Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Ex-Mueller prosecutor blames Judge Aileen Cannon after Walt Nauta hearing abruptly derails

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team, leveled blame at Judge Aileen Cannon for the recent "implosion" of a former Trump aide's hearing. Cannon, the Trump appointee overseeing his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, abruptly adjourned Walt Nauta's hearing after Nauta's attorney was not prepared to move forward in the discussion of issues that were not contained in the government's briefs. Nauta, a personal aide to Trump, was indicted in the case in June for his alleged role in helping the former obstruct government efforts to recover the classified documents.

The recent hearing was concerning the fact that Nauta's attorneys could have conflicts of interest, given that they also represented individuals who could be called as witnesses. Prosecutors raised issues that were not included in their brief and Nauta's attorney was not prepared to discuss them. "Visibly and audibly irritated, Cannon curtly adjourned Nauta’s hearing, promising to issue a scheduling order calling for more briefing and another hearing," Roger Parloff wrote in a Monday article for Lawfare. "Regrettably, I will have to postpone this. It may require briefing. I admonish the government for wasting the court’s time. I’m disappointed in that. The court is recessed," Cannon said.

"Woodward protested that he had not had a chance to discuss the issues with Nauta; that the government’s position was wrong on the law; and that he could not properly advise his client until Judge Cannon ruled on whether she accepted the government’s theories," Parloff wrote. But Weissmann said he had a "slightly different" take. "Judge Cannon ignored thinking about the facts and issues before her, and so was surprised when the [government] raised matters that frankly would be fairly obvious to a more seasoned jurist," he tweeted. "But the [government] papers [could] have spelled things out more, as well."

“Carnival of idiots”: GOP holdouts threaten embarrassing defeat for Jordan as “bullying” backfires

The House GOP is expected to vote on a new speaker as early as Tuesday at noon but House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is far from a lock to win the seat despite a pressure campaign to win over holdout Republicans.

Jordan managed to flip several Republicans who vowed to vote against his nomination but he remains "at least 10" votes short of the 217 he needs to win and some members say "his support is very soft and there are likely more than two dozen people inclined to vote against him," according to CBS News' Robert Costa. Jordan has signaled that the House may hold multiple votes in hopes of pressuring the holdouts to come onboard. It took former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., 15 ballots to win the job.

Jordan signaled confidence Monday night after a weekend pressure campaign successfully flipped several lawmakers in his favor: Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo.; Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla.; Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.; and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala.

"Look, I felt good walking into the conference," Jordan said on Monday night. "I feel even better now. We’ve got a few more people we want to talk to, listen to. And then we’ll have a vote tomorrow."

Axios reporter Juliegrace Brufke, on Sunday shared an email she was given that showed how a representative from Fox News host Sean Hannity's show asked officials to explain why they weren't in favor of Jordan. 

"Sources tell Hannity that Rep xxxx is not supporting Rep Jim Jordan for speaker," the email reads. "Can you please let me know if this is accurate? And, if true, Hannity would like to know why during a war breaking out between Israel and Hamas, with the war in Ukraine, with the wide open borders, with a budget that's unfinished why would Rep. xxxx be against Jim Jordan for speaker? Please let us know when Rep xxx plans on opening the People's House so work can be done. Lastly, are there any conditions Rep xxxx will work with Democrats on the process of electing a new speaker? The deadline for comment is 11 AM tomorrow 10/16. Thank you."

Conservative Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis, criticized Jordan's "bullying" tactic on Monday.

"'Several of Mr. Jordan’s supporters have posted the phone numbers of mainstream G.O.P. lawmakers they count as holdouts,' according to The New York Times," wrote Lewis. "Meanwhile, a producer for Fox News’s Sean Hannity reportedly began a thinly veiled pressure campaign by querying GOP House members about their refusal to support Jordan … Not since a Tucker Carlson questionnaire scared Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis into throwing Ukraine under the bus has 'just asking questions' been so effective."

We need your help to stay independent

"If Jordan wins," Lewis continued, "it means Republicans will have elected a speaker who opposes Ukraine funding and wanted then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Joe Biden's electoral votes. What is more, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz’s insurgent strategy will have been successful, as a small group (just four percent) of House Republicans will have unilaterally ousted a House speaker — and replaced him with their chosen successor."

"Sincere or not, Team Jordan’s 'good cop/bad cop' routine is smart," he added. "It provides normal Republicans with an off-ramp to support Jordan, while also saving face. It is, after all, more honorable to be sweet-talked than to be intimidated," concluded Lewis. Or at least, "If Jim Jordan becomes Speaker Jordan, that’s what they will tell themselves, anyway."

But Jordan holdouts still abound, though, as The Hill observes, many of his critics have not rallied in solidarity around an alternate option. 

“I’m gonna vote the way I voted the first time, the first election we had,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. “I’m voting for Steve Scalise.”

“They don’t need to lecture me on the way things work," he added. "I’m 75 years old. I’ve watched it my entire life how things work. This is what tears teams apart. This doesn’t make them closer."


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


Other lawmakers — including Reps. Carlos Giménez, R-Fla., Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., and Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb.— indicated they would offer support for recently ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who was recently booted from the position by a far-right coup largely orchestrated by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., said she will “have an objection” if Jordan does not garner the 217 votes needed to clinch the win, telling reporters, “I truly believe if he doesn’t, we need to go back and have … meeting and try to reconcile our differences privately versus going to floor and have a show that will only benefit the other side."

 “No ma’am, I think we still need conversations,” said Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, when asked if she would vote to nominate Jordan. Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., indicated that he is against Jordan for the time being, but noted that he would be speaking to the House Judiciary Chairman in a meeting that night; chiefly, Buck wanted to discuss the Capitol insurrection.

“If he’s gonna lead this conference during a presidential election cycle, particularly a presidential election year with primaries and caucuses around the country, he’s gonna have to be strong and say Donald Trump didn’t win the election,” Buck said.

Democrats have also been up in arms over the prospect of a Jordan speakership. Former Sen.Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told MSNBC's Nicole Wallace that it was "astounding" that House Republicans are seeking to nominate Jordan. 

“I don’t know how long he’ll be speaker,” McCaskill said.

“You know, we may be back here again in another month, or two months, and talking about him being removed,” she continued. “They have a huge schism in their party and it is between people who have the same foundational values the Republican Party has always had and the Trump people and never the two are going to mix well.”

“They may paper over it tomorrow but I can’t imagine this is going to bode well for our country over the next six months."

On a recent episode of Fox and Friends, host Brian Kilmeade referred to House GOP members as a "carnival of idiots," while anchors Lawrence Jones and Ainsley Earhardt concurred that the situation has become "ridiculous."

"Don’t forget this if you live in an area where your congresswoman or congressman if they’re the ones that are holding out,” Earhardt said. “Don’t forget this when it comes time to vote. Republicans need to unite and stick together. The Democrats do it beautifully, and Republicans, for some reason, can’t seem to.”

“What a carnival of idiots," Kilmeade said. "It’s unbelievable.”

“The land of misfit toys,” Earhardt agreed. 

Joan Baez on her “honest legacy” and her impression of the Beatles: “They took off like wildfire”

Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter Joan Baez joined host Kenneth Womack to talk about being part of the musical and social revolution of the 1960s, empowering people to speak the truth, her new documentary and much more on a special bonus episode of “Everything Fab Four,” a podcast co-produced by me and Womack (a music scholar who also writes about pop music for Salon) and distributed by Salon.

Baez, the “Diamonds and Rust” singer who was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2017, has been a longtime activist and icon of the non-violence movement. She and frequent collaborator Bob Dylan famously performed at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 March on Washington, where she wept in the front row during Dr. King’s speech. It would be one of many history-making events where Baez was present, including playing 14 songs at Woodstock in 1969.

A few years earlier, though, she encountered the Beatles. “I recall meeting those boys,” she said to Womack. “Which was an experience in itself.” The first night she and Dylan “hung out” with them, Baez said, “They were all about Bob. They wanted that connection with the writing and the mystique. They were really appreciative of me, but they were a step beyond me and beyond the urban folk scene — they were heading in a broader direction, and luckily for us they took off like wildfire.”

LISTEN:

Subscribe today through Spotify, Apple Podcasts, GooglePodcasts, Stitcher, RadioPublic, Breaker, Player.FM, Pocket Casts or wherever you're listening.

Baez was also in attendance at the Beatles’ legendary Candlestick Park concert in San Francisco on August 29, 1966 — an event that would end up being the band’s final show in front of a paying audience. “There was a brief moment after one of the songs when people actually weren’t screaming,” said Baez, “and I heard [manager] Brian Epstein say, ‘this is our last tour.’”

And it was her own decision to stop touring in recent years that helped free Baez up for work on her acclaimed new documentary, “I Am a Noise.” As for what spurred her to want to make the film, she told Womack, “I wanted to leave an honest legacy. And it has emboldened other people to talk about their own issues and their own traumas, which in many cases they hadn’t wanted to deal with for a lifetime. It’s very gratifying.”

Listen to the entire conversation with Joan Baez on “Everything Fab Four,” including what the Beatles’ “biggest joy and thrill and excitement” was in America, and subscribe via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google, or wherever you're listening. "Everything Fab Four" is distributed by Salon.

Host Kenneth Womack is the author of a two-volume biography on Beatles producer George Martin and the bestselling books "Solid State: The Story of Abbey Road and the End of the Beatles" and "John Lennon, 1980: The Last Days in the Life." His latest project is the authorized biography and archives of Beatles road manager Mal Evans, due out in November 2023.

“I’m willing to go to jail”: Trump attacks Judge Chutkan hours after she slapped him with gag order

Former President Donald Trump on Monday lashed out at U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan after she imposed a partial gag order in his election interference case.

Trump, who has repeatedly and baselessly accused Chutkan and special counsel Jack Smith of acting at the behest of President Joe Biden, claimed that the gag order was only imposed because “they’re getting beaten very badly by me in the polls.” (Most polls show a tight race between Trump and Biden).

“They think the only way they can catch me is to stop me from speaking. They want to take away my voice and a judge gave a gag order today,” Trump said during a rally in Clive, Iowa. “Did you hear that? On speech, which I believe is totally unconstitutional what she did. A judge gave a gag order, a judge doesn’t like me too much.”

The former president went on to claim that Chutkan’s “whole life is not liking me.”

“You know what a gag order is? You can’t speak badly about your opponent. But this is weaponry all being done because Joe Biden is losing the election and losing very, very badly to all of us in the polls. He’s losing badly,” Trump falsely claimed. Chutkan during the hearing explicitly said that criticizing Biden and his political opponents does not fall under the scope of the gag order.

“But what they don’t understand is that I am willing to go to jail if that’s what it takes for our country to win and become a democracy again,” Trump continued.

“Him going to jail if convicted of the crimes alleged would, in fact, be healthy for our democracy,” quipped national security attorney Bradley Moss.

Chutkan earlier in the day imposed a gag order barring Trump from “publicly targeting” special counsel Jack Smith, Smith’s staff, potential witnesses and “court personnel.” Chutkan did not include herself in the order.

“Mr. Trump is facing criminal charges,” the judge said Monday. “He does not get to respond to every criticism of him if his response would affect potential witnesses. That’s the bottom line here.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Jason Miller called the decision an “absolute abomination” and claimed that Biden “was granted the right to muzzle his political opponent.”

Trump on Truth Social cried “witch hunt” and vowed to “appeal” the gag order ruling.

We need your help to stay independent

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal predicted that Trump’s appeal is “going nowhere.”

“No criminal defendant in their right mind would act the way Donald Trump did,” he told MSNBC. “I mean, the crazy part of this situation is not that a judge issued a gag order against the leading presidential candidate. The crazy part is that a leading presidential candidate has made a habit of threatening and attacking witnesses and prosecutors and court officials. That's the story. And Donald Trump is incapable of doing anything else. That's why I think it's like a coin flip, whether Trump is gonna violate this gag order first, or whether the House is going to elect a new Speaker first."

Katyal added that no other criminal defendant “can even get away with“ his repeated attacks.

“She's allowing him to get away with that here,” he said. “And the gag order — it simply tells Trump to behave like he has a modicum of decency, which is probably why it will be so hard to follow that."


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


Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance called Trump’s effort to conflate the court order with an action by the Biden administration is a “deliberate move on his part to misinform the public.”

“Trump proves every day, that he's unfit for public office,” she tweeted. “But he continues to get away with it. The question is, when does it end? Not just an indictment here or a gag order there, although those are important milestones—when will Trump finally be held accountable?”

Vance noted that Trump could potentially face fines or even arrest if he violates the gag order and added that Chutkan previously mentioned potentially moving up the trial date as a sanction.

“She has a lot of options & an appeals court might back her on an out of the box sanction if she imposes one because of the need to consider 1st Amendment rights in this unique situation,” Vance wrote.

Fran Lebowitz on Trump: “No one in New York thinks he’s a New Yorker”

Fran Leibowitz doesn't care. She doesn't care if you're upset that can't reach her because she doesn't have a cell phone. She doesn't care if you don't know what to do with your career. She doesn't care if you agree with her opinions. 

This is not to say that the acerbic essayist and commentator is without feelings. "I don't mean I don't care what people think of me," she told me during a recent Salon Talks conversation, "that people that I know think of me as a person. I am a human." But the 72-year old author of the seminal "The Fran Lebowitz Reader" and subject of 2021's breakthrough Netflix documentary series "Pretend It's a City" isn't invested in whether her relationship with technology makes other people mad. "What does bother me is people think of some kind of moral stance," she explained. "It's not."

But as she made clear in our discussion, Lebowitz still has plenty of other moral stances to go around. She readily offered her opinions on the too-comfortable behavior of movie audiences, the number of American cities she considers "great" (two) and why she was wrong about the 2016 election. "I spent the year prior to the election going around the country telling thousands of people, 'He has zero chance,'" she recalled, before boldly taking another chance on forecasting. Ever ready with an opinion, she teed one up for us. "Are you going to ask me if he's going to win this time?" 

You can watch my full "Salon Talks" interview with Lebowtiz here or read a transcript of our conversation below to learn what she thinks will happen the 2024 election, her advice to young people and making the trek all the way to Brooklyn for her next show. 

We need your help to stay independent

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

You’re currently on tour around the country and around the world for the next year. You're going to Australia. You're going to Amsterdam, you're going to Berlin, you're going to Zurich, but next you're going to Brooklyn. 

Yes. The upside of that is, no plane.

As a New Yorker, I love you and I would love to see you, but I'm not going to Brooklyn, Fran. I'm not going to lie.

That's OK. It's far. This place is called Kings Theater. I don't know where it is. It's in Brooklyn. Many people do know where it is. All the people that I know who know where it is are 22. It must be a youthful venue.

You have youthful fans, and new generations are being introduced to your work. “The Fran Lebowitz Reader” just came out in the UK only three years ago and became a bestseller. You released “Pretend It's A City” in 2021. What is it about your younger audience that you see connecting with your writing?

I don't know. I really have no idea, but I have always had a young audience, to some extent. The difference really in my audience is the size of it, because it turns out that Netflix is really popular. Netflix is more popular than I think probably every book ever written. I always did this, I've done this since I was 27, but I always did it in the United States and Canada. Since Netflix, I do it all over the world, so that's a big difference. 

"You can only think about one person for a certain amount of time, even if that person's you."

Quite a while ago, I noticed that when kids saw me in the street, the main thing they would say to me — well, they say a number of things — but a primary thing is, "I wish I'd lived in New York in the '70s. It seemed like it was so much more fun. Was it?" I found this an odd thing for kids to say, so I actually thought, was New York more fun in the '70s than it is now? I don't know. I was in my 20s in the '70s, so I do know it's more fun to be in your 20s in the '70s than in your 70s in the '20s. Definitely more fun.

New York in the '70s has now achieved this kind of permanent glamor, like Paris in the '20s. I think really that's it. They want to know about it. They also are surprised. They see all these photographs and they're stunned. Like some of them say, "How could all these people know each other? How could you all be in this room?" What they don't understand is how small these worlds were then. The New York art world fit into one restaurant, and it was called the New York art world. Now it's called the global art market. Of course, it doesn't fit anywhere except in a bank. I really think that's a big part of it. 

Also, lots of times they ask me what to do. "Fran, I don't know what to do with my life. What do you think I should do?" Really, truthfully, I think, what do I care? Kids that age, their parents paid so much attention to them that they think all of the people care about them. Do whatever you want. What do I care?

On the radio, I heard a reporter say, by 2050, we'll be out of water. I froze in terror until I realized I'll be dead. I don't care. I have no children, I don't care. So when they say things like, "I'd like to be a filmmaker, but I'm also a very good musician," they seem to be quite confident in their abilities. "What do you think I should do?" I think, I don't know. But if I was your age, I'd look for water because apparently we drank it all. I don't even know what happened to it, but apparently it's gone. It will be gone. Go look for water.

If you're worried about your creative career, don't, because in 25 years, the planet is not going to exist anyway.

That's what it seems like. I mean, really there are bigger things to worry about.

I was reading your book again recently and I realized it'd been so long since I read it. When was the last time you read something you wrote? How often do you go back and revisit?

Never. Some of these people show me stuff when they tell me things. I never look at things that I wrote. I never watch myself. I never listen to myself. I don't read anything about myself. I lost interest in myself. You can only think about one person for a certain amount of time, even if that person's you.

Also, when I have a photograph taken, which I hate, which I've always hated even when I was young, now of course I hate it more. Photographers are always saying, "I'm just trying…" because it takes so much time, "I’m just trying to get ready for a picture." I always think, "Well then you should have called me in the '70s, OK, so let's snap this up.” When they say, "Do you want to see the picture?" No, I don't. I don't ever look at this stuff.

You don't look at your pictures. You also very famously don't have a cell phone or a laptop. It's not like you're not engaged. You read the paper, you listen to the radio, you listen to the news, you know what's going on in the world, but you don't have a cell phone. Tell me what's great about not having a cell phone.

I don't know because I never had one. Not having a cell phone was not like some deliberate decision. The cell phone is not the first thing they invented like that. The first thing they invented like that, that I'm aware of, that you would have in your house, was called a word processor. A friend of mine who's a screenwriter got one. She said, "This thing's fantastic. You have to come and look at this." So I looked at it and I thought, "Well, this is just a very fast kind of typewriter." Which is all it was. There was no internet then. I didn't have a typewriter. I thought, I don't need this fast thing, which I don't know how to use. I write so slowly I could write in my own blood without hurting myself. So, I said, "I don't need this." 

I didn't know the entire world would go into a little machine, but it did and I just still don't know how to type. I just don't care. It really angers people though. Especially people I know. People are furious at me. “I can't reach you.” I think, "So what, who am I?" Truthfully, if you have a real emergency, I can't help you. I have no skills. In other words, I'm not like the head of trauma brain surgery at neuro hospital. Let me give you a list of people that you should call if there's an emergency, I'm not on the list. I don't care if people can't reach me. I don't really care if I can be in constant touch with people. It doesn't bother me, but it does bother everyone else. What does bother me is people think of some kind of moral stance. It's not. It's happenstance, really. It had to do with typing.

I've read so many interviews where people will say, "Well, do you care about what people say about this?" Your response is always, "I don't care what people think about me." I would love to be able to cultivate that. How does one do that? 

I don't mean I don't care what people think of me, that people that I know think of me as a person. I am a human. I mean, I don't care what people think about what I think about things. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if anyone agrees with me. You don't agree with me, so what? That I've always had. OK, so all right, I think this, you think that. 

"What does bother me is people think of some kind of moral stance. It's not. It's happenstance, really. It had to do with typing."

It does anger people. I think that is also surprising because it really doesn't matter. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not in charge of anything. I would like it to matter. I would like, "I'm the President of the United States and it really, really matters a lot in my opinion." But I'm not the President of the United States, so it doesn't matter. I don't have any power. People shouldn't get so angry at me. Although they do. But I don't understand why anyone cares what people think about what you think, but a lot of people do, and people always have. 

Now I understand a politician, because they need people to agree with them. But most people are not, say, a senator, although it seems like anyone could become one. But most people don't have that kind of power. I think people should just stop thinking about it.

You're going on this tour, you're embarking on all of this travel. When you leave New York, what do you miss about it?

I miss everything about New York. There's lots of great cities in the world. There's not lots of great cities in the United States, though. In the United States, there's only one other city, that's Chicago.

San Francisco?

San Francisco is a village.

L.A.?

L.A. is not dense enough to be a city. There are things I like about these places, but a real city to me, New York and Chicago, that's it. The other places are either too small or they're too adorable, San Francisco…

Philadelphia is not adorable.

No. Philadelphia's pretty. I really like Philly, but it's so close to New York that if you want to live there, you could live in New York. I know it's less expensive, but every place is, alright? Every place is less expensive than New York. But it's not my fault New York's so expensive. I would prefer it [to be] less.

But really where I want to go, I want to go home. I travel all the time. I've been doing this for years and years. People say, "Where are you going on vacation?" "Home." That's where I want to go, home.

I'm standing in front of my building at five in the morning with luggage and someone who lives in my building was coming in from the gym, coming in from the gym at 5 a.m. Of course, she's a banker. She goes, "Oh, did you go on vacation?" I said, "No." When you see me standing in front of the building with my luggage, I'm going to make money. When you see me coming in, I'm coming to spend it. I spend it here. It costs so much to live in New York that you have to spend all your time paying rent.

There's so much that's hard about living in New York. I read an interview recently where you said you don't go to museums anymore. You don't go to movies anymore. The reason why you gave was your "fellow man."

I go to museums. I've not gone to the movies in a movie theater for a long time, generally. I might go once in a while. I used to go all the time. Yes. It's because of my fellow man. It's the way people behave in movies. People behave in movies like they're home. In fact, people behave everywhere now as if they were home. They have no sense that, I'm not in my own living room, maybe I should put on long pants. I'm not in my living room, maybe I shouldn't be talking, sharing my opinion of the movie with everyone else here. That's what keeps me out of those places.

I still go to museums because there's no substitute for that. I try to go to museums when they're closed, which is sometimes a possibility. Twice, I've been able to go to the Met recently when it was closed, and that is the perfect way to go to the Met. I mean there's every reason to go to museums, which used to be empty.

You have to go in those early hours. That's the trick.

They used to be empty all the time because really not that many people are interested in museums. There are very few people interested in museums. When I was young, when I first moved to New York, if I was uptown and I had a half an hour till I had to go to the next place uptown, but not time to go home, I would go to the Museum of Modern Art. You could just walk in, pay something, but not a hundred dollars, whatever it costs now, all these lines. Truthfully, I'd like to live in a world where this many people are interested in this, but they're not really.

I read an interview you did with W in 2016 where you said, I don't believe Donald Trump will become president because I don't believe there are that many morons in the United States.

There are, turns out.

Turns out there are.

There's three events in my lifetime that I remember every second of the event from the time it occurred. One is the assassination of John F. Kennedy. One is September 11. And the third is the night Donald Trump was elected. Because first of all, yes, I spent the year prior to the election going around the country telling thousands of people, “Zero. He has zero chance.” I said that because I believed it. It never occurred to me. It was a joke. I was really shocked. 

For at least three or four months after that election, every time I walked out of my apartment, people screamed at me. "You were wrong. You were wrong." I know, I'm sorry. Believe me, I'm sorry. I was sorry I was wrong. I was sorry what that meant that I was wrong. Truthfully, if you've only been wrong one time in your life, that was not the time to be wrong. So, no, I did not believe that there were that many people who would [vote for him]. 

"Truthfully, if you've only been wrong one time in your life, that was not the time to be wrong."

A friend of mine right before the election said he could win. I said, "That is just absurd." She said, "You don't understand this country because you don't watch reality television." I said, "That's ridiculous." I'd heard of the television show, but I never saw it. That's true. But I never saw any reality television. I knew that a lot of people like reality television, but I didn't know they thought it was reality. It's called reality television, not reality. Right?

As you know, New York City voted for Hillary Clinton nine to one. Even the Upper East Side voted for Hillary Clinton, even though they always vote Republican on the Upper East Side in presidential elections because no taxes on capital, but they didn't vote for Donald Trump. 

Of all the horrible things about Donald Trump, one of the things that most bothers me, and perhaps you, is that people outside New York think he's a New Yorker. No one in New York thinks he's a New Yorker. It's the most insulting thing to me. I always say, “No one in New York thinks he's a New Yorker.” And no one in New York even thought he was a real estate developer. The truth is that in New York, the real real estate developers looked down on him. Can you imagine a level of moral squalor so profound that real estate agents look down on you? And they were right. It was a shocking thing. Really shocking.

Are you going to ask me if he's going to win this time?

I am afraid to ask you now, Fran.

I don't think so. I really don't think so. The problem, of course, is the electoral college. If it wasn't for the electoral college, there'd never be a Republican president. Twice in my life — which is long, but it's not a thousand years — twice in my life, the presidency was won by someone who lost a popular vote, both times Republicans, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

In other democracies, the popular vote is called “the vote.” The electoral college, both times this happened, people that I know who are non-American say, "What does this mean?" When I explain it, they go, "Oh, so it doesn't work." I go, "No, it works perfectly. It does exactly what it was meant to do." It overweights the rural vote, the Southern vote and that far Western vote. Every state has two senators. Fewer than 600,000 people live in Wyoming; they have two senators. That many people live in my building. My building should have a senator.

It is absolutely not representative. These people represent acreage because when you look at these maps, Wyoming is gigantic. You can't believe it, but there's no one there. It's just empty. That's the way they can win, but otherwise they can't. They couldn't win.

What kids teach us about gender

When I woke up from top surgery, I began to sob as soon as I looked down at my chest. Even though I was covered in thick bandaging, my chest was now flatter than it had been in a long time. As I cried, my chest tight on the inside, too, the nurses scrambled to reassure me that everything was okay. They thought I was crying because they'd lost my earring.

"I'm crying because I'm so happy," I told them through my tears. They laughed in relief.

Though my family had been relatively supportive of my identity, they'd struggled with the concept of medical transition. Everyone was nervous about surgery. In addition to both parents' uncertainty about going against what the therapists had suggested for me, my mom didn't understand why I wanted to cut off a part of my body that was completely, theoretically "healthy." But I knew top surgery was right for me. Despite the medical guidelines at the time that instructed beginning with hormone therapy, I was certain I first wanted top surgery.

When my dad watched me break down in the recovery room, he relaxed. He saw me joyful for the first time in years. Since then, he's told me that was a pivotal moment for him. He was able to see my peace and joy — to realize that trusting me in my decisions about my own body had been the right call.

"That joy was enough for me," he told me. "It was so clear this was right for you."

He was able to see my peace and joy — to realize that trusting me in my decisions about my own body had been the right call.

To this day, my mom laments her ignorance surrounding trans experiences and trans healthcare. She has told me numerous times, sometimes in tears, that she wishes desperately that she could have provided me with those resources so I could have transitioned earlier. And that I could have been spared the pain that resulted from not living my gender from an early age.

While I do not blame my parents for what they didn't know or understand, I am well aware that education about being trans is lacking. Most people have no clue what they are talking about when we discuss trans issues, especially concerning care for trans children.

In February 2022, Texas governor Greg Abbott (he/him) declared that providing gender-affirming healthcare to a trans child would be deemed child abuse, and that Texas Child Protective Services would investigate families of trans children, effective immediately. That week, some families were broken apart, with trans children separated from parents and removed from their homes. In March of 2023, a Florida Republican followed suit, introducing a bill that would allow the courts to remove children from homes where a parent or sibling is undergoing any medical care related to gender affirmation, as well as trans children from supportive parents. Such legislation is bolstered through claiming that providing kids with gender-affirming healthcare hurts or damages the child.

In the age of disinformation, right-wing politicians no longer refer to science. Instead, they rely on transphobia, lies and fearmongering.

In reality, the exact opposite is true: denying care is abuse; denying care contributes to a number of negative mental health outcomes for children, including self-harm, depression and suicide. This is backed up by peer-reviewed research, as well as by leading medical authorities.

Unfortunately, Governor Abbott, like Florida's governor Ron DeSantis (he/him) and many others, irresponsibly ignores experts. Despite the fact that every major medical, psychological, and psychiatric association agrees gender-affirming healthcare is necessary, appropriate, and can be lifesaving, these state officials have arrogantly decided they know better. Abbott and DeSantis are far from unique. In the age of disinformation, right-wing politicians no longer refer to science. Instead, they rely on transphobia, lies and fearmongering.

So, let's talk about the science.


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


Can kids really know that they're transgender so young?

Throughout my career, I have had numerous parents of transgender kids approach me with a confusing combination of respect and inability to extend the same respect to their own children. I frequently receive the following question from adults:

"Well, I understand you know who you are, Schuyler. You seem very articulate and mature, but you transitioned after you were a kid. At eighteen, right? What about the kids who are deciding this so young? Their brains haven't even developed yet! Aren't they too young to make this decision?"

Kids are absolutely capable of knowing their gender identity.

Usually the asker is a nervous parent who desperately wants the best for their child and is terrified that affirming the child's transness will cause the child harm in the future. I have a great deal of empathy for this panic; I know that my mom struggled with this even though I was technically no longer a child when I came out.

Kids are absolutely capable of knowing their gender identity; this is supported by a few key facts:

First, according to major medical associations like the Mayo Clinic, gender identity forms as early as three to five years old. Gender identity is usually established long before sexual orientation, but because many people confuse these, they assume that gender cannot be known prior to adulthood. This is false. As soon as a child is able to verbalize their identity, they are capable of knowing it.

Of course, this does not mean that every kid realizes that they are transgender as a toddler. Social and parental pressures as well as societal stereotypes of gender, which are often rigidly enforced at school and at home (and everywhere else), can cause many transgender individuals to remain presenting as the gender they were assigned at birth for many years — some unaware of the reasons behind any disconnect, some unaware of their transness altogether.

Let's not ignore that if a child who is not transgender never wavers in their identity in their childhood, no one claims that they are too young to know they are not transgender. No one is telling little cisgender boys or cisgender girls that they are too young to know they are boys and girls, respectively. Cisgender children are trusted to know their gender from birth. Transgender children deserve the same self-actualization, autonomy and dignity.

As soon as a child is able to verbalize their identity, they are capable of knowing it.

Second, gender identity is not a decision. Trans children do not decide they are transgender, they decide to tell you. And what immense courage that often requires, especially in a world rife with violent transphobia and strict gender stereotypes and expectations. I spent nearly five years harboring and hiding my sexuality, and even longer holding my gender identity. Many kids will have spent months or years crying in bed and laboring over how to share themselves with us.

Third, when people refer to children's "brains not being fully developed," they are referring to the prefrontal cortex, or PFC. This is largely regarded as the control center of the brain — it is the most recently evolved part of the brain and controls executive function. The claim that the PFC is not fully developed in kids is accurate: executive functioning does not mature until early adulthood. Executive function is often referred to as cognitive or self-control and includes the following three skills: cognitive flexibility, working memory and inhibitory control.

Everyone inhibits (or hides, avoids, doesn't show) pieces of themselves for various reasons when they interact with others.

Let's focus on inhibitory control for a moment. Inhibition includes the ability to hone attention and focus, ignore distractions, and inhibit or regulate base emotions and impulses. While inhibition is often very useful and allows us to adhere to social rules and therefore function appropriately in society, it also allows us to inhibit ourselves — our very identities.

If you're an adult, you've likely experienced this. Everyone inhibits (or hides, avoids, doesn't show) pieces of themselves for various reasons when they interact with others, especially in social settings.

But as stated by the question-asker, kids do not have mature inhibitory control — they do not have the mature neurological pathways in the PFC yet to enact it. As a result, kids have a unique ability to express themselves exactly as they are, because that is all they have. They have not grown up to learn who they are supposed to be, so they are just who they are.

Mature executive function (from a fully developed PFC) can actually reduce the ability for a person to be able to openly speak their mind and express their authenticity because mature executive function allows for a heightened ability to inhibit oneself—and potentially could allow a trans person to inhibit their expression of self due to fear or some other hesitation. An underdeveloped PFC might actually allow kids to declare their identities with clarity better than an adult.

Lastly, the question posed inserts a comparison between me and other trans people that is often elitist, ageist and sometimes even racist. Confused? Read on.

"You're so articulate" and "You seem so mature" are handed to me as compliments but are followed with "and my child is not." The parent or adult then will often explain why they doubt the validity of a young child's transness or ability to know oneself. This is dangerous reasoning because it declares: "Since my child does not appear as articulate or mature as you are, I do not believe they deserve the same rights or trust that you do."

We need your help to stay independent

This sounds harsh. Because it is. This is what a child will internalize when they share themselves and are met with doubt and rejection. Many parents believe that it is their responsibility to lead the child to somewhere positive, but I firmly believe it is the opposite. The parent must allow the child to lead, and the parent's duty is to hold the child's hand, to be back up, to provide support, especially in matters of identity and self-determination.

Invalidating a child's understanding of themselves not only indicates to the child that they cannot trust you with declarations of self, but they will also learn to doubt themselves. This disruption of learning to trust oneself can become deeply rooted, disturbing the child's very sense of self. Numerous studies have shown that invalidating childhood environments are hotbeds for the production of serious mental illness such as depression, eating disorders and even personality disorders like borderline personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder.

The answer for our question-asker is: Children are capable of knowing their gender identity as toddlers and are neurologically better equipped to declare their gender identity at a young age due to immature inhibitory brain structures. Children, regardless of their ability to articulate perfectly their identities, should be respected and affirmed for who they are.

Meet the online sleuths who cracked Jan. 6: “People are behind bars today who would not be”

Online sleuthing has a bad reputation, and for good reason. Most communities of amateurs that set out to solve crimes in online forums only end up making things worse. They accuse innocent people. They interfere with law enforcement. They spread conspiracy theories. In some cases, the impulse can morph into a disinformation cult. What is QAnon, after all, if not a bunch of wannabe Sherlocks who think they're discovering hidden truths?

But there's one big, amazing exception to the rule — the group of self-appointed investigators who joined a grassroots online effort to uncover the identities of people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. As NBC reporter Ryan Reilly explains in his new book, "Sedition Hunters: How January 6th Broke the Justice System," a group of citizen-analysts started to comb through the enormous archive of photographic and video evidence of the Jan. 6 insurrection for clues. Using programming and social media skills, they became ruthlessly effective at identifying specific rioters in the crowd. In the process, they became an invaluable resource for the FBI. As Reilly notes, "Frankly, there are a lot of people who are behind bars today who would not be there but for these sleuths."

Reilly spoke to Salon about his book and his two-plus years of reporting on the fallout from Jan. 6. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

This book is about the "Sedition Hunters," as you call them: an online group of self-appointed detectives who set out to find the identities of the people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and turn them into the FBI. When you were interviewing these people, what did you find motivated them? Why were they drawn to this time-consuming work?

It's a mixture of two major themes. One is that it's a lot of people who like to solve puzzles. It's people who are into this idea of solving mysteries. This was an ongoing cycle of mysteries that seems to be never-ending. It really gets the adrenaline moving, to actually figure out who these individuals are.

But obviously another big part of it is anger. A lot of people were very mad about what happened on Jan. 6. A lot of people are frustrated that the FBI, federal law enforcement and the Capitol Police didn't do more to prevent this from happening, given all the warning signs that we saw online.

The sleuths had varying connections to the Capitol. There's everyone from someone whose husband worked as an officer in the buildin, to someone who only had been there for an eighth grade trip to people who had never been there in their lives but just felt victimized by an attack on the country and on the transition of power.

I remember when people started to sleuth online. My initial reaction was skeptical: You see a lot of people go down internet rabbit holes, and they often come up with nothing. But these folks have been remarkably successful.

Your skepticism, initially, was warranted. We've seen situations like the Boston Marathon bombing, where you had these vigilante groups of online sleuths really interfere with investigations and make innocent people's lives miserable because of it. But this is a unique circumstance. First, things had advanced since the Boston Marathon bombing, in terms of the open-source resources available and also in the protections that have been put in place. What you haven't seen, really, is folks just throwing names randomly out there. That might have happened, in certain circumstances, in the very early days.

But the leaders emphasized from the very beginning that we don't just put things out on social media. We send them in to the Bureau. The online sleuths have this internal vetting process. It's almost like a peer review process, before these things are eventually turned over to the FBI. They want to make sure they're dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's, to make sure these are the correct identifications. Because of the amount of information they're able to get, open-source online information, they really are able to lock down these identifications beyond any reasonable doubt. 

"Leaders emphasized from the very beginning; We don't just put things out on social media. We send them in to the Bureau. The online sleuths have almost a peer review process before these things are eventually turned over to the FBI."

Now we're getting to a different point, where a lot of this is about putting pressure on the Bureau because they have cases that haven't been brought forward thus far. It's not because there's any mystery as to who these people are. I vetted a number of these identities myself, and they're just rock solid. You could write an affidavit tomorrow laying out the details of, say, more than 100 people who are photographed on the FBI's "Capitol violence" page right now, because the sleuths have done an extremely thorough job of making sure that the individuals they're identifying are the people they're looking for.

As you mentioned, there was a lot of outrage over the FBI's handling of this, at least initially. Much of your book is focused on law enforcement failures before, during and after the riot. They failed to take the intelligence seriously enough, or to act on it. They weren't really prepared when things happened. All these rioters left the Capitol without getting arrested. There was a real fear that nobody would pay a legal penalty for doing this. Why didn't the FBI do more to prevent this, even though a lot of people saw it coming a mile away?

The reason that a lot of the book focuses on that is because I really feel like it hasn't gotten enough attention. It's still this open question, what's going to be done about it. The Jan. 6 committee did a very good job of focusing everyone's attention on Trump's actions. But Liz Cheney, along with House Democrats, decided to focus on Trump and not on criticism of law enforcement. They worried it would make the narrative too complicated for Americans to digest. I'd like to think that we're capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Two things can be true at once, because this was a monumental failure. And it really hasn't been resolved. 

We need your help to stay independent

We're in a circumstance now where you have one party repeating garbage from the internet, conspiracy theories about Jan. 6, and you have another party basically defending the FBI. The truth is that there need to be some changes implemented. They need to get to the bottom of what of what really happened. There's just this huge disconnect right now between the FBI that we see portrayed in Hollywood and the actual capabilities of the FBI. They're a few steps behind where they should be in the 21st century, especially when so much of their job right now has to be all about being internet experts and open-source masters. That's just not where the Bureau is at this point.

That's for a variety of reasons. You can make a lot more money in the private sector when it comes to tech, rather than going into government. There's going to have to be some structural changes to make sure that people just don't do a few years at the Bureau and then hop out afterward for a much higher-paying job in the private sector. We really do need those those skilled employees at the Bureau, given the challenges that America is facing in the 21st century.

The sedition hunters went after the people who were there on Jan. 6, the actual rioters. They had their photographs. They had all this social media information. That was accessible to any Joe Blow with a computer. Now there's been a discussion about the next level. Trump has obviously has been indicted for his role in this. But just the other day, Liz Cheney accused Jim Jordan of being involved. How do the sedition hunters feel about the people who weren't at the Capitol that day, but may have been involved in what happened?

"Sadly, there are millions of Americans who are lost in conspiracy theories and aren't gonna be pulled back from the brink. People who will never be convinced that Joe Biden won the 2020 election."

That's something that you really have to leave up to the Bureau, because it's information that only they can really get at. The sleuths aren't able to write up subpoenas. They can't interview witnesses. They've applied their skills to what they can do, and they feel like they are playing this important role in upholding democracy. What they've been able to do, really, is remarkable, especially in terms of just uncovering faces. You have to put together a map of what these individuals were up to everywhere they were at the Capitol that day. It's a lot of work but it can also be really rewarding, to get that adrenaline rush or that dopamine hit, when they find someone. They can bring about justice for a police officer who was assaulted that day.

That's been really rewarding for a lot of them, to recognize the role that they played, even if they're not publicly recognized. Frankly, there are a lot of people who are behind bars today who would not be there but these sleuths.

Prevention is incredibly important. Right now, a lot of people act like Jan. 6 was the worst it could get, but it could be much worse. This could happen again. Something much worse than this could happen. But it hasn't, in no small part, because so many people went to prison for this. 

I definitely think that it has a deterrent effect. But sadly, there are millions of Americans who are lost in conspiracy theories and who aren't gonna be pulled back from the brink. People who will never be convinced that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. because they've been told by people that they, for some reason, respect that the election was stolen. No matter what you tell them or how many facts you introduce or how much reality you shove in their face.


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


A number of these defendants insist, until the very end, that the election was stolen and therefore what they did on Jan. 6 was justified. When you have millions of people who believe a crazy conspiracy theory like that, all you can do is make sure that they know there are going to be consequences for their actions. That's what the sleuths think their role is in this. Even if there are all these people who believe something that's fundamentally untrue, there will be consequences for them if they take any illegal actions.

People have a First Amendment right to believe any sort of crazy conspiracy that they want to. But that leaves us in a situation where we're vulnerable to these sort of attacks, because you have so many people who can easily justify violent reactions to disinformation. The sleuths can help be this wall in preventing violence in the future.  

I want to ask one question about the rioters and their psychology, because you've been covering this from the beginning. We've become a little inured to it, but one of the most shocking things about the Capitol riot was how many people filmed themselves and photographed themselves. They put it up all over social media and bragged about it. Some knew to cover their faces, but most did not. Even the Proud Boys mostly did not. Why weren't they more worried about going to prison?

One of the jokes the sleuths make: All these people got arrested because they were trying to "own the libs" by not wearing a mask in a place that had a mask mandate. What more could you ask for, if you're committing criminal activity? There's a citywide mandate to cover your face! Yet a lot of people refused to do so.

"One joke the sleuths make: All these people got arrested because they were trying to 'own the libs' by not wearing a mask in a place that had a mask mandate."

It's both funny and scary, how willing people were to put their images out there. It's because they thought they could win and that they had the moral high ground. They thought they would be seen as the victors in this endeavor. That's what makes this really scary. They were so sucked into these conspiracy theories and were so firm in their beliefs, in spite of all the evidence. They thought they were going to come out on top and would go down as heroes. I think that's what is particularly disturbing about this. There's a lot of comedy mixed in with a lot of tragedy on Jan. 6. I tried my best to strike that balance in the book.

Back to the sleuths, the heroes of this book. How did it feel to spend so much time with people who were doing this work?

There are now people who have met some of their best friends in life through this process. These people are receiving public praise. Even the attorney general made reference to the "citizen sleuths" at one point. They haven't gone fully unrecognized. They are well aware of the important role, in many cases, that they've played in these investigations. A lot of the law enforcement people I talked to also made that clear to me. These investigations are embarrassing for the Justice Department and the FBI. Random people from the internet are really pushing this thing forward and helping overcome some bureaucratic hurdles within the federal government.

Military expert on Gaza war: “When politicians act like children, children wind up dying”

On Oct. 7, the Islamist militant movement Hamas launched a surprise attack, breaking through a supposedly secure border fence between Gaza and Israel in multiple locations. At least 1,300 people were killed in Israel, most of them civilians, with more than 3,000 injured. Current estimates suggest that roughly 150 to 200 hostages, including a number of children and elderly people, were captured alive by Hamas and taken into Gaza.

These attacks have been widely described as Israel’s equivalent to 9/11. In some ways, the historic weight may actually be greater: It appears that more Jewish people were killed on Oct. 7 than on any single day since the end of the Nazi Holocaust.

Hamas' ability to amass a large number of forces in secret, to subvert much of Israel's border security and to launch a coordinated series of attacks across southern Israel has raised many questions about that country’s vaunted military and intelligence capabilities.

Israel is now engaged in a massive military campaign in Gaza which is likely to involve a near-term ground invasion with a variety of goals: rescuing Israeli hostages, destroying the leadership of Hamas and degrading its ability to launch further attacks, and reassuring the Israeli public (and the world) that "security" has been assured.

Gaza, a densely populated territory of more than 2 million people packed into 141 square miles — roughly the same land area as the city of Philadelphia — is now effectively blockaded and cut off from the outside world. More than 2,100 people have already been killed there as a result of Israel's bombing campaign, and the death toll is certain to go much higher, with an invasion by Israeli troops likely imminent. Food and fuel are running short, and there is little or no electricity. International organizations and Palestinian health officials have described the situation as a humanitarian disaster.

In an attempt understand the military and strategic aspects of the war between Israel and Hamas, as well as how it will affect international tensions between the U.S., Iran and Russia — as well as the rest of the world — I recently spoke with Elliot Ackerman. He is the author of several bestselling books, including "2034: A Novel of the Next World War," "The Fifth Act: America's End in Afghanistan" and "Places and Names: On War, Revolution and Returning." His latest book is the alternate-history novel "Halcyon," set in a fictional version of 2004. Ackerman is also a contributing writer at The Atlantic and a Marine Corps veteran who served five tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he received the Silver Star, the Bronze Star for Valor and the Purple Heart.

This interview took place last Wednesday. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

After the massive terror attack by Hamas against Israel, we face the possibility of a broader war in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues. How are you feeling? How do you make sense of these events? 

The first rule of international affairs is to expect the unexpected. Human beings are unpredictable; politics is unpredictable. These attacks took most of the world, and certainly Israel, by surprise, and it wouldn't be the first time in recent memory there was a major event that took the world by surprise. There was the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the collapse of Kabul that took place in just the last 24 months.

What is your assessment of how the news media and supposed experts have been responding to this new crisis? What did the talking heads who offered breathless coverage last weekend as the attacks took place and shortly thereafter get right or wrong in hindsight?

The evidence of what happened in Israel is pretty clear. There's no challenge there. In the first 12 to 24 hours the details were still developing, but now we have a good sense of what transpired. The more complex question is: What happens next? Where are the areas where we should be very cautious? How should we be thinking about this crisis?

"If we look back to decisions that are made without a lot of strategic foresight, they are made in the heat of the moment. They're deeply informed by the emotions of that moment and what people or societies demand emotionally."

One thing that I think we underweight in these instances are emotions. Where are we emotionally, in terms of the reaction to a given crisis? If we look back, even in recent memory, to decisions that are made without a lot of strategic foresight, they are made in the heat of the moment. They're deeply informed by the emotions of that moment and what people or societies demand emotionally. Those emotions are real; they're not made up. They're a force in politics, as much as anything else. But it's worth being cognizant of your society's emotional state when you are planning a response.

Military leaders or political leaders are cognizant of how many tanks and missiles they have when they're planning a military response. There is going to be a strong counterattack into Gaza. We're going to see more carnage and more destruction. But in this moment, being keenly aware of where a society is emotionally and psychologically as Israel is waging this war — and the world's emotions too — is going to be very important.

What kinds of conversations were taking place at the highest levels of government as these attacks took place? What does that crisis response look like during such a moment?

Senior leaders need to decide relatively quickly what they want to have happen next. What are the strategic objectives? In this case, the Israeli leaders have said very clearly that their strategic objective is to eliminate Hamas, that Hamas will no longer exist as a political organization, and also to bring to justice the individuals who perpetrated these attacks and free the hostages that have been taken.

Once leaders get a clear handle on what their strategic objectives are, you start breaking it down. How are we going to accomplish those objectives? Then you start looking at the options of how one might do that. Once you decide on the various options of how you might achieve certain objectives — maybe there are two or three courses of action — you settle on one that seems to be the most effective. If it's hostage rescue, maybe it's going after the hostages before there's a major incursion into Gaza. Maybe it's waiting? Maybe it's negotiating? These are all options of how to recover your hostages.

With regard to Gaza, how hard do we go in? Once the leaders in the room have ascertained what their strategic objectives are, that's when the people around them, the professional military officers and intelligence officers, start breaking down that much larger task into subordinate manageable tasks to accomplish the job. And while this is happening you still have to respond to your adversary and what they are doing, in this case Hamas and Hezbollah, and how their actions may impact your plans and objectives.

Given Israel's, and America's, intelligence and military capabilities, from the satellites to the ability to intercept communications to spies and human assets on the ground, how did Hamas manage to launch a surprise attack on this scale?

The capabilities of the intelligence agencies in the United States or in Israel are very impressive, but they're not omniscient. There are always huge gaps. These failures are not necessarily outliers. If you have a group of people who are planning an attack and they are capable and intent on hiding their plans, sometimes they will succeed, as they did in Israel. There is no amount of technology that can outsmart a group of humans who are trying to plan something in secret 100 percent of the time. Surprise is an element of almost every war — and, fundamentally, miscalculation is a part of all wars. Both sides believe they can win the war and, ultimately, one side is of course wrong, because somebody always loses.

How did Israel's national security state get it so wrong?

"There is no amount of technology that can outsmart a group of humans who are trying to plan something in secret 100 percent of the time. Surprise is an element of almost every war."

I believe complacency played a large role here. One way that societal complacency can manifest is the type of dysfunctional and childish behavior we are seeing in our politics. We’ve seen this in the United States and Israel. Our political leaders don't believe that there is any type of outside threat. They don't believe that this dysfunctional behavior will ever have severely negative ramifications. As we are seeing in Israel right now, when politicians act like children, children can wind up dying in these types of attacks.

In the United States, we have become the poster children for political dysfunction across the world. I have similar fears that as we are inwardly facing and navel gazing at whatever the controversy of the day is, our adversaries are plotting our demise. That certainly took place in Israel where they were preoccupied with internal domestic political disputes these last few years. That led to a certain degree of complacency, and nobody saw an attack like this coming.

What do you believe that this surprise attack by Hamas will do to the perception of Israel, which is supposed to have one of the most powerful and professional militaries in the region, and the world? And what about the reputations of the Mossad and Israel's other intelligence agencies?

I think it certainly puts their reputation to the test. It may even erode it a little bit. Israel has been surprised before. The 1973 war would be the obvious example — and they eventually won that war. The Israelis will now have to show their mettle in the days and battles ahead. It appears the country is coming together very, very quickly. When the war is over, there will be commissions investigating how these attacks took place and were so successful. I would not be surprised if Benjamin Netanyahu pays a steep political price for whatever shortcomings are revealed by that commission.


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


These attacks have been framed as being Israel's version of 9/11. How accurate is that comparison?

There are parallels and similarities. Israel was caught by surprise and didn't see this coming. There are real emotional parallels between how Israel is going to try to make sense of these attacks and how the United States did so after 9/11. There's going to be everything that came before and everything that came after. These attacks by Hamas will be a dividing line in history for Israel.

What are Hamas' strategic goals? What do they want?

I don't think we know that yet. Is this an isolated attack? I tend to doubt that it is. How do these attacks play into a broader strategy? How many actors are complicit in that strategy? The Biden administration has come out strongly in saying they do not see any direct connections to Iran, in terms of planning this attack on Israel. Most critically, how do the other powers in the Middle East behave in the days, weeks and months ahead? 

Israel intends to destroy Hamas. Hamas was successful with these attacks, but the organization will likely no longer exist in the same form once the fighting is over. From that perspective, were these attacks really a victory?

That doesn't mean they lose. It's important to always keep in mind that war is politics, and all war is political. War is a tool of policy. The Tet Offensive of 1968 effectively destroyed the Viet Cong. However, the Tet Offensive was a massive political success for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, even though militarily speaking it was a disaster. With regard to Hamas, the question is: What is their political aim? What are they hoping to achieve with these attacks? Those questions are essential to understanding the nature of the attacks themselves. Hamas does not have the high-end conventional military capabilities that modern armies possess. But Hamas still wields political power, and they can use certain military tools to achieve political ends. That is what guerrilla movements have done since time immemorial.

"There are real emotional parallels between how Israel is going to make sense of these attacks and how the United States did after 9/11. There's going to be everything that came before and everything that came after."

How does Hamas' use of terrorism fit into its goals?

We have seen this with the Islamic State and others, and it's a tactic that's as old as war. Terrorism is a form of psychological warfare. It can be designed to do just that, strike terror into people's hearts. Terrorism can also be used to incite a response that may be too strong or imprecise. Those types of terror videos are designed to be disturbing, with the goal of eliciting a visceral, emotional response.

What are the conversations like that are taking place within the Biden administration about how to respond to these events?

There is the geo-strategic question of how we stabilize and de-escalate this conflict and prevent it from turning into a broader regional war. Even more concerning is the question of how to stop this from becoming a broader world war. There's the potential for the United States to find itself not only in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, but in a proxy war against Iran in Israel. That would be a challenge. The Biden administration should be trying to manage and de-escalate this conflict with the understanding that the Israelis are going to destroy Hamas and assure their own security in the future. Now, with regard to the U.S. hostages being held in Gaza, that is a tactical problem: How are we going to recover them? There are a variety of means by which you can do that, such as using special operations forces that have a specific hostage rescue mission. I'm sure they're all being spun up right now. The U.S. hostages can also be recovered through negotiations or by our Israeli partners.

There are already discussions of how the war between Israel and Hamas could spiral into a much larger conflict, perhaps even a world war. How plausible is such a scenario?

"Putin had a great weekend. The attacks in Israel have taken the world's attention away from Ukraine. That gives Putin a little bit of political space, which I'm sure he appreciates."

The most essential thing here is to keep the lines of communication open so that the situation can de-escalate. That's a key part of keeping this from spreading. The way these conflicts spread historically is when one side takes a military action, another side escalates that military action and the other side escalates in turn. There are misinterpretations of intent and then it keeps escalating.

How do you think Vladimir Putin is viewing these events?

Putin had a great weekend. The attacks in Israel have taken the world's attention away from Ukraine. That gives Putin a little bit of political space, which I'm sure he appreciates. That doesn't mean he's going to suddenly win the war in Ukraine, but in the short term the events in Israel benefit him.

Israel is almost certainly going to invade Gaza. What is old and what is new about the types of fighting their forces are going to engage in?

We are going to see hybrid warfare. The new things are drone technologies, advanced surveillance technologies and some of the innovations that we've seen in Ukraine, such as people using cell phones to crowdsource targeting and intelligence, and watching a war being broadcast on social media channels. What is going to be old is fighting in a city like Gaza. That is house-to house-fighting. It is very brutal. Fancy new technology does not really help you there. That type of fighting is going to be very costly and very time-consuming.

Given recent events, what are you most concerned about? What would you tell people to focus on as they try to make sense of this moment?

What gives me the most cause for concern is the idea of the conflict now in Israel metastasizing to other parts of the Middle East. If that happens, it could draw in other countries that are antagonistic to the United States, such as Iran or Russia or even China to a limited degree. As much as our leaders can keep what's going on in Israel isolated to that country, that would be in all of our best interests.

The FDA banned Red Dye No. 3 from cosmetics in 1990. Why are we still eating it?

In a landmark decision this month, California became the first state to follow in the footsteps of the European Union and ban the usage of Red Dye No. 3, as well as several other chemical additives, in food and beverage products. The dye — which is present in hundreds of candies, as well as snack foods like Hostess’ Ding Dongs, Peeps and even PediaSure Grow & Gain Kids’ Ready-to-Drink strawberry shake — has been banned from cosmetic use since 1990. 

Yet despite studies linking its consumption to cancer, as well as increased hyperactivity in children, California’s ban is controversial because it means that the state is essentially an island in terms of how the usage of Red Dye No. 3 is regulated. This is prompting public health advocates and some science work groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), to call on the Food and Drug Administration to reassess whether Red Dye No. 3 is actually truly safe for regular consumption. 

“If the data were strong enough to ban Red 3 in cosmetics and external drugs 30 years ago, they’re surely strong enough to ban it today in foods, oral drugs, and dietary supplements,” asserts CSPI president Peter Lurie in a statement

As the pressure for the FDA to investigate continues to mount, here’s what you need to know about Red Dye No. 3 and the California ban. 

What is Red Dye No. 3? 

Erythrosine,which you’ll see on some ingredients lists as “FD&C Red No. 3,” is a synthetic dye made from petroleum. It gives snacks, candies and beverages a bright, fire-engine red red color. It was first approved for use in food in 1907, one year after the Food and Drug Administration was founded. 

What are the safety concerns that come with consuming Red Dye No. 3? 

The health and safety concerns surrounding the consumption of Red Dye No. 3 vary in scope and severity. There have been reports of some individuals experiencing sensitivity or allergic reactions — including hives, itching, swelling and difficulty breathing — to the additive, though the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology classifies these instances as rare. 

Research has linked hyperactivity and the consumption of food dyes in children and, more alarmingly, some studies showed that rats that consumed high doses of Erythrosine saw an increased incidence of thyroid tumors.

Who regulates the usage of Red Dye No. 3 in the United States? 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in charge of regulating the usage of ingredients like Red Dye No. 3 — though their stance on the additive has stagnated over the last three decades. As the New York Times and Associated Press reported in January 1990, the FDA banned many uses of Red Dye No. 3 “saying studies had shown that very high doses of the color additive can cause cancer in laboratory animals.” 

“The action prevents further use of the dye in some cosmetics, drugs and foods,” the report continued. “But because the risk is considered small, the agency said consumers could continue to use existing supplies of products that already contain the dye.” 

At the time, the agency said it would work towards extending the ban to foodstuffs, but that promise never materialized. However, as NPR reported on Monday, pressure is mounting for the agency to reevaluate its stance on Red Dye No. 3 in light of California’s new ban. Some of this pressure is actually from food manufacturers, like Christopher Gindlesperger of the National Confectioners Association, who are concerned that the mismatch in state and federal regulations will create confusion in the production and distribution processes. 

“I think it's FDA's call, and it's time for the FDA to lean into the discussion, have a solid review, evaluate all of the available science, conduct their own research and provide the guidance that the food companies in this country need,”  Gindlesperger said. 

Is Red Dye No. 3 actually banned in Europe? 

One of the catalyzing arguments for banning Red Dye No. 3 — as well as Potassium Bromate, Brominated Vegetable Oil and Propyl Paraben — in California is that those ingredients are already banned in Europe, which means that manufacturers often already produce and distribute to different versions of the same snack product based on the market in which they are selling it. 

"Why are these toxic chemicals in our food?" said Susan Little, the Environmental Working Group's Governmental Affairs Senior Advocate for California, in a statement earlier this year. “We know they are harmful and that children are likely eating more of these chemicals than adults. It makes no sense that the same products food manufacturers sell in California are sold in the EU but without these toxic chemicals.” 

As Little indicated, Red Dye No. 3 is banned except for use in a few specific brands of candied cherries. There are several other color additives, including Yellow Dye Nos. 5 and 6 and Red Dye No. 40, that are not fully banned in the EU, however foods containing them are required to bear a warning label stating: “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” 

No such warning label is required in the United States. 

What’s next for Red Dye No. 3 in the United States? 

When speaking with The New York Times, Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat who represents a district near Los Angeles, said that the purpose of the California bill was really twofold. 

“The primary purpose of this bill was to protect kids and families and consumers in the state of California,” he said. “But a secondary purpose here was to send a message to Washington that the FDA process is broken, and hopefully to spur momentum in Washington D.C. for real, significant change.”

However, whether the FDA will earnestly reevaluate the usage of Red Dye No. 3 anytime soon remains to be seen. In a statement, the agency simply said that it “evaluates and regulates ingredients added to food to ensure that the authorized use of these ingredients is safe. This includes the four ingredients included in the California bill.”

With all eyes on Gaza, Israeli soldiers and settlers kill dozens of West Bank Palestinians

While the world watches Israel's military pulverize Gaza amid anticipation of an imminent ground invasion of the besieged strip, Israeli soldiers and settlers—who are receiving thousands of assault rifles from the government—have killed dozens of Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past week, officials there said on Friday.

At around 5:00 pm local time, the Palestinian Health Ministry said that 11 people were killed by Israeli occupation forces and settler-colonists in the West Bank and East Jerusalem so far on Friday, raising the death toll there to 46 and the number of wounded to over 700 since Hamas and other Gaza-based militants launched a massive cross-border attack on southern Israel last weekend, killing more than 1,300 Israeli soldiers and civilians.

In response, Israeli forces bombarded Gaza by air, land, and sea, killing at least 1,799 Palestinians—including at least 583 children—wounding at least 7,388 more, displacing hundreds of thousands, and cutting off water and power to the besieged strip's 2.3 million residents.

"Amidst the war and horrors in the south, away from the public eye, Israeli soldiers and settlers are engaging in deadly violence against Palestinians in the West Bank," the Israeli human rights group Yesh Din noted earlier this week. "The attacks are taking place within the villages themselves, on the roads, and in agricultural lands."

"Israeli settlers are shooting, injuring, setting fires, and damaging property and trees," the group added. "There is evidence that soldiers are allowing the violence to continue, sometimes joining in."

Some critics accused the Israeli government—and especially far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir—of enabling settler attacks by handing out thousands of military assault rifles to settlement residents.

"As it drops bomb after bomb on Palestinians in Gaza, Israel is giving 1000s of machine guns to extremist Israelis, including settlers in the Palestinian West Bank. There have already been reports of Israeli settlers using the weapons to attack every Palestinian they see," the California-based Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) said on social media Thursday.

"The extremist settlers Israel is arming have spent years attacking Palestinian cities in lynch mobs, with full backing from the Israeli government," IMEU continued. "This year alone, they have killed Palestinian civilians and set fire to cars and homes with families inside."

"Many Israeli settlers have openly called for Palestinians to be wiped off the map. Now, Israel is giving them the guns to achieve that vision," the group added. "Israel is setting the stage for a genocide of Palestinians."

On Friday, Israeli settlers and soldiers attacked Palestinians protesting the assault on Gaza in the West Bank town of Tulkarem, killing three people, according toAgence France-Presse. Another Palestinian, a 13-year-old boy, was reportedly shot dead in Beit Furik, near Nablus.

Meanwhile, the Times of Israel reported that Israeli police on Friday shot and killed four Palestinians who allegedly detonated explosive devices in what the paper called an apparent attempt to breach the Israeli separation wall near Tulkarem.

Also on Friday, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem published a video showing an Israeli settler ambushing and shooting an unarmed Palestinian man in the abdomen with an assault rifle at point-blank range near the West Bank village of At-Tuwani, south of Hebron. An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier seen standing nearby does not intervene. Instead, he escorts the shooter and another person away from the scene.

The Times of Israel reported the victim was severely injured, and that Israeli police know the identity of the shooter—a resident of a nearby illegal settlement—and will question him. However, as the newspaper noted, "assailants are rarely arrested, let alone prosecuted for their actions."

On Wednesday, a group of masked gunmen from the illegal Esh Kodesh settler outpost attacked the West Bank village of Qusra, south of Nablus. The attackers stormed the village in all-terrain vehicles, shooting indiscriminately and killing four Palestinians while wounding 11 others, including a 6-year-old girl. The settlers torched homes and other structures before fleeing.

The following day, Israeli settlers and troops opened fire on mourners and an ambulance carrying the victims of Wednesday's attack in Qusra, fatally wounding Ibrahim Wadi, 63, and his son, Ahmad Wadi, 26.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on Thursday reported 49 settler attacks on West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinians since October 7, including some in which IDF troops took part.

OCHA also said that 214 people from 35 Palestinian families from the Wadi as Seeq and Al Mu'arajat Bedouin communities fled their homes amid "systematic harassment and attacks by Israeli settlers," raising concerns of possible ethnic cleansing.

Additionally, the World Health Organization has documented 28 attacks on West Bank healthcare infrastructure or workers since October 7, including 20 assaults on medical professionals.

On Thursday, the Palestine-based International Middle East Media Centerreported Israeli occupation forces "stormed and ransacked dozens of homes across the West Bank" while abducting 42 Palestinians, many of them former political prisoners and at least one journalist.

Attacks by Israeli settlers and soldiers on West Bank Palestinians are nothing new. Prior to last weekend's attacks on Israel, at least 120 Palestinians were killed in the West Bank this year alone. There have been multiple deadly settler rampages this year that have been described by Israeli officials, rights groups, and others as "pogroms."

Israeli ambassador claims “there is no humanitarian crisis” in Gaza as catastrophe unfolds

Clean water is running out, hospitals are overwhelmed by thousands of airstrike victims, more than a million people have been displaced, and thousands have been killed, but Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom refused on Monday to even acknowledge that a humanitarian disaster is underway in the occupied Gaza Strip.

Asked during a Sky News appearance about her view of the Gaza crisis, Israeli diplomat Tzipi Hotovely said that "there is no humanitarian crisis."

Pressed by anchor Kay Burley to explain what, then, is happening on the ground in the besieged enclave, Hotovely replied, "There is a war in Gaza, a war that Hamas started by committing a horrible massacre on innocent Israelis."

Hotovely went on to claim that Israel is trying to prevent the deaths of innocent Gazans, even as the country's military heavily bombs civilian areas—damaging and destroying hospitals, schools, mosques, and residential buildings—and refuses to agree to a cease-fire to let people escape the enclave.

Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, called Hotovely's denial of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza "pure gaslighting."

"Not only is there a humanitarian crisis, Israeli security officials have warned for years that failure to address it could lead to exactly what we’re seeing now," Duss wrote on social media. "Tragically, Israeli (and U.S. and E.U.) politicians chose not to listen. And here we are."

The Israeli diplomat's remarks came shortly after Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), warned that "an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding under our eyes" as Gaza remains under complete siege and near-constant bombardment.

"As of today, my UNRWA colleagues in Gaza are no longer able to provide humanitarian assistance," Lazzarini said Sunday. "As I speak with you, Gaza is running out of water and electricity. In fact, Gaza is being strangled and it seems that the world right now has lost its humanity. If we look at the issue of water—we all know water is life—Gaza is running out of water, and Gaza is running out of life. Soon, I believe, with this there will be no food or medicine either."

Martin Griffiths, the U.N.'s emergency relief coordinator, said Sunday that he has been involved in talks with officials in Israel, Gaza, and Egypt about ways to ensure that aid can safely enter the occupied strip. Last week, Israel announced a total blockade of Gaza, refusing to allow food, fuel, or supplies to enter the enclave and cutting off its electricity.

"History is watching to see if the consequences of this war are going to be generationally bad or if there are going to be ways in which swiftly that can be rebuilt, some kind of comity or neighborliness between those two tragic peoples," said Griffiths.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said Monday that Gaza has just "24 hours of water, electricity, and fuel left," and a "real catastrophe" will result if aid is not immediately allowed to enter the territory. Human rights groups have called the blockade a form of collective punishment, which is a war crime.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement Sunday that the United Nations "has stocks available of food, water, non-food items, medical supplies, and fuel, located in Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel," but Israel's blockade has prevented their delivery.

"Rapid and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid must be granted for humanitarian supplies and workers for the sake of the civilians in Gaza," Guterres said. "Gaza is running out of water, electricity, and other essential supplies."

Israel's blockade and bombing campaign have been disastrous for Gaza's hospitals, several of which have been forced to shut down due to airstrike damage. The WHO said Sunday that 21 of Gaza's hospitals have received instructions from Israeli forces to evacuate, part of a broader Israeli evacuation directive aimed at the entire population of northern Gaza.

"Hospital directors and health workers are now facing an agonizing choice: abandon critically ill patients amid a bombing campaign, put their own lives at risk while remaining on-site to treat patients, or endanger their patients' lives while attempting to transport them to facilities that have no capacity to receive them," the WHO said over the weekend. "Overwhelmingly, caregivers have chosen to stay behind, and honor their oaths as health professionals to 'do no harm,' rather than risk moving their critically ill patients during evacuations. Health workers should never have to make such impossible choices."

Grieving together, and also apart: A Jewish American wrestles with identity, belonging and trauma

Although I grew up as a minority Jew in a small Connecticut town, our local synagogue did not feel like home to me. Yes, I attended Hebrew school on Thursdays, spent many Saturdays there for Shabbat, and was bat mitzvahed on the bima as a rainbow of Sunkist gummies showered me from all directions. And yet, the temple experience — baritone-heavy Hebrew chanting, the staid nature of services, and a distinct sense of restraint — felt more like a motion I was supposed to go through rather than a source of identity.

There were some exceptions. With each Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, I connected with a growing spirituality brewing within me. I appreciated this time of reflection to consider how I could behave better in my life and to feel into a heaviness in my heart that reminded me of the dark side of Jewish history. 

But two moments as an adult were what solidified my identity as a Jewish American. The first was my choice to marry a Jewish mate (to my parents' relief). Upon committing to him, I found myself swimming in a sea of Berkeley, California Jews. It was both exciting and overwhelming. "Welcome to the mishpucha," older members of the community kept whispering in my ears while hugging me. I'd never in my life experienced such a fervent welcome. 

It's as though someone else's trauma has invaded my body — or surfaced — demanding that I come to terms with it.

The second pivotal moment occurred when I discovered a West Coast brand of Judaism — one that featured guitars, services in redwood groves and kids frolicking in gardens. I could hardly believe my eyes and ears. During a Kol Nidre service in Oakland, California, I crowded into a rented space-turned-synagogue with nearly 1,000 other attendees. Three female rabbis swayed, drummed and sang. When I closed my eyes, it was hard to know if I was at a High Holy Day service or an Ani DiFranco concert. 

This style took some getting used to. At first, I teased my partner about how “far out” these services felt. Ten years later, they have really grown on me. Only two weeks ago, I sat with him at Shabbat services in an outdoor amphitheater at a Jewish family camp. Our two daughters, ages six and eight, were perched on a nearby boulder with other kids, listening, singing and making hand gestures to go with the songs. Rain drizzled, and my heart felt plucked with each chord of the guitar. I felt a rich sense of belonging. My Jewish identity had finally clicked.

And then that identity was assaulted at its core. The worst imaginable horrors occurred as Hamas massacred civilians in the morning hours of an exuberant Jewish holiday, Simchat Torah. The emotional aftershocks resounded across the world, and they are being experienced right now in the hearts of Jews everywhere.

Nobody deserves pain inflicted upon them so brutally: not Israelis nor Palestinians. All humans are deserving of empathy. 

Over the last few days, intermittent crying episodes have crept up on me. Of course, I understand why I’m experiencing these tears. But there’s something more than immediate empathy happening. It's as though someone else's trauma has invaded my body — or surfaced — demanding that I come to terms with it. There’s also a nagging fear that grips my stomach, especially while reading the latest developments in the news. If I’m feeling this deeply from the other side of the world, I can't even begin to imagine what those in the region are feeling, are experiencing, are living through on this knife edge of uncertainty. 

For those of you who have experienced trauma handed down from previous generations, you know what I speak of. We feel a cross-generational transmission of trauma as descendants of persecuted peoples, as slaves, as targets of hate crimes, and as survivors of genocide. It lives inside of us, in our cells.

This cultural trauma hurts. But what hurts even more is the politicization of these recent events. At times, there has been a turning away, a finger-pointing, that does not recognize the tragedy and deep suffering of a bloody massacre, nor does it permit time for grief or healing. I’m witnessing a desire to quickly make a lesson of this attack. "Well, Israel had it coming," I've heard, a shared sentiment amongst antisemites and some liberal Americans alike. Nobody deserves pain inflicted upon them so brutally: not Israelis nor Palestinians. All suffering humans deserve empathy. 

Adding to the complexity of my pain is the question of how best to parent in this moment. What do I tell my kids? Is our synagogue secure enough to send them to Hebrew school? What about the cognitive dissonance of their attending a public school that continues to operate as if these events don't matter and don’t affect them?

Amidst current events, what's really solidified my identity as a Jew is a sense of otherness and separateness from the rest of the community — a feeling that I’ve experienced for most of my life.

As I grapple with these issues, I'm discovering these darker facets of my Jewish identity, and doing so is wrenchingly painful. While reading descriptions of civilian hostage seizures, I think of the pogroms that sent my grandparents packing from Poland and Romania to New York City. I think about my mom's cousins, who survived Auschwitz by digging up and eating raw potatoes at night. I think about those family members slaughtered in a Romanian village in 1943 and about the grandchildren who never met them. 

Little by little, like it or not, my own memories are flooding back to me from different points of my life. The 8th-grade trip to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., after it had just opened. How I felt somber in a way I couldn't explain to my non-Jewish peers. My visit to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam in my 20s. How easily I related to Anne’s journal entries and imagined myself in her position. A trip to Israel at age 16 to visit my relatives on a kibbutz. How I felt afraid to ride the bus alone because I knew suicide bombers could be lurking. 

But that wasn't all. I remembered the Spanish guy I dated in my 20s while living in Madrid. He dumped me as soon as he found out I was Jewish, saying, "My father would never let me date a Jew." He acted as though this was a rational, rather than racist, explanation. I thought about a trip to Idaho with my Jewish boyfriend to visit my aunt and uncle. His first taste of the place was a farmer walking up to him, giving him the eye, and exclaiming, "Wait a second, you're one of them, aren't you?"

To this day, I take a few seconds longer than I should to fill out the demographic information on most surveys. Should I write "Jewish" in the "other" section? Sometimes I do. In those moments, I feel unseen, confused, alone.  

Amidst current events, what's really solidified my identity as a Jew is a sense of otherness and separateness from the rest of the community — a feeling that I’ve experienced for most of my life. It’s been reinforced by the fact that only a few non-Jewish friends have bothered to check in on me and my family during this time when Jews everywhere are under threat.

Right now, I am finding solace in my local Jewish community. Thank goodness I have a much more robust one now than I did when I was younger. I've gotten phone calls and texts from numerous members of my congregation. I’ve invited other Jewish friends over for dinner. Grieving together is something, and I'm grateful for it.

This week, my parents will fly in from the East Coast to visit me in California. As I prepare to spend time with them, I remember when they attended Rosh Hashanah services with us in a local redwood grove, one year ago. “What are they thinking?” I wondered, while eying them curiously during the service. I watched as both of my 70-something-year-old parents leaned back in their sling chairs, taking it all in. Jewish lyrics to Leonard Cohen and Santana songs were resounding across the field, and tie-dye shirts abounded. The scene was a far cry from the one at our old conservative shul in Danbury, CT. 

"So?" I asked them, as we made our way up the hill after the event, shlepping picnic leftovers, blankets and chairs. "It was wonderful," my dad said, smiling wistfully. "Something completely different." 

My mom's eyes sparkled. Her smile was enormous, and she was still drinking in the scene. "Well," she said, "I've never experienced a service quite like that before . . . but it was lovely."

This moment was a profound reminder of a deeper sense of connection we experience as Jews. The feeling is powerful, regardless of how it manifests on the exterior. And it's what will get me through yet another tragic chapter in the history of the Jewish people.

State Department officials warned not to use terms “de-escalation/cease-fire” about Gaza

As Israel on Friday bombarded civilians in Gaza and prepared for a ground invasion in response to Hamas' recent attack, U.S. State Department leadership reportedly instructed officials not to publicly use some terms that would advocate for less violence.

According to HuffPost, which reviewed official emails, "State Department staff wrote that high-level officials do not want press materials to include three specific phrases: 'de-escalation/cease-fire,' 'end to violence/bloodshed,' and 'restoring calm.'"

HuffPost noted that "when reached for comment on the directive, a State Department official said they would not comment on internal communications." However, others were quick to blast the policy as "disgusting," "maddening," and "pretty shocking."

Guardian columnist Moira Donegan called it "a horror and a moral abdication that we, Americans, can never atone for."

Adam Shapiro, director of advocacy for Israel-Palestine at Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), said that "if you work at the U.S. Department of State and you believe that you are there for diplomacy and making the world a better place—now is the time for resignations and collective action."

"This is unconscionable and will leave an indelible stain," added Shapiro, who was far from the only critic to call the directive " unconscionable."

The reporting comes after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken came under fire earlier this week for deleting a Sunday post on X, formerly Twitter, in which he said that during a conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, "I encouraged Turkey's advocacy for a cease-fire and the release of all hostages held by Hamas immediately."

Noting HuffPost's article, DAWN executive director Sarah Leah Whitson directly called out the secretary, writing on social media, "This your leadership for peace and security ⁦Antony Blinken⁩?"

CodePink co-founder Medea Benjamin took aim at President Joe Biden. "It just gets worse and worse," she said. "Biden is giving a total green light for Israel's collective punishment of Gazans."

Anthony Zenkus, an adjunct faculty member at Adelphi and Columbia universities, asked, "What is wrong with these people?"

Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, stressed that "there is no peace without de-escalation."

As of Friday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said, Israeli airstrikes had killed at least 1,900 people, including 614 children, and wounded thousands. In addition to the bombing, Israel has imposed a full blockade, cutting off fuel, food, and medicine into the Gaza Strip in response to the Hamas-led weekend attack and rocket fire, which has killed more than 1,300 Israelis.

The United States already gives Israel $3.8 billion in annual military aid, and the Biden administration has ramped up such support this week. After visiting Israel on Thursday, Blinken on Friday met with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, which governs the occupied West Bank and controlled Gaza until it was taken over by Hamas.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said that Blinken "reiterated the United States' unequivocal condemnation of the abhorrent terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel. The secretary also detailed U.S. efforts to coordinate with partners to prevent the conflict from widening. The secretary extended his condolences to the families of Palestinian civilian victims of this conflict, and reiterated that Hamas does not stand for the Palestinian people's legitimate right to dignity, freedom, justice, and self-determination."

Meanwhile, ahead of its anticipated ground assault, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Friday ordered the roughly 1.1 million residents of northern Gaza—or about half of the strip's population—to evacuate to the southern part of the occupied territory within 24 hours, which United Nations spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric and groups such as Doctors Without Borders warn will have devastating humanitarian consequences.

A group of 55 House Democrats on Friday wrote to Biden and Blinken that they "are deeply concerned about the order" and urged them to pressure Israel to limit harm to civilians ahead of the IDF's expected action. That letter was not signed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American member of Congress, who separately called for "immediate de-escalation and cease-fire to save countless civilian lives, no matter their faith or ethnicity."

"President Biden has not expressed one bit of empathy for the millions of Palestinian civilians facing brutal airstrikes and the threat of a ground invasion of Gaza that would intensify this humanitarian crisis," Tlaib added. "Many families in the U.S. seeking help to get their loved ones out of Gaza feel that Secretary Blinken is not making their safety a priority. The Biden administration is failing in its duty to protect all civilian and American lives in Gaza."

How Jordan Li, “Gen V’s” genderfluid character, is changing ideas about who can be a superhero

 "Gen V," the YA "The Boys" spinoff, centers on the lives of college students who have superpowers and are being trained to join The Seven in "The Boys" (think along the lines of the Disney Channel hit film of my childhood, "Sky High"). "Gen V" is a solid successor to the offensively good "The Boys" — the Prime Video hit revels in its hedonistic superheroes who are mega-violent and masochistic — and part of that has to do with one of the main characters, Jordan Li (played by London Thor and Derek Luh).

"Gen V" sometimes lags in areas, but it breaks all young adult drama cliches introducing viewers to the bi-gendered superhero, Jordan, giving the audience an interesting new take on genderfluid representation in media.

Jordan is one of the upperclassmen at Godolkin University, who is training to become a superhero at the school. The Korean-American student is an overachieving, cunning and (most of the time) self-centered 20-something; they also have the ability to shapeshift between two different-gendered bodies and identities, each of which comes with its own unique powers and identities. The male Jordan has invincible strength and invulnerability, while the female Jordan is agile and the ability to generate telekinetic blasts, making for an interesting dichotomy in their fighting styles. 

Not only is Jordan an interesting character because of their layered powers, but in the show, they are one of the most popular characters because of their number-two ranking in their class. "Gen V'"s main character Marie Moreau (Jaz Sinclair), a blood-bending freshman dying to get into the exclusive superhero training major and class is drawn to Jordan's grit and innate ability to want to do good. Their relationship evolves from an adversarial one to a more romantic one as the show's new episodes depicted last week.

As the show develops, it reveals more and more about Jordan's complicated relationship with their parents who find it difficult that they switch between genders. Jordan's father, in particular, would prefer they conform to societal standards and live as a cis-gendered male. Meanwhile, Jordan struggles to be accepted in a world hellbent on stuffing them into a simple, uncomplicated gender categorization. 

Since the series, which has a stacked ensemble cast, is only halfway through the first season, Jordan's story as a gender-bending superhero is mostly unwritten and is still forming, but it's incredibly fascinating that the show decided to tackle the idea of the gender binary in this way.

Expanding beyond the realm of television, it is possible that the creators of "Gen V" took inspiration from Ursula K. Le Guin’s 1969 science-fiction novel “The Left Hand of Darkness.” The novel takes place on a planet called Gethen, also known as Winter, where the inhabitants, called Gethenians, are gender-neutral for the most part but can morph into men and women at different points in their lives. This Gethenian society has also not developed gender roles and does not imagine gender in the same way that our reality does. Overall, the novel blew the gender binary wide open during a time in which cis-gendered-focused feminism was at its beginnings. Charlie Jane Anders said in The Paris Review that the novel reveals that "the biggest lie that society tells us about gender is that the identities we’re assigned at birth are natural and that anyone who flouts the boy-girl industrial complex is perverse." 

Using shapeshifting as a way to represent the evolving and ever-transforming gender identity of transgender, nonbinary and fluid people has been done before, but in Jordan's case, identifying as a bi-gendered Asian-American superhero is redefining our preconceived ideas of what superheroes look like as we all suffer from the dull IP-driven Marvel burnout. It is significant progress in representation worth that's worth noting and exalting.

While Jordan is played by cis-gendered actors — a decision that raises its own questions about representation — the character never feels like a caricature or a sidekick. They are a desirable love interest, they are popular, they are uber-strong and powerful and they do not dim themselves to be easily digestible for a white America so deadset on telling them they are not traditional enough to be a hero. They are a hero and they come in different genders.

 

Climate change could lead to food-related civil unrest in UK within 50 years, say experts

The emptying of supermarket shelves during the COVID pandemic demonstrated the chaos that disruption to the UK's food supply can provoke. Could this type of disruption have a different cause in the future? And what might the impact on society be?

These are the questions we sought to answer in our new study, which involved surveying 58 leading UK food experts spanning academia, policy, charitable organizations and business.

Our findings indicate that food shortages stemming from extreme weather events could potentially lead to civil unrest in the UK within 50 years. Shortages of staple carbohydrates like wheat, bread, pasta and cereal appear to be the most likely triggers of such unrest.

The UK's food system appears to be particularly vulnerable to significant disruption. This vulnerability can be attributed, in part, to its emphasis on efficiency at the expense of resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks). This approach includes a heavy reliance on seasonal labor and practices like "just-in-time" supply chains, where products are delivered precisely when needed.

Our study emphasizes the importance of developing plans to help the UK prepare for, and respond to, the risks associated with food shortages in the future.

         

Expert survey

We asked food experts to rate the likelihood of a scenario occurring in the UK in which more than 30,000 people suffered violent injury over the course of one year through events such as demonstrations or violent looting.

Just over 40% of these experts said they thought such a scenario was either "possible" or "more likely than not" in the next ten years. Over 50 years, nearly 80% of experts believed civil unrest was either possible, more likely than not, or "very likely".

The experts were then asked about the potential causes of food system disruption that would lead to unrest. They were asked whether they thought this disruption would stem from an overall scarcity of food or from issues related to food distribution, which could prevent food from reaching the right places and thus create isolated pockets of hunger.

Our results show that most experts (80%) hold the belief that, within the next ten years, logistical distribution issues leading to shortages are the most probable cause of food-related civil unrest.

However, when contemplating a 50-year timeframe, the majority (57%) said an insufficient food supply to sustain the UK population would be the most likely cause, potentially due to events such as a catastrophic harvest failure.

Extreme weather — including storm surges, flooding, snow and drought — was chosen as the leading cause of future food supply shortages and distribution issues over both the ten- and 50-year time frames.

 

UK already at risk

Just under half of the UK's entire food supply is imported, including 80% of fruit, 50% of vegetables and 20% of beef and poultry. Any disruption to imports and supply chains can thus have a significant impact on food availability in the UK. A fall in the availability of food can lead to rising prices and, potentially, social unrest.

COVID, Brexit and the cost of living crisis have highlighted the UK's vulnerability to such a risk. Between April and August 2022, as inflation squeezed household incomes, over half of independent food banks in the UK reported that 25% or more of the people they supported hadn't used their services before.

Extreme weather events are also occurring more frequently. Many of these events are driven by climate change. It's entirely possible that extreme weather will cause major crop yield failures across "multiple breadbaskets" in the coming decades.

This scenario is not far-fetched. We have witnessed numerous instances of major shocks to food production in recent decades.

One notable example, in 2007, saw an 8% decline in global cereal production due to droughts, floods and heatwaves in Australia, India and the US. These events, combined with low global cereal stocks, financial speculation and high fertilizer prices, resulted in cereal prices more than doubling. The crisis sparked food riots in more than 30 countries.

To reduce the risk of civil unrest occurring in the UK as a result of food shortages, it's crucial to address food poverty. By ensuring people can access and afford the food that is available, trust can be built between communities, government and food supply chains over time.

         

Redesigning the food system

The UK needs a food system designed not just for optimal efficiency, but also for resilience. Government agencies and businesses must explore and fund options to make the food system more robust to shocks.

This should include restoring degraded soils and the habitats used by pollinators, improving working conditions within the food supply chain and prioritizing sustainable farming practices.  

Growing more robust crop varieties and species, using resources more efficiently and establishing backup storage and distribution systems to move away from just-in-time delivery are all key aspects of a more resilient food system too.

Efforts to curb the harmful effects of climate change — the most probable cause of future food shortages and distribution issues — should also be ramped up.

The COVID pandemic saw major challenges with food distribution, from which lessons can be learned. Creating a food system that is both resilient and efficient will safeguard against future disruptions, ensuring that food is accessible and affordable while preventing the emergence of civil unrest.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who've subscribed so far.


Sarah Bridle, Professor of Food, Climate and Society, University of York and Aled Jones, Professor & Director, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University

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

Legal expert warns Trump lawyers could face “disbarment” and “possibly be jailed” over court stunts

Former President Donald Trump's legal team appears more focused on leveraging his New York fraud trial to lay the groundwork for a future appeal, turning the proceedings into a fundraising event and relying on the trial as an excuse to avoid other court dates, rather than attempting to secure a victory, legal experts say.

Privately, his team has held conversations about how they believed losing this trial was inevitable. Their most viable option would be to contest the case in an appellate court, two sources familiar with the matter told Rolling Stone

Trump, who is facing a substantial threat to his real estate holdings, could risk destabilizing his entire financial standing. Engoron has already ruled to revoke Trump's business licenses after determining that the ex-president and his company committed years of fraud by inflating his assets and net worth on his financial statements. By December, he may be ordered to pay up to $250 million or more in penalties.

"The Trump team seems to be almost conceding failure in the trial court and planting the seeds of an appeal,” trial attorney Bernard Alexander told Salon. “Most litigants focus their energies on winning at trial, based on the facts and the law, not orchestrating circumstances for an appeal. It does not bode well to be conceding failure in the trial court, attempting to pressure the judge with threats of reversal on appeal, rather than prevailing based on squarely addressing the facts and the law."

The former president’s lawyers have contested nearly every piece of evidence presented by New York Attorney General Letitia James and also cautioned New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron that each of his rulings will face intense scrutiny from appellate judges, with the likelihood of reversals, The Daily Beast reported

Their tactics include dragging out the process, asking long-winded questions and repeating them. His lawyers’ attempts to stretch the proceedings and continuously bring up legal arguments that Engoron has already barred have been met with frustration from the judge.

But even after being sanctioned and ordered to pay $7,500 for repeating the same arguments, Trump’s attorneys haven’t shied away from relying on the same tactics as part of their defense. 

“Trump’s lawyers are perilously close to being sanctioned once again and more heavily by Judge Engoron for their misconduct,” Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, told Salon. “They are behaving in manifest bad faith by intentionally delaying and obstructing the proceedings and deliberately creating a spectacle to promote Trump's fundraising. Lawyers in any legal proceeding foresee an appeal if they lose and try to make a complete and proper record for appellate review.”

Things have started to heat up in the courtroom. On the trial’s third day, the judge accused the defense of wasting time after Trump lawyer Jesus Suarez repeatedly asked longtime Trump accountant Donald Bender lengthy questions about specifics from 2011 to 2020.

"Counselor, can we lump this all together against using the same principles?" the judge asked. 

While Suarez agreed, he persisted in prolonging the questioning. 

"I don't talk just to hear myself. I'm precluding you from doing this," Engoron said.

Lead defense lawyer Christopher Kise assured the judge that they would “attempt to streamline this as much as possible,” arguing that the “devil’s in the details,” per the Daily Beast.

Tensions escalated at that point, with Engoron addressing the Trump team's apparent strategy to delay.

“This is ridiculous!” Engoron said, per The Beast. “To the reporters: I’m pounding the bench again. This. Is. Ridiculous! There's no point in going through each line. I'm just being logical here.”

Kise shot back saying he’s “never had to negotiate how to ask questions” and argued that it “makes a poor record.”

We need your help to stay independent

“Trump’s lawyers are not seriously trying to make an appellate record but are engaging in grandstanding and gamesmanship,” Gershman said. “Given the powerful evidence amassed by the attorney general, Trump’s lawyers know he will lose and are engaging in stunts, games, and frivolous tactics in violation of New York State ethics rules. The appeals court likely will take into account the misconduct by Trump’s lawyers when it reviews the case and probably agree with Judge Engoron’s sanctions against them.”

His attorneys have already been sanctioned by fines, he added. If they repeat their misconduct, they can be fined “more heavily and even threatened with being found in contempt and possibly be jailed.” 

“Trump’s lawyers are acting unprofessionally and apart from Judge Engoron’s sanctions may be subject to an investigation and discipline by New York’s disciplinary authorities which could result in suspension of their license and even disbarment,” Gershman said.

But delay tactics can often be “effective” too, Alexander pointed out. Under certain circumstances, the opposition gets worn down by the “very tedious nature of the battle”.

“Delay tactics can have a tendency to dissuade the opposition, or get people to just give up,” he added. “Defense attorneys are basically saying, 'we're playing the long game, and we're going to wear you down.'”

That tends to be more effective in the private sector than the public sector though, Alexander said, explaining that when the government has a track record of persistence, that's "less likely" to be an effective approach.


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


Trump himself has continued to maintain his image as a victim of a "witch hunt" — delivering speeches outside the courtroom and using his 2024 presidential campaign to send out email blasts referencing the ongoing legal battle.

“I just left the courthouse for the first day of my unjust trial in New York,” his first email said. It ended with a request to make a contribution “to peacefully DEFEND our movement from the never-ending witch hunts.”

In front of reporters, Trump has complained that the judge has “already made up his mind” and should be “disbarred.”

“This is a judge that should be out of office,” Trump told reporters. “This is a judge that some people say could be charged criminally for what he’s doing. He’s interfering with an election, and it’s a disgrace.” 

While the Trump team’s tactics may be focused on fighting the case on appeal, he doesn’t stand a chance of being successful, Gershman predicted. 

“There is no chance that Trump and his co-defendants will be successful at trial or on appeal,” he said. “The attorney general’s case presents overwhelming evidence over many years of dishonesty, fraud, and self-dealing.”

Alexander agreed and added that he doesn’t think “you can take odds on the appeal at this point” since the legal record is being made and “the facts are in dispute.” 

“For a court order to be reversible, the appellant has to demonstrate that an adverse consequence has arisen from the order,” he said. “The trier of fact is going to decide whether former president Trump’s conduct was illegal.”

With “The American Buffalo,” Ken Burns connects an icon of the natural world to our nation’s history

At the end of the 18th century, according to modern estimates, the American buffalo population numbered around 60 million, with herds roaming freely across North America. Bison sustained Indigenous people and played a key role in the ecological chain that kept the land verdant.

In less than a century, a sequence of events quickly decimated their numbers from millions to tens of thousands, until, by one count in 1889, there were only a few hundred left. Tracing the lineage of an animal would seem to be outside of Ken Burns' usual range until, as he and his fellow filmmaking crew realized, one comes to understand how central the species known as bison bison is to our nation’s history and culture.

“The American Bison,” Burns' latest entry, spends two nights and four hours tracing the swift near extermination of these animals due to white westward expansion and capitalistic greed, as well as the joint efforts between the federal government and Native tribal conservation effort to restore their numbers.

“The American Buffalo” is the first title in Burns’ filmography that focuses on a beast as opposed to a person, national monument or war. It also establishes that it's impossible to tell our nation's story without close consideration of these animals and the history of the Native peoples who relied on them. Voices from Northern Plains tribes — including the Salish, Lakota, Mandan-Hidatsa and Blackfeet — and Southern Plains people — including the Comanche, Cheyenne and Kiowa — provide views from when the herds were plentiful and narrate their dwindling. Simultaneously, they recount their stories of land loss, forced assimilation, and like the buffalo, resilience.

“There is no story anywhere in world history that involves as large a destruction of wild animals as happened in North America, in the Western United States, between 1800 and 1890,” historian Dan Flores says in the film of what is the largest destruction of animal life discoverable in modern world history.

“There is no story anywhere in world history that involves as large a destruction of wild animals as happened in North America, in the Western United States, between 1800 and 1890,” historian Dan Flores says.

To this, fellow historian Rosalyn Lapier asks, “Why are Americans so destructive? . . . Why is that part of our story? Why is that part of our history?”

“The American Buffalo” was more than three years in the making, with pre-production beginning in May 2020 and filming commencing a year later. In a recent press conference, however, Burns and longtime collaborator and series producer Julie Dunfey explained that the production began gestating as far back as 1996’s “The West,” which Burns executive produced, and 1997’s “Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery." Journal entries featured in "The American Buffalo" indicate explorers’ encounters with the creatures became so frequent that after a point, they were no longer remarkable.

Over the 10 years it took Burns’ team to produce 2009’s “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea," it became obvious, he said, that they needed to “detach this story from the other narratives, come back and perhaps overlap and crisscross with some of those narratives."

The American BuffaloThe American Buffalo (Photo by Craig Mellish)While certain figures recur in these stories, such as Teddy Roosevelt, Charlie Goodnight, and obviously, Buffalo Bill, Burns explained that the process of making this film and others alerted him to “blinders” he and his team had on concerning the presentation of American history.

“We began to talk about a particularly beautiful place like a Yosemite or a Yellowstone, and we would talk about it in terms of its ancient geological formation, perhaps, but then the moment when it was discovered by ‘white people,’" he told reporters. “And very early on in our process, we understood that we needed to sort of connect the dots between that early geologic period and that moment when it was 'discovered,' in quotes, by telling the story of the Native peoples who inhabited that place, and in many cases — in most cases — held that particular ground among the most sacred that they had."

Approaching history through the lens of a species pushed to the brink of extinction makes watching part one, “Blood Memory,” feel as painfully uncomfortable as it does important. It re-emphasizes the buffalo as another plundered resource that nourished Native people but held monetary value to white hunters and merchants selling their hides and heads to people in East Coast cities.

We need your help to stay independent

“There were uncounted millions of the beasts. They didn’t belong to anybody,” one Pennsylvania hunter wrote. “If you could kill them, what they brought was yours. They were like walking gold pieces.”

A modern-day historian described the hunting run in another more relatable way: White fortune hunters and settlers took his people’s grocery stores. Tribes starved, and the insult was doubled when white entrepreneurs returned to harvest the animals’ bones from the land to be rendered in factories.

“The American Buffalo” is also a study of moral shifts, transformations and changes, aiding us in understanding that some of the individuals who partook in the wholesale slaughter of this species also came around later in life to advocate for their survival. Theodore Roosevelt, for one, marveled at the supposed necessity of eradicating the buffalo as a means of “solving” America’s so-called “Indian problem," a stunning example of his overt white supremacy. Later, Roosevelt would be instrumental in creating reserves for buffalo herds to replenish.

The American Buffalo"Buffalo Chase with Bows and Lances" by George Catlin, 1832-1833. (Smithsonian American Art Museum)“The thing we're proudest of is the room that the film makes for all of these other kind of molecule-changing observations," Burns said. "So that, to me, is the foremost. And, of course, I think understanding the need for habitat of the [350,000], 375,000 bison alive today."

“The thing we're proudest of is the room that the film makes for all of these other kind of molecule-changing observations," Burns said.

This aspect of “The American Buffalo” meets us in modern times, when we can take heart in viewing the result of efforts made by men and women at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century to save the species from complete annihilation. If not for a few farmers taking in young bison here and there and allowing herds to multiply on their land, we would not have the privilege of seeing living buffalo today.

And yet, as Lapier pointed out to reporters, one of the concerns "as we move forward into the future . . . is the creation of large ecosystems for bison to live on and whether or not bison will be free-roaming animals.”


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


All of our bison herds live in some form of containment. According to the National Parks Service, the Department of the Interior (DOI) supports 19 bison herds, the equivalent of 11,000 bison over 4.6 million acres of DOI and adjacent lands in 12 states. According to Burns, the federal government controls upwards of 20,000 buffalo in national parks and various wildlife refuges, with Native peoples caring for tens of thousands distributed among more than 80 tribes coordinated by the Intertribal Buffalo Council. The success in bringing buffalo herd numbers back into the tens of thousands from a low of a hundred is a “phenomenal story of what happens when we come together,” he said.

However, as a caveat, he described “The American Buffalo” as “really the first two acts of the three-act play, if you will, because at the end of the day, to save a species as a zoo animal or as an exhibition animal in a corral isn't the same as saving them as wild and free — and that's now going on.”

"The American Buffalo" airs at 8 p.m. Monday, October 16 and 8 p.m. Tuesday, October 17, on PBS member stations. Check your local listings.

Grandpa needs a girlfriend: The lonely, beautiful truths of “The Golden Bachelor”

"Tonight is the first day of the rest of my life," the man says as he primps expectantly. He's successful, he's single — and the first-ever "Golden Bachelor" is a 72-year-old grandfather. But what began as a novel twist in the ever-metastasizing "Bachelor" franchise has quickly evolved into something extraordinary — a frank, bold and long overdue exploration of the hard and beautiful realities of aging in America right now.

It's undeniable that retired restaurateur Gerry Turner and his mansion full of sequined and Botoxed would-be rose recipients are culled from a very selective end of the dating pool. He may tuck in a hearing aid before his dates, but Turner is as tall, athletic and follicularly well-endowed as any of his decades-younger predecessors. His bachelorettes, all over the age of 60, are similarly lithe and glamorous. (Exactly one wears glasses.) And of course, they're all still signing up for a shot at the most traditional of relationship arrangements, one with a sparkly gem at the end of the quest. Where they diverge significantly from the typical Bachelor Nation — aside from the question of whether Gerry can actually get down on one knee and back up again — is in their shared experiences and their intimate understanding that the future looks very different when you have of much more of the past behind you.

We are barely two minutes into the first episode when Gerry is opening up and weeping about the sudden loss of his wife a few years earlier. Soon, we meet the women, who have their own tales of death, divorce and hardship. One of them is there at the urging of her best friend, who is dying of breast cancer. Before the end of the third episode, two of them have left to take care of their families back home. They talk frequently about loneliness and grief. "This show is so sad," my 19 year-old, "Bachelor" obsessive daughter marveled to me recently. And oh boy, it really is. It's also compellingly hopeful.

Watching "The Golden Bachelor," I was struck by how much of it aligned with my conversation earlier this year with author M. T. Connolly about her book, "The Measure of Our Age: Navigating Care, Safety, Money, and Meaning Later in Life." At the time, she noted the impact on all of us of our widening elder population, and the particular challenges of isolation and loneliness. "You know," Connolly told me when I chatted with her again recently, "we haven't really thought about older people as full human beings." 

One in six Americans is over the age of 65. Yet the American Psychological Association reports that 93% of Americans aged between 50 and 80 report experiencing ageism, including "assumptions… that they don’t do anything important or valuable." Our elders (except for the ones running the country) are frequently regarded as irrelevant and burdensome. Or, just as insultingly, they're infantilized as "adorable." Gerry and his hopeful aspiring girlfriends make it clear that they are not neutered shells of their former selves. Instead, they view themselves as curious, adventurous, and yeah, sexual adults who just happen to have a longer roster of life experiences and medical devices than the contestants we're accustomed to seeing on dating competitions. 

We need your help to stay independent

Treva Brandon Scharf, a life, dating and relationship coach and author of “Done Being Single: A Late Bloomer’s Guide to Love," notes the specific hurdles of intimacy at an older age. "Most of the social and sexual challenges I see for our demographic have to do with feeling acknowledged, loved and accepted for who we are at the age we are," she says. "For women, you hit a certain age and suddenly you’re invisible. The looks, clicks, flirts, all stop. We're no longer seen. For men, it’s feeling wanted and needed (and useful, to an extent). People of all ages want to feel special to someone, but for people over 60, I think it takes on a deeper meaning."

"People of all ages want to feel special to someone, but for people over 60, I think it takes on a deeper meaning."

A meaning that's clicking with audiences. "The Golden Bachelor" has been so far an unqualified hit, gaining steam week to week even among viewers aged 18 – 49. That's pretty remarkable for a show that unapologetically offers a sometimes tough-to-look-at side of senior life many of us rarely get to see. "We're so segregated by age as a society. Older people can be isolated in their own houses together, or segregated with other older people," observes M. T. Connolly. What "The Golden Bachelor" offers is representation for an often invisible portion of the population, and a narrative that tells younger people that their parents and grandparents still have dreams and desires — both within and independent of their existing families. 

The show also comes at a unique moment in the graying of America, not only because the Boomers are reframing what getting older can look, feel and sound like. (Lenny Kravitz, you're nearly 60 and still getting naked, bless you.) It also almost unconsciously acknowledges the particular devastation of the pandemic on an entire generation.

"If you look at all the groups that got affected by COVID, older adults got affected the most in two ways," Christopher Scuderi, DO, a Jacksonville primary care physician, tells me. "One million Americans died, and 75% of them were 65 or older. We lost a huge proportion of people over the age of 65. But then second, among older adults, so many of them got isolated. They no longer spend time with their family, they no longer participate in social activities, worship services; they don't go to the gym. One of the challenges I'm having now is reminding them it's time to go live again. You don't have to be afraid," he says. "So I think that it's great to see this show reminding our older adults to get out there and go live. This is a big world out there." 

"We have millions of people who have a ton to give."

Connolly concurs. "We're still stuck in mores that are better attuned to lives that last 65 or 70 years, rather than 80 or 90 years," she says. "You see that in work. You'll retire at 65. And we have millions of people who have a ton to give and for whom it would be better to still have purposeful activity. Love and purpose and connection are enormously important to our physical health, our mental health, our spiritual health and engagement."

As the show progresses, I believe my daughter and her friends will see that "The Golden Bachelor" isn't some primetime trauma dump, any more than it's just some gimmicky harem house but with senior citizens. It's a surprisingly thoughtful examination of the reckoning that comes with aging, with facing the shrinking amount of time we have left and reaching for the courage to keep dreaming and planning, to keep touching and kissing. To keep getting your heart broken. To accept the reality that "Till death do you part" is not an abstract concept.

Connolly says, "I hope that this show is a conversation starter and awareness raiser. I think it's good to fill out the picture of what older people want. Wouldn't it be weird if it was reality TV that dragged aging out from under the shroud and said, 'You have to acknowledge that we're not dead''? We still have all the same desires. It's not like there's some off switch. Things change, somewhat, but not that much. We're still living, breathing human beings."

https://trevabrandonscharf.com/

Judge Chutkan “literally laughs” in Trump lawyer’s face before issuing partial gag order

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Monday issued a limited gag order on former President Donald Trump in his Washington D.C. federal election case. 

The order will bar Trump from "publicly targeting" her staff, special counsel Jack Smith and members of his staff, and any other court personnel. The ex-president is also prohibited from making inflammatory statements about the families of those individuals, as well as potential witnesses in the case. 

“This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses,” the judge said. “This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice. His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify public servants who are simply doing their jobs."

“Mr. Trump is a criminal defendant. He is facing four felony charges. He is under the supervision of the criminal justice system and he must follow his conditions of release,” Chutkan added at the hearing.

“He does not have the right to say and do exactly what he pleases. Do you agree with that?” she asked Trump attorney John Lauro.

“100%," Lauro replied. The lawyer also accused the special counsel's office of attempting to  "prevent President Trump from speaking out about the issues of the day."

“Every single issue that relates to this case also has political issues,” Lauro added.

“When you start to use a word like ‘thug’ to describe a prosecutor doing their job, that wouldn’t be allowed by any other criminal defendant,” Chutkan said. “Just because the defendant is running a political campaign does not allow him to do whatever he wants.”

We need your help to stay independent

Prior to Chutkan's issuing of the order, Lauro indicated that he and his team would appeal on the basis of free speech infringement. 

Chutkan was quick to quash the notion of a politically motivated protection, also undercutting Lauro's argument, which was seemingly rooted in concerns about Trump's bid for the 2024 presidency.

"After Lauro launched back into sharp arguments about Trump's free speech rights, Chutkan sought to steer him back to the particulars of the gag order litigation: 'I do not need to hear any campaign rhetoric in my court,'" reported The Messenger's Steve Reilly.


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


Chutkan continued to "chafe" at Lauro's arguments during the hearing.

"'Obviously you have an audience other than me in mind,' she says, still pressing him to explain why Trump needs to call prosecutors 'thugs,'" Politico's Kyle Cheney reported.

At one point, Chutkan "literally" laughed in Lauro's face after he argued that Trump had abided by his pre-trial release conditions.

"What you have put in place respectfully is working," Lauro said, according to Politico's Josh Gerstein. 

"I have to take issue with you, Mr. Lauro," Chutkan replied. 

Earlier this month, New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron hit the former president with a partial gag order after he attacked the judge's principal law clerk on his social media platform, TruthSocial, referring to her as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's "girlfriend."

"Personal attacks on members on my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate, and I won't tolerate it [in my courtroom]," Engoron said in court, per a report from The Messenger. "Consider this a gag order for all parties from posting about any members of my staff," he added.

Jada Pinkett Smith says she and Will Smith are working very hard to bring back “life partnership”

In a new interview on Monday's TODAY show, Jada Pinkett Smith told Hoda Kotb that she and her husband Will Smith are “working hard” to reconcile their relationship despite living "separate lives" for the past seven years. The shocking revelation comes only a few days after Pinkett Smith said in a Friday NBC News primetime special with Kotb that she and Smith have been separated since 2016 and “live separately.” Pinkett Smith opened up about her split from Smith for the very first time in her upcoming memoir, “Worthy.”

“There's no finding another great love, and I think that's the point,” Pinkett Smith said Monday. “It's like we are in a place now that we are in a deep, healing space. And we are really concentrating on healing the relationship between us," she wrote. “There's no divorce on paper. We really have been working hard. That's the whole thing. We are working very hard at bringing our relationship together. Back to a life partnership.”

Pinkett Smith continued, saying she came into marriage with “very specific ideas that were blocks to me seeing Will as who he is.” Smith, she added, “can't be this perfect, ideal guy husband.”

“I have to be able to accept him for the human that he is, (and) he accepts me for the human that I am. And we want to love each other there," she said. 

Over the weekend, Smith shared his thoughts on his wife’s memoir in a statement to The New York Times: “When you’ve been with someone for more than half of your life, a sort of emotional blindness sets in, and you can all too easily lose your sensitivity to their hidden nuances and subtle beauties."

 

Brooklyn restaurant implements a needed “influencer ban,” limiting photography and TikTok shoots

If you've been peeved by aspiring influencers at local restaurants, cafes or bars incessantly snapping photos and videos, then Dae in Brooklyn just might become your new favorite spot.

As reported by Clio Chang at Curbed, Dae is a new design shop and cafe that opened in Carroll Gardens this summer that has "a meticulously curated space [with] a no-laptop policy." This, though, proved to not be enough, as "hordes of influencers armed with tripods" descended up on the shop in recent months, which has led Dae to actually ban customers from taking any photos or videos in the store — with the caveat of "quick snaps" at one's own table. On their own Instagram, the store wrote that they love the food and drink photos "but the TikToks and instagram photoshoots have gotten a bit out of control for us." Many influencers and would-be influencers have dubbed the shop as being especially "aesthetic" and minimalist in design and appeal, hence its burgeoning popularity and its draw for many social media users since its opening.

Carol Song, the co-owner, told Curbed that "people were coming in and literally doing photoshoots — they would just get one drink and stay for two hours shooting." She noted that it's a "free-for-all" and said that she didn't want the shop to be somewhere that "people just come and go for the trend." Thus far, though, the reaction hasn't been too negative, so the limitations remain in effect — for now, at least.

 

Legal experts: Trump’s Israel comments could backfire on him in court

Former President Donald Trump's public statements may come back to haunt him in his ongoing legal battles, legal experts warn.

The former president was issued a limited gag order by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron earlier this month as part of his civil business fraud trial. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan — the judge in Trump's federal election case — imposed another partial gag order, prohibiting him from publicly attacking witnesses or prosecutors. A person close to Trump told The Washington Post that his legal team has never instructed him to not post on social media; however, the source admitted that Trump's provocative speech has only further muddied the waters of his legal woes and stymied his attorneys from succeeding at their jobs. 

The ex-president's most recent series of questionable comments made about Israel amid its ongoing war with Gaza could implicate him even further.

The Washington Post reported how, at a recent rally hosted by pro-MAGA group Club 47 in Florida, Trump doubled down on previous claims that he was well within his right to stow classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, saying “I can do whatever I want, but I did nothing wrong." 

“I don’t think this has ever been told,” Trump said. “They’ll say, ‘Oh, it’s classified information.’ Maybe it is, but I don’t think so.” From there, he recounted a story about a U.S. operation in 2020 that targeted and killed the leader of Iran's Quds Force, General Qasem Soleimani, adding that Israel, which he claimed had held a pivotal in the plot, ultimately withdrew at the eleventh hour. “We had everything all set to go, and the night before it happened, I got a call that Israel would not be participating in this attack,” Trump said. “Nobody’s heard this story before, but I’d like to tell it to Club 47 because you’ve been so loyal and so beautiful.”

An anonymous former intelligence official who was employed by the Trump administration was concerned about the ex-president's comments, telling the Post that the Soleimani information was considered classified. 

We need your help to stay independent

Even if Trump's claims are untrue, they could still be used by special counsel Jack Smith and other prosecutors to illustrate Trump's intentions and state of mind, the report noted. The former president's rhetoric could serve as the evidentiary basis to "argue to a jury that even after his indictment, the former president shows a willful disregard for protecting national security secrets."

Legal experts have indicated that Trump's history of divulging sensitive information does not bode well for his legal defense, as he continues to partially implicate himself for the crimes he stands accused of. 


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


“Trump’s public statements erode his defenses enormously,” former Trump-era White House lawyer Ty Cobb told the Post. “Flip-flopping between ‘I had the power’ with the classified documents and 'there was a process' — both acknowledge the possession of the classified documents.”

Cobb also underscored a secret audio recording in which Trump admits retaining a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran, a bombshell tape that undermines his declassification claims. 

“Lying about it is compelling evidence as to consciousness of guilt,” Cobb said. “The prosecutors can play that snippet every day if they want, and they will play that and other interviews at will. He has confessed publicly, though perhaps unknowing, to virtually every element of the Mar a Lago case. … Every unscripted thing he says hurts him.”

Trump rages on Truth Social during Judge Chutkan’s hearing on gag order

Donald Trump lashed out on Truth Social as Judge Tanya Chutkan began a hearing on a proposed gag order in the former president’s election interference case. “The TRUMP GAG ORDER that the CORRUPT Biden Administration is trying to obtain is totally Unconstitutional!” Trump wrote on his social media platform as proceedings got underway in D.C. Chutkan ultimately issued a partial gag order relating to statements about special counsel Jack Smith, the federal court and staff and possible witnesses in the case. “This is not about whether or not I like the language Mr. Trump uses," Chutkan said, according to The Messenger. "This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.”

Trump during the hearing also shared a post from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who attended the proceedings in person. “They are attempting to muzzle the most popular political figure in America!” Greene wrote in the post, alleging that a gag order would strip all Americans of the “opportunity to hear from the leading candidate for President.”

Trump ahead of the hearing on Sunday night teased a “big day for Democracy” on Monday. “A Leaking, Crooked and Deranged Prosecutor, Jack Smith, who has a terrible record of failure, is asking a highly partisan Obama appointed Judge, Tanya Chutkan, who should recuse herself based on the horrible things she has said, to silence me, through the use of a powerful GAG ORDER, making it impossible for me to criticize those who are doing the silencing, namely Crooked Joe Biden, and his corrupt and weaponized DOJ & FBI,” he wrote. “They want to take away my First Amendment rights, and my ability to both campaign and defend myself. In other words, they want to cheat and interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election. Nothing like this has ever happened in our Country before. It is strictly Banana Republic kind of ‘stuff.’ These political Hacks and Thugs are destroying our Country. Let’s see what happens on Monday in Judge Chutkan’s courtroom. Will America survive, or not?”

Want to know more about how conservatives really think? Look in their grocery carts

In recent years, a number of conservative-owned food and beverage products that are overtly partisan have exploded onto the market, ranging from Black Rifle Coffee Company, which the New York Times described as having the potential to become the“Starbucks of the Right,” to Ultra Right Beer, which is currently trying to “fight the communists” in Georgia by selling a collectible six-pack featuring former president Donald Trump’s mugshot on the cans. 

However, the clearest insights into the conservative thought process aren’t necessarily gleaned from what products they buy to purposely signal their beliefs — but rather what else they have in their grocery carts. 

As both sociologists and market researchers have found, in addition to shaping how we see social events, political ideology has a profound influence on the choices we make in everyday life, including simple supermarket purchasing decisions. However, the impact of those choices doesn’t just end in the check-out aisle; the same motivations that prompt someone’s grocery list extend to attitudes that can inform policy decisions surrounding food waste, distribution and access. 

This is especially true as the rates of food insecurity worsen across the United States, which was one of the motivating factors behind a new study in the journal Appetite — which specializes in the cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks — that assesses how political ideology impacts whether or not a consumer will buy imperfect fruits and vegetables (or FaVs). 

“Reducing food waste not only enhances current and future food security but also mitigates adverse environmental and financial impacts,” the study authors write. “Considering the gravity of the problem, recommending ways to reduce food waste assumes great significance, and to do so, we first need to understand the factors that drive food waste. In this investigation, we identify one such factor – imperfect produce, defined as foods that are non-uniform in shape, color, or texture.”  

They continue: “Food waste is often predicated on consumer rejection of ugly or imperfect produce, and some estimates suggest that in the U.S., as much as 20% of fruits and vegetables are thrown away because of cosmetic imperfections.” 

A big part of combatting that staggering amount of largely superficial waste is understanding why certain market segments would pass over or discard imperfect produce that otherwise tastes the same as its conventionally attractive counterparts. In this study, the researchers sought to do just that and, through a series of four separate surveys, came across an interesting discovery: Customers who were politically conservative were markedly less likely to buy imperfect fruits and vegetables than liberal customers, and it was largely due to their “lower openness to experience.” 

To expand upon their findings, the study authors point to a 2007 study titled “Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?” in which the authors wrote that liberals largely prefer social change, equality, progress and flexibility while conservatives anchor on inequality, tradition and stability. 

We need your help to stay independent

“The idea is that there is an especially good fit between the need to reduce uncertainty and threat, on the one hand, and resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, on the other, insofar as preserving the [inegalitarian] status quo allows one to maintain what is familiar and known while rejecting the risky, uncertain prospect of social change,” they wrote. 

This extends beyond a customer’s produce preference. Similar research over the last decade has found that conservatives are “more reluctant to eat unfamiliar, novel food,” show less of an interest in local and organic food, and also tend to stigmatize vegetarianism. 

“Indeed, conservatives prefer familiar products, reject novel products, and favor national brands which presumably represent tradition and stability,” the authors of the 2023 imperfect FaVs study concluded. 

So, how can this new knowledge be leveraged to ultimately reduce food waste and alleviate food insecurity? The study authors suggest that it could inform the messaging around selling imperfect produce. In blue states, or blue dots in otherwise red states, supermarkets may want to advertise using appeals to sustainability, authenticity and food waste. 

However, in markets where the clientele veers more conservative, supermarkets may want to try tapping into a sense of tradition, with a message like: “Most produce was imperfect decades ago!” Whether a similar appeal — perhaps going super traditional with “Jesus wouldn’t let anyone go hungry” — will work on the House floor this year remains to be seen.