Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The real reason why Donald Trump wants Gen. Milley to be killed

Donald Trump is continuing to threaten the lives of his “enemies” and all others who oppose him. Trump has been doing this publicly and without contrition, pause or any apparent fear of repercussions or negative consequences. His behavior is a function of his depraved character, damaged personality, and diseased mind.

Despite how too many among the news media and political class, even after seven years of experience to the contrary, would like to believe, Trump is not going to pivot. Moreover, there are no “responsible” senior members of today’s Republican Party who are going to place country over party to finally stop Trump and his neofascist MAGA movement.

Trump’s threats of violence and acts of intimidation are so great that the Department of Justice is seeking a gag order in an attempt to protect the safety of the jurors, witnesses, and members of law enforcement who will be involved in the ex-president’s upcoming criminal trials, as Salon’s Areeba Shah reports:

Threats against law enforcement, judges and elected officials are on the rise as Donald Trump’s prosecutions gain momentum, The New York Times reported on Monday.

FBI agents have raised alarms about harassment and threats targeting their families. These concerns have amplified amid complaints by Trump supporters and many Republicans that the Justice Department has been “weaponized” — a narrative the former president has extensively promoted on social media. 

“Trump’s pattern of lashing out at anyone who opposes him has been dangerously emulated by his supporters,” V. James DeSimone, a California civil rights attorney, told Salon. “Now that he is facing four indictments, his most dangerous supporters view law enforcement and our judicial system as the enemy. So the risk is there for increased violence.”

The FBI has witnessed a substantial surge in threats against its personnel and facilities following the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago Trump’s Florida residence and private club, according to the Times. This led the agency to establish a dedicated unit to address these threats. 

One federal official told the Times that threats have increased by more than 300 percent since then, partly because FBI agents’ identities and personal information has been spread on social media by Trump supporters. 

Who is the target of Trump’s latest threats of murderous violence? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley.

Here is what Trump said in a Friday post on his Truth Social disinformation propaganda website:

Mark Milley, who led perhaps the most embarrassing moment in American history with his grossly incompetent implementation of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, costing many lives, leaving behind hundreds of American citizens, and handing over BILLIONS of dollars of the finest military equipment ever made, will be leaving the military next week.

This will be a time for all citizens of the USA to celebrate!” he continued. “This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!

Of course, Trump is lying about these events. So what is the real reason why Donald Trump wants Gen. Milley to be killed?

Trump is enraged that Gen. Milley attempted to stop his coup and other attacks on democracy and civil society. Milley, as a responsible military officer, places loyalty to the Constitution and democracy and the American people over personal loyalty to the person who happens to occupy the White House. This was antithetical to Trump’s attempts, and now future plans, to be America’s first dictator.

The most immediate reason why Donald Trump is now threatening Gen. Milley’s life is in response to a recent Atlantic profile by Jeffrey Goldberg, which confirms, again, that the ex-president is an enemy of democracy and a neofascist, who possesses deep contempt for America’s soldiers.

Others have speculated that Gen. Milley may be a witness against the ex-president in the upcoming classified documents trial, which may also explain the disgraced president’s murderous rage towards him.

What is the real reason why Donald Trump wants Gen. Milley to be killed?

Army Captain Luis Avila was grievously wounded during his five combat tours in Afghanistan. Gen. Milley invited Captain Avila to sing at an Armed Forces Welcome Ceremony that took place in September 2019. Trump reportedly told Gen. Milley, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.” Trump reportedly also told Gen. Milley to never let Captain Avila make an official public appearance again. As summarized by Goldberg in his Atlantic profile, “Trump’s attitude toward the uniformed services seemed superficial, callous, and, at the deepest human level, repugnant.”

Trump’s disdain towards Captain Avila, is also representative of a larger pattern of hostility towards disabled people by the ex-president, as Eric Garcia explains at MSNBC:

But there’s enough evidence of Trump deriding military heroes and deriding people who are disabled to believe he has little regard for people who are disabled military heroes. For example, in what counts as one of the most deplorable displays by a candidate for U.S. president, in 2015 Trump mocked Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a congenital joint condition that limits movement in his arms.

During that same presidential campaign, Trump said the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who became disabled while a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was “not a war hero” because “he was captured.” And The Wall Street Journal reported in 2019, before Trump’s visit Japan that year, that a U.S. Indo-Pacific Command official sent U.S. Navy and Air Force officials an email including the directive that while Trump was there, the “USS John McCain needs to be out of sight.”

 Trump denied having made a request that the ship be kept out of sight but described whoever made the request as “well meaning” “because they thought I didn’t like” McCain.

In one of the most deplorable displays by a candidate for president, Trump mocked reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a congenital joint condition that limits movement in his arms.

Like other white supremacists, eugenicists, and racial authoritarians, Trump is very proud of his “good genes”, believes that human beings can be bred like horses, and is contemptuous towards for those he views as being somehow inferior to his “superior” racial stock.

In a post on Twitter/X, political analyst and author David Rothkopf, correctly described Trump’s recent death threats against Gen. Milley in the following way:

Trump this weekend indicated military leaders who opposed his policies should be put to death and media that presented views he did not like are traitors and will be prosecuted. He is a monster, an aspiring dictator, the greatest threat America faces.

At the Atlantic, political scientist Brian Klaas, who is an expert on authoritarianism, sounded this alarm about Trump’s most recent death threats and how they have been responded to by the news media and public:

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, not just because it is the exact sort that incites violence against public officials but also because it shows just how numb the country has grown toward threats more typical of broken, authoritarian regimes. The United States is not just careening toward a significant risk of political violence around the 2024 presidential election. It’s also mostly oblivious to where it’s headed…

Bombarded by a constant stream of deranged authoritarian extremism from a man who might soon return to the presidency, we’ve lost all sense of scale and perspective. But neither the American press nor the public can afford to be lulled. The man who, as president, incited a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol in order to overturn an election is again openly fomenting political violence while explicitly endorsing authoritarian strategies should he return to power. That is the story of the 2024 election. Everything else is just window dressing.

Trump’s death threats against Gen. Milley are being echoed by other Republicans in Congress. 

We need your help to stay independent

Focusing on the specific dangers embodied by Donald Trump in his role as leader of the neofascist MAGA movement, ex-president, coup plotter, and Republican frontrunner in the 2024 Election (who is now leading President Biden in at least one national poll) is critical if America’s democracy is to survive. Trump must be defeated both at the polls and in court. However, Trump’s pattern of threats and violence against his “enemies” is a problem that is much larger than any one person or leader or party. 

The United States is the richest country on the planet, but experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of people die here each year from poverty. These are largely preventable deaths and a type of choice by the country’s elites and policy makers. More than 1 million Americans have died from the coronavirus. President Trump and his regime and other Republican Party leaders engaged in an act of democide through their willful negligence and decisions to make “the economy” more important than saving lives during the pandemic.

Trump’s pattern of threats and violence against his “enemies” is a problem that is much larger than any one person or leader or party.

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.  

The United States is structured by racism, white supremacy, sexism, classism, and other forms of social inequality. As social scientists and other experts have repeatedly demonstrated, social inequality is a type of structural and institutional violence.

The United States – especially Republicans and the “conservative” movement – refuse to enact the necessary policies to slow down global climate disaster. To that point, in a much-discussed 2017 interview on Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky powerfully explained how today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement are antihuman and an enemy of human civilization:

[H]as there ever been an organization in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organized human life on Earth? Not that I’m aware of. Is the Republican organization—I hesitate to call it a party—committed to that? Overwhelmingly. There isn’t even any question about it.

In an excellent new essay at Truthout, social theorist and cultural critic Henry Giroux locates Trump’s threats of violence and destruction within America’s larger culture of cruelty, violence, and neofascism.

Giroux’s essay merits being quoted at length:

The lies embraced by demagogues such as Trump do more than distort meaning, turn truth to ashes and spread misinformation. As Ariel Dorfman observes, they also “exhibit a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity,” while legitimizing and reproducing a vocabulary and culture that revels in unrestricted power, cruelty, terror and “homicidal extremes.” This is a language through which power is enacted; a language in which agency is made manifest “as an act with [often deadly] consequences.” This is a rhetoric that emerges from living corpses whose mouths are filled with blood.

Trump’s lies cannot be separated from the language of violence and its ongoing attempts to instill fear, promote threats against alleged opponents and inspire violence from his MAGA followers. His lies are inseparable from the creation of a language that promotes a lethal formative culture that wallows in the blood of those viewed as disposable, and that produces deranged anger and unchecked despair. Trump’s use of an inflammatory violent rhetoric to obtain political power feeds the GOP call for civil war and accelerates the arming of political extremists such as the Proud Boys, the Patriot movement and a heavily militarized police force.

Giroux continues:

Trump’s embrace of lies and violence have produced an unrelenting series of shocks to the body politic and its democratic ideals. Violence that was once considered inconceivable and relegated to the margins of society now passes for normal. As Trump’s violent rhetoric accelerates, actual acts of violence “have become a steady reality of American life, affecting school board officials, election workers, flight attendants, librarians and even members of Congress, often with few headlines and little reaction from politicians.”..

In Trump’s worldview, the opposition is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed, eliminated. This friend/enemy distinction reinforces the notion that a pledge of loyalty to Trump is comparable to becoming part of a militarized army engaged in war. In this discourse, violence is equated with power, and brutality becomes a measure of loyalty. Reason is now replaced with loyalty, and loyalty becomes the medium to “deploy sadism by bullying and humiliating others.”

National security experts have concluded that there are more than ten million Trump MAGA people and other members of the Republican fascist party and right-wing who support using violence to remove President Biden and the Democrats from power. Of those many millions, there are perhaps only a “few” hundred thousand who are willing to actually engage in direct acts of violence.

For those Trumpists and other neofascists who are unwilling (or unable) to take up arms or otherwise participate in direct acts of political violence, Trump and his MAGA movement represents a type of idea and permission function.


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


Trumpism is a way for them to engage in the fantasy and ideation of violence as a way of getting power and “getting even” with their “enemies”, those Black and brown people, gays and lesbians, transgendered people, “liberals”, “the left”, “political correctness”, “Black Lives Matter”, “Woke”, “Critical Race Theory”, “illegal immigrants”, criminals, “intellectuals”, “socialists”, “feminists”, “Muslims”, or whoever in their minds has somehow “oppressed” “real Americans” like them by not staying in their place as a second class citizens who are to be subservient and obedient to White “Christian” Americans. 

Ideation and fantasy and wish fulfillment of committing acts of violence against “the enemy” are well-documented steps in a process through which political violence up to and including genocide and eliminationism is normalized.

In an email to me, Giroux warned about where Trump and the “conservative” movement’s embrace of fascism and other forms of violence will almost inevitably lead the country.

Violence has a long legacy in the United States, but Trump has used the threat of violence with hurricane force against his proposed enemies, going so far recently to issue a death threat against a high-profile figure such as Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff. There is nothing shocking about this threat because Trump has accelerated both his lies and threats of violence for years. What is disturbing, if not dangerous, is how the mainstream press refuses to analyze such threats and Trump’s addiction to violence as a central element of fascist and authoritarian politics. We know from the study of history that such threats led to executions, torture, imprisonment, and death camps—think of Pinochet, Pol Pot, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s trials, Mussolini’s fascist regime, among others. Yet the mainstream media simply reports the violence issued by Trump and his lackeys as mere description, uncivilized rhetoric, and undignified.  Silence on this issue is a form of complicity, and the mainstream press is further legitimating such violence through their tone-deaf reporting. There is more at stake here than a lack of journalistic responsibility, there is a refusal to imagine what the end of democracy, if not humanity might look like if this culture of lies and violence continues unabated and unaccountable.

The potential and reality of right-wing political violence in America as part of a plan to end multiracial pluralistic democracy is not some type of unknown unknown or mystery. The immediate question is, what to do about it?

As I and others have repeatedly implored, Democrats, liberals, progressives, Black and brown people, women, the LGBTQI community, and all others who believe in real democracy must vote and organize and resist like their lives and freedom literally depend upon it – because it does.

Brazil’s Supreme Court upholds Indigenous rights to reclaim land

The justices of Brazil’s Supreme Court voted 9-2 last week against a legal framework that would have made it impossible for Indigenous tribal leaders to reclaim traditional land and that would have eased the way for more mining, agriculture, and other extractive industries on that land.

The ruling sets a precedent for hundreds of acres of Indigenous land claims and is expected to have a widespread impact on Indigenous land rights.

The legal thesis at the heart of the case, known as marco temporal, had been moving through the courts since 2007 and was overwhelmingly endorsed in the nation’s conservative-dominated lower congressional house.

It involved a legal interpretation of Brazil’s 1988 constitution, which gives Indigenous peoples the right to claim lands they “traditionally occupied.” Since the adoption of the constitution in 1988, more than 700 Indigenous territories have been claimed. To date, 496 have been officially recognized, or demarcated, by the government, which defines property boundaries and guarantees the possession of the land and the exclusive use of its natural resources to the Indigenous peoples who live on it.

The ruling marks the end of the yearslong fight that grew intensely under former President Jair Bolsonaro.

The theory would have limited tribal claims to territories they were occupying or legally disputing on the day the constitution was ratified. However, due to the Indian Statute of 1973, Brazil gave Indigenous peoples the same legal status as children, meaning they didn’t have standing to represent themselves in the state’s legal system — including in land matters.

The ruling marks the end of the yearslong fight that grew intensely under former President Jair Bolsonaro. Over the last four years, deforestation in the Amazon rose 56 percent with an estimated 13,000 square miles of land destroyed by development. During that time, Indigenous peoples lost an estimated 965 square miles of their traditional territories due to Bolsonaro’s policies. 

Brazil’s right wing, agribusiness sector, and industries such as logging, mining, and farming with business interests in Indigenous lands, including the Amazon, have supported the effort. Many proponents cited economic development as a key reason to support the idea — particularly for soybean production, cattle farming, and mining. 

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took office in January and pledged to protect existing lands and create new territories. In recent months he has made climate and the environment central to his agenda. In August, his administration unveiled infrastructure investment programs and other initiatives that he pitched to start Brazil’s green transition.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/global-indigenous-affairs-desk/brazils-supreme-court-upholds-indigenous-rights-to-reclaim-land/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Federal Trade Commission hits Amazon with “one of the most important antitrust cases in US history”

Economic justice advocates applauded on Tuesday as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 states filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Seattle-based Amazon.com for allegedly illegally dominating the online retail economy at the expense of consumers.

“Freedom of commerce is a fundamental liberty of American democracy,” declared Open Markets Institute executive director Barry Lynn in response to the suit. “Today the FTC took a first step to restoring the liberty of every individual and business who relies on essential internet platforms to exchange goods, services and ideas with one another.”

Lynn praised the commission for “targeting some of the most egregious abuses by Amazon of the dominant position it has acquired over vast swaths of online commerce, and the corporation’s routinized manipulation of other people’s business for its own private purposes.”

The 172-page complaint “lays out how Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” FTC chair Lina Khan said in a statement. “The complaint sets forth detailed allegations noting how Amazon is now exploiting its monopoly power to enrich itself while raising prices and degrading service for the tens of millions of American families who shop on its platform and the hundreds of thousands of businesses that rely on Amazon to reach them.”

The document — filed in a federal court in Washington state — alleges that Amazon maintains “durable monopoly power” in the online superstore and marketplace services markets, including by stifling price competition and coercing sellers into using its fulfillment service. The section on its algorithmic tool “Project Nessie” is heavily redacted.

“Seldom in the history of U.S. antitrust law has one case had the potential to do so much good for so many people,” noted John Newman, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. States led by both Democrats and Republicans — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin — joined the highly anticipated lawsuit.

Amazon — which was founded by Jeff Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, and is now the second-largest private employer in the U.S. — swiftly pushed back on Tuesday.

David Zapolsky, the company’s senior vice president of global public policy and general counsel, claimed the FTC case “is wrong on the facts and the law.” He said the challenged practices “have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon’s store.”

Meanwhile, critics of the company joined Open Markets in celebrating the development — echoing praise for FTC in June, when the commission sued Amazon over its “yearslong effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions.”

Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, said Tuesday that “the FTC is right to challenge Amazon, a company that appears to offer low prices under the guise of free shipping but in fact inflates prices across the whole economy.”

“In order to reach most online customers, sellers must sell through Amazon. This market power enables Amazon to set the price floor on almost every online retail item offered by sellers, extract a 50% cut from each sale and punish sellers who try to sell elsewhere at lower prices,” he explained. “At the same time, it leverages its dominance to block rivals from entering the markets in which it offers services, while its own marketplace is increasingly saturated with pay-to-play junk ads.”

“There’s no such thing as ‘free shipping,’ just as there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Amazon is just hiding from consumers how much they have to pay,” Stoller stressed. “Amazon is a monopoly, and we’re thrilled to see the FTC end its coercive tactics.”

Stacy Mitchell, co-director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance — which has spent over a decade sounding the alarm about the retail giant’s practices — charged that “for too long Amazon has been allowed to maintain a stranglehold on the online market.”

“The filing of this lawsuit is a victory for freedom and self-governance; it marks a crucial rekindling of public authority to check unaccountable private power,” Mitchell said. “This is one of the most important antitrust cases in U.S. history.”

“Breaking up Amazon is key to repairing the online market and opening the way for competition,” she argued. “As this lawsuit shows, Amazon’s anti-competitive tactics largely hinge on leveraging the interplay between its retail division, third-party marketplace and logistics operation. Separating them would eliminate Amazon’s ability to monopolize the market. We are encouraged that both the scope of this case and the FTC’s request for the court to consider structural remedies show that the agency intends to tackle Amazon’s monopoly power at its root.”

Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz called the case “long overdue,” given the company’s record of “shamelessly engaging in exclusionary and unfair tactics to trap third-party sellers in its own marketplaces, gouge them with predatory fees and punish them for trying to offer lower prices to consumers.”

“This marks a historic step in challenging Amazon’s abuse of its market dominance and its anti-consumer, anti-worker, anti-small business practices,” Langholz said. Like Mitchell, she also suggested that the suit should be “a catalyst for a broader conversation about the need to break up Amazon as the best and most effective remedy.”

Trump committed fraud: Judge rules Trump Org. loan documents “clearly contain fraudulent valuations”

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years as he built up the real estate empire that bolstered his fame and vaulted him into the White House.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found that Trump and his company deceived insurers, bankers and others by heavily inflating his assets and his net worth in paperwork he used to make deals and secure financing. Engoron also found that Trump, his company and its key executives had repeatedly lied about his wealth on his annual financial statements in order to take advantage of favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums. Those actions violated the law, the judge said, dismissing Trump's argument that a disclaimer on the statements absolved him of any wrongdoing.

The decision comes just days before the Oct. 2 start of a trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil lawsuit against the former president. The ruling, in a part of the case known as summary judgment, settles the primary matter in James' lawsuit, leaving six others for Engoron's consideration in the non-jury trial, which he has said could last into December, according to the Associated Press.

Attorneys for Trump had previously asked the judge to throw out the case on the grounds that James wasn't legally allowed to file the suit because there isn't any evidence of public harm due to Trump's actions, but the lawyers' request was denied. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban from carrying out any future business in the state against the former president. 

“Stepping down is best”: Cory Booker calls on Bob Menendez, his fellow New Jersey senator, to resign

Sen. Cory Booker on Tuesday called on Sen. Bob Menendez, his fellow New Jersey Democrat in the U.S. Senate, to step aside in the face of a damning federal indictment on corruption charges issued last week.

“As Sen. Menendez prepares to mount his legal defense, he has stated that he will not resign,” Booker said in a statement. “Sen. Menendez fiercely asserts his innocence, and it is therefore understandable that he believes stepping down is patently unfair. But I believe this is a mistake.”

Booker praised Menendez as a friend and trusted colleague, one with a “boundless work ethic” and who is “deeply empathetic.”

This is Menendez’s second indictment for corruption, with a first trial over charges brought in 2017 ending in a mistrial.

“It is not surprising to me that Sen. Menendez is again determined to mount a vigorous defense,” Booker said Tuesday. “And I still believe he, like anyone involved with our criminal justice system, deserves our presumption of innocence until proven guilty. A jury of his peers will make the ultimate decision as to whether he is criminally guilty.”

“There is, however, another higher standard for public officials, one not of criminal law but of common ideals,” he continued. “As senators, we operate in the public trust. That trust is essential to our ability to do our work and perform our duties for our constituents.”

Booker now joins other Democratic in the upper chamber — including Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., John Tester, D-Mont., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., — who have called on Menendez to resign.

On Monday, a defiant Menendez made his first public remarks about the indictment, in which he said the nearly $480,000 in cash and gold bars found in his house was from his own personal savings account over the years — all money he claimed was legitimately earned from his career as a politician and lawmaker.

He said he would not resign, though he acknowledged the legal battle ahead would be tough. Once the process was over, he vowed that “not only will I be exonerated, I will still be New Jersey’s senior senator.”

In his statement, Booker said, “Stepping down is not an admission of guilt but an acknowledgment that holding public office often demands tremendous sacrifices at great personal cost. Senator Menendez has made these sacrifices in the past to serve. And in this case, he must do so again. I believe stepping down is best for those Senator Menendez has spent his life serving.”

Is it really safe to feed your cat a vegan diet?

Research Checks interrogate newly published studies and how they’re reported in the media. The analysis is undertaken by one or more academics not involved with the study, and reviewed by another, to make sure it’s accurate.


Recently there’s been a trend of people wanting to feed their pets a diet that follows their own dietary preferences – which often means a meat-free diet.

Vets have long maintained that feeding cats a meat-free diet is a big no-no. But a new study published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE challenges this assumption. The researchers write in the abstract:

 

 

[. . .] cats fed vegan diets tended to be healthier than cats fed meat-based diets. This trend was clear and consistent. These results largely concur with previous, similar studies.

 

So, are vegan diets really more healthy for cats? When we start to pick apart the findings, we see the evidence is far from conclusive.

 

What the study involved

The authors of the study surveyed 1,369 cat owners, who fed their cats either a vegan or meat-based diet, about their cats’ health. Respondents were mostly female (91%) and represented a range of ages. Most lived in the UK, with others residing in Europe, North America or Oceania.

Most (about 65%) had themselves adopted some form of diet to reduce meat consumption – being either vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian (fish only) or reducing their meat consumption. A small portion (9%) fed their cats a vegan diet in spite of their own dietary choices.

The owners were asked about their cat’s health, including specific health conditions, medication use and how often they saw a vet. They were also asked their opinion on how healthy their cat was and what they believed their vet would say about their cat’s health.

 

What did the study find?

Overall, the study found no evidence of detrimental health effects in cats fed a vegan diet. In fact, the authors suggest a vegan diet actually leads to health benefits for cats.

The researchers looked at seven indicators of illness and found non-significant reductions in all of them in cats on a vegan diet. These included reduced veterinary visits, reduced use of medications and fewer instances of owners thinking their cats were in poor health.

Non-significance means the researchers didn’t find strong enough evidence to say there was a meaningful difference between the groups – but it doesn’t mean there was no effect (especially since some of the trends were strong).

They found 15 diseases were more common in cats fed meat, while only seven diseases were more common in cats on a vegan diet. Examples of less common diseases for cats on a vegan diet included dental disease, skin disease and hormonal diseases. But again, the differences between the two diet groups were not statistically significant.

There was only one disease for which a significant statistical difference was observed: Cats fed a vegan diet were slightly more likely to have kidney disease.

 

Putting the findings in context

Compared to similar past studies, this study included a relatively large number of cats. That said, only 127 of these cats were on a vegan diet.

Most of the health benefits reported for this group also did not reach statistical significance, which may be the result of simply not having enough animals in the study.

The authors reported a tendency towards positive effects of vegan diets. This means there was a general trend (which was sometimes strong), but doesn’t necessarily mean there is a very predictable relationship.

As a survey study, it’s not possible to confirm exactly what the cats were eating. Many of them went outside and may have hunted down meaty treats even while on a vegan diet. Some owners also fed their cats treats and essential nutrient supplements, so any beneficial effects (or a lack of harmful effects) may not be due to diet alone.  

Another missing piece of information is how long the cats were kept on the diet. We might assume one year – but this isn’t specifically stated. This is important information since deficiency diseases can take time to develop.

Finally, any study assessing animal health will have inherent limitations if it’s designed as a survey. Pet owners usually aren’t medically trained and their “opinions” can be subjective and therefore biased.

Owners who had removed or reduced meat in their own diet were over-represented in the study. These people may already anticipate vegan diets are better for health and this thinking could influence their responses.

It’s also worth noting the study was funded by ProVeg International – a food awareness organisation that promotes plant-based products. While this might not have impacted the validity of data, it could have influenced the stance taken when reporting on the results.

 

So, is a vegan diet good for my cat?

Only a handful of studies have looked at health outcomes in cats fed vegan diets. This study adds to a growing body of evidence that, contrary to long-held beliefs, it may be possible for cats to stay healthy on a vegan diet.

However, we’ll need much more research before we can conclude vegan diets are better for cat health than diets containing meat.

To obtain really strong evidence on the safety and health benefits of vegan diets, we’d need clinical trials involving a large cat population and direct measurements of health through veterinary exams and lab tests.

One challenge that isn’t really addressed in this paper is how a vegan cat diet should be safely put together. We know plant-based diets typically lack a range of nutrients cats need and which their bodies can’t make. Previous studies have shown cats on vegan diets to have severe deficiency disorders affecting the muscles.

It may be possible for owners to provide these nutrients through supplements, but this would require an understanding of cat nutrition or some sound advice from an animal health professional. For most of us, achieving a well-balanced diet for our felines in this way will be tricky. And let’s not forget cats are natural hunters  and may well like the taste of meat!

It’s probably wise to wait before letting Felix go completely meat-free. If you feel very strongly about not feeding your cat meat, make sure to choose a commercial vegan pet diet and ask your vet about proper nutrient supplementation.


 

Blind peer review

This article is a fair analysis of the study. It importantly clarifies the study can’t conclude that it is safe or beneficial to feed a solely vegan diet to cats in the long term.

The details of the diets fed to these cats were very vague; cats on a predominately vegan diet may have been receiving non-vegan foods as well, which could have provided essential nutrients, such as taurine, that may have been deficient in fully vegan diets. It also gave no detail about wet versus dry diets, which is another dietary factor that can impact health.

As a feline specialist veterinarian, I know too well how good cats are at hiding signs of illness until they are very advanced; owner-reported health status simply isn’t good enough to determine a cat’s health.

For example, one concern with vegan diets is a lack of taurine, which is essential for cats. Taurine deficiency can cause retinal degeneration and cardiac disease, both of which would not be evident to owners until the conditions were very advanced. Nutrient deficiencies can take a long time to develop and the study didn’t report on long-term feeding of a solely vegan diet.

I also disagree that fewer vet visits and less medication indicate better health. The authors point out that part of the study was performed during COVID lockdowns, which we know had significant effects on veterinary visits and also on some health conditions.

To assess health impacts of vegan diets, much longer-term studies would be needed with more complete health assessments including examination of the back of the eye, blood tests and ultrasound examination.

Andrea Harvey, Veterinary Specialist, PhD scholar (wild horse ecology & welfare), University of Technology Sydne

Alexandra Whittaker, Senior Lecturer, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

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

Nigella Lawson’s divisive Marmite spaghetti is cozy perfection

Why is Marmite so polarizing? You claim you love salty, savory things, that you’re all about that umami life. Yet when confronted with the classic British spread, you’re disgusted. You’re wrong.

In the UK recently, I found myself in an adorable cafe with grilled cheddar and Marmite sandwiches on the menu, so I fully died and went to heaven. Marmite is like all of the things that are great about mushrooms and miso in one deep, dark place. I am not, by the way, of the “You can only appreciate Marmite if you were eating it from the womb” school of thought here. I grew up in Jersey City; I didn’t even have a Cadbury bar till I was 20. But in the same love-at-first-bite manner in which I fell for stinky cheese and black olives, I was Team Marmite from the jump. If you’ve never tasted it, imagine if a bouillon cube was a spread. Imagine a soy sauce you could put on toast. You’re getting close. People who won’t shut up about anchovies, what, you think you’re too good for this?

We need your help to stay independent

Originally developed as a resourceful use of leftover brewer’s yeast, Marmite gained popularity with 20th century families for its high concentration of B12 and folic acid. So maybe it’s because it’s so strongly associated with English nursery food that the most people usually can muster for Marmite is a fond nostalgia. Or maybe it’s because it looks like buckwheat honey or chocolate syrup, but tastes like the bottom of a pan you just burned something in, that lends to its unpleasant reputation. Or maybe it’s just truly a tough taste sell. A few years ago, Marmite’s U.K. manufacturer teamed up with a genetic testing service to try to discover if a preference for it comes down to an innate predisposition. But I think the bad reputation is at least in part because newcomers to Marmite don’t quite know what to do with it. This stuff is powerful. As one Food 52 commenter has said, “One NEVER ‘slathers’ Marmite. One ‘scrapes,’ It’s not Nutella!” This is key. Don’t ask something that’s more like tomato paste to behave like peanut butter. 

 

Instead, do as Nigella suggests and make the simplest, most comforting pasta with it. Originally published in her 2010 book “Nigella’s Kitchen,” Marmite spaghetti was introduced a new generation when Lawson posted it as her Instagram recipe of the day. Chaos ensued. “If you’re Italian, and you’re about to watch this, all I can say is, I’m sorry,” YouTuber Adam Garratt told his followers when he made the “bizarre” (if ultimately, “nice”) dish. Good Housekeeping declared the pasta “controversial,” while the Independent noted that Lawson had “divided fans” over it.


Hungry for more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.


Clearly, some of the horror over the recipe was not mere Marmite disdain, but its introduction into the ostensible ream of Italian food. But Nigella notes that the origin for the recipe came from Italian writer food writer Anna del Conte. Beyond that though, I’m sorry, are we really gatekeeping thin noodles now? If you think they don’t belong in salty, brothy things, you’re going to lose your mind when I tell you about ramen.

Buttery, cheesy and mysteriously savory, this dish is the best form of sweatpants food you can make. I have tweaked the quantities for more standard American products and boosted the amount of Marmite, but if you’re shy, dial it back. It’s not difficult to find Marmite in the U.S. — my gross local supermarket carries it — but it’s also extremely easy to order from Amazon and the like. Get a small jar to start. Soon enough, you’ll be hungry for more.

* * *

Inspired by Nigella Lawson’s “Kitchen: Recipes from the Heart of the Home”

Savory Marmite spaghetti
Yields
 4 – 6 servings
Prep Time
 5 minutes 
Cooking Time
 15 minutes total 

Ingredients

  • 16 ounces (1 package) of spaghetti
  • 5 tablespoons of good quality butter
  • 3 teaspoons of Marmite or Truffle Marmite
  • Freshly grated Parmesan cheese, to taste
  • Freshly ground pepper 

Directions

  1. Set a large pot of salted water to boil. Cook pasta to package directions.

  2. When the pasta is close to done, head the butter in a large saucepan over medium heat. Stir in the Marmite and a tablespoon or so of the starchy pasta water.

  3. Drain the pasta, reserving 1/2 cup of the water.

  4. Stir in the butter and marmite, adding a little of the pasta water to loosen if need be.

  5. Serve topped with Parmesan and black pepper.


Cook’s Notes

I’m not one to gild the lily here, but you could stir in some spinach or arugula for a nice bitter boost.

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

Mar-a-Lago judge blasted for late trial date: “Cannon is slow-walking this case to benefit Trump”

Judge Aileen Cannon, the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida presiding over Donald Trump’s classified documents case, granted on Monday special counsel Jack Smith’s request to schedule hearings inspecting potential conflicts of interest for two Trump attorneys representing Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.

As The Guardian reports, the decision follows the Justice Department’s complaints about Trump’s offer to pay for the legal counsel of those implicated in his legal battles and comes after the department warned Cannon that the two lawyers — Stanley Woodward and John Irving, who represent Nauta and De Oliveira, respectively — are also working for other clients who could be called as witnesses against the two defendants.

Woodward has represented “at least seven other individuals who have been questioned in connection with the investigation,” including individuals who have testified about Nauta, the DOJ wrote last month. Irving is serving as a counsel to a witness the Justice Department said “has information demonstrating the falsity of statements De Oliveira has made to the government.” That witness “also has information about De Oliveira’s loyalty to Trump and about De Oliveira’s involvement in the replacement of a lock—at the direction of Trump—on a closet inside Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago on June 2, 2022, the day Nauta and De Oliveira moved boxes” in and out of a storage room at the club, the department added.

The dual proceedings, known as Garcia hearings, have been scheduled for Oct. 12. The hearing for De Oliveira, the property manager for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort club, is slated for 1 p.m., and the hearing for Nauta, a valet for the former president, is scheduled for 3 p.m. later that day.

We need your help to stay independent

Legal experts criticized Cannon’s pace in scheduling for the classified docs case with some accusing the Trump appointee of setting an elongated timeline to the former president’s benefit. 

“It really appears Cannon is slow-walking this case to benefit Trump,” former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason, wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “She’s already had these motions for weeks, and schedules the hearings more than two weeks from now? And this after taking weeks to issue a standard protective order.”

“The evidence that Judge Cannon is learning on the job is the time it took her to schedule these routine conflict hearings- which are to assure the defendants’ 6th amendment right to counsel,”  Andrew Weissmann, a former assistant U.S. attorney, added. 

“Finally. After sitting on this for a while, will be interesting to see how this pans out,” retired lawyer Mike Grubman tweeted. “Entire hearing could be under seal, and no surprise if Cannon leans heavily in favor of attys paid for by Trump, imho.”

Though she agreed to schedule the hearings, Cannon denied the remainder of the special counsel’s request, which included an ask for independent attorneys to be available at the proceedings to advise Nauta and De Oliveira about the conflicts that could prevent Woodward and Irving from best and completely representing their interests. 


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


“Representing multiple people connected to the same criminal allegations can result in a conflict where an atty must cross-examine a witness who is also his client, Vigorous cross-ex might expose the witness-client’s confidences or, the atty might feel compelled to pull his punches during cross-ex to protect the client,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance explained on X Tuesday.

“Her denial of parts of the request was ‘w/out prejudice’ meaning she can reconsider. But there’s no explanation of her denial-it’s just a minute order on the docket,” she added.

Including independent attorneys in the hearing, Vance noted in a Monday thread, led another Woodward client who was being investigated by a Washington, D.C. grand jury in this case earlier this year, to flip. Mar-a-Lago IT worker Yuscil Taveras chose to cooperate with the government after a judge gave him the chance to speak with an outside attorney who was not Trump-aligned.

Shortly after his meeting with independent counsel, Taveras disclosed to prosecutors the details that bolstered the case’s superseding indictment and led to charges against De Oliveira, which include obstruction of justice and lying to authorities. 

Chris Brown sued for $2 million over alleged unpaid loan to open two Popeyes restaurants

Chris Brown has been hit with a $2 million lawsuit after he failed to open two Popeyes restaurants. According to legal documents obtained by The Blast, City National Bank is coming after the rapper over an unpaid multimillion-dollar loan to purchase two Popeyes locations. The bank claims that Brown owes them over $2.1 million in unpaid principal and interest since first borrowing the money in 2018. Although the lawsuit is based out of Georgia — where the courts already ruled in favor of City National Bank — the bank has since filed a case in Los Angeles, where Brown currently resides.

In addition to Brown, singer-songwriter and record producer The Dream is named in the lawsuit. Brown, however, is listed as a “personal guarantor,” meaning he’s responsible for paying back the loan in its entirety.

Brown’s Popeyes endeavor may have resulted in financial trouble, but the rapper is certainly no stranger when it comes to acquiring several fast food restaurants. In a 2015 interview with US Weekly, Brown revealed that he owns a whopping 14 Burger King franchises in his home state of Virginia. Alongside his Popeyes lawsuit, Brown is currently embroiled in a $71 million lawsuit brought forward by his former housekeeper over a dog attack.

“Intersex is a beautiful thing”: Despite having surgery forced upon her, this activist found healing

“Anyone who’s like, ‘Well, I’ve never met an intersex person,’ I can guarantee that you have,” says author and advocate Alicia Roth Weigel. “You just didn’t know it.” To all superficial appearances, Weigel seems like a cisgender woman. Yet when her mother was pregnant with her, the doctors told her to expect a son, because the amnio test showed the presence of XY chromosomes. But Weigel, like millions of other people around the world, was born intersex. And after undergoing surgery for what doctors at the time referred to as a “disorder of sex development,” Weigel spent a childhood full of procedures and monitoring — and believing she had to be cautious in how she understood and explained her own body. 

Now, however, she’s one of the most visible intersex individuals in America, speaking out against invasive bathroom bills, working to keep the I in LGBTQIA+ from standing for “invisible” and sharing her own story in her cheekily named new memoir “Inverse Cowgirl.” 

 The physical sex traits that we’re born with from hormones, chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, all of those things are also not always binary,” Weigel explained during a recent Salon Talks conversation. “They don’t always fit neatly into a male or female box on a birth certificate.” Weigel opened up about her “inadvertent” coming out during a Texas legislature senate hearing, what progressives get wrong about allyship and how she got the place where she can say, “I’m now really proud to have this body.”

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

For those who don’t know what the term intersex means, tell me about what makes you and millions of other people around the world unique.

Intersex is exactly what it sounds like if you break the word down. We are born intersex, between the sexes. In this day and age, people have started to understand that sexuality is not binary. You’re not only gay or straight; there’s a whole spectrum in between. Folks are starting to come around to the fact that gender is also not binary. You’re not only a man or a woman, there’s also a beautiful spectrum in between. What society is just starting to learn is that sex is also not binary. So, the physical sex traits that we’re born with from hormones, chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, all of those things are also not always binary. They don’t always fit neatly into a male or female box on a birth certificate. 

“What society is just starting to learn is that sex is also not binary.”

For me, what that meant is I have XY chromosomes, which many people associate with being a boy. But I was also born with a vagina. Instead of having a uterus and ovaries on the inside, I was born with internal testes. If sex is a spectrum, my body was born a little bit closer to the center of that spectrum. I have aspects of both. People don’t understand how common that is. We are around 2% of the world’s population, the same percentage of the world that is born with red hair or green eyes. Anyone who’s watching this like, “Well, I’ve never met an intersex person,” I can guarantee that you have and you just didn’t know it. 

Perhaps they didn’t know it because unfortunately, a lot of intersex people undergo surgeries without our consent either in infancy or in our childhood that push our bodies one direction or the other. They try to force our bodies to fit into those binary boxes on that very first piece of paper that parents receive when you’re born, a birth certificate. What we are advocating for as a community is rather than force-altering a body to fit on a piece of paper, you could just change the piece of paper. We exist; our bodies are born this way. We are not mythical, legendary creatures. We are certainly not monsters. We are human beings just like the rest of y’all. The first step is really raising visibility of our community and our existence in general. That’s what I hope my book will be a part of doing.

You talk very candidly about what you went through — the gonadectomy, the monitoring and the observation that you had to go through your entire childhood. This is not uncommon, and people don’t realize that this is happening to millions of people around the world. Tell me about how your family was told you had a “disorder.”

Intersex is the term that we prefer as a community because it doesn’t pathologize us, it doesn’t refer to us as a problem. Prior, we had been referred to as having “disorders of sex development,” or DSDs. The issue with that terminology is it in[plies] that there is an issue with how we are born that needs to be fixed. My body was fully functional when I was born. The reason that I look the way I do, that I present so femme outwardly is because despite the fact I was born with testes, my body does not absorb testosterone. My testes would’ve produced testosterone, but my body would have urinated some of that out, and the rest would have converted to estrogen. I would’ve developed totally naturally on my own. 

The doctors told my parents that I could get testicular cancer and they recommended removing my testes. If you put yourself in my parents’ position and you have a newborn baby and you’re hearing your child could get cancer, of course you’re going to do whatever is in your power to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, that was not the full scenario. That message was not inaccurate in that I could have gotten testicular cancer, but anyone who is born with testicles could also get testicular cancer. What the real picture shows is that as someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, which is my intersex variation, my risk of getting testicular cancer was only somewhere between one and 5% — at some point, much farther down the line in adulthood. This cancer never happens in childhood. 

By removing my testes for some theoretical future, very small risk of cancer, that also put my body into hormone withdrawal because they were taking my hormone producing organs that my body needed to function properly. That has necessitated that I take hormone replacement therapy, similar to what transgender individuals take, but not to affirm any gender presentation purely because my body needs hormones to survive. All of our bodies need hormones to survive. Hormones determine a lot more than your cup size or your facial hair or the tenor of your voice. They affect a lot of your internal bodily functions. By removing my testes in infancy and forcing my body into hormone withdrawal, that was leeching calcium from my bones. I found out in my early 30s that I now have osteoporosis, which is something that you think of usually with post-menopausal women or older, elderly individuals. That’s very common for intersex individuals because they were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken in the first place, they created problems for me.

“We are around 2% of the world’s population, the same percentage of the world that is born with red hair or green eyes.”

That is one piece of what I experienced as a kid, the medical, physical fallout from my surgery. In addition to, and honestly more impactful in my life, is the psychological and the emotional harm of being told that you are inherently a problem because of how you’re born and that you should never tell anyone because you’ll be made fun of and you’ll never find a good husband one day. The way that you internalize that as a kid is like, “OK, I’m inherently [un]lovable simply for existing.” So intersex people, we end up creating this whole facade, this whole story, this lie that we tell to people because there’s so much stigma surrounding our bodies that we don’t want anyone to ever find out that this is how we’re born.

I know this is also common, I’ve talked to a lot of my intersex friends about this. A lot of us who date men, at some point, we have to tell them we’re not going to be able to bear their children. A lot of us have told these people that we had childhood ovarian cancer and they removed our ovaries and so we are infertile. Because of this weird, incomplete information that doctors feed to our parents and all this homophobia and transphobia that conditions us to believe that we’re not lovable if we actually shared the truth of who we are and the truth about our bodies, we end up concocting this crazy lie that we were walking around with childhood cancer. 

Our main argument is there’s nothing inherently wrong with us in the first place. We’re all born with bodies, each and every one of us. Anyone who’s listening to this conversation is born with a body. Why should we be conditioned to feel so much shame simply for being born into the body that we were born into?

I have reached a point where I’m now really proud to have this body and I want to help other intersex people who were born the way I was, not have to spend so many years of their lives as I did living in this deep closet where they’re feeling shameful simply for existing. Intersex is a beautiful thing, and I hope that’s something that comes across in my book.

In your book, you call out those of us on the side of the aisle who think of ourselves as progressive. You call out certain aspects of the LGBTQIA+ community for not recognizing, not welcoming, not including because the intersex community might be “confusing,” that it might muddle the waters in some ways to advocate for this really significant population. I want to ask you about that, about that ignorance or misplaced advocacy that you’ve seen from people who one would expect to be your allies.

In this current climate with rampant attacks on the transgender community, there is certain messaging used by the left that unintentionally might harm the intersex community. For example, when we’re fighting these bans on transgender care for trans kids, there is this message that’s often touted that, “Oh, surgeries don’t happen on children. This only happens on adults.” 

It is true that gender-affirming surgeries do not happen on trans children, but they do happen on intersex children without our consent. Whether they be vaginoplasty or gonadectomies or all of these surgeries that transgender people might elect to have with their consent at some point as lifesaving care to help them affirm their existence, those same exact procedures are often forced on intersex kids who are not only not old enough to participate in that decision making. Most of the time, we’re not even old enough to speak.

To sterilize me as an individual, before I’m old enough to form words, obviously, I am not a consensual participant in that conversation. The World Health Organization, the United Nations, all of these multinational organizations, they define these surgeries as torture. They call it intersex genital mutilation. A lot of the advocacy community has caught up, but unfortunately, here in the United States, I would say the LGBTQI+ community has not quite caught up. I think it’s because when we come in and start advocating for our rights and for our needs by saying, “Hey, we need a seat at the table. We should not do surgeries on children without their consent,” there’s this fear that that muddles this message surrounding transgender children. 

I want to make this very clear to folks: the same bills that target transgender kids and say, “Don’t offer gender-affirming care to transgender kids” all contain specific written loopholes that say you can continue to force the same care on intersex kids who have not asked for it. What this shows is that the legislation is not based in science, it’s not based in logic, it’s not based in what’s healthiest for children, which is what they’re claiming is the root of this legislation. The root of this legislation is trying to force children into what a certain swath of society deems normal. They don’t think trans kids are normal, so they say, block this care from them that they desperately need in order to survive. They also don’t think intersex kids are normal, so they say, force those same procedures onto intersex kids so that they look more normal to us, so that we can be more comfortable looking at their bodies. And so really, it’s the same exact fight that we’re fighting. It’s just a little bit of a shift in messaging, which is all about people being able to make decisions for themselves surrounding their bodies in a way that keeps them healthy and happy. I really don’t think it muddles the message. It just requires us to massage that message a little bit and learn about a new community that has gone completely unheard in the shadows for far too long.

This is a healthcare issue that doesn’t just affect intersex people. It affects their parents, partners and families. You talk in this book about how difficult it has been for you to get care, how you have put yourself out there, as you put it, a “long-term guinea pig” for what intersex procedures have done to people over time. This is something that I think a lot of us don’t necessarily think about is that someone living in an intersex body needs specific care, and how difficult in our American healthcare system it is to get that care. What can we do to change that?

If you see the film about my work in the intersex movement “Every Body,” you’ll see it centers on the surgeries that we experience non-consensually as children.That makes a lot of sense because when people hear about it, I think they’re alarmed. It brings them into our cause and helps them understand the urgency of the fight that we are fighting. Unfortunately, something that’s not talked about enough, but is equally dire of a situation is the utter lack of intersex-competent care for intersex adults. We already have a lack of competent care for intersex children. That care is focused on hiding who we are, not keeping our bodies healthy. That being said, at least there are some doctors and clinics that specialize in care for intersex children. But once you hit 18, once you age out of pediatrics, you’re left completely high and dry. There’s just nothing. 

“We exist, our bodies are born this way. We are not mythical, legendary creatures. We are certainly not monsters.”

There are a few providers across the United States who have seen enough intersex patients that even if they don’t claim to be experts, they will say, “Hey, I’ve treated enough patients that I can help you.” I have run surveys with intersex individuals across this country, and in Texas, we have found that intersex individuals have to travel at minimum 50 miles to find doctors who have any idea what their bodies might need. Most of them have to access via telehealth. There’s one individual that we spoke to who literally flies to Japan simply to see a doctor who has any idea what her body needs. So in light of all of this, I partnered with a group here in Texas called Texas Health Action who run Kind Clinics across the State of Texas. These are LGBTQI+ affirming clinics that offer everything from STI testing to gender-affirming care for trans folks to HIV care.

I helped them develop an intersex care offering because while our bodies have a lot of overlap with the trans community – in terms of what we need, in terms of, for example, hormone replacement therapy – there are also some really unique features such as bone density issues like with my osteoporosis. I worked with Texas Health Action. We created a specific intersex healthcare offering for intersex Texans that we just launched on Sept. 1. First and foremost, I want Texans to know this is available, so you should check out Kind Clinic and you can finally find a doctor who is able to meet your needs. 

I don’t want this to be the only intersex clinic in the country, I want this to be the first of many. I want to see LGBT clinics across the country. I want to see sexual health and wellness clinics across the country, and I want to see women’s health clinics because a lot of intersex people are women. I want to see all of these clinics updating their standards of care, their standard operating procedures to better serve the intersex community, and I am here to work with any of those clinics who would like to learn how to do that.

Not everyone has had to go through what you’ve had to go through, but all of us have a moment in our lives where we have to be honest, and we have to be brave, and there may be something really painful on the other side of that. Maybe it’s just, “I need to be true to myself and I need to tell the world who I am.” How did you do it and how do you offer a message of maybe a little hope and support? 

I actually did this backwards. I became so wrapped up in the attacks on my transgender friends that I ended up coming out inadvertently in a Senate hearing at the Texas legislature for the first time. Only after coming out in that hearing to try to protect my transgender friends, did I process what that would mean for my life to be out as an intersex individual, what that would mean for my family relationships, for my friendships, and just for me in terms of understanding myself and my identity and how I operate in the world. 

“They were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken in the first place.”

It was only after I came out very publicly as an advocate that I really started doing the internal work to process and learn to really love myself, to unlearn everything I had been told about myself and truly learn who I am, not who I’ve been told to be, not who society has deemed to be normal or appropriate, who I really am as an individual. 

There have been many things that have assisted me in that process. Definitely talk therapy, definitely the use of certain plant medicines and fungi. I am really heartened to see the conversations and actually a bipartisan effort by Dan Crenshaw who’s a Republican legislator here in Texas with AOC who’s about as far on the opposite side of the aisle as you can think of from Dan Crenshaw. But they have joined forces to fight for FDA trials on the use of psilocybin to treat PTSD, which is what’s found in mushrooms, and that has been hugely instrumental in my own journey. Everything from plant medicine to talk therapy, to movement, learning how to move my body through running and yoga in a way that helps me feel really strong and powerful and at peace with myself has been really instrumental in my journey. And forging real, honest relationships with people who know and love the full me.

That was probably the hardest piece. Whenever any of us needs to own who we are in a way that we fear might drastically alter our relationships in our lives, which are arguably the most important thing to any of us, it can be really scary. I won’t sugarcoat it ,and I’ll say that sometimes relationships do fall by the wayside. But those relationships were based on false pretenses. They were not loving who that person really is as a person. What ultimately made me decide to come out was the decision that I wanted to be loved because of who I was, not in spite of who I was. I didn’t want to have to apologize for my existence anymore when my existence is not hurting anybody else, and it’s not an issue in the first place.

I hope people will read the book because it’s a long and complicated journey. But I do think beyond the politics, beyond the healthcare, beyond the issues of body autonomy and all the other things that this book speaks to, above all, I think this is a book about healing. From the first page to the last page, it really shows all the different ways that I have found healing and I have found peace and contentment in myself and that I have learned to love myself. I hope that those lessons might benefit anyone, intersex or not.

“Murdaugh Murders: The Movie” trailer: Hear Bill Pullman’s Southern drawl as the infamous patriarch

Lifetime loves its “ripped from the headlines” movies, so it was just a matter of time before the network tackled the Murdaugh murders. Why let Netflix take all the glory?

In “Murdaugh Murders: The Movie,” Bill Pullman plays Alex Murdaugh, who in March this year was guilty of the double homicide of his wife and son. In a trailer for the film, we see Pullman acting as a rather abusive father to son Paul (Curtis Tweedier) and cold husband to Maggie (Lauren Robek). 

The movie will delve into the true story of the privileged and wealthy Murdaugh family that created a legal dynasty in South Carolina’s low country by handling criminal cases in the state’s 14th circuit district. Even before the 2021 murders, the family was connected to a slew of suspicious activity, ranging from the mysterious death of a young woman in a boating accident to swiping funds from clients to fund an opioid addiction.

In the trailer Lifetime released Tuesday, Pullman, a veteran actor known for “The Sinner” and “Independence Day,” embraces his role with gusto. He’s imposing, rolls out a delicious Southern drawl and looks generally shady. 

Take a look:

The two-part movie premieres Oct. 14 and 15 at 8 p.m. ET on Lifetime.

Transforming old oil rigs into seaweed farms could resurrect “dead zones” in the ocean

As Big Agriculture continues to dump fertilizer and other cattle ranch runoff into the Gulf of Mexico, our aquatic systems suffer. Algal blooms wind up flourishing, killing fish and shellfish alike while causing eye and respiratory illnesses in humans. In addition, the dumping of this pollution into the Gulf of Mexico creates “dead zones,” or areas of the ocean where the oxygen is so low that life struggles to survive. Like so many other problems, the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico seems at times to be insoluble. A recent report found that while the dead zone there seems to be shrinking, it’s still about the size of Yellowstone National Park, roughly 3,058 square miles.

“It’s like a fertilizer hose dumping out into the northern Gulf of Mexico.”

Yet Kent Satterlee III, executive director of the Gulf Offshore Research Institute (GORI), believes that he may have come up with a solution that will at the very least take a big bite out of this problem: Using abandoned oil rigs to grow seaweed.

“Seaweed needs three primary nutrients in addition to sunlight to flourish — nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon dioxide,” Satterlee told Salon by email. “The Mississippi River outflow is high in these nutrients due to fertilizer and cattle ranch runoff, which cause algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent hypoxic conditions or ‘dead zones,’ where low oxygen levels impact marine life.” He added that previous researchers had previously found that Mississippi River seaweed had removed “large quantities of these nutrients from coastal ecosystems.”

“Seaweed is harvested in many tropical areas around the globe, mostly in Southeast Asia,” Satterlee said. “The high nutrient levels in the Mississippi River combined with the use of retired offshore platforms make for an excellent combination to farm seaweed in the Gulf. There are currently about 1,600 platforms in the Gulf, with about 400 ready for retirement. The use of offshore platforms enables the farm to mechanize much of what is currently being done by manual labor around the world, and seaweed can be grown in combination with other aquaculture species such as finfish and bivalves.”

Offshore Platform Being Repurposed in the Gulf of MexicoOffshore Platform Being Repurposed in the Gulf of Mexico ( Kent Satterlee/Gulf Offshore Research Institute (GORI))

Yet Satterlee cannot do this work alone, and that is where researchers like Dr. Sarah Taber enter the picture. She has a DPM, or Doctor of Plant Medicine, from the University of Florida, and specializes in studying agriculture. Taber can be found on Twitter promoting the project with zeal. Describing it as “fun” and the abandoned oil rigs as “Mad Max but wet,” Taber spoke with Salon at length about what it is like farming seaweed to save an ecosystem — or, as Taber calls it, “the coolest ag project of all time.”

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.


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


“The real solution is to stop dumping all over Iowa, but the farmers, they aren’t going to do that.”

On your Twitter feed, you said that “the highest density of old about-to-retire rigs-lines up with the dead zone caused by nutrient runoff. The idea is seaweed farming can clean up the water.” Can you explain the science behind this?

Basically, all these hog farms from Iowa on down end up in the Mississippi River. They fertilize a lot and they also just dump a lot of manure onto their fields, in excess of what plants can actually use. And they also tend to do it in winter. So the Mississippi River, like all rivers, tends to get really fat with snow melt and all that stuff in the winter and early spring. So the Mississippi gets huge. It’s full of all the snow melt that’s laden with feces, basically. So you have a whole lot of nutrients, a lot of nitrate and a lot of phosphate coming out the river. It’s like a fertilizer hose dumping out into the northern Gulf of Mexico.

So what will happen is, you get a bunch of algae blooms in the spring and summer because of all this high nutrient density. These algae will grow and block out all the light so nothing can grow on the bottom. And then they use up all the nutrients, and they die en masse — and as they decompose they suck up all the oxygen. So you wind up with something they call the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

This is a really well known phenomenon in crop science. The real solution is to stop dumping all over Iowa, but the farmers, they aren’t going to do that. So another way is to try and clean it up. This is for all the seaweed and it just so happens that’s also a big oil extraction area, so we also have a lot of rigs — some that are reaching the end of their working life — so it’s just kind of a nice coincidence that we have infrastructure there that can help form seaweed to clean it up.

The next question is also related to your Twitter feed. You say bivalve and deep water coral reefs grow over the rigs’ legs, yet reefs are otherwise hard to come by in the Northern Gulf. Why is that the case? 

“There used to be a lot of oyster reefs off of Louisiana and other places in the Gulf, but they’ve been kind of demolished in most of the U.S.”

Because it’s a river basin, you have this Mississippi River dumping a lot of sediment and it’s just been doing that for millions of years. The Northern Gulf of Mexico is just kind of a mud bowl. So you don’t have rocks buried under a lot of sediment, so a lot of marine organisms like oysters and corals, they don’t want to grow on mud. They know if there’s mud here it’s because there’s a river or something dumping mud. And if I grow here, I’m going to get covered up by it, I’m going to get smothered. So their larvae will only settle on hard surfaces, not mud. So if you’re in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, the only place these critters are going to settle is on a hard surface. The only hard surface is oil rigs in that particular location. 

There used to be a lot of oyster reefs off of Louisiana and other places in the Gulf, but they’ve been kind of demolished in most of the U.S. So there used to be places that had hard surfaces and now rigs are what’s left. So we’re doing rehab. 

You’ve said these places are some of the best places to catch high quality fish like red snapper and swordfish. Why is that?

Because those fish like to hang out on reefs, and those are the only reefs. 

You’ve also said these seaweed farms would create jobs. How so and how many jobs do they think it could create? 

Someone has to plant [the seaweed] and harvest it, right? That depends on how much like this actually takes off. If you only get one experimental rig out there, you might have maybe two to five people working at a time. But if it turns out to be economically really useful and we’re able to build a big seaweed industry — we haven’t sat down and done the employment math, but you can generate billions of dollars worth of economic activity.

How can someone from a conventional background in terms of agriculture, what you’re working on now, transition to seaweed? What is that like in terms of the discipline? Is it the same basic concepts or is it a completely different?

“The bulk of the world’s seaweed that is being farmed is just farmed entirely by hand in China and Southeast Asia.”

There are two answers to that. The conventional agriculture background applies because we had to figure out how to automate a lot of things. And the way people are currently farming seaweed, it’s entirely hand-harvested. If you’re talking about all the hand growing that’s happening in China, like the bulk of the world’s seaweed that is being farmed is just farmed entirely by hand in China and Southeast Asia. Folks who are trying to do it in wealthier countries, usually are using kelp because they’re further north and it’s cold. Go to YouTube, search for videos of people harvesting kelp. It is a dude in a boat pulling a rope outta the water and slicing the kelp off with a knife. That’s crazy, right? We don’t have to live like this anymore.

So that’s where the conventional agriculture background comes in, as we are very used to automating processes. Obviously we don’t do it where there’s a lot of salt and wind and waves, but we’re used to rugged outdoor environments in general. That’s what I’m there for. I’ve already looked at a couple of the processes we need to automate and I said, “Well, here’s a piece of equipment we use on farms, that actually would probably a pretty good fit for cutting this vegetation and holding it as it comes off.” That’s kind of been my role.

Then the second thing is, I did a lot of weird stuff in terrestrial agriculture, like I worked with a lot of aquaponics, which everybody thought was way too weird to commercialize, but I actually got one of my clients to a pretty nice commercial scale. It’s called Superior Fresh. They were actually just featured in Science magazine. They’re poised to expand. So that was a really novel technology.

Everybody said we’ve actually done it commercially in a viable way and I helped it happen. I’ve worked with a lot of just novel technologies, indoor agriculture as well. If you follow the indoor agriculture industry at all, a whole bunch of them are collapsing and folding lately. But not my clients, because I helped them really early on get a good logistical setup and do their food safety work, like set up their process so they can get a food safety audit so they can actually sell their crops, which a lot of indoor farms didn’t do and now they’re suffering the consequences. So I actually worked with a lot of novel agricultural technologies.

We need your help to stay independent

That is interesting. And I suppose the question then becomes, what made you decide to invest in this project in terms of your time?

It’s cool. I think seaweed farming is the thing I’ve been interested in for a long time. It was kind of hard to get involved as a crop scientist because it’s usually people who do marine engineering who are involved, which totally makes sense because the main problem is how do we set up a system of ropes that’s going to hold up the seaweed and not collapse.

But then you also have to consider like, can we actually get a boat in there to harvest it? Because the mindset they’ve been having so far is, we’re just going to have a guy in a dingy with a knife, right? You don’t have to think very carefully about how you design it, you just have to get a guy with a dinghy in there. But if you’re going to go to a larger scale, like growing up seaweed to clean up the Northern Gulf of Mexico, you’re looking at some bigger rigs. So you have go to think a little bit more logistically about how I’m going to pull that off, how you’re going to automate it. So I just ran into these guys at the right place at the right time, really.

Hutchinson: Trump took part in “Hang Mike Pence” chants on Jan. 6

Former Trump aid turned whistleblower Cassidy Hutchinson, in her new bombshell memoir, “Enough,” details how the former president participated in calls to “hang” former Vice President Mike Pence as he watched the Jan 6 Capitol insurrection unspool  on television.

 In 2022, the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol attacks heard testimony indicating that Donald Trump demonstrated support for chants to “Hang Mike Pence.” Hutchinson in her book has affirmed this testimony, writing how she heard the former president utter the word “hang” while watching the riots from the White House’s Oval dining room.

“I take a few steps back as Mark [Meadows] takes my place in the doorway and strain to listen to both conversations,” she writes. “The TV in the Oval dining room is blaring, and the president is yelling. What’s he saying? I can’t make it out. I hear him say “hang” repeatedly. Hang? Hang? What’s that about? Mark hands his phone back to me, the cue for me to return to my desk.”

“Back in my office,” Hutchinson continues, “my phone notifies me of a Trump tweet: ‘Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should I have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!'”

“They’re calling for the Vice President to be hanged,” she adds. “The president is okay with it. He doesn’t want to do anything.”

 

 

Bitters belong in so much more than just cocktails

A few weeks back, a colleague was telling me about a non-alcoholic drink she made that she really enjoyed It was comprised of Ghia, Caleño Dark & Spicy, hibiscus syrup, orgeat, lemon juice and cherry rooibos bitters. That’s right — cherry rooibos bitters. (Yeah, now you see why I was so intrigued.)

Truthfully, I didn’t know all that much about bitters; I knew that most drinks only called for two to three shakes of the minuscule bottle and I didn’t feel like shelling out the money for what amounts to such an infinitesimal amount of liquid. However, that interaction led me down a rabbit hole to learn about all the amazingly underutilized uses for bitters, which tend to be confined to cocktails and, more recently, non-alcoholic drinks.

So, if you’re not totally sure what bitters are or how to use them and figured that they were simply an ingredient for cocktails:  1) you are not alone 2) you are quite mistaken. 

“Think of bitters like salt and pepper for a cocktail,” Kate Dingwall writes in Wine Enthusiast. ” A sprinkle seasoning the balance out the flavors of the dish.” Comprised of a mix of alcohol, botanicals, herbs and spices, bitters truly embody the term “just a dab will do ‘ya.” You don’t need to much at all to totally shift the flavor profile of a drink.

Interestingly enough, the history of bitters is actually more health-based, when they were as a balm for gastrointestinal issues — hence the “digestive” moniker in the title digestive bitters. They’re also often called “aromatic” bitters, too. Of course, bitters soon outgrew their medicinal origins. While some may still use them as digestive aids, that is far from their primary purpose in this day and age.

Nino Padova writes in Liquor.com that “technically, a cocktail is not a cocktail unless it contains bitters . . . a 1803 periodical [notes that a cocktail] must comprise four ingredients: spirits, sugar, water and bitters.” 

Bitters come in a spectrum of flavors, from orange and cherry to chocolate and walnut. Of course, different bitters pair well with different liquors and flavors. Some bitters may add a refreshing, lighter note, while others may add a deeper, darker nuance to the drink. 


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


So, if you’re not a drinker, but you’re intrigued, take some of my colleague’s advice: Add a spritz of bitters to an iced tea, a hot tea, a latte, a hot chocolate, perhaps even some lemonade — go wild! As Salon Food has recommended before, they also go great in your everyday morning coffee

You’ll be amazed at the different shades and tapestries your beverages take on with just a tiny little addition of bitters.

Heck, why not even use it in your cooking? As Sheela Prakash writes in The Kitchn, you can use them to gussy up baked goods, add a dash or two to a poaching or macerating liquid for fruit or even incorporate some into a super-special maple syrup infusion for pancakes, waffles and French toast. The options really are endless. 

Or, of course, keep it simple and classic and add a bit to an Old Fashioned; conversely, try a Sazerac, Manhattan or Planter’s Punch without any bitters and you’ll soon realize precisely what bitters add — that certain je ne sais quoi is really a nonnegotiable. 

Zero alcohol doesn’t mean zero risk — how marketing and blurred lines can be drinking triggers

The availability and sales of “zero-alcohol” products have soared in recent years.  In Australia, these are products containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume, designed to mimic the flavor, appearance and packaging of alcoholic drinks.

The market for these products is projected to continue growing at a faster rate than alcoholic beverages.

This boom has been driven by production improvements that mean non-alcoholic products taste similar to their alcoholic inspirations. There have also been generational trends towards being more mindful of the amount of alcohol consumed.

Zero-alcohol products do not cause the physical harms associated with alcohol. But they are not without risk and may not be as healthy as they seem. Our new research explains why.

 

A lack of regulation

A World Health Organization report released earlier this year highlighted the limitations in evidence for the benefits of no- and low-alcohol beverages (which the WHO calls “NoLos”) and the overall lack of policy and regulation in the industry. The absence of oversight may mean potential harms associated with zero-alcohol products go unrecognised.

Although replacing alcohol drinks with zero-alcohol products might be used as part of an effort to cut down on drinking, there is a lack of rigorous research to support this. And the approach may not be suitable for everyone.

A review of ten studies found people with an alcohol use disorder (including addiction to alcohol, problematic or heavy drinking), experience increased cravings for alcohol when they consume zero-alcohol products. They also display physiological responses similar to those that occur when drinking alcohol such as increased heart rate and sweating.

 

It’s not just about the alcohol

The substitution of alcohol for zero-alcohol products does not address social, environmental and cultural factors. These often influence drinking behavior. This is particularly relevant in Australia where drinking alcohol is normalised and encouraged.

For young people, zero-alcohol products could serve as a gateway for drinking and send a message underage drinking is acceptable. This sets up the potential for early alcohol initiation and risky drinking practices.

Zero-alcohol products are manufactured and packaged to look just like existing alcohol products. Many carry the same company branding as the alcoholic version, which blurs the lines between the two offerings.

 

‘Alibi marketing’

In Australia, zero-alcohol drinks are subject to food rather than liquor licensing legislation. This means there are less restrictions to where and how they are displayed and marketed.

Such products are found on supermarket shelves and in convenience stores and advertised in a way that appears to promote the consumption of alcohol in risky and illegal situations, such as drinking before driving. This may lead to confusing messages that present drinking as harmless fun.

This is a form of “alibi marketing”. This form of marketing uses features synonymous with a brand — things like label colours, bottle shape or font design — while not advertising the product itself. The alcohol industry can use this strategy to extend the promotion of their brand to populations and places where alcohol advertising may be restricted. For instance, the reverse approach was recently used by a company to market an alcoholic version of soft drink, highlighting the risk of this approach for minors.  

This is amongst broader concerns this form of marketing increases brand familiarity and awareness of alcohol products among those who are underage now but may drink in the future.

Studies have found exposure to marketing and advertising of zero-alcohol products results in increased intention and odds of purchasing and consuming alcohol drinks. Further research is needed to understand potential harms exposure to and drinking zero-alcohol products may have on vulnerable populations. This includes those with a history of alcohol addiction and children.

 

4 tips to minimize risks now

There are some actions you can take and considerations to keep in mind when it comes to zero-alcohol drinks:

  • be aware zero-alcohol products may act as a drinking trigger or cue for those with experience of alcohol addiction and for young people
  • if you want to stop or cut back on drinking alcohol, don’t substitute products that mimic the taste or appearance of alcoholic drinks. Go for soft drinks, fruit juices or sparkling water
  • report advertisements and marketing for zero-alcohol products that are inappropriate or could cause harm by lodging a complaint via Ad Standards
  • join the community push for zero-alcohol products to be subjected to the same regulations as alcoholic products.

Shalini Arunogiri, Addiction Psychiatrist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University and Anthony Hew, Addiction and General Psychiatrist, PhD Candidate, Monash University

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

A simple algorithm could reveal the ghosts of alien life in Mars dirt, study finds

On Sunday, a seven-year space mission touched down in Utah, delivering samples from an asteroid millions of miles away called Bennu. Along with specimens currently being collected from Mars and even planetary bodies as far away as Jupiter’s moons, these samples can provide clues into the origins of our solar system and life as we know it. 

In a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers report a new technique for analyzing such samples that could help identify whether pieces of asteroids or other materials collected from objects in our solar system hold the building blocks of life. After teaching an artificial intelligence program how to identify 134 carbon-bearing samples of objects on Earth, including living things like a grain of rice or a human hair and nonliving things like lab-made chemical compounds, the research team found AI could successfully identify whether new objects were biotic or abiotic — a.k.a. living or nonliving — with 90% accuracy.

Actually, the AI got smart enough at categorizing objects that it was able to recognize the difference between modern and ancient living things as well, said study author Robert Hazen, Ph.D., a mineralogist at the Carnegie Institution’s Geophysical Laboratory and George Mason University.

“This was an effort to answer one of the age-old questions that we’ve had in the field of astrobiology,” Hazen said during a press briefing. “Is there a way to take a sample, to look at that sample and say unambiguously whether it was alive or not?”

The AI got smart enough at categorizing objects that it was able to recognize the difference between modern and ancient living things as well.

All living elements have biosignatures, which serve as records of past or present life. Something like a fossil contains time-stamped elements such as carbon that scientists can use to measure their composition and age. Similarly, scientists can measure the composition of asteroids to see if they contain the building blocks necessary to host life. However, it can be more complicated to trace the biosignatures of samples like black shales from early Earth or a type of organic matter called kerogen because it can be more difficult to isolate various elements.

Ingenuity Helicopter flying on MarsAn illustration of NASA’s Ingenuity Helicopter flying on Mars (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

This new AI technique works by recognizing patterns across the composition of various samples and categorizing them as living or nonliving based on what it “knows” about patterns of biotic or abiotic objects. Living things have ordered patterns in which their cells are selected based on their function for human life. Energy is spent to build protective cell walls, hold cells together or in some way make the cell “live.” Nonliving things, on the other hand, are scattered on the cellular level without this sort of order, Hazen explained.


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


“We’re thinking about all the molecules together, the way they form patterns or distributions,” Hazen said. “We think that that’s the sign of life.”

Paired with experiments already being performed on Mars, this technique could soon be adapted to see if alien life is present in the samples that the Curiosity rover is collecting. The study authors also suggested collecting samples from the plumes on Saturn’s moon, Enceladus or Jupiter’s moon, Europa, to analyze for potential signs of life.

The study authors also suggested collecting samples from the plumes on Saturn’s moon, Enceladus or Jupiter’s moon, Europa, to analyze for potential signs of life.

As Andrew Knoll, Ph.D., an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University said in a statement about the study: “There is much still to be learned, but one day a next-generation version of their system may well fly to Mars, evaluating the possibility of life on the Red Planet.”

To measure the distribution of molecules in these objects, researchers used a technique called pyrolysis gas-chromatography mass-spectrometry (GCMS), in which the samples are heated, broken down and separated into their component parts. This technique is already being used to search for extraterrestrial life, but typically researchers search for known indicators of life — like DNA or a particular type of lipid — rather than broadly looking for patterns that set the building blocks for life like this technique, Hazen explained.

“The possibility of using this technique to discover life that is completely different biochemically from Earth yet is clearly biological is a very profound and interesting thing,” Hazen said. “That leads us also to the question of rules of life: Can we use this method to start understanding what it is that makes life as a chemical system quite distinct from abiotic systems?”

“The possibility of using this technique to discover life that is completely different biochemically from Earth yet is clearly biological is a very profound and interesting thing.”

While many are excited about the ways in which the technique could illuminate life on other planets, it could also be used to settle questions about ancient life on Earth. The Pilbara region of Western Australia, for example, is home to one of the oldest remaining pieces of Earth’s crust. Scientists have been debating whether this 3.5 billion-year-old black chert, which looks almost like a slab of marble, contains microbes of early life or just molecules leftover from non-biological processes. 

“[These samples] have been squeezed and heated and altered through geological time and yet because life’s molecules have a different character to begin with, fragments are also going to inherit some of those differences and that’s what we’re looking for,” Hazen said. “That’s why we have to look for patterns, not for specific molecules.”

We need your help to stay independent

The AI technique used in this study will get “smarter” with the more samples it has to learn about these patterns. The research team hopes to have thousands of samples to better understand how different attributes form the basis of life, said study author Anirudh Prabhu, Ph.D., a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science.

“We’ve had hundreds of samples sent to us since the paper has been accepted,” Prabhu said at the press briefing. “The model will only keep getting better and better at identifying either whether things fit into the pattern or whether something breaks the pattern.”

As Hazen said: “I like to think of this as we’ve just dipped our toe in the water, and we looked out and there is this ocean of possibilities.”

Autism is not “demonic” or a mistake, despite what some Christian pundits claim

Growing up as an autistic teenager in the early noughties, I often struggled with the prejudices of the people around me. When I obsessed over specific interests, failed to make eye contact and was socially awkward, I would be told that there was something “wrong” with me. For a long time, I internalized these assessments; it was not until I learned about the concept of neurodiversity that my self-esteem improved. I viewed myself not as a mistake, but simply as representing one part of a larger spectrum of humanity.

I’m not sure I’d be alive today if I had never reached that point of wisdom.

If adults view neurodiversity as a burden or scourge to be eliminated, they will accordingly treat autistic children as “mistakes.”

Neurodiversity is, quite simply, the idea that autism spectrum disorders are not “disorders” at all, but more akin to a language difference. Instead of shaming and trying to change autistic people, the concept behind neurodiversity is that autistic people should be accepted on their own neurological terms. If their autism hurts themselves or others, they should be helped in ways that they are comfortable with and which respect their autonomy.

Otherwise, neurodivergent people should be treated with just as much respect as neurotypicals, or people without autism. This idea has made tremendous strides in the 20 years since I was a teenager, mainly because scientific research repeatedly bears it out — but, as the news cycle makes clear, old prejudices die hard.

First there is Pastor Rick Morrow from Beulah Church in Richland, Missouri, who recently in his sermons referred to autism as “demonic” and an “evil presence,” arguing that ministers using prayer could cast out the demon and “rewire” an autistic person’s brain. “Either the devil has attacked them, he’s brought this infirmity upon them, he’s got them where he wants them, and/or God just doesn’t like them very much, and he made them that way,” Morrow claimed. “Well my God doesn’t make junk. God doesn’t make mess ups.”

Even if autism was a neurological disease and not simply a neutral difference, it still would be absurd (as well as deeply reckless) to claim that prayer or bleach tablets could “cure” it.

Morrow’s views are stigmatizing and unscientific, to say the least, but no more so than those of Pastor Joe Salant, who comes from an affluent New Jersey family and rose to fame for creating a rap in support of Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015. His angle is not merely Christian nationalism, although that is certainly one ingredient in his toxic brew. These days, Salant is selling literal bleach to parents that he claims can cure autism.

Sold under the brand name Safrax, these chlorine dioxide tablets are typically used for industrial cleaning. Salant claims that this is actually a form of bleach which is a miracle mineral solution. In a phone call shared with VICE News, he admitted that he is not allowed to recommend Safrax products for autism, but that it is a “common treatment” for the condition.

On the surface, the problem here is that both Morrow and Salant are promoting medically dangerous pseudoscience. Even if autism was a neurological disease and not simply a neutral difference, it still would be absurd (as well as deeply reckless) to claim that prayer or bleach tablets could “cure” it.

Yet more deeply, the issue with Morrow and Salant is that they are singling out and spreading prejudices against autistic people as a whole. Instead of recognizing that autism has a wide range of effects on patients — with some struggling to function at all, while others are so-called “high functioning” — Morrow and Salant behave as if autism is a scourge. It’s the same attitude that motivates anti-vaxxers like Democratic presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. to describe autistic people by saying their “brain is gone.” It’s an outlook that regularly causes autistic people to be misunderstood, bullied and dehumanized.


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


While providing the physical resources is essential in terms of proper education for neurodivergent children, they are only as effective as the adults who use them.

Yet if the concept of neurodiversity was understood everywhere, these errors would be far less likely. It all must begin at the start of a neurodivergent human’s life. In December the British Psychological Society wrote that “successful, inclusive education” can include anything from including visual timetables for neurodivergent students with executive functioning issues to having materials on hand that autistic children may find useful. Per the latter, these can include “wobble cushions for hyperkinetic children to sit on and wiggle; noise-cancelling headphones for sound-sensitivity; stim toys to help induce focus; egg-timers to help structure independent learning time.”

It is a question of understanding the different ways that neurodivergent conditions can manifest themselves, and then accommodating them accordingly. The juvenile mental health advocacy group The Child Mind Institute also writes that schools can help autistic students by “checklists, dedicated binders, reward systems, timers, planners, and calendars to aid these students.”

Of course, while providing the physical resources is essential in terms of proper education for neurodivergent children, they are only as effective as the adults who use them. That is why, in addition to providing an education system that appreciates neurodivergent children as unique individuals, we must also supply one that trains adults to understand neurodiversity for what it is.

If adults view neurodiversity as a burden or scourge to be eliminated, they will accordingly treat autistic children as “mistakes” no matter how many egg-timers and visual timetables you give them. Only a few short steps separate the adults who misunderstand autistic children and the ones who refuse to hire or constantly fire autistic adults.

We need your help to stay independent

This is why, when I think of how much power people like Morrow and Salant have in our society, I worry about the future of new generations of autistic youth. The science is right there to demonstrate that the condition they are taught makes them “wrong” is, in fact, nothing more or less than a neutral quirk.

There are neurodiversity advocates like autistic animal behaviorist Temple Grandin who encourage autistic people to self-actualize, and to recognize when their autism-related suffering is caused by discrimination rather than their own bodies. Medicines like cannabis are being found to alleviate “core symptoms” that cause autistic people difficulty in their day-to-day lives, just as medications exist to help the mental health problems that face neurotypicals. As a Jew, I believe in God, and I do not consider myself to be a mistake. Quite to the contrary, I believe God and made humans diverse for a reason: To help our evolution, to keep us humble, create a rich and fascinating tapestry of life. Is it really so hard to recognize that? Why do these people have to think of anyone different as automatically evil?

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

Cassidy Hutchinson denies dating Matt Gaetz: “Somebody that I personally do not hold in high regard”

Former White House aide and Jan. 6 whistleblower Cassidy Hutchinson, in a recent sit-down with MSNBC, got real with host Rachel Maddow about the flurry of inappropriate interactions she had with various Republican legislators and Trump allies. 

In her new memoir, “Enough,” excerpted in The Guardian last week, Hutchinson detailed how she was groped on Jan 6 by former MAGA attorney Rudy Giuliani in the presence of John Eastman, two individuals accused of helping to orchestrate the plot to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Maddow, on Monday, emphasized how she was struck that Giuliani was “not the only one” singled out by Hutchinson’s account, underscoring mentions of unseemly actions by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who instructed Hutchinson to “lose the ponytail” and only drink red wine, and former President Donald Trump, who told Hutchinson to add blonde highlights to her hair, which she did.

Perhaps the most flagrant mention was Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who, per the memoir, once traced his thumb across Hutchinson’s chin while saying, “has anyone ever told you you’re a national treasure?” Maddow cited another encounter in which the conservative legislator appeared at Hutchinson’s door one evening at the Camp David presidential retreat and broached her several times about escorting him back to his cabin, even though, as Hutchinson notes, “it’s impossible to get lost” because “all the cabins are clearly marked” in a “circle drive.” 

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who was reportedly present for the incident, told Gaetz to “get a life,” according to the excerpt Maddow read. Gaetz replied to the allegations in a statement to MSNBC, saying that he did not recall the incidents, also asserting that he and Hutchinson had dated for a few weeks before they “parted amicably and remained friends thereafter.” 

“Matt Gaetz, in my opinion, is somebody that I personally do not hold in high regard in terms of trust, and I do not think Matt Gaetz has the best track record for relationships,” Hutchinson said in response to Maddow. “I don’t really have much else to say to somebody who is much more concerned about a sound bite than actually passing legislation.”

Watch below, via MSNBC

Hunter Biden is now suing Rudy Giuliani

Hunter Biden had filed a lawsuit against former Trump lawyer and New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani’s former attorney, Robert Costello, alleging that the men misused data on his personal laptop.

In October of 2020, Giuliani supplied a hard drive to conservative publication The New York Post, detailing reported corruption exposed in a trove of email correspondences between Hunter Biden, his father, Joe Biden, and a top Ukrainian businessman. Giuliani and other MAGA allies alleged that they gleaned the data from a computer that Hunter Biden had reported to left at a tech repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware. Costello obtained a copy of the data, which Giuliani subsequently released to the public. The lawsuit claims that the pair acted in violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 

Last week, Costello sued his former client for failing to pay more than $1.3 million in legal fees, compounding Giuliani’s mounting legal woes. 

“For the past many months and even years, Defendants have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and energy toward looking for, hacking into, tampering with, manipulating, copying, disseminating, and generally obsessing over data that they were given that was taken or stolen from Plaintiff’s devices or storage platforms, including what Defendants claim to have obtained from Plaintiff’s alleged “laptop” computer,” the suit purports. Biden in the suit does not admit that the laptop was his, but states that “some of the data that Defendants obtained, copied, and proceeded to hack into and tamper with belongs.” 

“How you lose your democracy”: Shocking new research shows Americans lack basic civic knowledge

Republicans are systematically eroding the basic civil rights of the American people. As we are seeing in other countries that are experiencing what experts describe as “democratic backsliding,” Republicans are doing this by undermining and corrupting America’s democratic institutions from within. If Republicans get their way, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, equal protection under the law, the right to privacy, the right to vote, and other basic freedoms and rights will be severely restricted.

In an example of Orwellian Newspeak, Republicans present themselves as defenders of freedom, when they actually oppose it. More specifically, Republicans believe that freedom is the ability and power of a select group of White Americans (rich, white, “Christian” men) to take away and otherwise deny the rights and liberties of other Americans and people in this country they deem to be less than, second-class, not “real Americans” and the Other, such as Black and brown people, the LGBTQI community, women, non-Christians, and other targeted groups.

Unfortunately, many Americans are unaware of their basic constitutional and other guaranteed rights and liberties – and how the country’s democratic institutions are ideally supposed to function. How can the American people defend and protect their democracy and rights, if they lack such basic knowledge?

Such an outcome is not a coincidence: it is the intentional outcome of how the American right-wing and conservative movements have undermined high-quality public education for decades with the goal of creating a compliant public that lacks the critical thinking skills and knowledge to be engaged citizens. Now new research by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center provides insight into the extent of this crisis. Some of the Annenberg Constitution Day Civics Survey’s findings include:

[W]hen U.S. adults are asked to name the specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, only one right is recalled by most of the respondents: Freedom of speech, which 77% named.  
 
Although two-thirds of Americans (66%) can name all three branches of government, 10% can name two, 7% can name only one, and 17% cannot name any. 

I recently spoke with Matthew Levendusky, who is a Professor of Political Science, and the Stephen and Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, at the University of Pennsylvania, about this new research. His new book is “Our Common Bonds: Using What Americans Share to Help Bridge the Partisan Divide.”

In this conversation, he explains how America’s democracy crisis is connected to a lack of basic political knowledge and civic literacy, the role that education can play in equipping Americans to defend their democracy, and why contrary to what many “conservatives” like to believe, America is not a “republic”.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

How you are feeling about the country’s democracy crisis, given your new research that shows a lack of basic civics knowledge among a large portion of the American public?

I am worried, with occasional glimmers of hope. But mostly I worry. Why? Our data show that people lack key civics knowledge, continuing a trend from recent years. A new report from Pew confirms what many suspected: Most Americans are fed up with government and don’t think it’s working. Those two things are deeply related.

We need your help to stay independent

To understand why, it’s helpful to take a step back and think about why civics matters, broadly speaking. The main reason is that we want people to understand how they can make their voices heard in our democracy. But you can’t make your voice heard if you don’t understand our system of government. For example, if you don’t know the three branches of government and their roles, then you won’t know why President Biden and Congress are sparring about spending, immigration, green energy, etc. If you don’t know what rights are protected by the First Amendment or what they mean, then you won’t understand why the government can’t censor the New York Times, but Facebook can make you take down a post that violates its community standards policy. If you don’t know which branch has the responsibility of determining whether a law is constitutional, you won’t understand why the Supreme Court and its rulings are so important and influential. In short, without some basic civic knowledge, you can’t even follow the news of the day to be an informed citizen. If you can’t do that, then you cannot know what to expect out of your government. That is not—at all—to say that a lack of knowledge is the root of dysfunction (it is not). But it is to say that they are related.  

The concepts of civic literacy and engaged citizenship are not commonly discussed among the news media and general public. Can you explain those two concepts in more detail and why they matter?

What we can measure in a survey is civic literacy, which is your comprehension of basic facts about our system of government. So, for example, we ask if people know the three branches of government, what rights are protected by the 1st Amendment, who is responsible for determining the constitutionality of a law, and so forth. This gets at the pre-requisite knowledge you need to understand government and to participate in our system. But engaged citizenship—having people really how know to function in our governmental system, and make their voices heard—is the deeper goal.

This matters because we do not just want people to vote, we want them to cast an informed vote. This means, at a minimum, that they know where the candidates stand on the issues that matter to them, and they understand the office’s role in our democracy. For example, if you don’t know that the president is responsible for nominating Supreme Court justices who are then confirmed by the Senate, you won’t know to investigate the types of justices that a candidate might nominate. Likewise, if you don’t know the candidate’s positions (or have been misled about them), then you cannot effectively cast your vote on the issues that matters to you.

“Backsliding is more the fault of elites than voters.”

But even more importantly, we want people to participate in government more broadly. This can be many things: going to a community meeting (such as a school board meeting), volunteering for an election or civic activity (shout out to poll workers, the unsung heroes of democracy!), or working to solve problems in your community. For most of us, local participation is more important than national participation. Few people can meaningfully participate in national politics beyond voting (this is just as true of political scientists as it is of regular folks). But we can all participate locally, and for most of us, that is where we interface with government the most: local governments help pave our roads, police our streets, teach our children in schools, and so forth. What would this knowledge look like?

Take the case of Philadelphia. Here, the information needed to participate could be identifying your councilperson, knowing what they can resolve, and how to contact them. It could be knowing who controls the schools, and what are the roles of the mayor vs. the school board. You could also investigate what should be reported to 311 to get a response from a city agency, and what a registered community organization can help to address. These would differ from place to place, but the core idea is that it would help citizens see how they could uncover how the government can help them solve problems in their lives.


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


I went to a very good public school system.  I remember taking social studies and civics courses. Obviously, given my career path, those courses and teachers had a great influence on me. Are such courses still taught today? What is their content?

Many states—including Pennsylvania—have civics requirements, and that’s helpful for teaching this sort of civic literacy. But it is on all of us, as citizens, to help the next generation learn how to participate more meaningfully in our democracy. Happily, there are so many great resources for those who need to do this. For example, the Civics Renewal Network provides thousands of free, non-partisan, high-quality learning materials about civics that anyone can use. For example, Annenberg Classroom provides 65 high-quality videos about various key Supreme Court decisions, as well as extensive materials about our system of government. While much of this is aimed at teachers, who can use it directly in their classrooms, parents and others could also make use of this material. [In full disclosure, both CRN and AC are part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, but I would endorse their content even if I did not work there.]

If I could add something to civics education in our current moment, it would be teaching people skills on how to have conversations across lines of difference. This is something that I discuss in my new book, and I show can reduce animosity and improve understanding between the two sides.

What does this look like? There are many ways of doing this, but they tend to share a few things in common. These are conversations centered on genuinely listening to the other person and their point of view, what some scholars call “perspective getting” so you can understand why they believe what they believe. The goal is to understand those with whom you disagree, not to persuade them. This means asking probing questions and keeping an open mind. These are also conversations grounded in what Keith and Danisch call “strong civility,” basically the idea that we treat each other as political equals and respect the other person’s right to take part in the political process.

But this takes practice, and can be intimidating, so it’s something we all need help to do well. Happily, there are a number of groups working to do this, but it is a vital civic skill as well that we all should try to master. 

What measures of political knowledge and civic literacy were used in the new research? What do those measures help to reveal (or not) about a person’s relationship to democratic citizenship and its demands and requirements?

Surveys like ours ask about the key ingredients of civic literacy. Do you know what the three branches of government are? Do you understand their roles? Do you know key rights guaranteed by the various key amendments?  Do you know what a 5-4 Supreme Court decision means? And so forth. These are some of the benchmark pieces of information people need to know to be informed citizens.

And our survey—like many others—finds that many Americans do not. For example, one-third do not know the three branches of government. While most people know that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech, they don’t know the other rights protected by it (freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to petition the government, and right to peaceably assembly). And even though most people know that free speech is protected by the First Amendment, they don’t understand what that means: roughly half think (incorrectly) that it requires Facebook to let you say whatever you’d like on its platform. 

This sort of lack of basic information is quite troubling, as it highlights that citizens lack that core civic literacy. 

Many Americans do not have a basic understanding of politics and government. Yet, we are also in an era of 24/7 news media and the Internet. The high levels of civic ignorance and lack of knowledge among the American people is an indictment of our country’s political culture, political elites and the news media, the educational system, and other key agents of political socialization.

This is why the well-documented decline of local media is so important. If you like politics, there’s never been a better time to be alive. You can read Politico, First Branch Forecast, subscribe to Ezra Klein’s podcast, etc. You can consume politics all day, every day. But if you don’t like politics (and most Americans do not!), it’s never been easier to avoid it, so scholars have found that civic knowledge similarly polarizes based on political interest.

In the days of a robust local media, that was less pronounced: if you subscribed to the local paper to get the sports scores, you also flipped past some national stories, and at least glanced at them. Now, you don’t even get this sort of by-product coverage. This is especially consequential for coverage of sub-national politics. All of the sources I discussed above focus on national politics, covering the minutiae of the debates between McConnell, Schumer, Biden, and so forth. But there is far less attention to state and local issues, and indeed, there are just far fewer reporters covering that today than a generation ago.

Given that the business model of local journalism has collapsed, I don’t have a great solution to this problem, but it is an important one that many scholars are working to solve.  

As a function of a deep hostility to real multiracial pluralistic democracy, there is a right-wing talking point that America is actually a “republic” and not a “democracy”. Of course, this is not true. What intervention would you make against that disinformation and propaganda?

As someone who has taught core undergraduate American politics classes at Penn for many years, this is a perennial question that comes up every year. When people ask which is right—are we a republic or a democracy—the correct answer is that we’re both.

For the Founders, “democracy” meant some sort of direct democracy, where the people themselves rule. Functionally, that doesn’t exist anywhere in the modern world, at least not at scale (the closest we get are ballot initiatives and referenda in some states). But we have elements of that spirit animating our government today, most notably when we talk about the “will of the people” and public opinion, which is central to our modern understanding of how our government functions.

But we are also a republic, where it is not just what the people want directly that matters, but how that is filtered through our institutions that shapes outcomes (the Electoral College being perhaps the most striking element of that). I try to emphasize to students that our system has both elements, the key is to harness the best of both without succumbing too much to their weaknesses.

Imagine that you are a doctor of American democracy. What is your diagnosis and prognosis for the patient in this time of crisis? How does your new research (and related work of course) help to inform your conclusion(s)? 

Like many others, I fear for our system, and there are real signs of trouble for American democracy. What, then, is to be done? The first, I think, is to put pressure on elites to a bulwark against backsliding. As many scholars—myself included—have shown, backsliding is more the fault of elites than voters (i.e., it is less about voters demanding elites break norms than it is elites breaking norms that voters then rationalize as unimportant). Our job as citizens is to demand better of them. In 2020, despite real threats—including January 6th—the guardrails of democracy held. They need to be strengthened and reinforced to ensure that they can continue to flourish.

At the outset, I said that I occasionally see glimmers of hope. Those glimmers are the people who are working to make our democracy better. They are working to help us better understand one another, build bridges, and make America live up to its founding promises to all Americans, not just some of them. That is hard, difficult work. But it is the work we need at this moment.

The first-ever over-the-counter birth control pill is coming. Here’s why it matters

As researchers that have supported building evidence around contraceptive safety, effectiveness and interests, we were thrilled when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced they had approved Opill – a progestin-only pill (POP) – for over-the-counter use.

Finally, after decades of advocacy and research, birth control pills will soon be accessible without a prescription for people of all ages in the United States. As we mark World Contraception Day, we’re closer than ever to breaking down barriers to contraception. Opill is expected to be on the shelves in early 2024 at pharmacies, retail stores and available online — and it will be a gamechanger for contraceptive access nationwide. 

This accomplishment would not have been possible without the hard work and expertise of the Free the Pill coalition, a group of over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations, youth activists, health care providers, researchers, medical and health professional associations and others – all dedicated to improving and expanding contraceptive access. Ibis Reproductive Health established this coalition in 2004 to build evidence in support of over-the-counter oral contraceptives and in 2016, through an open process, partnered with HRA Pharma (now Perrigo) to submit an application to the FDA to make a POP available over-the-counter. 

Research has also shown that people can accurately self-screen for contraindications to POPs and make the correct decision about whether or not a POP is safe and appropriate for them to use.

It is about time that people in the US have more equitable access to birth control pills. Providers understand and research shows that the prescription requirement has made it difficult to obtain and consistently use birth control, as many people encounter challenges scheduling or getting to an appointment and have trouble paying for a visit to a providers’ office.

Due to systemic inequities, these barriers to accessing contraception are disproportionately experienced by certain populations, including Black, Indigenous, Latina/x, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders, young people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ folks, people living in rural communities, and those working to make ends meet. But now, with Opill approved for over-the-counter access, people of all ages across the country will soon be able to get an oral contraceptive without a prescription and we hope that individuals and communities that have found it difficult to obtain contraceptive care will benefit the most.


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


Although medical organizations have noted that all types of birth control pills should be available over the counter, the coalition decided to pursue a POP as the first pill to move OTC in the US because it is appropriate for almost anyone who may need contraception. Since they do not contain estrogen, POPs are safe for nearly all people, including those who are breastfeeding, are over 35 and smoke, or have certain health conditions like migraines with aura, blood clots, or heart disease.

Research has also shown that people can accurately self-screen for contraindications to POPs and make the correct decision about whether or not a POP is safe and appropriate for them to use. Beyond their strong safety record, POPs are also highly effective at preventing pregnancy. If used correctly and consistently (perfect use), it is estimated that POPs are about 99% effective and when taken incorrectly or inconsistently (typical use), it is estimated that POPs are about 93% effective. A recent review found that POPs may be even more effective than previously believed, estimating that only two pregnancies would occur if 100 people took the pill for a year compared to the seven pregnancies that have previously been estimated with typical use.

And though current guidance for POPs calls for them to be taken at the same time each day within a three-hour window, recent research suggests that for some POP formulations, including Opill, there is likely a wider window of time for maintaining efficacy if a pill is missed or delayed. 

We need your help to stay independent

Birth control pills are already available over the counter in over 100 countries and we’re thrilled the U.S. will finally be joining that list. An over-the-counter birth control pill will help ensure more people can access the contraception they need without unnecessary barriers. And as we work towards a more equitable health care system, we hope the availability of an over-the-counter POP will pave the way for other types of hormonal methods to move over the counter, increasing accessibility and reproductive health care options for people in the US.

Carmela Zuniga and Katherine Key are Associate Research Scientists at Ibis Reproductive Health, which operates Free the Pill, a campaign to educate and engage in support of over-the-counter birth control pills in the United State.

With Rupert Murdoch leaving Fox News, an even more deranged MAGA media is making its move

Almost everyone in journalism is a fan of “Succession,” which meant that the HBO show heavily shaped the reaction to last week’s announcement that Rupert Murdoch was stepping down as the chair of Fox Corp. and News Corp. All eyes landed on Lachlan Murdoch, the eldest son who is taking over from his father as the official head of the right-wing media empire. Influenced by the soap opera machinations of “Succession,” most discourse was over what direction the younger Murdoch would take the company and whether his father was actually stepping down — or whether he was secretly controlling his son. 

It’s all interesting stuff, but in focusing on the internal family dynamics of the Murdochs, the discussion was too quickly turned away from what is likely to be the much bigger story for right-wing media: The multitude of outside challengers to the Fox News throne. For years now, there’s been a growing network of well-funded GOP propaganda outlets that, using social media to expand their reach, have positioned themselves well to cannibalize the Fox News audience. Murdoch’s departure may provide the opening they’ve needed to get even more money and influence. This should alarm everyone, because as god-awful as Fox News is, the competitors are worse: They lie more often and more boldly. They’re more explicitly racist, homophobic, and sexist. And they worship Donald Trump like a god. 

A new CNN-University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll underscores how, as bad as Fox News is, its increasingly strong competition is even scarier. Aaron Blake at the Washington Post analyzed the statistics on media consumption and found some alarming results. 

While 43 percent of likely New Hampshire GOP primary voters who watch Fox News and 45 percent of conservative radio listeners say they’re voting for Trump in the GOP primary — similar to his overall share of 39 percent — those numbers rise to 65 percent for Rogan’s listeners and a remarkable 76 percent of Newsmax viewers….

Newsmax viewers are also significantly more favorable toward Trump. While 64 percent of likely GOP voters who watch Fox have a favorable view of Trump, 95 percent of Newsmax viewers do.


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


A full 90% of the polled Joe Rogan listeners are supporting either Trump or unapologetic charlatan Vivek Ramaswamy. At least those who have long been skeptical of claims that Rogan and his audience are “independent” now have rock solid proof that they were always right-wing shills. The bad news is that Rogan is already one of the most successful contenders for the Fox News throne. He gets an estimated 11 million listeners an episode. The highest-rated show on Fox News, “The Five,” typically has between 2 and 3 million viewers. 

The perception in the GOP base is that Fox News is too hamstrung by facts to be an effective purveyor of right-wing propaganda.

Rogan is probably the most successful but is just one in a growing crowd of propagandists who want to take a bite out of the Fox News audience. Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire claims over a million subscribers. Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA has reportedly grown into a $80 million company. PragerU claims over 8 billion video views. Still, Fox News has maintained its position as the 800-pound gorilla of right-wing media. 

Unsurprisingly, then, many of these smaller competitors didn’t bother to hide how much they hoped, without Rupert Murdoch in charge, Fox News would falter, giving them a chance to gobble up more of the MAGA audience. Steve Bannon raved that Fox is “TV for stupid people.” Glenn Beck implied that Lachlan Murdoch hates conservatives. (In reality, most reports suggest the younger Murdoch is more right-wing than his father.) Newsmax went in for kill by publicizing Trump’s snide anti-Murdoch comments, and claiming Murdoch is in bed with the hated Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. 

Right now, as historian Nicole Hemmer told Slate, these contenders see Fox News as a wounded animal that will be much easier to take out than it was a few years ago. That’s because, she explained, “I still don’t think people outside of right wing circles fully appreciate how disillusioned and even angry many on the right are towards Fox.”

Bluntly put, the perception in the GOP base is that Fox News is too hamstrung by facts to be an effective purveyor of right-wing propaganda. Murdoch envisioned Fox News being just news-like enough to garner a reputation as a legitimate press outlet. For a long time, that was fine with the audience, who also wanted to participate in the illusion that this is “news.” But what the Fox competitors offer is a different vision: One where any fact that gets in the way can be dismissed out of hand, and “truth” is whatever the right-wing audience wants to believe. 

These tensions came to a head during the aftermath of the 2020 election, when Fox initially reported the truth, which is Joe Biden had won the White House. As court documentation made clear, what happened then was that the audience revolted and, fearful of losing audience share to even shadier outlets, Fox pivoted towards championing Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen. 

We need your help to stay independent

In the short term, that worked. Viewers, satiated with the lies they desired, stayed on board. But in the longer term, there were serious consequences. Fox News lost a massive defamation lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems, who was repeatedly smeared in “news” segments advancing the Big Lie. Murdoch then fired one of the network’s most aggressive liars, host Tucker Carlson. The one-two punch convinced many viewers that Fox News had lost its taste for disinformation. Fox has been able to claw some of its audience back, by playing fast and loose with the facts. A lot of viewers, however, worry Fox will never provide the high-octane bullshit they crave, and so they’re permanently relocating to media outlets that are even less ethical. 

Fox alternatives know that their relative freedom to lie is a selling point to right-wing audiences. Earlier this year, the New York Times published a story about which podcasts are the worst purveyors of disinformation, and Bannon’s “War Room” topped the list. His response? To brag about it openly and praise his audience for “helping us spread misinformation.” For the MAGA crowd, lying is good and consuming lies is how they demonstrate their right-wing bona fides. Fox News, which is hamstrung by fear of lawsuits and Murdoch’s lingering desire to be treated as a respectable figure, has lost esteem with the lie-addicted GOP base. 

No one should write a premature obituary for Fox News yet, however.

By all accounts, Lachlan Murdoch is more right-wing than his father, and less worried about the consequences of blasting out disinformation. There’s a not-small chance that, under the younger Murdoch’s leadership, Fox will start to move harder to the right and, despite all the lawsuits, more determined than ever to mislead viewers. After all, the market pressures that led Fox News to embrace the Big Lie haven’t gone away. If anything, they’re getting worse, as the network faces increasing challenges from small but hungry outlets who will say anything, no matter how false or outlandish, to get an audience. 

But whether Fox News survives or not, one thing is certain: Right-wing media will get worse. All the incentives push GOP propagandists into more lurid and dishonest rhetoric. In a crowded field, the way to stand out is to outdo other right-wing outlets with racist vitriol, wild conspiracy theories, and violent rhetoric. As long as there’s a huge audience ready to pay for so much ugliness, there will be shameless people eager to create it. 

Elected Democrats are enabling Joe Biden — it’s time for the party to face reality

Recent news reports have been filled with results of one poll after another after another showing that President Biden continues to weaken as a candidate for re-election. With an overall approval rating now 21 points underwater, polling shows that Biden has lost support among key demographics that made his 2020 victory possible, especially among younger people and people of color. Alarm bells among pro-Biden pundits have finally begun to break the political sound barrier.

But on Capitol Hill, all is quiet on the Democratic front.

A vast gap has emerged between current assessments in the media, largely based on voter opinion data, and public claims from congressional Democrats, who keep their nose to the talking-points grindstone. One effect of this is that party leaders and backbenchers alike are losing credibility with the party’s base.

The gap is so lopsided that a poll this month found 67 percent of “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters” said they didn’t want Biden to run again. Meanwhile, no more than 1 percent of Democrats in Congress are willing to say so in public. By any measure, a disconnect between 67 and 1 percent is, uh, substantial.

For Democratic lawmakers to be so untethered from the people who elected them tells you a lot about the compliant relationship that usually prevails among elected Democrats toward the White House. It also signifies an unhealthy relationship between Democrats in elected office and the party’s activist base.

While supposedly representing a progressive grassroots base to the political establishment, some members of Congress end up literally doing the opposite: representing the political establishment to the progressive grassroots base.

The dire need for progressive advances in government policies is undermined when elected Democrats reflexively echo the Biden 2024 campaign line and pretend that he’s a sufficiently strong candidate to defeat the neofascist Republican Party next year. When deferring to congressional Democrats who in turn defer to the man in the Oval Office, progressive activists and organizations end up functioning more like supplicants than constituents in a representative democracy.

We need your help to stay independent

Top Democrats and their allies have publicly touted the canard that cast Joe Biden as a hero of last year’s midterms. The intoxication of that messaging stands in sharp contrast to the sober clarity from a re-elected House Democrat who spoke to the New York Times “on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the White House.” The newspaper reported that the congressmember said “Biden’s numbers were ‘a huge drag’ on Democratic candidates, who won in spite of the president not thanks to him.”

Polling in the 10 months since then indicates that Biden would likely be an even huger drag on Democratic candidates a year from now. But hope springs eternal, and so does fear of angering the White House. With the start of presidential primaries just a few months away, the crux of the matter is that Democrats in Congress are opting for self-focused, risk-averse conformity rather than visionary leadership.

Now — while even pro-Biden media like CNN and MSNBC are, at last, sounding more realistic about the president’s polling deficits — prominent Democrats are either keeping quiet about the grim possibility of a 2024 political train wreck or are spouting feelgood nonsense worthy of the myopic Mr. Magoo. The more that Democrats in the House and Senate declare that Biden will be an ideal standard-bearer next year, the more it seems they’ve been swallowed up by a Capitol Hill bubble.

Yet mainstream media outlets are now underscoring the wide distance between Democratic players on the Hill and the Democratic voters who’ve put them there. NBC News summed up the situation this way: “When party elites look at President Joe Biden, they see the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt. When voters view the president, many see an old man.”


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


More important than the president’s age, however, is the fact that many hear timeworn ideas and promises that ring hollow. Working-class voters can see and hear a president who has refused to really fight for their economic interests, while corporate greed has driven prices ever upward. It can only invite eye-rolling from core Democratic constituencies when Biden and his advocates proclaim that he’s going to go all-out to fight for their interests in his second term after not doing so in the first.

To Democratic officeholders, worried about retaining the White House and their own seats, such matters might seem relatively unimportant. But the potentially bleak electoral consequences are foreseeable. Biden simply has not used the bully pulpit of the presidency to battle for progressive measures that are poll-tested and popular with the electorate.

Democrats in Congress have ample reason to be apprehensive about next year. But their silence and spin increasingly make them look more like PR operatives than like leaders. The more they prop up Joe Biden to run for re-election, the better the odds that Donald Trump will return to the White House in 2025.

Experts: “Increased violence” possible as Trump’s criminal cases move forward

Threats against law enforcement, judges and elected officials are on the rise as Donald Trump’s prosecutions gain momentum, The New York Times reported on Monday.

FBI agents have raised alarms about harassment and threats targeting their families. These concerns have amplified amid complaints by Trump supporters and many Republicans that the Justice Department has been “weaponized” — a narrative the former president has extensively promoted on social media. 

“Trump’s pattern of lashing out at anyone who opposes him has been dangerously emulated by his supporters,” V. James DeSimone, a California civil rights attorney, told Salon. “Now that he is facing four indictments, his most dangerous supporters view law enforcement and our judicial system as the enemy. So the risk is there for increased violence.”

The FBI has witnessed a substantial surge in threats against its personnel and facilities following the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago Trump’s Florida residence and private club, according to the Times. This led the agency to establish a dedicated unit to address these threats. 

One federal official told the Times that threats have increased by more than 300 percent since then, partly because FBI agents’ identities and personal information has been spread on social media by Trump supporters. 

“Trump’s comments about the FBI, the special counsel and the judge are beyond reckless,” Barb McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney, told Salon. “He knows that people listen to his words, and sometimes take action on them. From the pipe bomber Cesar Sayoc to the rioters on Jan. 6, some people hear Trump’s words as a call to action.”

None of this has deterred the former president from attacking prosecutors and judges involved in the various criminal cases brought against him.

Trump has taken to his social media website Truth Social to call federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his election subversion case in Washington, D.C., “very biased & unfair.” 

Trump also described Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith as a “thug prosecutor” and a “deranged guy,” just days after Smith’s team asked a judge to approve an order limiting Trump from publicly disclosing evidence in the 2020 election case.

We need your help to stay independent

Last month, a Texas woman was charged with threatening to kill Judge Chutkan if Trump is not elected to a second term as president next year.

The ex-president’s targeting of specific witnesses against him offer blatant examples of speech that crosses the line into potential criminal liability, DeSimone said. If Trump’s supporters words turn from angry rhetoric to violent actions against public official, they will be “aggressively investigated and criminally prosecuted,” he added.

“The personal safety of public officials and their families doesn’t yet divide along party lines,” DeSimone said. “Just as many of those who crossed the line on Jan. 6, 2021, find themselves inside a prison cell, people who plan or commit violence against witnesses or public officials will be fully prosecuted.”

As a result of these threats, lead prosecutors handling the four criminal cases against the ex-president — in New York, Florida and Georgia as well as Washington, D.C. — have added round-the-clock personal protection, The Times reported. 

These threats have raised significant alarm among law enforcement officials. Attorney General Merrick Garland highlighted this during his congressional testimony last Wednesday, acknowledging that while the Justice Department’s activities inevitably invite scrutiny, the vilification of career prosecutors and FBI agents poses a new and serious threat not merely to those individuals but also to the integrity of the rule of law.

“Singling out individual career public servants who are just doing their jobs is dangerous, particularly at a time of increased threats to the safety of public servants and their families,” Garland said. “We will not be intimidated. We will do our jobs free from outside influence and we will not back down from defending our democracy.”


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


Trump has not limited his attempts to intimidate prosecutors to just verbal attacks; on a number of infamous occasions he has also shared threatening images.

Earlier this year, Trump shared a right-wing outlet’s article that included an image of himself apparently threatening Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with a baseball bat. At the time, Bragg was about to announce the first criminal indictment of Trump in a campaign finance case relating to Trump’s alleged 2016 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. 

In another post, Trump warned of “potential death & destruction” if he was charged in the New York case. Hours later, Bragg’s office received a threatening letter containing white powder, which was later determined to be non-hazardous. 

Trump has denied promoting violence, saying that his angry comments are protected by the First Amendment. Some of his supporters, including right-wing media influencers, have continued to warn of civil unrest if Trump is not elected in 2024. 

“These people are playing with fire,” DeSimone said. “While they may believe in a twisted way that threatening physical harm or death is legally protected speech, they cross another line when the target is a judge, jurors, law enforcement officers or elected officials. Fervent loyalty to Trump won’t excuse anyone from severe legal consequences.”