is fighting “terrorism” without engaging in it. 

Another helpful notion in recent weeks has been the presumption that — while Hamas puts out “propaganda” — Israel does not. And so, on Nov. 2, the PBS NewsHour’s foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin reported on what he called “Hamas propaganda videos.” Fair enough. Except that it would be virtually impossible for mainstream U.S. news media to also matter-of-factly refer to public output from the Israeli government as “propaganda.” (I asked Schifrin for comment, but my several emails and texts went unanswered.)

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

On Sunday, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria informed viewers that “journalists embedded with the [Israeli Defense Forces] in Gaza operate under the observation of Israeli commanders in the field and are not permitted to move unaccompanied within the Gaza Strip.” He explained a process of censorship: “As a condition to enter Gaza under IDF escort, outlets have to submit all materials and footage to the Israeli military for review prior to publication.”

Whatever differences might surface from time to time, the United States and Israel remain enmeshed. To the power elite in Washington, the bilateral alliance is vastly more important than the lives of the Palestinian people. And it’s unlikely that the U.S. government will really confront Israel over its open-ended killing spree in Gaza.

Consider this: Just weeks before beginning her second stint as House speaker in January 2019, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was recorded on video at a forum sponsored by the Israeli American Council as she declared: “I have said to people when they ask me — if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it aid — our cooperation — with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”

Even making allowances for bizarre hyperbole, Pelosi’s statement is revealing of the kind of mentality that continues to hold sway in official Washington. It won’t change without a huge grassroots movement that refuses to go away.

Read more

about Israel's war in Gaza

The Pentagon wants a new powerful nuclear bomb. Please don’t give it to them

Just days after China announced that it would double its nuclear arsenal to more than 1,000 warheads by 2030, Pentagon officials revealed plans Tuesday for a new nuclear gravity bomb that would be 24 times as powerful as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. By Thursday, President Vladimir Putin had signed a bill withdrawing Russia from its inclusion in a global nuclear test ban — which was followed this week by a test launch from one of its submarines of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. That means, by default, the U.S. is also no longer part of the treaty, meaning we could once more begin dropping bombs in the New Mexico desert, à la “Oppenheimer,” though (thankfully) no such plans have been announced. 

What (and I say this with all due respect) in the actual f**k is going on here? Is the world teetering off the edge? The hows are easier to explain than the whys when it comes to all this madness, so let’s start there. 

The plans for a new nuke were rolled out almost exactly a year after the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review was published, which advocated for a bigger US nuclear flex to compete with the stockpile they estimated China would have built by 2030. As it turns out, that Chinese stockpile is getting much bigger, much faster than we thought — with “more than 500 operational nuclear warheads” as of May.

Related

Atomic truth: Unraveling the reality behind "Oppenheimer" and nuclear weapons

“At a time of rising nuclear risks, a partial refurbishment strategy no longer serves our interests,” the DOD said in the report. “We must develop and field a balanced, flexible stockpile capable of [competing with] threats, responding to uncertainty, and maintaining effectiveness.” 

And the grand strategy announced this week to address these concerns? A brand new nuclear bomb — a “free-fall bomb” or “dumb bomb” known as the B61-13 — that, with the twist of a dial, would be capable of delivering instant mass destruction even deeper underground than previous bombs. And it would cost a mere $10 billion to develop if approved by Congress. 

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

“While the B61-13 will provide the President with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets, the Department of Defense will separately continue its work to complete and implement a comprehensive strategy for defeat of hard and deeply buried targets, as directed in the Nuclear Posture Review,” the DOD said in an Oct. 27 release. 

The biggest difference between the B61-13 and the US current stockpile of B61-12s (which the new bombs would partially replace) is in the 13’s ability to kill thousands more people in the blink of an eye by offering more kilotons if desired. 

A brand new nuclear bomb that, with the twist of a dial, would be capable of delivering instant mass destruction even deeper underground than previous bombs.

What’s a kiloton? It’s roughly how much explosive force a bomb provides compared to a ton of TNT. Bombs can be dialed before being dropped, and the B61-12 can be dialed to cause an explosion anywhere from 0.3 to 50 kilotons in force. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, and killed upwards of 146,000 people between its immediate impact and after effects. America killed another 80,000 people when we dropped our 20-kiloton bomb on Nagasaki. The B61-13 is designed to yield an explosive force of anywhere between 10 kilotons to 360 kilotons. 

As Popular Science’s Kelsey Atherton reports in her surgical explainer, a 50 kiloton warhead in lower Manhattan would kill an estimated 273,000 people. A 360 kiloton bomb would kill about 778,000, injure about 1,045,000 and have a radioactive plume that would stretch as far as Lowell, Mass. 

Right now, the US’ overall stockpile of nukes is at 5,428 according to the Federation of American Scientists. Meanwhile, it estimates that Russia is holding about 5,977. The two account for 89% of the world’s total stockpile. Even if China has 500 nukes right now, in what hell-world would the US President need “additional options” for mass destruction while Russia is so visibly on edge? 

Related

Experts once thought mutually assured destruction would prevent nuclear war. Now they're not so sure

As Francois Diaz-Maurin writes for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists — the keepers of the famous Doomsday Clock — the real danger is perhaps less in the Chinese stockpile than it is in the US’ obsession with being able to kill the most people with a single bomb. 

“In aggressively pursuing capability surges alone, the United States may end up on the wrong side of the stability-instability paradox, risking escalation to nuclear war — intentional or not — through an overreliance on introducing untested or provocative technologies,” Diaz-Maurin writes.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“Instead, a stronger US strategy for responding to the challenge posed by China’s growing arsenal should be for the United States to supplement military capability by building multiple levels of mutual understanding and routes toward risk reduction across the Pacific. These measures must be implemented urgently and certainly before a crisis forces China and the United States to seriously test their nuclear deterrence relationship.” 

I’m with Diaz-Maurin here. A brand new, $10-billion world-ender isn’t the “additional option” the US needs if it wants to ensure national security. Or world security. 

You don’t have to nuke a country to watch it collapse.

America’s homeless population ranges between 500,000 and 600,000 depending on who’s counting, with roughly two-thirds of houseless people sleeping in shelters. Across the world, we’ve been able to count 6,974,473 deaths from COVID-19, with at least 1.1 million of those deaths on US soil. Meanwhile, our maternal mortality rates are barbaric, our infant deaths are surging, and the leading cause of children’s death in the US are the guns we refuse to regulate. If the kids make it into their teens, they’re twice as likely these days to kill themselves — and so are we, with suicide now the second leading cause of death among most adults.

You don’t have to nuke a country to watch it collapse. All you have to do is give its citizens’ taxes over to corporate profiteering instead of building a safety net with them, then deregulate and privatize every sector and industry you can. If Russia and China want to see the US fall from power, they don’t have to fire a single shot. All they have to do is what they’re best at: playing the long game. Given the way the U.S. treats its people and its democratic institutions, any country that wants to see us fail only has to sit back and watch.  

If we are solving for issues of global security and stability, the “additional option” we need isn’t the ability to commit an unprecedented war crime and indiscriminately murder more than a million people in an instant flash of blinding nuclear devastation; it’s a $10-billion investment in food, shelter, medicine, clean air and water — and, apparently, conscience.  

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

Read more

about nuclear weapons

Dr. Lance Dodes on Trump’s courtroom antics: “Decompensate to the point of gross paranoid psychosis”

Testifying in court is stressful, even under the best of circumstances. Testifying when you are the defendant and your future and freedom are being decided by the court, is even more anxiety-producing. For a person like Donald Trump, someone who is mentally unwell, the stress and pressure caused by a courtroom is likely cataclysmic.

The fact that he is being held accountable for his obviously criminal behavior by people whom he deems to be beneath him as a rich white man appears to be especially maddening for the ex-president. As the pressure of accountability grows, in these last few weeks and days Trump has defied the court’s gag orders and fines by continuing to threaten court officials, witnesses, and his other “enemies." He has been disruptive, being so bold and contemptuous of the proceedings that he even went so far as to storm out of the courtroom while chased down by his Secret Service detail. He also let out a deluge of posts on Truth Social in apparent response to the civil trial and his children being forced to testify, where he raged and appeared to be having a tantrum.

"There is an often-neglected component of narcissism that ends up directed against the narcissist himself. Don’t forget that Narcissus drowned after he became weak because he was unable to look away from his reflection in the water."

On Monday, Trump “testified” in the New York civil trial. As predicted, Trump claimed he is a victim of “persecution” and that he is being unfairly targeted. He attacked the judge, the attorney general, the prosecutors, and the legal system more generally. At one point, Trump was so out of control that the judge admonished his attorneys, telling them to control their client because if they could not, he would be removed from the stand. In all, Trump behaved like he was at a political rally and the court was a theater for him to perform in. Salon's Tatyana Tandanpolie summarized Trump's outlandish and dangerous behavior as follows:

Legal experts, though unsurprised by Trump's courtroom conduct, seemed floored by what the former president was getting away with on the stand.

"Already sparks are flying in all directions in trumps testimony – Trump surly w/ AG, Kise criticizing questioning, and judge striking Trump responses without being asked," former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Going to be a really crazy day and Trump likely to blow his cool on multiple occasions."

"Donald Trump forgetting that this is a bench trial not a jury trial," wrote MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang.

"Yet another reminder of why Trump will never testify at his criminal trials," national security lawyer Bradley Moss tweeted, pointing to Engoron's requests for Trump's comments to be tamped down.

"If the Trump lawyers are having these many issues in a civil trial, imagine how they’re going to handle a criminal one," Moss added. 

"Mind you, this is Engoron extending to Trump the ability to smear the presiding judge in a way other individuals could not do without fear of being held in contempt," he said in another tweet, referring to when Engoron told Trump he could attack him. 

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Trump’s claims that he is a “victim” who is being unfairly prosecuted because of a “witch hunt” are of course not true.

I asked several leading mental health experts and one of Trump’s biographers for their expert insights and observations about his state of mind and resulting behavior these last few weeks and what may come next as the corrupt ex-president’s legal troubles escalate.

These interviews have been lightly edited for clarity and length: 

Dr. Lance Dodes is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a training and supervising analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute:

Donald Trump’s severe narcissistic, antisocial (sociopathic) character disorder means he cannot tolerate or even acknowledge losses or defeats. Instead, he lashes out with less and less grasp of reality, insisting more and more that he is personally great, a saintlike martyr and anyone who dares to hold him accountable for his lies or his crimes is evil. His lengthy history, however, shows the opposite, that he is simply a sociopath, interested only in his personal gains in power and wealth despite the harm to others.

Those who have concluded that he is decompensating are correct, though it would be more precise to say that the decompensation consists of exposing an inability to see reality and violent self-interest that has always been who he is. As many have predicted, as pressure on him continues to rise, his claims of greatness, his inability to accept legal constraints or punishments, and his destructive impulses toward all who have limited him, will increase. Ultimately, he may decompensate to the point of gross paranoid psychosis with even more obvious incitement to riots and civil war rather than accept the reality that he has been finally held accountable.

Dr. Justin Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and the author of "Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President":

There is an often-neglected component of narcissism that ends up directed against the narcissist himself. Don’t forget that Narcissus drowned after he became weak because he was unable to look away from his reflection in the water. Trump’s power is weakening for the same reason. He is unable to look away from fantasies of his own great beauty – his reflection in the lake – long enough to keep himself from weakness before he fell in and died. While specifics are different, the myth persists. Now I think Trump can’t look away from his paranoid anxiety, including his impending dementia, and will drown in jail.

Related

"Nightmare scenario": Legal scholars alarmed over Trump's "plot to abuse his power" for revenge

He is willing to go to jail because it is a continuation of the psychotic part of his narcissism – he is so special and powerful and compelling that others will keep looking at him, while he doesn’t realize that few people are as narcissistic as he is. It will be the next part of his downfall because of that very myth, now projecting his own eyes of his greatness onto his followers, but not Into Them.

As for his kids, pathological narcissists see kids as extensions of themselves. So, if they stop functioning as extensions when they turn on him, he will cut them loose. His not showing up for their testimony is a case in point. It will be interesting to see if he will show up for Ivanka’s on Wednesday.

All of this is about assumptions of undying love like his undying self-love.

Trump is so secure in being loved that he is unable to think clearly. What this means is that he assumes that people love him so much he can still shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and he can still lie to federal agents, and they will love him still as he goes to jail. That is not true, because, following the myth of narcissus to its end, he is nearing the level of complete self-destruction.

Dr. Mark Goulston is a prominent psychiatrist and former FBI hostage negotiation trainer:

Trump alternates between being a malignant, malicious narcissist and a sociopath. From his narcissist side, he is all about control and power and the two things that trigger his rage and reckless abandon are when he is feeling out of control and powerless. When that happens, he is like a mortally wounded animal, which can be the most vicious and dangerous animal of all.

"As for 'decompensation," this requires that Trump is a somewhat normal person living in a state that allows for a decline into this condition. He's never been typical in this way."

From the sociopath side, the more he has to hide, the more he has to fear. He has gotten away with so many hidden things for so long, that he has been able to manage the fear of them being exposed. But now where so many hidden things from so many directions are coming at him, the fear and paranoia he is experiencing is more than he can manage. Hiding things effectively was for a much younger, sociopathically agile Trump.

I believe he could be pushed over the edge to truly outrageous behavior that even some of his base would see as too extreme, if someone came forth with the threat of exposure of things, without specifically naming them, that go back to his college years, his teens and before (because this is a lifelong pattern of behavior). That would make his imagination and paranoia go so wild as to cause him to become completely unhinged.

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

Finally, Trump is also a gambler and is banking on the fact that all the judges are afraid to lock him up because if that happens, they're afraid they'll trigger the kind of retaliatory rage and violence that we're seeing now against Israel and Jews. In spite of that belief, we're also seeing how that gamble is becoming less likely to pay off.

Michael D'Antonio is the author of the biography, "Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success":

Although many in the press indulge in the assumption that Trump is filled with anxiety and fear (I've speculated about this in the past) I now favor the idea that he is enraged but not afraid. Anger and disgust for the opposition make up his emotional set point and I suspect this hasn't changed. He may also feel a bit of confidence based on his lifelong success in avoiding accountability. He likely believes that he can hide behind claims of ignorance or defiant arguments against prosecutors and that with his coaching his attorneys will succeed in limiting the damage.

Given the possibility of appeals, which would at least delay his comeuppance, I wouldn't say that the prosecutions are causing him to “lose his sh*t”. This doesn't mean he isn't raging at those around him. The thing about this is — he has always raged against those around him. Those who are loyal understand that these outbursts are generally about him letting off steam and may even believe that when they occur, they are followed by a return to expert scheming. As for "decompensation"…this requires that Trump is a somewhat normal person living in a state that allows for a decline into this condition. He's never been typical in this way. However, should he ever reach the end of the line with a conviction, he may finally be reduced to such a condition.

I doubt that Trump fears being betrayed by his children. They are too well-trained and so firm in their devotion that they would do anything, including commit perjury, to protect him. (He does feel that Michael Cohen has done him dirty, of course.) As he claims martyr status Trump is aligning himself with the experience of many of his followers who consider themselves to be victims of a society that had rigged the game against them. (This is why they believe Trump's election fraud claims.) The forces arrayed against them include the government, Hollywood, the coastal elites, and, more recently, big business. (Hence Josh Hawley's appearance at a United Auto Workers union picket line.

Is Trump willing to go to jail for MAGA? I doubt that this sentiment is sincere. He declares it as part of his effort to portray himself as a victim and a hero to what began as a slogan and became a movement devoted to disruption. I can imagine 'round-the-clock vigils and even riots outside wherever he could be incarcerated, which would affirm his belief that he has followers who will never abandon him.

As a rule, it is wise to consider Trump as a man constantly painting a self-portrait. (In real life he expects to be carved into Mt. Rushmore.) I think he believes he is too good for this world, and that if we don't recognize this now, we will someday.

Read more

about Trump's trial and his antics

Taking a second look at Vivek Ramaswamy’s supposedly anti-war record

With a stiff drink, a heavy heart, and a strong sense of masochism, I recently subjected myself to the first round of Republican presidential debates. While the clown show lived up to expectations of being a tragic showcase of democracy gone wrong, the aftermath has been even more disturbing, particularly the flood of pundits and news stories claiming that Vivek Ramaswamy is anti-war.

Ramaswamy himself has even adopted the title, telling Israeli media in late August that “Israel needs to be in a strong position to defend itself. And the United States will be at Israel’s back. But I think that that’s a very different thing from automatically sleepwalking ourselves into war. I’m an anti-war president. And the way I’m going to do it is by deterring war, be it ending the war in Ukraine and deterring China.”

And yet, as is often the case with supposedly “anti-war” politicians operating in the two major political parties, there is more to the story, and Ramaswamy, like every other Republican on the GOP debate stage — and every other Democrat currently running for president — is far from anti-war.

IRAN AND CUTTING AID TO ISRAEL

During the debates — which were hosted by Fox News — Goddess of War Nikki Haley worked eagerly to out-hawk Ramaswamy on foreign policy:

The problem with Ramaswamy’s love for Trump — and a seriously gigantic red flag — is that Trump is not anti-war.

“You want to go and defund Israel. You want to give Taiwan to China. You want to go and give Ukraine to Russia. You will make America less safe.”

Like clockwork, Ramaswamy played right into it:

“I will lead Abraham Accords 2.0,” he said. “I will partner with Israel to make sure Iran never is nuclear armed.”

Nevermind that politicians have been fearmongering about Iran building a bomb for decades, or that Iran has said it does not want to build a bomb, or the consensus of US intelligence agencies, which have repeatedly stated Iran is not pursuing nukes.

Moreover, despite claims to the contrary, Ramaswamy doesn’t actually want to flat-out cut aid to Israel.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

First, Ramaswamy said Israel should not get more aid than its other neighbors after the year 2028, when the current US aid package of $38 billion expires. But secondly, and perhaps most crucial to his comments about Israel, is that it’s questionable if he actually wants to cut aid to the country at all. Shortly after the Republican debate, Ramaswamy appeared on Israeli TV and offered a very different view:

“I said that if Israel was so strong that it would not need our assistance anymore, it would be a sign of success for inter-country companies. I want to be clear: we will never stop aid to Israel until Israel says it is ready for it. Relations between Israel and the US will be stronger at the end of my term than they have ever been, and more than they will be under the other contestants.”

In other words: don't count on Ramaswamy to break the decades-long, bipartisan tradition of arming Israel to the teeth.

“I love [Israel’s] border policies,” Ramaswamy said during the GOP debate. “I love their tough on crime policies. I love that they have a national identity and an Iron Dome to protect their homeland."

Or, put another way, the border policies which routinely cost Palestinians their lives are the same border policies “anti-war” Ramaswamy admires.

And if that's the case, just imagine the horrors awaiting Mexican people living along the southern border of the United States.

RAIDING MEXICO

“A lot of what he [Trump] did makes total sense to me," Ramaswamy told Russel Brand in early August. “I’m saying a lot of the same things.” But, in some cases, “I’m going further than he ever did. I said I’d use the military on our southern border."

Ramaswamy’s proposal apparently involves exploiting the fentanyl crisis and using it as justification to launch drone strikes into Mexico to “eliminate” drug cartels.

As reported by Politico in April, Ramaswamy said using military force on cartels without permission from Mexico “would not be the preferred option” but we would “absolutely” be willing to do it, adding that what the cartels are doing “is a form of attack” on the United States. “If those cartels meet the test for qualifying as a domestic terrorist organization for the purpose of freezing their assets, I think that qualifies them for the US president to view them as an eligible target for the use of authorized military force.”

And what could possibly go wrong considering how much success the US has endured trying to kill its way to victory in the decades-long failure known as the drug war.

Perhaps it would be more surprising that Ramaswamy wants to take Trump’s border policies to the “next level” if he wasn't so utterly infatuated with the former president and obsessed with strengthening his legacy.

TRUMP "THE SINGLE GREATEST" PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME

During an August News Nation Town Hall, Ramaswamy referred to Trump as “the single greatest president” in his lifetime.

However, the problem with Ramaswamy’s love for Trump — and a seriously gigantic red flag — is that Trump is not anti-war. While in office, Trump amped up Obama's drone wars, boosted military spending, bombed Syria and pledged to “keep” their oil, cut up the Iran nuclear deal, and dropped the largest non nuclear bomb in America's arsenal on Afghanistan.

Related

Right-wing fake history is making a big comeback — but it never went away

Trump also mulled killing Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, whereas Ramaswamy claims he wants to pardon him, and they both share the same views on Chelsea Manning, who shared classified info with Wikileaks exposing US war crimes in Iraq:

“I will pardon Julian Assange because his prosecution was fundamentally unjust,” Ramaswamy tweeted in June. “Chelsea Manning, the government officer who actually leaked the information to Assange, had ‘her’ sentence commuted by President Obama because ‘she’ was part of a politically favored class: she’s trans — yet Assange now sits in a foreign prison for doing what the DC press corps does every day. This is wrong & I will fix it. We can’t have two tiers of justice: one for trans people, one for everyone else; one for violent Antifa/BLM rioters, one for everyone else; one for Trump on government document retention, another for Biden.”

COLD WARRIOR

It’s in our “vital interest” to make sure China “doesn't control the global semi-conductor supply chain in Taiwan,” Ramaswamy said in June, adding: “until we achieve semi-conductor independence, we will ensure Taiwan is not invaded by China” by ending the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

This should be good news, right? Ramaswamy wants to end the war in Ukraine. But how, you ask? By convincing Russia to break their alliance with “our enemy” China:

“The Russia-China military partnership outmatches the US on nuclear capabilities, on hypersonic missiles, on China’s naval capacities,” Ramaswamy said, later adding: “Worst of all, through the Ukraine war, we’re actually pushing Russia further into China’s hands. So, I will end that war.”

“The top military threat we face is the Russia-China alliance,” he said during an early August interview with PBS. “Our top adversary today is communist China.”

“I’m a George Washington America First conservative,” he tweeted on August 21. “Just as Nixon opened China to win the Cold War against Russia, the next president must open Russia to defeat China, starting with a peace settlement in Ukraine.”

WE’VE BEEN HERE BEFORE

“We talk about nation building,” Ramaswamy said during the early August News Nation Town Hall. “We have a nation to build right here back at home.”

But 23 years ago, another politician running for president also made this promise:

“I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations,” George W. Bush said during the 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore. “Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”

Three years later, he was nation-building in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

While on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end the US war in Iraq:

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.”

In early 2008, Obama reiterated that he was “opposed to this war in 2002. I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009.”

Well, the war in Iraq didn’t end. In fact, Obama added more conflicts to the tally while his other anti-war campaign promises slowly fizzled out, such as investigating torture under the Bush administration or closing down Guantanamo Bay.

Trump was a deviation from Obama and Bush in the way that he campaigned and the things he campaigned on. Unlike Obama and Bush, Trump made comments about “loving” torture and wanting to “bomb the hell” out of ISIS. Trump’s campaign — and his presidency — was US imperialism with the mask off.

And still, the bulk of his campaigning had less to do with promoting actual policy and more to do with promoting his own image as a businessman, a non-politician, and most importantly, as an “outsider” to the establishment. Yet once elected, Trump’s promises of “draining the swamp” came to an abrupt halt as he spent his first term adding Bush-era neocons like John Bolton to his cabinet while dutifully continuing all of the wars started by Bush and Obama since 9/11.

Ramaswamy, like Bush, claims he is against nation building. Like Obama, he makes comments that are passable on a surface level as anti-war. And like Trump, he is marketing himself as a businessman, a non-politician, and an outsider.

With recent polling showing a majority of Americans turning against the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, and general burnout from other wars such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s not at all surprising that so many of us desperately latch on to any politician who even remotely seems to promote a message of peace.

Unfortunately, between parroting neocon talking points about Iran, praising Israel’s oppressive border policies, regurgitating Cold War propaganda about China and Russia, pledging to launch drone strikes inside Mexico, and praising hawkish presidents such as Trump, Ramaswamy hardly deserves to be called anti-war.

Read more

about the war in Gaza

Giant exotic spiders are invading the eastern United States — and experts warn they’re here to stay

Jorō spiders are brightly colored, as big as your hand, travel by a method known as ballooning — and, according to a recent study, they will soon be all over the eastern United States. But don't worry — these spiders are not considered to be a threat to humans. They have a timid temperament and therefore do not attack humans; even if they did, their fangs are not sharp enough to penetrate human skin.

Originating from East Asian countries like China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, the Jorō spider first reached the United States in either 2013 or 2014 and currently has a 120,000 kilometer range. Because this spider is hurting other species in its new environment, it's considered invasive species, or an animal or plant that is both not native to an ecosystem where it currently lives and harmful. And given how well they seem to be doing here, only continuing to spread, it seems unlikely we'll ever be rid of them.

“Those data show that this spider is going to be able to inhabit most of the eastern U.S.,” David Coyle, study co-author and assistant professor in the Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation at Clemson University, said in a statement. “It shows that their comfort area in their native range matches up very well with much of North America."

“These are not just benign spiders coming to catch and kill bad things; these are pushing out native species and catching and killing whatever happens to get in their webs,” Coyle added. “Are they bad or good? It’s very nuanced depending on your perspective.”

NASA asteroid mission unveils a surprise moon orbiting Dinkinesh

The word "Dinkinesh" is Amharic for "marvelous," and the small main belt asteroid Dinkinesh has lived up to its Ethiopian moniker: When the NASA spacecraft Lucy flew by what it had anticipated would be only one asteroid, it found two asteroids for the price of one.

"Dinkinesh really did live up to its name; this is marvelous,” Hal Levison, principal investigator for Lucy from the Boulder, Colorado, branch of the San-Antonio-based Southwest Research Institute, said in a statement. “When Lucy was originally selected for flight, we planned to fly by seven asteroids. With the addition of Dinkinesh, two Trojan moons, and now this satellite, we’ve turned it up to 11.”

It is believed that the larger asteroid in the Dinkinesh pair is roughly a half-mile or 805 meters wide. The smaller asteroid in the Dinkinesh pair is believed to be only 0.15 miles or 220 meters across. A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, which partnered with NASA for the Lucy expedition, gushed over the scientific significance of the discovery.

“This is an awesome series of images. They indicate that the terminal tracking system worked as intended, even when the universe presented us with a more difficult target than we expected,” Tom Kennedy, guidance and navigation engineer at Lockheed Martin, explained in a statement. Kennedy referred to a "terminal tracking system" because it makes it possible for spacecraft to locate objects and keep them in view despite flying by at high speeds. Overall the Lucy mission was intended to test a wide range of equipment. Asteroids interest astronomers for a variety for reasons, not least of which is they can teach us much about how our solar system and its planets formed. Last month, OSIRIS-REx — a spacecraft that recently visited Bennu, an asteroid which might collide with Earth in the year 2182 —

Meg Ryan’s best romantic films that led to “What Happens Later”

Meg Ryan is a romantic comedy legend. The actress has a roster full of blockbuster rom-coms that span decades, cementing her status as one of the leaders of the genre since the '80s.

Her chokehold on romance has resulted in numerous recognizable films like "Sleepless in Seattle" and the Oscar-nominated "When Harry Met Sally" but also dramas like "Prelude to a Kiss." Ryan's likability and pure charisma are why she's dominated the genre for so long. After her major hits and directorial debut "Ithaca" in 2015, the actress took an eight-year break from the industry. She told People Magazine that as her fame grew, she felt like she had to step back from the spotlight. 

“I took a giant break because I felt like there's just so many other parts of my experience as a human being I wanted to develop,” she said which included being a mom to her kids, actor Jack Quaid of "The Boys" fame and daughter Daisy. “It's nice to think of it as a job and not a lifestyle. And that is a great way of navigating it for me," she said.

But the actress is back in full force as an actor and director in a Nora Ephron-style rom-com called "What Happens Later," released Nov. 3 and co-starring David Duchovny. 

Here's a look at Ryan's greatest romantic films that led to "What Happens Later."

1
"When Harry Met Sally" (1989)
This late '80s classic would be the game-changer for Ryan. Directed and written by the unbeatable duo, Rob Reiner and Nora Ephron, the film's premise is simple — men and women can't be friends because sex always gets in the way. That thesis is put to the test through two strangers Harry (Billy Crystal) and Sally (Ryan) whose relationship phases shift from strangers, acquaintances, and best friends to eventual love interests.
 
The film was such a hit with audiences and critics that it made more than $90 million at the box office, it was nominated for best screenplay at the Oscars and earned Ryan her first Golden Globe nomination. Not only was the movie popular for its time, but it remains relevant more than three decades after its release. If you look up the best rom-com of all time, "When Harry Met Sally" is always at the top of the list, mainly due to the undeniable chemistry between Ryan and Crystal and the whip-smart dialogue written by Ephron and stunning direction from Reiner.
 
Ultimately, the film means a great deal to me as a writer and also a super fan of the rom-com genre. Arguably, it is Ryan's magnum opus. It will stand the test of time because of its exploration into what it means to be a person longing for connection, longing to be seen by their friends and loved ones.
 
2

"Joe Versus the Volcano" (1990)

Ryan's first time collaborating with long-time friend and co-star Tom Hanks is in their film "Joe Versus the Volcano." The rom-com which heavily relies on the comedy part of this genre focuses on its lead character, Joe. At the beginning of the film, Joe has just been diagnosed with a rare, fatal disease and accepts an offer to voyage to a Pacific island and throw himself into a volcano for the Native Pacific islanders and their superstitions. During his travels and adventures on the island, he falls in love with Patricia (Ryan) who is his travel guide. The pair of course fall in love during their tumultuous travels and stay on the island. 
 
The film was met with some mixed critical reviews but it has turned into a cult classic film because of its themes of love and morality. But most importantly, the film introduced the world to the undeniable chemistry between Hanks and Ryan.

3
"Prelude to a Kiss" (1992) 
The body-switching romance fantasy film directed by Norman René is based on the play of the same name and stars Alec Baldwin, Ryan and Sydney Walker. It follows a conservative book publisher Peter (Baldwin) who meets and falls in love with a free-spirted liberal part-time bartender Rita (Ryan). The pair find solace within their connection, bond over this and get married. But soon after their vows, the couple is approached by an elderly stranger, Julius (Walker) who asks to kiss Rita.
 
Immediately after the kiss, their souls switch places. Rita is now in the form of an elderly man, and Rita's physical body houses Julius. Peter spends the film making peace with the fact that the woman he loves is in the body of an old man.
 
Critics didn't necessarily like the film adaption from the play but some appreciated the charm of its body-switching-trope and the actors' performances.

4
"Sleepless in Seattle" (1993)
Ryan and Hanks' second hit pulls the heartstrings of the lonely broken hearts all over the world. The Nora Ephron-directed and written classic inspired by 1957's "An Affair To Remember" is a tale about journalist Annie who falls in love with the widower architect and father Sam (Hanks) over the airwaves through a radio show — without ever having met him. After the death of his wife, Sam moves with his son Jonah (Ross Malinger) to Seattle to start a new life. But Jonah calls into a radio show and convinces his dad to talk about his late wife. One of the listeners is Annie, who is engaged but feels like something is missing in the relationship. She writes a letter suggesting that Sam meet her on the top of the Empire State Building just like in "An Affair to Remember." 
 
Eventually, a young Jonah flies to New York City to meet Annie on behalf of his father. Sam realizes Jonah has left and follows. On Valentine's Day, Sam and Annie meet for the first time at the Empire State Building.
 
The film is lauded as "a feather-light romantic comedy" with a spark-filled chemistry between Ryan and Hanks even though they only share a few scenes together, mostly without dialogue. 

5
"You've Got Mail" (1998)
Yet another Ryan and Hanks classic, "You've Got Mail" is a movie for the internet age. The film is a love letter to finding love through the internet. It's like Nora Ephron predicted the digital dating age before she even got to see it fruition herself. But in this late '90s rom-com based on the play and then film "The Shop Around the Corner," Ryan plays an independent bookstore owner Kathleen who is AOL messaging a penpal named Joe (Hanks), whom she doesn't realize is one of the family members who runs a mega bookstore chain called Fox Books. In real life, Joe and Kathleen are enemies — Joe is a corporate suit who is essentially running Kathleen out of business when a new Fox Books opens around the corner from Kathleen's family bookstore. 
 
In capitalistic fashion, Kathleen has to close her bookstore because of Fox Books but ironically she forms a friendship with Joe. Joe also figures out that Kathleen is his pen pal on AOL but continues to be her friend. Slowly but surely, the pair fall in love, and in one of the rom-com's best lines, Kathleen tells Joe, "I wanted it to be you" at the 91st Street Garden.
 
"You've Got Mail" is controversial for its plot – in which many viewers felt Joe deceived Kathleen and is rewarded with a happy ending – but again the chemistry between Hanks and Ryan shines so bright it's easy to forget the problematic aspects of storytelling in this film. It's why it's one of my favorites.

6
"Kate & Leopold" (2001)
Ryan's most recent, traditional rom-com, "Kate & Leopold," tells the story of a 19th-century man Leopold (Hugh Jackman) and a 21st-century woman Kate who falls in love. Kate is a modern woman driven to succeed in a male-dominated corporate world, while Leopold is a Duke who is brought to the 21st century by one of his descendants who is Kate's ex-boyfriend. Kate and Leopold, who are respectively wrapped up in their careers and societal expectations, are both cynical about love until Leopold is thrust into present-day New York City. Everything changes for the pair when they meet each other, the potential for an old-fashioned romance is here and ready for them.
 
Jackman's performance in the rom-com landed him a Golden Globe nomination even though the film was met with mixed reviews from critics. But the film is a fun, whimsical foray into the fantasy aspects of the rom-com genre that is engaging for audiences.

Read more

about Meg Ryan

“Nightmare scenario”: Legal scholars alarmed over Trump’s “plot to abuse his power” for revenge

Donald Trump and his allies are plotting to wield federal power against critics and opponents if he secures a second term, with the former president targeting individuals for investigation or prosecution, while his associates are considering invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against civil demonstrations on his first day back in office, The Washington Post reported.

Trump has told advisers and friends in private that he wants the Justice Department to investigate former officials and allies from his administration who have become critical of his time in office, including former chief of staff John Kelly, former Attorney General William Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark Milley, the Post reported. 

Publicly, the former president has also warned about designating a special prosecutor to "pursue" President Joe Biden and his family, making corruption accusations against him despite any evidence. The ex-president has been especially vocal on his social media platform Truth Social, making claims about Biden being “the most corrupt president in the history” of this country, who needs to be investigated. 

“The promises that Trump and his allies are making are a perversion of the U.S. Constitution, the principles of this nation, and of democracy as we practice it in the U.S. Benjamin Franklin’s warning that the Constitutional Convention crafted a republic ‘if we can keep it’ will be tested to the max,” Mary Guy, a professor of public administration at the University of Colorado Denver, told Salon. 

She added that "a Trump administration will wreak havoc before brakes can be applied."

Related

“Dark” right-wing network recruits MAGA “army” to replace 50K federal workers Trump plans to purge

In order to enable Trump to exert influence over Justice Department decisions, his associates have been devising strategies to bypass 50 years of policies and practices designed to insulate criminal prosecutions from political influence, the Post reported.

A significant portion of Trump’s second-term planning has been informally delegated to a network of right-wing groups, working together on a sweeping new initiative known as "Project 2025" — aimed at empowering the next GOP president to take control, reform, and eliminate what Republicans criticize as the "deep state" bureaucracy. Democracy experts have warned that Project 2025 has the potential to erode the country's system of checks and balances. 

These groups are creating a strategy, with draft executive orders, to use the military under the Insurrection Act, a source engaged in these discussions told the Post. The law, which was last modified in 1871, grants the president the authority to employ the military for domestic law enforcement.

“This is the nightmare scenario that to millions of Americans is unfathomable but realistically possible,” Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon. “It is also the scenario that millions of Americans look forward to with glee and the opportunity for retribution against the enemies of Trump.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court will “need to step up and prevent Trump’s plot to abuse his power,” Gershman said. Invoking the insurrection act and the ex-president’s plan to punish critics is “obviously unconstitutional.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

The key figure crafting strategies to employ the Insurrection Act under Project 2025 is Jeffrey Clark, the former assistant attorney general who is currently facing conspiracy and racketeering charges, alongside Trump, in the election interference case in Georgia. 

The Insurrection Act grants the president the authority to use the U.S. military against Americans inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations.

Typically the military is barred from law enforcement activities, Gershman explained. The law implements Congress’ constitutional authority under the Constitution to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.” 

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

"The Insurrection Act which Trump's minions continue to reference was designed to protect the country against men such as Trump, not empower them,” Jamie White, an attorney who handles criminal defense and civil rights cases, told Salon. “The act empowers the president to use the military in desperate times, not provide the power to silence and endanger law-abiding citizens. Moderate US citizens should not sleep on this. The world is watching."

During the last year of the Trump presidency, a faction of his supporters encouraged him to invoke the Insurrection Act to address the ongoing protests after the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, but he never did it. Trump has since expressed regret about not employing more federal force.

“The Insurrection Act does not define ‘insurrection,’ ‘rebellion,’ ‘domestic violence,’ or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment,” Gershman said. “While there may be rare circumstances in which such authority might be necessary, the law, which has not been updated in over 150 years, is dangerously overbroad and can easily be abused by an authoritarian president such as Trump.”

If Trump is elected to a second term, things will look much different, White explained, adding that the former president has not expressed his intent with the “dog whistles” he used in the past.

“Trump is using a bullhorn and being very clear that he will curtail liberties in manners that have not been pronounced since before the Civil War,” White said.

Read more

about this topic

How much protein do I need as I get older? And do I need supplements to get enough?

If you are a woman around 50, you might have seen advice on social media or from influencers telling you protein requirements increase dramatically in midlife. Such recommendations suggest a 70 kilogram woman needs around 150 grams of protein each day. That's the equivalent of 25 boiled eggs at 6 grams of protein each.

Can that be right? Firstly let's have a look at what protein is and where you get it.

Protein is an essential macro-nutrient in our diet. It provides us with energy and is used to repair and make muscle, bones, soft tissues and hormones and enzymes. Mostly we associate animal foods (dairy, meat and eggs) as being rich in protein. Plant foods such as bread, grains and legumes provide valuable sources of protein too.

But what happens to our requirements as we get older?

 

Ages and stages

Protein requirements change through different life stages. This reflects changes in growth, especially from babies through to young adulthood. The estimated average requirements by age are:

  • 1.43g protein per kg of body weight at birth

  • 1.6g per kg of body weight at 6–12 months (when protein requirements are at their highest point)

  • protein needs decline from 0.92g down to 0.62g per kg of body weight from 6–18 years.

When we reach adulthood, protein requirements differ for men and women, which reflects the higher muscle mass in men compared to women:

  • 0.68g per kg of body weight for men

  • 0.6g per kg of body weight for women.

Australian recommendations for people over 70 reflect the increased need for tissue repair and muscle maintenance:

  • 0.86g per kg of bodyweight for men

  • 0.75g per kg of bodyweight for women.

For a 70kg man this is a difference of 12.6g/protein per day. For a 70kg woman this is an increase of 10.5g per day. You can add 10g of protein by consuming an extra 300ml milk, 60g cheese, 35g chicken, 140g lentils or 3 to 4 slices of bread.

There is emerging evidence higher intakes for people over 70 (up to 0.94 to 1.3g per kg of bodyweight per day) might reduce age-related decline in muscle mass (known as sarcopenia). But this must be accompanied with increased resistance-based exercise, such as using weights or stretchy bands. As yet these have not been included in any national nutrient guidelines.

 

But what about in midlife?

So, part of a push for higher protein in midlife might be due to wanting to prevent age-related muscle loss. And it might also be part of a common desire to prevent weight gain that may come with hormonal changes.

There have been relatively few studies specifically looking at protein intake in middle-aged women. One large 2017 observational study (where researchers look for patterns in a population sample) of over 85,000 middle-aged nurses found higher intake of vegetable protein — but not animal protein or total protein — was linked to a lower incidence of early menopause.

In the same group of women another study found higher intake of vegetable protein was linked to a lower risk of frailty (meaning a lower risk of falls, disability, hospitalization and death). Higher intake of animal protein was linked to higher risk of frailty, but total intake of protein had no impact.

Another smaller observational study of 103 postmenopausal women found higher lean muscle mass in middle-aged women with higher protein intake. Yet an intervention study (where researchers test out a specific change) showed no effect of higher protein intake on lean body mass in late post-menopausal women.

Some researchers are theorizing that higher dietary protein intake, along with a reduction in kilojoules, could reduce weight gain in menopause. But this has not been tested in clinical trials.

Increasing protein intake, improves satiety (feeling full), which may be responsible for reducing body weight and maintaining muscle mass. The protein intake to improve satiety in studies has been about 1.0–1.6g per kg of bodyweight per day. However such studies have not been specific to middle-aged women, but across all ages and in both men and women.

 

What are we actually eating?

If we look at what the average daily intake of protein is, we can see 99% of Australians under the age of 70 meet their protein requirements from food. So most adults won't need supplements.

Only 14% of men over 70 and 4% of women over 70 do not meet their estimated average protein requirements. This could be for many reasons, including a decline in overall health or an illness or injury which leads to reduced appetite, reduced ability to prepare foods for themselves and also the cost of animal sources of protein.

While they may benefit from increased protein from supplements, opting for a food-first approach is preferable. As well as being more familiar and delicious, it comes with other essential nutrients. For example, red meat also has iron and zinc in it, fish has omega-3 fats and eggs have vitamin A and D, some iron and omega-3 fats and dairy has calcium.

 

So what should I do?

Symptoms of protein deficiency include muscle wasting, poor wound healing,
oedema (fluid build-up) and anaemia (when blood doesn't provide enough oxygen to cells). But the amount of protein in the average Australian diet means deficiency is rare. The Australian dietary guidelines provide information on the number of serves you need from each food group to achieve a balanced diet that will meet your nutrient requirements.

If you are concerned about your protein intake due to poor health, increased demand because of the sports you're doing or because you are a vegan or vegetarian, talk to your GP or an accredited practicing dietitian.

Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practicing Dietitian, University of South Australia

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

Peter Jackson says more Beatles music is “conceivable” following the release of “Now and Then”

Filmmaker Peter Jackson has revealed that there may be more Beatles music in the works following the release of the rock band’s so-called final song, “Now and Then.” 

The latest track was produced from a demo of John Lennon’s songs, which he had originally recorded in 1977. After struggling with the demo’s poor audio quality, fellow bandmates Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr decided to revisit “Now and Then” in 2022 after Jackson introduced McCartney to an audio software called Mal (machine audio learning).

That same technology was also used in Jackson’s Beatles documentary “Get Back,” which premiered on Nov. 25, 2021. While editing “Get Back,” Jackson examined 60 hours of footage and 150 hours of audio, which he said could be used to make more new tunes in the future.

“We can take a performance from ‘Get Back,’ separate John and George, and then have Paul and Ringo add a chorus or harmonies,” Jackson told the Sunday Times. “You might end up with a decent song but I haven’t had conversations with Paul about that.

“It’s fanboy stuff but certainly conceivable.”

He continued, “It felt so wrong to have a Beatles song all to myself. With the world in the state it is, we need the Beatles to appear again, as if a flying saucer has touched down and they’ve got off and are providing us with their one last song to cheer us up.”

Watch the music video for "Now and Then," via YouTube:

“Doesn’t know how to act in front of a judge”: Legal experts school Trump lawyer over meltdown

Trump attorney Alina Habba unleashed a torrent of frustration directed at New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron during a break in Monday's testimony in Trump's $250 million civil fraud case. "'I'm not here to hear what he has to say,'" Habba quoted the judge as having said about Trump's meandering tangents. "Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney?" she asked. "The answer is very clear," Habba added. "Because [NY Attorney General Letitia James] wants to stand right here like she did this morning and call my client a liar." Habba continued: "And if we don't stop corruption in courtrooms where attorneys are gagged, where attorneys are not allowed to say what they need to say to protect their clients' interests, it doesn't matter what your politics are. But I was told to sit down today. I was yelled at, and I've had a judge who is unhinged slamming a table… Let me be very clear, I don't tolerate that in my life. I'm not going to tolerate it here."

Legal observers criticized the lawyer's complaints. "Spoken like a lawyer who: (1) doesn’t try cases and (2) doesn’t know how to act in front of a judge," quipped MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang on X, formerly Twitter. Georgia State University Law professor Eric Segall mocked Habba's outrage over being told to sit down. "What a terrible look for this lawyer," he tweeted. Attorney Bradley Moss cited his own experience being chastized by judges to illustrate that Monday's exchange was not unusual. "Get over it," he wrote.