Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Embarrassing”: “Very Republican” Georgia Supreme Court just swatted down Trump’s legal Hail Mary

The Georgia Supreme Court on Monday rejected former President Donald Trump’s long-shot bid to throw out a special grand jury’s investigative findings and disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the proceedings.

The court, whose nine justices were mostly appointed by Republican governors, unanimously rejected Trump’s motion just three days after he filed it. Trump sought the court order ahead of a widely expected indictment in Willis’ probe into his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

Trump’s legal team conceded in its filing that they could find “no case in 40 years” where the court had intervened this way. The court said in its ruling that Trump had “not shown that this case presents one of those extremely rare circumstances in which this court’s original jurisdiction should be invoked, and therefore, the petition is dismissed.”

The ruling added that Trump’s lawyers had not shown “either the facts or the law necessary to mandate Willis’s disqualification.”

Trump’s lawyers previously filed a motion to Judge Robert McBurney in the Atlanta Superior Court to quash much of the evidence collected by Willis and boot her off the case but the judge has yet to rule.

“Stranded between the supervising judge’s protected passivity and the district attorney’s looming indictment, petitioner has no meaningful option other than to seek this court’s intervention,” Trump’s lawyers argued in their filing on Friday.

“Trump’s motion to quash the Georgia grand jury investigation and remove prosecutor Fani Willis from the case was the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary. The Georgia Supreme Court swatted it away,” former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade wrote on Twitter.

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out that Trump “got crushed today by the very Republican Supreme Court of Georgia.”

But Georgia State University Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis wrote that while Georgia’s Supreme Court is “right-of-center,” the “justices are very serious jurists who aren’t going to run political interference for Trump.”

“The Georgia Supreme Court’s order dismissing Trump’s petition for extraordinary relief is embarrassing and pointed but it is an honest reflection of Trump’s current legal strategy in Georgia, which is best described as zealously throwing spaghetti against the wall,” he wrote.

The law professor explained that there were multiple reasons that the petition was rejected, not least of which was that “the brief was a mess” and “wasn’t clear what relief was being asked for and why.”


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


“Much of the brief was based on conjecture and claims that were not about defending Trump’s rights but asserting third parties’ rights,” he explained. And “when we say Trump was asking for *extraordinary* relief the name really fits. Asking the Georgia Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction in this way for the first time in 40 years (as admitted by counsel) is out-of-step with this court’s practice.”

A special grand jury earlier this year issued a final report that remains largely sealed but is reported to have recommended multiple indictments. But the special grand jury does not have indictment power and the evidence is now being heard by a regular grand jury in Fulton County.

Willis wrote a letter to law enforcement in April warning them to ramp up security ahead of planned charging decisions this summer and in another letter narrowed down the possible dates to between July 31 and Aug. 18, asking that no in-person activity proceedings be scheduled at the county courthouse during that time.

Despite stigma, stimulant meds for ADHD do not encourage children to use drugs later in life

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in children, yet many parents are resistant to giving their kids certain prescription medications designed to treat it. One of the most prevalent fears is that prescribing stimulant medications could lay the groundwork for substance use in the future, including illicit drug use.

However, such medication is often a firstline treatment as ADHD symptoms start in childhood before the age of 12. For some children, methylphenidate, commonly known by the brand name Ritalin, is the best option. It can relieve ADHD symptoms that impair a child’s functioning in school, in addition to interfering with forming and keeping friendships. Stimulant drugs are used to help children focus and pay attention better.

The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies some stimulant medications as schedule two substances, meaning they may induce euphoria and can be addictive. Naturally, many parents may be concerned how this plays out as a child gets older. Nonetheless, despite its classification, taking stimulant medications as a child is not associated with substance abuse issues later in life, according to a new study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

“I hope that parents and providers will be able to use this to have a bit of a sense of relief,” co-author Dr. Brooke Molina, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told Salon. “That if they feel for the circumstances of the child that they’re treating or parenting, that stimulant medication is indicated, that they can have some sense of relief that they’re not adding to the existing risk that children with ADHD already have for substance use disorder by giving them stimulant medication.”

We need your help to stay independent

Molina and her colleagues analyzed 579 patients with ADHD over a 16-year period between childhood, adolescence and adulthood to see if there was any connection between taking stimulant medication and subsequent substance use. During the time period, Molina and her colleagues interviewed the children and parents, and collected data and questionnaires from their teachers and schools.

Molina and her colleagues found there was no association between stimulant treatment and substance use

“The data that we have for these children is extensive, that is what created a really helpful opportunity for us to address this particular question: which is, ‘Are children with ADHD who are treated with stimulant medication being put at risk for having an elevated likelihood of substance use or substance use disorder?'” Molina said. “And one of the things that was particularly useful about this data set is that we had very detailed records on their substance use.”

Molina and her colleagues found there was no association between stimulant treatment and substance use. In Molina’s study, she and her colleagues looked at the data multiple ways to confidently land on their conclusion. Despite looking at the data from multiple angles, they found no association.

“I hope that parents and providers will be able to use this to have a bit of a sense of relief.”

“Our study not only accounted for age, but also used a statistical method that adjusted over time for the many characteristics that may distinguish treated from non-treated individuals,” said study co-author Traci Kennedy, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in a press statement. “Considering these factors allowed us to more accurately test the relationship between stimulants and substance use.”

As Molina alluded, children with ADHD have an elevated risk for substance abuse. But Molina compared it to being the child of a parent who struggles with alcoholism.

“Just because you have a mother or a father who has or had alcohol use disorder, by no means does that mean that you are going to have it,” Molina said. “But you have an elevated risk.”

Notably, Molina’s study didn’t find there are “protective effects” of stimulant medication, either.

“There are a lot of strong beliefs out there that taking medication, starting it early and taking it for longer and taking it consistently will lead to better long term outcomes,” Molina said, adding that would generate the hypothesis that children treated that way would have a lower likelihood of substance use disorder as adults. “So we didn’t find that and that’s something that will surprise some of the readership.”

ADHD diagnoses have consistently increased since the 1990s. Roughly one out of every 10 children and adolescents between the ages of 3 and 17 living in the U.S. have a current ADHD diagnosis. As a follow-up, Molina will be exploring one big limitation of the study.

“We followed individuals from childhood being treated in childhood to older ages, but we don’t have children in this study whose treatments started in adolescence or in adulthood,” Molina said. “And that may be a different kettle of fish.”

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert were doomed to feud — there can only be one MAGA queen

As the GOP devolves into an entertainment product for people too stupid for scripted television, it was destined that a “cat fight” storyline would develop. Ladies tearing into each other is a perennial favorite of lizard brain-based TV programming, from pro wrestling to trashy reality shows. As people whose brains were entirely formed by cultural trash, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., have started to claw at each other, instinctually understanding the spectacle their Fox News-loving fans crave. 

The Daily Beast’s Zachary Petrizzo has the dirt. In an article headlined “The Standoff Between Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert Is Worse Than You Think,” he details how the once-friendly duo of camera-hogging extremists have turned on each other. It’s not just that Greene called Boebert a “little bitch” on the floor of the House of Representatives. Boebert was apparently a major force driving Greene’s ouster from the House Freedom Caucus. When Petrizzo caught up with Greene to ask her about this, she sniped, “Dude, do you do anything besides report on complete drama and bullshit?”


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


To be fair, it’s only the second dumbest thing a Republican said all week. (The first is Donald Trump Jr. claiming manically, “I don’t snort cocaine, it’s not my thing.”)

That Greene and Boebert would be pitted against each other was fate. 

Greene’s instinct for drama is what makes her such a powerhouse in the circus-like atmosphere that the modern GOP thrives in. It really is remarkable that she ended up in Congress instead of on the “Real Housewives” franchise. As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told the Daily Beast, as a “professional wrestling fan” he enjoys thinking “that a fistfight could break out at any movement.” Boebert and Greene are famous and popular within the GOP because they hate drama as much as Donald Trump Jr. hates cocaine. 

Even back in 2022, when Boebert and Greene presented as a Karen power duo out to heckle President Joe Biden, I was skeptical that their alliance would last long. As a rule, Republicans loathe each other and will stab each other in the back at a moment’s notice. But their feud, in particular, was inevitable for a deeper reason: The world of MAGA celebrities, being deeply sexist, only has a single slot for a woman. The whole point of being the token woman is that there can only be one. 

In the 90s, feminist writer Katha Pollitt wrote about the “Smurfette principle” in the New York Times: “A group of male buddies will be accented by a lone female, stereotypically defined.” She was talking about children’s entertainment, which routinely portrayed a world so male-dominated you’d think women are only 1-2% of the population. But the problem she flagged, where there was only ever one slot for a woman, was all over pop culture at the time. Female pop singers or rappers were pitted against each other as if only one at a time could be on the Billboard charts. The “It Girl” of Hollywood necessarily implied no other starlet could be ascendant. As for politics, well, the fact that five whole women got elected to the Senate in 1992 was so mind-blowing that it was deemed “The Year of the Woman.” 

Patriarchy depends on women fighting each other for scraps.

These days, things are far from equitable, but in most of the culture, female representation has grown well past the Smurfette-style tokenism. Over 40% of Democrats in Congress are women now. The Billboard Hot 100 is dominated by female artists like SZA, Taylor Swift, and Dua Lipa. Some of the biggest movies of the year, from “The Little Mermaid” to “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” to “Barbie” are female-led. And while some popular kids shows still pretend the world is 90% male, others like “Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir” and “My Little Pony” put girl characters front and center. 

This kind of “women are people, too” mentality gets dismissed as “wokeism” by Republicans, whose entire existence is about hanging onto the bad old days. So there is no way are that they ever going to cultivate an internal party culture where more than one woman can be a MAGA superstar. Patriarchy depends on women fighting each other for scraps. Keeping women hating each other prevents them from teaming up to take on the real enemy, i.e. the men that keep them down. That Greene and Boebert would be pitted against each other was fate. 

We need your help to stay independent

Of course, both Greene and Boebert are too committed to upholding a sexist system to notice that they’re being used and manipulated, even as the male Republicans who are encouraging this fight crow about it to the Daily Beast. But the jealousy and artificial scarcity that is fueling their enmity is not hard to spot. Greene lashed out at Boebert for supposedly “copying” her impeach-Biden idea, as if there was a hard limit on how much silly nonsense congressional Republicans are allowed to get into in a year. (Anyone who sees the bullshit-manufacturing machine run by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. knows that lies are an infinitely renewable resource on the right.) In turn, Boebert really embraced the view that the Freedom Caucus didn’t have room for two loudmouth, camera-hogging women, which means Greene had to go.


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


For Republicans, the ideal is the Supreme Court, where there is one woman, one Black man, and everyone else on the GOP side is a white guy. That’s the point of tokenism, to create “proof” your team isn’t racist or sexist, while, in reality, maintaining a system where the lion’s share of power remains in the hands of white men. This is how they’ve done things for years now, and no one on the right has any interest in real inclusivity.

It was always obvious there can only be one MAGA queen. The issue right now is there are a lot of women vying for the role, and getting it means eliminating the competition. No wonder failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake has all but moved out of Arizona to practically live at Mar-a-Lago. If she has any hope of being the winner of this deeply sexist race, it depends on getting Donald Trump to pick her like this is a MAGA beauty pageant. No doubt they’ve all learned from the fall of Sarah Palin, once the It Girl for right-wing trolls. As her loss in Alaska’s House race last year shows, Palin’s been pushed out to make room for one of these younger women wanting to be the token lady Trumpist. If they can’t snag the crown, then they know they’ll be just like her: taken out with the trash. 

“Train and socialize”: Expert on linguistic anthropology explains how Trump is warping MAGA minds

One of the Republican Party’s most effective weapons in its campaign to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy is a media propaganda machine that functions as a closed episteme and echo chamber. Anchored by Fox News, the feedback loop exerts a powerful if not almost omnipotent level of control over its public’s beliefs, thoughts, values, behavior, and emotions. This is accomplished through a strategy of repeating lies, amplifying and circulating conspiracy theories, and encouraging violence and hatred against some type of Other.

Ultimately, Donald Trump and other right-wing neofascists, authoritarians, demagogues, and malign actors are political entrepreneurs who are leveraging a public that has been trained and conditioned over decades to respond to such leaders, messaging, and voices. Trump is a symptom of a much deeper problem in American politics and society, after all, not the cause.

Marcel Danesi is Professor Emeritus of linguistic anthropology and semiotics at the University of Toronto. His new book is Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective.

In this wide-ranging conversation, Danesi details how neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics can help us to understand why Donald Trump’s MAGA cultists and other right-wing voters and followers will likely not be abandoning him any time soon. Right-wing demagogues like Trump, Danesi explains, are able to use metaphors and repeated codes and tropes as part of a larger rhetorical strategy that manipulates and triggers their targeted public on an almost subconscious level. The implications are ominous for American democracy and civil society because such programming is very hard to counteract.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How are you feeling in this moment given the ascendancy of the global right and neofascist movement with its fake populists and demagogues such as Donald Trump, Orban, Erdogan, and others?

I am truly worried. Fascist-totalitarian leaders present and represent themselves as the only ones who can restore the purported “historical purity” of the state, which might be seen as having been defiled by a supposed invasion of outsiders, and by the ideas and actions of liberal elites, who bring corruption and immorality to the nation’s real original values—a view dramatized by Trump in his initial campaign speech, in which he referred to Mexican immigrants people that “have a lot of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us.” Once large segments of the population buy into the autocrat’s rhetoric, the situation is ripe for a takeover of their minds and hearts. The rise of neofascism and pseudo-populism today is connected to the spread of a false belief system activated by the autocrat’s strategic, clever rhetoric, which is perceived as a language that speaks directly to everyone, unlike the talk of elites or academics.

Trump and other right-wing demagogues and neofascists repeatedly use hatred, violence, and conspiracy theories as a feature of their communications style and other messaging. Why do these strategies work?

What makes their appeals effective, in my view, is the fact that their discourses are coded with meaning below the threshold of consciousness, where the belief system can be manipulated for ideological purposes. An example is the age-old idea that there is a cabal behind the scenes that is controlling the world. So, the populist leader emerges as the one who will defeat the cabal, called the “deep state”, made up of the usual suspects (such as liberals). Using such coded language reinforces the mind control that autocrats aim to exercise. Calling a group “animals” or “parasites”, over and over, eventually becomes part of the belief system, and accepted as true, as the work of Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff has shown consistently.

“When we are exposed to systemic lies, such as those of dictators and mind manipulators, the brain seems to create a false memory code for them, based on how we feel at the time of the lies.”

Metaphors are powerful because they “switch on” existing circuits in the brain by linking together salient images and ideas, as for example linking a certain group to pests. The more these circuits are activated the more hardwired they become. Research shows that people under the influence of “big lies” develop more rigid neural pathways, showing signs of difficulty in rethinking situations. As it is almost impossible to turn the switch off, this means that when we accept a big lie or a conspiracy theory, it can reshape our perception of reality without us being aware of it. By being exposed to hate metaphors, for instance, we may develop hostile feelings towards specific groups. After a while the negative image of the group metamorphizes in the imagination into that of a parasitic organism that lives at the other’s expense. It was a powerful nefarious strategy that the Nazis used constantly in their antisemitic propaganda.

Donald Trump has what former CIA profiler Jerrold Post described in a conversation with me as “dark charisma”. His description of Trump and the danger he represented to the nation – which was proven by Jan. 6 — was chilling and prophetic. In terms of cognition and language, how does such “dark charisma” work in terms of the leader-follower relationship? For explaining the cult leader-like power and charm of Trump and other such dangerous leaders over their followers?  

The charisma of the populist leader comes, in my view, from his ability to use language to captivate people’s minds. The charismatic leader is a master wordsmith, who is able to wreak moral chaos on the polity through his deceitful use of words to create a mind fog that obscures reality and produces its own illusory world. He does this through a constant mind-numbing repetition of the same metaphors, slogans, clichés, and catchwords. In literary circles, speech based on clichés or repetitive formulas is discouraged and considered to be anathema to good style. Trump’s discourse is the exact opposite of this style. This is intentional. He uses it as an antidote to the politically correct speech of the élite (academics, liberal politicians, Democrats, and so on); it is his language of the “revolution.” As such, he is perceived as the charismatic leader who will take the nation out of the fog and back into the light—to use common metaphors that follow him around.

We need your help to stay independent

This type of speech is not an invention by Trump; it has always been the style adopted by despots to affect the polity. Mussolini, for example, confounded everyone when he came onto the political scene with his earthy language, setting himself apart from the intelligentsia of his era, tapping into people’s fears and concerns that the intellectuals were self-serving, looking down on everyone who did not talk like them. He founded Fascism as an “anti-party” just after World War I. Like Trump, he was seen as a charismatic outsider who came forward to drain Italy’s political and social swamp. He was a disrupter of the status quo, challenging the traditional politics of the nation and aiming to restore Italy to it great past.

In the most basic terms, narrative psychology consists of the stories that individuals and groups tell about themselves as a way of navigating the world and their place in it. What role does narrative psychology play in terms of eliminationism, conspiracism and violence?

The first step to manipulating minds is tapping into an emotional state, such as fear or uncertainty. As cognitive science has been showing, the brain is designed to respond to fear in various ways, with its own in-built defense mechanisms which produce chemicals in the response pattern, such as cortisol and adrenaline. These chemical responses are also activated by forms of language that instill fear, either directly (as in a vocal threat) or, more insidiously, by twisted facts which allay fears through lies and deceptive statements. Research shows that this language taps into and “switches on” existing circuits in the brain that link together important and salient images and ideas. Metaphors in particular bypass higher cognitive reasoning centers to make linkages that may not have a basis in reality. And when that happens, a person is less likely to notice the lie, because it “feels” right.

Someone like Trump knows how to lie and spin conspiracies—it is not random lying. He taps into the emotional response system of his followers, stoking false belief systems, through his strategic use of language. He is the maximum huckster, in the tradition of American hucksterism. Linguist David Maurier wrote a perceptive book in 1940, titled appropriately, The Big Con, in which he gave a comprehensive description of the features and effects of the big talk of hucksters and how it renders us credulous despite evidence that we are being conned. Maurier’s book inspired the 1973 movie, The Sting, which is a portrait of American hucksterism and how it has become an intrinsic part of American culture.


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


One cannot underestimate the power of narrative to foster belief, since it puts things together into a storyline that makes sense on its own, no matter what the truth of the matter might be. One could claim that the brain is a “narrative organ,” which makes sense of the world through narrative interpretations. I have called the belief in false narratives as the result of a “Da Vinci Code effect,” after the 2001 novel by Dan Brown, which stitches together bits and pieces of history into a purported secret history of the lineage of Christ.

The believability of a false narrative is reinforced by what psychologists call apophenia, defined as the proclivity to perceive meaningful connections among unrelated things. Apophenia is typical of conspiracy theories, fake news, and false mythic histories, where unrelated coincidences of history are woven together into an apparent plot that is occurring (or has occurred) behind the scenes. In a false narrative the “bad guys” are the “others” who are seen as the enemy and thus must be “eliminated.” History shows that violence against others is often related to the power of the false narrative.

The right-wing news media is a type of echo chamber and closed episteme. It is one of the most powerful propaganda machines ever created.

Such media tap into conspiracy codes, enlarging them and spreading them broadly. They are propaganda machines. Propaganda is a systematic use of disinformation, a classic ploy of Machiavellian liars. The first modern-day use of disinformation tactics can be traced to Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin, who coined the term itself and founded a “Disinformation Office” in 1923—his version of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. In the post-Soviet era, the disinformation strategy has hardly evanesced, since it was adopted as a key military and social engineering tactic under Vladimir Putin, who has used it effectively both to control the minds of his own people and to interfere manipulatively in the affairs of other nations. The intent is destabilization through disinformation. Right-wing media in America, as far as I can see, use disinformation to support populists such as Trump.

“One cannot underestimate the power of narrative to foster belief, since it puts things together into a storyline that makes sense on its own, no matter what the truth of the matter might be.”

Interestingly, Trump’s constant attacks on the “left-wing media”, such as CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other liberal media as “enemies of the people” who spout “fake news” falls into the same category of attack on the free press witnessed in the regimes of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler.

On the other hand, Trump’s praise of supportive alt-right social media is reminiscent of state-controlled journalism in totalitarian regimes. Trump’s clever strategy of calling the media that critique him “fake news” and those supporting him as “real news,” does not emerge in a vacuum. Not only is it consistent with totalitarian politics in general, but it is a salient attempt to undermine serious coverage that is critical of Trump. It is not surprising that, like other autocrats, he has constantly called for government control and even censorship of these outlets. Perhaps he envisions the Federal Communications Commission as his personal Ministry of Truth.

Leaders train and socialize their followers into behavior, both positive and negative. How have Trump and other right-wing leaders in the United States conditioned and trained their public into eliminationist and other violence and hatred?

A major finding of neuroscience is that when we believe a big lie, our brain creates a false memory system to accommodate it. The mental implications of lying are thus clearly profound. It can literally “train and socialize” believers. One of the most salient findings in the research literature is that lying takes a lot of energy to carry out, and so our brains seemingly adapt to lying so that they can continue to function normally—a process called “retrieval.” When we are exposed to systemic lies, such as those of dictators and mind manipulators, the brain seems to create a false memory code for them, based on how we feel at the time of the lies. This rewired neural system might make us feel better, but at the same time, it will make us less likely to recognize the truth.

Activating the neural system in this way is an ability that the Machiavellian liar possesses. This ability allows the liar to emerge into the limelight as a leader who can do no wrong, especially if there is a sense that a nation is at war with itself culturally. Trump is perceived as a leader in such a cultural war, which sees a loss of America’s true cultural paradigm, threatened by the invasion of “others” who are contaminating the paradigm along with the “radical left liberals” who support the paradigm shift. The MAGA story is, essentially, an attack on otherness. This does not necessarily imply that believers in the story are racist. The power of the narrative is that it embraces all kinds of people who desire a return to a “pure past.” It is an Orwellian strategy, crafted to restore pride in the supposed historical roots of the “Real America,” and thus to restore its “real culture.” In the process it attacks otherness as a source of the disruption of these roots.

Can Trump’s MAGA followers and other members of the right-wing who have been conditioned through years and decades by their leaders and media into such dangerous and unhealthy thinking and behavior be deradicalized? What is the role of “information backfire” here?

A major effect of constant lies and belief in conspiracy theories is the syndrome called cognitive dissonance, discussed initially by the American psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, who defined it as the condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from an inconsistency between one’s beliefs and one’s actions. People will seek out information that confirms their own attitudes and views of the world, or else reinforces aspects of conditioned behavior, avoiding information that is likely to be in conflict with their worldview and, thus, bringing about cognitive dissonance. So, when a diehard follower of a dictator or a victim of a con artist is told about the deception, the reaction is, often, to develop strategies to attenuate the dissonance they might feel, tending to turn the contrasting information on its head, so to make sense of it in terms of their belief systems.

Big lies and false alternative histories generate a society-wide cognitive dissonance. However, never before in human history has such dissonance become so embedded globally, because of the massiveness of the diffusion of disinformation through the Internet, whereby through constant repetition and the activation of mechanisms such as apophenia, people might accept, say, a conspiracy theory at face value, adding to it subjectively by commenting on the theory through personal posts. The resulting interactive system makes the false ideas even more believable in themselves—a mindset that can be encapsulated colloquially as follows: “If so many believe it, then it must be true, especially since I myself can add something to the substance of the information.” This whole false discourse system is bolstered by social media algorithms—when someone clicks on a conspiracy-oriented post, the algorithm offered up similar posts, sites, and platforms, which contained more false information, perpetuating the cycle of falsity that became larger and larger.

All that said, history all teaches us that truth eventually triumphs over lies and hatred (pardon my cliché). Our brain is ultimately a practical device that can be fooled only for a time, until negative conditions created by lies impel it to “recalibrate” itself. I have no empirical evidence for this, just historical evidence. All the dictatorships of the past were eventually vanquished.

What are you most optimistic about given your research and findings, if anything? What are you most worried and pessimistic about?

In a nutshell, throughout history lies work for a while, until they give way to truth. I am thus optimistic, but patience is needed in all this—a lot of it. Big lies are everywhere today, used to justify conflicts, such as invasions into national territories, as is the case of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which he justified as a purification operation. Decoding how the tactics of mendacity work in manipulating minds, in order to come up with counterstrategies for obviating or stemming their deleterious influence, is an urgent objective.  

The current era is sometimes called a “post-truth” one, because of the spread of falsehoods and conspiracy theories broadly, especially through the Internet. It may be better described, however, as an unethical era. While this book does not offer concrete practical advice on what to do about protecting oneself against the unethical distortions, it will hopefully have implications for “immunization” against them, by deconstructing the tactics on which disinformation and lies are implanted and spread. There are no such things as “remedies” or “antidotes;” one can only raise awareness of the meanings behind the words, the symbols, and the other representational forms that are injecting falsehoods into groupthink, leading to meaning breakdowns throughout the world.

Hopefully, it will shed constructive light on the following warning issued by Hannah Arendt, who was the first to propose that Nazism and Stalinism had common roots and who, if alive today, would discern these roots in many other areas: “A people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”

We have no idea if pesticide protections for bees actually work — a serious issue for conservation

Pesticides are slowly wiping bees off the face of the Earth, yet scientists are still unable to come up with evidence-based ways to protect them. That isn’t for a lack of trying — many different tactics are being trialed, but widespread success remains elusive. And this problem is severe, given that many of our agricultural food products — from apples to pumpkins to cucumbers — rely on pollinators like bees. Losing bees could trigger mass starvation throughout the world, to say nothing of the devastating effect such a casualty would have on global ecosystems.

In a recent report in the Journal of Economic Entomology, Edward Straw and Dara Stanley, both researchers at University College Dublin, analyzed as many studies as they could find about whether bees are adequately protected from pesticides. They focused specifically on mitigation measures, or actions followed by pesticide users to limit how much of the chemicals reach unintended targets.

The study includes a chart of mitigation methods that have at least been tested through published studies, regardless of their quality. At first glance, only one category of mitigation measure appeared to be thoroughly covered: repellents, or techniques used to repel bees from visiting crops recently treated with pesticides. While other strategies like alternative food sources or killing weeds to discourage bees from feeding nearby had only been tested in seven or fewer published studies, there were 12 published studies on repellent chemicals that could presumably reduce exposure. A dozen studies seemed to be a lot — right?

“Bees are lovely… I’m really bad at identifying them, which is why I work on bumblebees, in Ireland there are only 21 species of bumblebees. It’s not that hard to work with because you could tell mostly which ones are which!”

“Yeah, no, not even close!” Straw, a post-doctoral researcher at University College Dublin, replied. “All of those 12 measures on testing repellents have been done on honeybees!”

In other words, the studies had limited usefulness because they were only tested on two species of honeybee. However, there are more than 20,000 different species of bee worldwide. What make work for honeybees (Apis mellifera) may not work for bumblebees or solitary bees, let alone other types of insects.

This speaks to the broader problem with the research on how pesticides impact bee populations. As the authors explain, the research on mitigation measures overwhelmingly focuses on managed bees, i.e. honeybees, thereby neglecting wild bee populations. Additionally they found that are few empirical tests on the most widely-used mitigation measures, namely those that are recommended on pesticide labels. As a consequence, the authors “recommend that more, and stronger, scientific evidence is required to justify existing mitigation measures to help reduce the impacts of pesticides on bees while maintaining crop protection.”

Simply put, we have almost no idea if our strategies to protect bees are working. Yet what counts as “enough” in terms of research? As Straw explained to Salon, it is not “healthy” to look at the matter simply in terms of the number of studies. The quality of the research is also important.

“If you want evidence that a measure works, you want evidence from multiple continents, where you have different sorts of cropping systems and you want evidence from multiple species,” Straw said. “You really want to be covering honeybees in good depth because they’re quite easy to work with, bumblebees in good depth because they’re quite easy to work with in Europe and America. And then some work, at least some work, on a few different species of solitary bee. So you need those broad categories there.”

Additionally, Straw argued that studies need to examine not just pesticides “very broadly,” but also specifically investigate subcategories like insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. “To loosely guess, you’d be talking about somewhere in the region of 20 different papers of quality science for us to say, ‘Okay, let’s actually think that this measure probably has a good basis of support.'”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“Honeybees, in all aspects, are the best research bee species. They have a long, long relationship as a species with us.”

He added, “You would need a handful, five or six, of genuinely good papers to say actually yes, we can tick the bare basic boxes of saying we have evidence-based policy here.” 

The next question is why honeybees seem to receive disproportionate attention from published scientists. 

“Honeybees, in all aspects, are the best research bee species,” Straw said. “They have a long, long relationship as a species with us. We’ve been domesticating them and culturing them and taking products from them, like honey, for thousands of years. We have very established ways of working with them and we have a very established basis in science on how they exist, how they work, what things impact them.”

Beyond that, modern pesticides have not even existed for a full century, but only trace back to the 1940s. That is why the thinking, not just among business leaders but also among environmentally-minded scientists, can be limited.

“We want great pesticides [so we ask] ‘How do they impact bees?’ ‘Let’s look at honeybees.’ ‘That makes sense.'” Straw imagined the hypothetical conversation going. “As time has gone on, we’ve developed [studies with] other bee species and we’ve come to be able to test them, but they are harder to test in quite a few ways because they can be more expensive.”

Although bumblebees may be affordable for some, “they are a little bit harder to work with,” Straw said. “Solitary bees are a nightmare to work with. If you want to get them to feed on stuff, you really, really have to work. That’s just to make them engage in your experiments.”

Straw admitted that his passion for bees is based on more than their importance to humans, whether as helpers or hinderers of agriculture. As he described it, he was working in the Irish canola fields with buff tailed bumblebees, or Bombus terrestris. 

“It was really enjoyable being out in that field. I was surrounded by like a sea of yellow flowers and it was really pretty walking through the tram lines where the tractor had driven and collecting those bees,” Straw recalled, noting how the various insects he encountered had wildly different personalities.

“Some insects flew away and some insects and some bees didn’t really care about me,” Straw remembered. “You could tell which was which because the bees have self-defense mechanisms. They can sting you. So they don’t really care if you are in their way because they’ll just do their own little thing.” As he described it, “bees are lovely. I think they’re really fun to work with.” Yet he also admitted that he has his own preference among bee species — for bumblebees.

“I’m really bad at identifying them, which is why I work on bumblebees. In Ireland there are only 21 species of bumblebees,” Straw explained. “It’s not that hard to work with because you could tell mostly which ones are which!”

Hunting the military extremist: How disturbed is the U.S. military?

In April, when Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guardsman with a top-secret clearance, was arrested for posting a trove of classified documents about the Russia-Ukraine war online, the question most often asked was: How did such a young, inexperienced, low-level technician have access to such sensitive material? What I wanted to know was: How did he ever get accepted into the Air Force in the first place?

Teixeira seems to have leaked that secret information for online bragging rights rather than ideological reasons, so his transgression probably wouldn’t have fallen under the military’s newly reinforced regulations on extremist activities. After he was indicted, however, perturbing details about his behavior emerged, including his online searches for violent extremist events, an outsized interest in guns, and social media posts that an FBI affidavit called “troubling” and I’d call creepy.

Ideological zealotry is disruptive wherever it takes root, even if it never erupts into violence, but it’s particularly chilling inside the military. After all, servicemembers have access to weapons and the training to use them. Even more significant, a kind of quid pro quo exists between the military and civilians. Trust is paramount within the military and every service member is supposed to abide by a code of ethics, as well as by the Constitution, to which all of them swear an oath.

In theory, a democratic civil society invests its military with the authority to use force in its name in exchange for the principled conduct of its members. Military service is supposed to be a higher calling and soldiers better (or at least better behaving) people. So when active-duty personnel or veterans use violence against the system they’re sworn to protect, the sting of betrayal is especially sharp. 

Whoops!

In a photo of Teixeira in a neat dress uniform that accompanied media reports, he’s a bright-eyed kid with stick-out ears and a sweet half-smile. He looks young and promising, the kind of guy people offer thanks to when they see him in uniform at an airport. In reality, however, everything else about him was a red flag. 

The Washington Post found videos and chat logs that suggested he was getting ready for a race war. Former classmates told CNN that he had been obsessed with guns and war. He was suspended from high school for comments he made about Molotov cocktails. His first application for a gun license was denied, but he kept trying and was eventually approved, over time amassing a trove of handguns, rifles, shotguns, high-capacity weapons, and a gas mask, which he kept in a gun locker about two feet from his bed. 

Granted, some of this activity didn’t begin until he enlisted in 2019 and no one’s advocating that military recruiters make bedroom checks. Still, recruits are supposed to go through a careful vetting process. Family, friends, teachers, and classmates may be interviewed to assess a recruit’s character and fitness. Such background checks are designed to detect things like racist tattoos, drug use, gang affiliation, or arrest records, but are inevitably limited in what they can discover about young people without much life experience, including the teenage gamers the Air Force woos for their up-to-the-minute technical skills who may not prove to be the most level-headed crew — people, in fact, like Jack Teixeira.

In his case in particular, the vetting of service members for handling the top-secret or sensitive-compartmentalized-information security clearances he received in 2022 is supposed to be particularly thorough. I was first faced with this reality when a government agent showed up at my door, flashed a badge, and asked me about a neighbor applying for a clearance. He inquired all too casually about whether I had noticed anything telling, like lots of liquor bottles in his trash. (That left me wondering how many people check their neighbor’s garbage.) 

Teixeira’s posts of classified material taken from the computers of the intelligence unit at the Cape Cod air base where he was stationed first appeared on Thug Shaker Central, a small, obscure chat group which appealed largely to teenage boys through adolescent humor, a fetishistic love of guns, and extreme bigotry. It was hosted on the gamer-centric platform Discord. At first, he posted transcribed documents, then began photographing hundreds more in his parents’ kitchen and started uploading copies of them filled with secret materials on the U.S., its allies, and its enemies. Someone at Thug Shaker began sharing those posts more widely and they made their way to Russian Telegram channels, Twitter, and beyond — and Teixeira was in big trouble.

Since he seems to have made no effort to hide who he was, no one could call him the world’s smartest criminal. He made it all too easy for the FBI to track him down. By then, Air Force officials had already admonished him for making suspicious searches of classified intelligence networks, but allowed him to stay in his job. That’s where the Justice Department charged him with the retention and transmission of classified information under the Espionage Act of 1917, which had already caught in its maw journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers (including Daniel Ellsberg, who, to the end of his life, wanted to challenge the act in court on First Amendment grounds), and most recently, another hoarder of classified documents, former President Donald Trump. 

In June, Teixeira pleaded not guilty on six counts, each carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. Probably just as happy to let the civilians handle it, the Air Force removed the intelligence division from his unit, but it hasn’t yet brought charges against him.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered a policy and procedure review to assess how bad Pentagon security really was. The results, made public on July 5th, gave the military a passing grade but, with a firm grasp of the obvious, recommended more careful monitoring of the online activities of personnel with security clearances.

Small Numbers, Outsized Impact

Rhetoric and regulations addressing extremism in the military date back to at least 1969 and have been tinkered with since, usually in response to hard-to-ignore events like the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood by Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan in 2009. In reaction to the material Chelsea Manning (who was anything but an extremist) leaked to WikiLeaks to reveal human-rights abuses connected to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Defense created a counter-insider threat program around 2014. Six years later, the Army revised its policies for the first time to face the potential role of social media in extremist activities.

Tracking and reporting on extremism in the military has not been without controversy, which tended to be of the let’s-not-air-our-dirty-laundry-in-public variety. In 1986 when, for instance, the Southern Poverty Law Center informed the Department of Defense (DoD) that active-duty Marines were participating in the Ku Klux Klan, the Pentagon responded that the “DoD does not prohibit personnel from joining such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.” (It still doesn’t name or ban specific organizations in its regulations.) And when, in 2009, a Department of Homeland Security assessment warned of right-wing extremists recruiting veterans, conservative politicians and veterans groups killed the report which, they claimed, was insulting to veterans. 

Then came the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. A striking number of participants proved to have military connections or histories — 13.4% to 17.5% of those charged, depending on who’s counting — and the Pentagon could no longer ignore the problem. Defense Secretary Austin ordered an unprecedented, day-long stand-down to educate all military personnel on extremist activity and then created the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group, or CEAWG, to come up with a plan for dealing with that anything-but-new reality.

It’s not possible to pin down the true scope of the phenomenon, but the Center for Strategic and International Studies found active-duty and reserve personnel were linked to 7 of the 110 terrorist attacks and plots the FBI investigated in 2020. That same year, the New York Times estimated that active-duty military personnel and veterans accounted for at least 25% of antigovernment militias. In 2022, the Anti-Defamation League identified 117 active-duty service personnel and 11 reservists on a leaked membership list from the Oath Keepers, the far-right antigovernment militia prominently involved in January 6th events. CEAWG, on the other hand, claimed that, in 2021, there were fewer than 100 substantiated cases of military personnel involved in officially prohibited extremist activity in the past year.

While such reckonings suggest that just a small number of servicemembers are actively involved in extremist violence, even a relative few should be concerning for obvious reasons.

Report, Revise, Reconsider

Opportunities to identify and prevent extremism arise at three junctures: during recruitment, throughout the active-duty years, and in the discharge process when those transitioning back to civilian life may be especially susceptible to promises of camaraderie and ready action from extremist groups. As 2021 ended, the Pentagon’s working group reported that it had addressed such vulnerabilities by standardizing questionnaires, clarifying definitions, and — that old bureaucratic fallback — commissioning a new study. 

The revised rules included a long list of banned “extremist activities” and a long definition of what constitutes “active participation.” In addition to the obvious — violence, plans to overthrow the government, and the leaking of sensitive information — prohibited acts include liking, sharing, or retweeting online content that supports extremist activities or encouraging DoD personnel to disobey lawful orders with the intention of disrupting military activities.

Active participation includes organizing, leading, or simply attending a meeting of an extremist group and distributing its literature on or off base. Commanders may declare places off-limits where “counseling, encouraging, or inciting Service members to refuse to perform duty or to desert” occurs. That also sounds like it could apply to gatherings of antiwar groups like Veterans for Peace, where supporting war resisters is part of their mission. And therein lies the rub.

As in the past, the updates focus on activity, rather than speech, which is a good thing, but figuring out how to suppress extremism without turning into the thought police is challenging, particularly in light of the prominence of social media and the impossibility of monitoring everyone’s online activity. The result: regulations that are both too vague and too restrictive and a recipe for implementing the rules unfairly. 

In military culture, reporting is often equated with snitching and retaliation is common. Since it’s not practicable to draw bright lines between what’s allowed and what isn’t, that determination rests ultimately (and sometimes ominously) with commanders. The regulations urge them to balance First Amendment rights with “good order and discipline and national security.” In reality, however, such decisions too often fall prey to bias, distrust, self-interest, racial disparities, and a history of bad faith.

Then there’s the issue of paying for the extra work the rules require. The only relevant funding seems to be a puny $13.5 million for the insider-threat program. Meanwhile, the Pentagon budget that recently exited the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee makes it a “conservative priority” to defund the position of Deputy Inspector General for Diversity and Inclusion and Extremism in the Military. So anti-extremism may prove but one more victim of anti-diversity and, even without that, if money is a measure of commitment, the military’s commitment to fighting extremism is looking lukewarm at best.

Consistently Inconsistent

Recently, the Center for New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank, damned the military’s efforts to address domestic violent extremism historically as being all too often “reactionary, sporadic, and inconsistent” when it comes to recognizing the problem to be solved, or even admitting there is one. Though harsh, it’s not an unfair assessment. 

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), a Department of Homeland Security research center at the University of Maryland, analyzed an extensive database of extremist activity in the U.S. called PIRUS and found that 628 Americans with military backgrounds were involved in such criminal activity from 1990 to March 2023. Almost all of them were male veterans, with Marines showing up in disproportionately large numbers (as they did among the January 6th arrestees). A slight majority of the cases considered involved violence and a large majority involved white supremacist militias. And here’s an intriguing fact that probably won’t surprise anyone who’s followed the U.S. military’s dismal war record in this century: extremists with a military background were less successful in carrying out violent attacks than those without it. 

Indeed, the extremist threat appears to be growing. A chart in a research brief looking at PIRUS data shows little blips for extremist cases in most years until the past six, including not only the (hopefully) unrepeatable 2021, but the years on either side of it. 

Activities that rise to the level of criminal conduct, however, tell only part of the story.

The RAND Corporation interviewed a large, demographically representative sample of veterans — mostly older, white, middle-class men who joined the military before 9/11 — to assess sympathy for extremist organizations and ideas. The researchers found no evidence that veterans support violent extremist groups or their ideologies more than the rest of the American public does. 

If you find that reassuring, however, think again. After all, according to the 2022 Yahoo! News/YouGov poll Rand used for comparison, a little more than a third of the U.S. population agrees with the Great Replacement Theory that “[a] group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views.” Am I supposed to be comforted because only about 5% fewer veterans think that?

Then there’s the finding that almost 18% of the veterans surveyed who agree with one of four cited extremist ideologies also support violence as a means of political change. That finding is scary, too, because extremist groups can take advantage of such veterans’ support for political violence to recruit them for their often all-too-violent purposes. 

All of this leaves me very uneasy, both about what is being done and what should or even could be done. I worry about how much more extreme and violent this country has become in this century of failed wars. And I worry about anti-extremism policies sliding into prosecuting — and persecuting — people for disfavored beliefs, while immediate danger glides in from some unexpected source — like a 21-year-old techie, who, for reasons no one anticipated, pulled off one hell of a breach of national security right under the military’s nose.

“Disgraceful”: GOP advances bill that could remove 220,000 teachers from classrooms

House Democrats warned that hundreds of thousands of teachers could lose their jobs if legislation advanced Friday by a Republican-controlled appropriations subcommittee becomes law.

The panel’s draft Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies funding bill for the coming fiscal year calls for nearly $64 billion in total cuts, a proposal that Democrats said “decimates support for children in K-12 elementary schools and early childhood education” and “abandons college students and low-income workers trying to improve their lives through higher education or job training.”

The nonprofit Committee for Education Funding noted that the Republican proposal would impact “virtually all” education programs, hitting teacher funding, student aid, and more. The bill, one of a dozen appropriations measures that Congress is looking to pass by the end of September, would bring Department of Education funding to below the 2006 level, according to the group.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Friday that “we are witnessing a widespread attack on public education that should shock every American family.”

“If left to their own devices,” DeLauro added, “Republicans would gleefully take public education to the graveyard.”

The GOP legislation would slash Title I grants to local educational agencies that serve children from low-income families by nearly $15 billion compared to fiscal year 2023 levels. Appropriations Committee Democrats said the massive cut “could force a nationwide reduction of 220,000 teachers from classrooms serving low-income students” amid a teacher shortage.

The legislation would also completely eliminate funding for a number of Education Department programs, including Federal Work-StudyFederal Supplemental Educational Opportunity GrantsPromise Neighborhoods, and Child Care Access Means Parents in School.

“Disgraceful to say the least,” Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., tweeted in response to the GOP measure.

Additionally, the bill would inflict major cuts to labor, health, and medical research programs and agencies, slashing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by $95 million, Job Corps by $1.8 billion, the National Institutes of Health by $2.8 billion, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by $1.6 billion.

The bill would zero out funding for the CDC’s Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research. There have been at least 377 mass shootings across the U.S. this year.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the second-largest teacher’s union in the U.S., expressed outrage over the GOP funding measure’s “deep cuts to education, healthcare, and worker programs.”

“At the same time, another GOP-led committee is advancing bills to extend tax cuts for the rich,” the union wrote, referring to the House Ways and Means Committee, which recently approved a tax-cut package that would disproportionately benefit large corporations and the top 1%.

“Their values are showing—and they’re not pretty,” AFT added.

The proposed funding cuts for labor, health, education, and related agencies are part of the GOP’s far-reaching assault on federal programs as members of Congress race to approve a dozen appropriations bills by September 30—the end of the current fiscal year—to avert a government shutdown.

The debt ceiling agreement reached in late May by the Biden White House and Republican leaders set caps on non-military discretionary outlays, but GOP appropriators are working to cut spending as much as possible, targeting clean water fundsIRS enforcementpublic housing, and other critical programs.

FDA approves vaccine-like RSV shot for infants

On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration on Monday approved a monoclonal antibody treatment that will protect infants and toddlers against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Called Nirsevimab, the shot will be sold under the brand name Beyfortus. It is a ready-made antibody that can block the RSV virus from infecting cells. Technically, it’s not a vaccine, but a single shot that will be given to infants and neonates born during or entering their first RSV season. The FDA’s approval allows for especially vulnerable infants up to 24 months to receive the treatment as well prior to the expected season.

“RSV can cause serious disease in infants and some children and results in a large number of emergency department and physician office visits each year,” said John Farley, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Office of Infectious Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a statement. “Today’s approval addresses the great need for products to help reduce the impact of RSV disease on children, families and the health care system.” 

Infants face an increased risk when it comes to RSV. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), each year nearly 80,000 kids under 5 are hospitalized with RSV, and an estimated 300 die. In May, the FDA approved Pfizer’s vaccine against RSV for adults ages 60 and older, after progressing in the approval process for a late-stage pregnancy vaccine that would protect newborns and infants. Together, the U.S. should be better prepared to face this year’s RSV season.

Taylor Swift made a second, subtler lyric change on “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version)”

After Taylor Swift made headlines for changing a controversial lyric from “Better Than Revenge,” fans have discovered a second, subtler update to the song. Originally released in 2010 on her third and entirely self-written album “Speak Now,” “Better Than Revenge” was revised when Swift re-recorded the album. A line from the chorus, “She’s better known for the things that she does on the mattress,” became “He was a moth to the flames, she was holding the matches.” Halfway through her plan to re-record albums purchased by Scooter Braun in his acquisition of her former label, Swift took the opportunity to make the change after years of criticism that the line was slut-shaming and misogynistic.

While “Better Than Revenge (Taylor’s Version)” still includes lines such as, “She’s not a saint, and she’s not what you think, she’s an actress,” and “I think her ever-present frown is a little troubling,” the singer also made a swap in the background vocals from, “You know that she deserved this,” to “You know that you deserved this.” Swift’s updates to both lines have been met with mixed reactions. Changing even one lyric makes the re-recording different from the original, potentially detracting from her attempt to devalue the old, Braun-owned track. Additionally, some fans miss the line for sentimental reasons, while others celebrate a change they feel is long overdue.

Released on July 7, “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version)” became Swift’s 12th No. 1 album on the Billboard 200 chart. Swift became the first living artist in 60 years — and the first female artist ever — to have four albums in the top 10 at the same time.

How Harlan Crow slashed his tax bill by taking Clarence Thomas on superyacht cruises

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

 

For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, including globe-trotting trips aboard his 162-foot yacht, the Michaela Rose.

Crow’s lawyer argues that Congress has no authority to probe the GOP donor’s generosity and that doing so violates a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the Supreme Court.

Members of Congress say there are federal tax laws underlying their interest and a known propensity by the ultrarich to use their yachts to skirt those laws.

Tax data obtained by ProPublica provides a glimpse of what congressional investigators would find if Crow were to open his books to them. Crow’s voyages with Thomas, the data shows, contributed to a nice side benefit: They helped reduce Crow’s tax bill.

The rich, as we’ve reported, often deduct millions of dollars from their taxes related to buying and operating their jets and yachts. Crow followed that formula through a company that purported to charter his superyacht. But a closer examination of how Crow used the yacht raises questions about his compliance with the tax code, experts said. Despite Crow’s representations to the IRS, ProPublica reporters could find no evidence that his yacht company was actually a profit-seeking business, as the law requires.

“Based on what information is available, this has the look of a textbook billionaire tax scam,” said Senate Finance Committee chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “These new details only raise more questions about Mr. Crow’s tax practices, which could begin to explain why he’s been stonewalling the Finance Committee’s investigation for months.”

Crow, through a spokesperson, declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions.

As ProPublica reported in April, Crow lavished gifts on Thomas for over 20 years, often in the form of luxury trips on Crow’s jet and yacht. One focus of the investigations is whether Crow disclosed his generosity toward Thomas to the IRS, since large gifts are subject to the gift tax. Another is whether Crow treated his trips with Thomas as deductible business expenses. (While the data sheds light on how Crow might have accounted for Thomas’ trips, there are no clear implications for Thomas’ own taxes, experts said.)

Crow’s entry into the world of superyacht owners came nearly 40 years ago. By 1984, his father, Trammell Crow, had forged his real estate fortune, and Harlan, then in his 30s, was taking an increasing role in the family business. That year, father and son worked together to erect the 50-story Trammell Crow Center in downtown Dallas. They also formed a company, Rochelle Charter Inc., with the purpose of leasing out their new yacht, the Michaela Rose.

ProPublica’s trove of IRS data, which contains tax information for thousands of wealthy individuals, includes both Harlan Crow and his parents, who filed jointly. The data shows his parents with a majority share in Rochelle Charter. After they both died, Harlan Crow took full control in 2014.

ProPublica’s data for the company runs from 2003 to 2015. Rochelle Charter reported losing money in 10 of those 13 years. Overall, the net losses totaled nearly $8 million, with about half flowing to Harlan Crow. By using those deductions to offset income from other sources, the Crows saved on taxes. (The wealthy often find ways to deduct the expense of a private jet; the records don’t make it clear whether Crow is doing so.)

For Crow, the tax breaks from his yacht were just one way he was able to achieve a lighter tax burden. The tax code is particularly friendly to commercial real estate titans, and Crow generally enjoyed low taxes during that same period: He paid an average income tax rate of 15%, according to the IRS data. It’s a rate typical of the very wealthiest Americans but lower than the personal federal tax rates of even many middle-income workers.

Crow’s biggest deduction from the Michaela Rose came in 2014, when, after the death of his mother, Crow decided to renovate the yacht. The interior needed updating to fit more contemporary notions of glamour (for one, less gold plating). The work was expensive: Crow’s tax information shows a $1.8 million loss from Rochelle Charter that year.

In order to claim these sorts of deductions, taxpayers must be engaged in a real business, one that’s actually trying to make a profit. If expenses dwarf revenues year after year, the IRS might conclude the activity is more of a hobby. That could lead to the deductions being disallowed, plus penalties. Nevertheless, the ultrawealthy often pass off their costly pastimes, like horse racing, as profit-seeking businesses. In doing so, they essentially dare the IRS to prove otherwise in an audit.

For a yacht owner to meet the legal standard of operating a for-profit business, said Michael Kosnitzky, co-chair of the private client and family office group at the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop, “You have to be regularly chartering the yacht to third parties at fair market value,” typically through an independent charter broker.

ProPublica interviewed around a dozen former crew members of the Michaela Rose, some of whom spent years aboard the ship, and none said they were aware of the boat ever being chartered. ProPublica also reviewed cruising schedules for three different years. According to the former staff and the schedules, use of the vessel appears to have been limited to Crow’s family, friends and executives of Crow’s company, along with their guests.

Moreover, in an attempt to trademark the name of his yacht, Crow struggled to provide evidence that he chartered his ship. In 2019, an attorney representing Rochelle Charter filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the request. This required demonstrating commercial use of the name Michaela Rose. The attorney, of the law firm Locke Lord, wrote that the name was used for “yacht charter services for entertainment purposes” and as evidence attached a brochure.

“This magnificent yacht has cruised the oceans of the world with a graceful and gentle motion found only on the most superior seagoing vessels,” the pamphlet said, and it went on to extol the vessel’s “fine, seakindly hull” and “mahogany paneled formal dining room” that seats 16. But it said nothing about chartering.

“Registration is refused because the specimen does not show the applied-for mark in use in commerce,” the USPTO’s attorney responded.

Crow’s attorney asked the USPTO to reconsider. The brochure was “provided by Applicant directly to its customers and potential customers,” he wrote. Wasn’t that enough?

When USPTO again refused, the attorney provided new evidence: screenshots of the websites superyachts.com and liveyachting.com. These show “links and references to yacht ‘Charter’ services offered in connection with Applicant’s MICHAELA ROSE mark,” the attorney wrote.

At this point, the USPTO agreed to approve the trademark, but the evidence was dubious. Hundreds of ships have profiles on superyachts.com whether they are available to charter or not. The LiveYachting page merely encouraged readers to contact a broker “for finding out if she could be offered for yacht charters.”

“Reviewing the file, it’s not clear to me that the yacht was actually offered for use in commerce in a way that would justify a trademark,” said Neel Sukhatme, a professor at Georgetown Law and visiting scholar with USPTO.

Since April, when the Senate Finance Committee first sent Crow a long list of questions about Thomas’ trips on his jet and yacht, Crow has refused to provide extensive answers. But last month, his attorney, Michael Bopp of the law firm Gibson Dunn, did shed some light on how his chartering business worked: Crow leased from himself. (Gibson Dunn is representing ProPublica pro bono in a case against the U.S. Navy.)

For Crow’s personal use of the Michaela Rose, including trips when the Thomases were guests, “charter rates … were paid to the Crow family entities” that owned the yacht, Bopp wrote in a letter to Wyden. The letter did not specify who, if anyone, paid when Crow’s friends, family or employees used the vessel or how he determined the charter rate. Crow’s spokesperson declined to clarify these details.

According to Bopp, then, whenever Crow used his yacht, Crow (or one of his businesses) would pay his own company, Rochelle Charter, and Rochelle Charter would put that down as revenue. On the other side of the ledger would go the considerable expenses of operating the yacht: maintenance, crew, fuel and other costs. If, at the end of the year, Rochelle Charter’s revenue from chartering exceeded those expenses, Crow would pay tax on that income.

But the taxes of the ultrawealthy often have an up-is-down quality. The clear incentive is to welcome losses, not profits. If, as happened most years for which ProPublica has data, Rochelle Charter’s expenses far exceeded revenue, Crow would save on taxes.

These sorts of arrangements “should be aggressively audited,” said Brian Galle, a professor at Georgetown Law and former federal prosecutor of tax crimes.

“Assuming that the uses of the yacht are mostly personal, Crow should not be able to take a deduction,” he said, calling “absurd” the idea that “the more personal use you get from the yacht, the more deduction you get to claim.”

Crow treated personal trips on his jet in a similar fashion, according to his attorney. Wealthy business owners often derive tax savings from their jets, since business-related flights are fully deductible, and the rich can often find ways to blend business and pleasure, as ProPublica has reported. The company that owns Crow’s jet is not in ProPublica’s data set, so it’s unclear if it reported net losses.

Bopp’s letter describes the standard way that jet owners account for nonbusiness guests: “Reimbursements at rates prescribed by law,” he wrote, were paid to the Crow business that owned his jet. The IRS has a “Standard Industry Fare Level” that jet owners use to calculate the value of a seat aboard a jet for any trip. The amount is roughly equivalent to the cost of a first-class commercial ticket, far below what it would actually cost to charter a jet.

The Senate investigation has also focused on an entirely different tax question: Given that Thomas’ trips on Crow’s jets and yachts could easily be valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, did Crow report them to the IRS as taxable gifts?

For each year that Crow gave gifts to someone that exceeded a certain threshold ($17,000 in 2023), he was required to file a gift tax return. That might or might not have resulted in a tax bill for Crow, depending on how much he’d already given to others over the course of his life. (The lifetime limit for total gifts is $12.9 million in 2023.)

But, according to Bopp’s letter, Crow didn’t consider the trips reportable. The gift tax, Bopp wrote, was created to prevent people from avoiding the estate tax by simply giving away assets before death. But Crow still owned his jet and yacht after hosting Thomas. “Value [was] not transferred out of the hosts’ taxable estates,” he argued. Therefore, no gift tax.

Tax experts told ProPublica, on the contrary, that these sorts of luxury trips should be analyzed as gifts.

Beth Kaufman, a partner with Lowenstein Sandler who specializes in estate planning and a veteran of the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Policy, said she’d counseled clients on the issue. After one couple took their extended family on an exotic vacation, she said, she helped them calculate the reportable costs and file a gift tax return.

However, taxpayers rarely report these sorts of trips, experts said. One important factor is that the IRS has no way of knowing about gifts like these unless they happen to be uncovered in an audit. The agency has also signaled no interest in scrutinizing these kinds of interactions. In fact, experts weren’t aware of any audits related to gifts of this kind.

The result is a situation where, counterintuitively, the gift tax can be easier to avoid the richer the host is.

As explained in a recent paper by two law professors and a private practitioner, everyone agrees that giving $500,000 to a friend would necessitate filing a gift tax return for that amount. Using that $500,000 to buy an all-expense-paid yacht cruise for friends would be treated no differently. But if someone owns a luxury yacht and takes their friends on a cruise, the situation gets muddy. Crow’s attorney even argues there was no gift at all.

That “doesn’t square with fundamental notions of fairness,” said Bridget Crawford, one of the paper’s authors and a professor at Pace Law School.

How to apportion the costs for Crow and his guests is debatable, Crawford said. Crow might argue he would have gone on the cruise without his friends anyway, but at the very least, she said, some portion of the costs of the trip (e.g., the crew and food) should be allocated to his guests.

She and her co-authors urged Congress and the IRS to make it clear these sorts of gifts should be disclosed and provide guidelines for valuing them.

“A lot of these tax rules were developed in an era where there were a few millionaires and the tiniest number of billionaires,” Crawford said, “and now there are many. This is becoming a more visible problem.”

Russia suspends Black Sea grain deal amid growing global hunger

Russia has ceased a wartime deal that allowed for the safe export of grain from Ukraine to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where growing food prices have led to mass hunger and increased poverty rates. Per the Associated Press, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia would suspend its participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative until its demands to get its own food and fertilizer to the world are met. Once those demands are satisfied, Peskov said Russia would “immediately return to the implementation of the deal.”

Brokered by the United Nations and Turkey last July, the deal allowed grain shipments from Ukraine to leave the Black Sea region following Russia’s 2022 invasion, which further exacerbated a global food crisis. Both Ukraine and Russia are prominent suppliers of wheat, barley, sunflower oil and other affordable, in-demand food products. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said this month that 45 countries need outside food assistance, with high local food prices “a driver of worrying levels of hunger” in those places, according to the AP. 

Under the Black Sea Grain Initiative, nearly 33 million metric tons of corn, wheat and other grains have been exported by Ukraine, per the Joint Coordination Center in Istanbul. The suspension of the deal has already hiked up wheat prices — analysts also said finding suppliers outside Ukraine that are further away could add to those rising costs.

“You’re going to be really sorry”: Megyn Kelly warns Fox News not to sue Tucker Carlson

Megyn Kelly warned Fox News not to sue Tucker Carlson, who is currently at odds with the conservative broadcast channel, after the two met privately over the weekend at the Turning Point Action conference in Florida where they were both featured speakers. “All I can tell you is to be a fly on that wall, your jaw would have dropped at some of the things that we exchanged. More on that as the days and weeks and months go by,” Kelly said on “The Megyn Kelly Show” Monday. “They’re just some really interesting things.”

Carlson was fired from Fox News in April in the aftermath of Fox’s $787.5 million settlement of Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation suit. He is currently embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with the network, which sent him a cease-and-desist letter demanding that he stop producing videos for a new show he began on Twitter shortly after his ouster. Fox News accused Carlson of violating a contract that he signed with the network in November 2019 and amended in February 2021. The contract, which runs through January 2025, also restricts Carlson from appearing in media that is not under Fox’s jurisdiction. 

“It’s not going to end well for you or anyone on your side if you go after him,” Kelly continued in her message. “Just let him go. You fired him. He wants to get back the money, just wants to make a living doing news. Just let him. Don’t be dumb.”

Republican donors give big boost to Democratic presidential candidate RFK Jr.: analysis

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gotten a big funding boost from Republican donors, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by Popular Information, raising questions about wealthy conservatives’ funding for a Democratic presidential candidate that Trump ally Steve Bannon once touted as “both a useful chaos agent in the 2024 race and a big name who could help stoke anti-vaccine sentiment around the country.” 

Kennedy’s campaign since June 30 has collected maximum $6,600 donations from 96 individuals — 37 of whom have only donated to Republican federal candidates, according to the analysis. Only 19 have a history of supporting Democrats, while 30 others have no giving history, eight others gave to members of both parties, and two others supported Libertarian or alternative candidates. 

One of the maximum donors was California aluminum tycoon Mark Dickson, who since 2015 has donated more than $400,000 to the Trump Victory joint fundraising committee, which split the cash between Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee, state GOP parties, and other Trump backers. Another is retired car dealership executive Keith Sheldon, who in 2016 and 2020 donated the individual maximum to Trump’s campaign, also shelling out cash to other Trump PACs and GOP congressional candidates. Kennedy has also received monetary donations from a PAC headed by David Sacks, a public supporter of GOP presidential candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. 

 

Alaska had the highest error rate paying out food stamps last fiscal year, federal data shows

Recent data from the United States Department of Agriculture shows that Alaska had a 57% payment error rate for administering food stamp benefits — an astounding percentage that is more than five times the U.S. average of 11.5%. Public assistance advocates told Anchorage Daily News that the error rate, “which measures how accurately a state agency processes federal benefits,” underscores the Alaska Division of Public Assistance’s year-long struggle to process applications for food stamps and other federal benefits for countless residents in the state. Specifically, the division of public assistance misinterpreted a federal waiver that allowed state agencies to forgo regular eligibility checks for food stamp recipients during the pandemic. The state continued to renew Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) applications until July 2022, even though automatic renewals were supposed to end in January 2022. 

Out of 680 SNAP cases filed in Alaska last year, 461 were deemed correct while 229 were flagged for errors, according to Tama Carson, deputy director of the Alaska Division of Public Assistance. Of those, 192 were erroneous due to the waiver misapplication, and just 37 were true overpayments or underpayments.

In addition to Alaska’s high payment error rate, the national overpayment rate rose from 6.18% in 2019 to 9.84% in 2022, which prompted a “rare rebuke” from all leaders of the congressional Agriculture committees, per a Politico report.

Syphilis cases in Houston are skyrocketing as health officials declare an outbreak

Health officials are reporting a syphilis outbreak in Houston, Texas. According to a recent release by the Houston Health Department, there’s been a 128 percent increase in cases among women. Recent data shows there were 674 cases in 2022 compared to 295 cases in 2019. For both males and females, new infections rose 57 percent between 2019 and 2022.

Congenital syphilis, in which a mother with untreated syphilis passes the infection to her baby, is also on the rise in Houston. In 2016, there were only 16 reported cases. In 2021, that number jumped to 151 cases. Congenital syphilis can be prevented, but requires testing a pregnant woman for syphilis right away. If tested positive, they can be treated with antibiotics. However, if left untreated, syphilis in pregnancy can cause miscarriage or stillbirth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 40 percent of babies born to women with untreated syphilis can die from the infection as a newborn or be stillborn.

“It is crucial for pregnant women to seek prenatal care and syphilis testing to protect themselves from an infection that could result in the deaths of their babies,” said Marlene McNeese Ward, deputy assistant director in the department’s Bureau of HIV/STI and Viral Hepatitis Prevention. “A pregnant woman needs to get tested for syphilis three times during her pregnancy.”

In an effort to combat the outbreak, the Houston Health Department said it will be omitting all “clinical fees for sexually transmitted infections at its health centers.” Additionally, it will expand use of its HIV/STD mobile clinic to ramp up testing and education. The outbreak in Houston mirrors a national trend. Between 2020 and 2021, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis all increased, according to CDC data. Syphilis surged by 32 percent, in addition to cases of congenital syphilis which rose by 32 percent and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

What this year’s El Niño means for wheat and global food supply

The World Meteorological Organization has declared the onset of the first El Niño event in seven years. It estimates 90% probability the climatic phenomenon, involving an unusual warming of the Pacific Ocean, will develop through 2023 and be of moderate strength.

El Niño events bring hotter, drier weather to places such as Brazil, Australia and Indonesia, increasing the risk of wildfires and drought. Elsewhere, such as Peru and Ecuador, it increases rain, leading to floods.

The effects are sometimes described as a preview of “the new normal” in the wake of human-forced climate change. Of particular concern is the effect on agricultural production and thereby the price of food — particularly “breadbasket” staples such as wheat, maize and rice.

El Niño’s global impacts are complex and multifaceted. It can potentially impact the lives of the majority of the world’s population. This is especially true for poor and rural households, whose fates are intrinsically linked with climate and farming.

The global supply and prices of most food is unlikely to move that much. The evidence from the ten El Niño events in the past five decades suggests relatively modest and to some extent ambiguous, global price impacts. While reducing crop yield on average, these events have not resulted in a “perfect storm” of the scale to induce global “breadbasket yield shocks“.

But local effects could be severe. Even a “moderate” El Niño may significantly affect crops grown in geographically concentrated regions — for example palm oil, which primarily comes from Indonesia and Malaysia.

In some places El Niño-induced food availability and affordability issues may well lead to serious social consequences, such as conflict and hunger.

 

Impact on global food prices

The following graph shows the correlation between El Niño events and global food prices, as measured by the United Nations’ Food Price Index. This index tracks monthly changes in international prices of a basket of food commodities.



Despite the general inflationary pattern, there have rarely been big swings in El Niño years. Indeed, it shows prices decreasing during the two strongest El Niño episodes of the past three decades.

Other human-caused factors were at play — notably the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and the Global Financial Crisis in 2007-2008. In 2015, prices decreased due to stronger (than expected) supply and weaker demand, when the El Niño event did not turn out to be as bad as feared.

This all suggests that El Niño does not usually play the lead role in global commodity price movements.

 

Impacts on wheat supply

Why? Because El Niño does induce crop failures, but for food grown around the world the losses tend to be offset by positive changes in production across other key producing regions.

For example, it can bring  favorable weather to the conflict-ridden and famine-prone Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia).

A good example is wheat.  

The following chart shows how El Nino has affected Australian wheat production since 1980. In six out of nine El Niño events of at least moderate strength, production has dropped significantly — in four cases, at least 30% below the “trend line” (representing the long-term average).



Australia is one of the world’s top three wheat exporters, accounting for about 13% of global exports. So its production does affect global wheat prices. But in terms of total wheat grown it’s less significant — about 3.5% of world production. And El Niño-induced crop failures tend to be offset by production in other key wheat-producing regions.

The next graph compare changes in Australia’s wheat production with other significant wheat exporters in El Niño years. Dips in Australia’s production tend tend to be offset by changes elsewhere.



In 1994, for example, Australian wheat production dropped nearly 50% but barely changed elsewhere. In 1982, when Australian production dropped 30%, Argentina’s production was 50% higher. Such balancing patterns tends to be present across most El Niño years.

 

But some will bear the cost

That said, there will be at least some negative effects. Even if crop failures in one region are fully offset by rich harvests in others, some people are going to bear the costs of El Niño’s direct impact.

Australian farmers, for example, will be worse off if local wheat yields drop while global prices remain relatively stable.

Moreover, because most countries are connected via trade, El Niño will have wider economic impacts. It could still lead to deeper societal issues in some region, such as famine and agro-pastoral conflicts.

These effects may also be nuanced. For example, poor harvests in Africa may mitigate seasonal violence linked with the appropriation of agricultural surpluses. But considering other vulnerabilities around the world, the odds are that even a moderate El Niño will make already dire socio-economic conditions in some countries worse.

Most of the usual warnings about the caveats of climate change apply here. The difference, of course, is that all this is happening now.

David Ubilava, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Sydney

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

“Nudity representation matters”: From horny elders to BTS Army, “Joy Ride” rewrites who gets seen

It’s easy to see your own friend group’s banter in the merciless teasing and candor of the crew in “Joy Ride.” As its name suggests, the road trip comedy directed by Adele Lim, is indeed a wild ride, full of risqué jokes, tearjerking realizations about identity, reclamations of Asian women’s sexuality and heartfelt friendship. The movie’s ensemble easily riffs off of one another as they come to learn how they best fit together, an onscreen chemistry that has already won them the Comedy Ensemble of the Year Award. This is owed in large part to how they were written and inspired by real friends.

“We’re disgusting, so it’s just what came out of our brains.”

Co-written and co-produced by Teresa Hsiao and Cherry Chevapravatdumrong, “Joy Ride,” follows Audrey (Ashley Park), an ambitious lawyer in suburban California who was adopted and raised by white parents. A work trip to China provides an opportunity to find her birth mother, becoming a much messier trip than Audrey bargained for. Joining her is her best friend and thirsty artist Lolo (Sherry Cola) who, unbeknownst to Audrey, has invited along her cousin Deadeye, a K-pop stan with a former penchant of lighting things on fire. In Beijing, things go quickly awry, as the crew meet up with Audrey’s college bestie and Lolo’s rival BFF, Kat (Stephanie Hsu). Having moved to China to pursue acting in Chinese dramas (aka C-dramas), Kat is a retired “bad girl,” now engaged to her pure and religious co-star Clarence (Desmond Chiam). 

All of these wildly differing personalities, like Audrey, eventually come to crystallize their own identity over the course of the trip. But Hsiao and Chevapravatdumrong juggle the group’s chemistry and, at times, contentions with grace, all while staying true to each character’s strong, authentic identity.

The duo met on the job and quickly hit it off. “We locked eyes in the ‘Family Guy writers’ room,” Hsiao tells Salon over Zoom. “There was another Asian woman amongst this sea of white guys, and we ran towards each other and hugged and never let go,” continued Chevapravatdumrong. That was nearly a decade ago, and they’ve been holding on ever since.

For Chevapravatdumrong who’s worked on “The Orville,” and Hsiao who came to the project by way of “Awkwafina Is Nora From Queens,” comedy writing is their bread and butter. Their experience collaborating for TV helped them make the process of writing the movie that much smoother, trading sections based on which felt the most like them and dividing the work. But their personal relationship was also an integral part in creating the story.

“This whole movie is about friendship. It’s about how friends interact and get into shenanigans and high jinks with each other. So we were drawing a lot from our own lives and from our friends’ lives as the base inspiration for the script,” said Chevapravatdumrong. 

Check out the rest of Salon’s interview with the pair, as they break down the characters, the beauty of the BTS fandom and rewriting who gets to be horny.

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

Could you talk about how you both came to work on this project?

Cherry Chevapravatdumrong: This was basically born out of real life friendship. Teresa and Adele and I have been friends for years. At some point, we were just like, “You know what? Wouldn’t it be fun if we wrote a movie that we would have loved to have seen growing up?” So we would sit around together eating dinner, hanging out at each other’s houses and just kind of started loosely breaking this story. Then, when it came time to actually write the thing, Teresa and I, as the comedy writers, took the outline that we came up with and ran with it. We just started trying to make each other laugh and then typing those things down. Months later, a script appeared.

Joy RideSabrina Wu as Deadeye, Ashley Park as Audrey, Sherry Cola as Lolo and Stephanie Hsu as Kat in “Joy Ride” (Lionsgate)“Joy Ride” is this raunchy journey of thirsty friends, d**k jokes and even full-frontal female nudity. What inspired you to tell this story in particular?

Chevapravatdumrong: We’re disgusting, so it’s just what came out of our brains. We always knew it was gonna be this hard R, R-rated comedy, because that’s our natural sensibility. With the full-frontal female nudity, obviously we wanted to make it funny and we wanted to push some extremes, but specifically for that, we were just trying to make each other laugh and then write the funniest thing possible that’s also funny for any audience.

“Representation for p***y tat people.”

The female sexuality part, it was definitely in the back of our minds. We kept it in our heads that female sexuality in previous R-rated movies — or in previous movies just in general — is usually played for sexuality. It is played for titillation. It is played as females are the hot sexy ones, and male nudity, that’s the stuff that’s usually mined for jokes. We wanted to flip that a little. Nudity representation matters. So that’s why we wanted to explore that and use the humor of female sexuality for the first time.

Teresa Hsiao: Representation for p***y tat people. In this movie, the characters are allowed to be wild and raunchy, but they’re doing it on their own terms. When you look back at a lot of these other movies, the women are the nags or they’re there to be the foil. Whereas in our movie, our characters are the ones making the jokes, but also being the butt of the jokes because they can. I think that’s super important in terms of being able to see a wide spectrum of Asian characters on screen.

Definitely, I love the scene when the characters finally have sex and then they end up literally breaking the men’s basketball team. I feel like “Joy Ride” really takes that TV raunchy comedy genre and puts a much more like feminine spin on it. Can you talk a little bit about adapting that genre under the female, and particularly Asian female, gaze?

Chevapravatdumrong: I don’t think we necessarily set out to do that. It’s not like we sat down and were like, “OK, we’re gonna write a movie and we’re gonna make sure it’s Asian female gaze.” It’s just: We’re going to write a movie. We want to write something that’s really funny, and because of who we are, this is the material that naturally flowed out of us. I feel like Teresa has the best phrase for it, which is we’re kind of Trojan horse-ing all of these subtle messages about representation and about equality underneath our characters in our story and our comedy.

Hsiao: But it was never our intention. We never wheeled the horse out like let’s make sure we get this Asian representation message and this female sexuality message. I think just because we wrote the movie and the fact that it exists is sort of the message in and of itself. I think that the first message that we always wanted [people] to take away was, “Oh, that was a really funny movie.” And then, if that inspires people or gets people talking about all these other things, then that’s amazing. But we want people to have a fun time. The types of comedies that we really enjoy are the ones that are very funny first, but that gets you thinking about other things. 

I feel like that also makes the movie feel much more authentic, especially when it comes to the characters. They felt very strong and relatable. When it comes to developing Ashley’s character, Audrey, did you always know that she would be a transracial adoptee. What research or conversations went into that depiction?

Hsiao: We have friends who are adopted; we talked to a lot of them. We’ve read a lot of books and articles. Obviously we wanted to treat it with a lot of care in that we are not adopted ourselves, but a lot of times as writers you end up writing about experiences that you don’t necessarily have. We definitely talked to a lot of people about her journey, what we wanted our character’s journey to be.

“Definitely growing up was like, ‘I don’t want to speak Chinese in front of my friends. I don’t want to do Asian things in front of my friends because I want to fit in.'”

We don’t know what it’s like to be adopted — we do know what it’s like to be the only Asian person in a town where no one looks like you. So that identity journey was really baked into Audrey’s story, as well. This journey about feeling like you need to assimilate in this place, you need to fit in, you need to be excellent. So much of her story, even though yes, it’s an adoptee story, it’s also a story about identity and ultimately friendship. That friend that you had growing up – are they still your friend when you’re an adult? Life changes around you. And so really trying to make that character multifaceted in ways that really are above and beyond just the adoptee story.

Joy RideSabrina Wu, Sherry Cola, Stephanie Hsu and Ashley Park in “Joy Ride” (Ed Araquel/Lionsgate)I love that the movie doesn’t shy away from pointing out Audrey’s internalized racism either, from showing how she doesn’t date Asian guys or how she opted to sit next to the white girl instead of the Asian couple on the train. Why was it important to you to have this be a feature of her character growth?

Hsiao: Just real life people and, again, ourselves as well. If we’re going to get real deep about this, I definitely growing up was like, “I don’t want to speak Chinese in front of my friends. I don’t want to do Asian things in front of my friends because I want to fit in.” It’s the “Oh, I want to get Lunchables instead of the lunch my mom makes me.” Definitely so many of the characteristics of Audrey are ripped from the headlines of our own lives.

Chevapravatdumrong: The lunch thing I can relate to. In adulthood, it happened to me. Working at some of my first assistant jobs after having moved to LA, you bring lunch that’s a little Asian or that’s a little weird and then somebody else makes a comment on it.  As a child you’re just like, “Oh man, I wish I had a normal sandwich like everyone.” But guys, fried rice is delicious, you know what I mean?

There’s a scene with Lolo where I noticed she uses chopsticks to eat a bag of chips, which I think that’s such a great, specific character detail and something I’ve done myself. How did this detail come about? Was it written into the script or was it added while filming?

Chevapravatdumrong: We do that. Are we typing and trying to eat Hot Cheetos at the same time? No, you’re trying to keep your keyboard clean. That is something that we do that we talked about doing. 

Hsiao: Yeah, it was definitely in the script. And also right there in that shot, you see Lolo doing that with chopsticks and then Audrey just going in with her fingers and eating. So just seeing that difference between the two of them was something that was definitely intended.

Can we also talk a little bit about Kat, who grew up in the West but is working in China, which creates maybe a little bit of dissonance about how she’s supposed to compose herself, going from this party girl to someone who is more pure and prim. What or who inspired this character?

Chevapravatdumrong: We definitely know people, and I feel like a lot of people know people, who were like that. In college, they raged. And then as we get a little older, you get more responsible, you get a job, you change your lifestyle a little bit, you leave that part of yourself behind simply because you’re getting older, you’re growing up. So it’s basically that vibe and then we took it to the extreme for Kat.

Hsiao: I think also Kat’s really responding to the C-dramas. Especially in these Asian dramas, there’s the good girl and she has taken on this persona as the good girl. And I think she is someone who, because society tells her to, embodied this good girl aspect. It’s nice to see that she kind of gets a little bit of a comeuppance in the movie.

Joy RideStephanie Hsu as Kat, Sabrina Wu as Deadeye, Ashley Park as Audrey and Sherry Cola as Lolo in “Joy Ride” (Ed Araquel/Lionsgate)

“In terms of the theme of identity of the movie, Deadeye, in many ways, knows who they are.”

Let’s talk about Deadeye for a moment, because I feel like they have a really particular tender, complex portrayal. What were the conversations that went into creating the character?

Chevapravatdumrong: This is where I can feel seen and attacked myself. The nice thing about Deadeye is that in terms of the theme of identity of the movie, Deadeye, in many ways, knows who they are. They know what they like. They know what they’re into, and the inspiration for a lot of that is the fact that I myself am an obsessed fangirl. When the movie talked about how Deadeye has friends on the internet, to me, being a part of fandoms, that’s not weird. We wanted to normalize that. That was the inspiration behind Deadeye’s obsessive fan-ness. We wanted to say for a lot of people that it’s completely normal. And if you’re not in a fandom and you don’t know about that, that was kind of the thing that we wanted to bring across, that online friendships can actually be real friendships because then when they finally meet their fellow BTS fans in real life, it’s true. It works. 

Yes, and those fandoms can be so inclusive.

Chevapravatdumrong: Completely! The BTS fandom, it’s truly worldwide. Literally, you can make friends with people that you never would have been friends with in real life, because we live in two different countries, we live across the world from each other. But you all love the same thing, and it’s great and it works.

You had mentioned earlier about how rare it is to see so much sexuality for Asian characters on screen. We even get to see Nainai being a little bit sexual and the sex worker positivity. Can you talk about the diversity of sexuality in the movie?

Chevapravatdumrong: A lot of our grandparents have 13 kids, so we know. We know that grandparents have sex, and a lot of it. Justice for grandparents being horny.

Hsaio: When we wrote the movie, we were like, “Oh, it’s a movie for young people.” But then our parents saw the movie. We did the screening for these older people, and they were loving it. too. They were like, “Yes, justice. We want to be seen as well.” And not to say that everyone is horny, but at the same time, they want to see everyone having this kind of funny raunchiness because they haven’t seen that in representation for older, raunchy horny people. That was a really fun surprise. 


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


Given the road trip nature of the movie, it’s easy to see “Joy Ride” as a series. Would you want to see their journey continue? Where would you take them next?

Chevapravatdumrong: There’ve been a lot of positive questions about a possible sequel and we would love it, but at the same time, we got to get past the first one.

Hsiao: We just want to do well in the box office and if it does, and if we are lucky enough for the studio to be like, “Hey, let’s talk about another one” — which would only happen, of course, after the WGA [Writers Guild of America] strike is concluded and the AMPTP [Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers] gives us a fair deal because right now we’re on strike and we would not be working on anything —  that would definitely be something we consider after after all these pesky little details are taken care of. 

Salon’s unionized employees are represented by the WGA East.

DA interview suggests “indictments are coming”: Trump lawyers “better buckle their seat belts”

Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis in a Wall Street Journal interview expressed confidence that looming charges from a grand jury hearing evidence about former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state would stick. “Our office has very few cases that are no-billed,” she told the outlet, referring to cases in which a grand jury has declined to indict. “I refuse to fail,” she added.

“My read is that his attorneys better buckle their seat belts because something is coming and she’s very, very prepared for whatever is coming,” Wall Street Journal reporter Cameron McWhirter, who interviewed Willis, told MSNBC on Monday. “I think indictments are on their way, so Mr. Trump and his attorneys certainly have gathered, and attorneys related to the case are prepared to fight whatever comes. But she has a team that has been working on this for two years, and they are very ready. She is very confident, she is coming on strong.”

McWhirter in the piece focused on complicated cases that Willis has handled in the past. “Her modus operandi is to move slowly, gather information, spend time doing that, being prepared, so when she gets into the courtroom, she’s ready to fight,” he told MSNBC. “We’ve seen it over and over again, I don’t think this is going to be any exception. This is going to be, obviously, a much bigger situation than she’s maybe handled before, but she’s handled big cases and won big cases.”

Immunity gaps in the U.K. could trigger a measles outbreak affecting an estimated 160,000 children

The U.K. is increasingly poised for a devastating measles outbreak, according to a new report. London is especially vulnerable, as well as under-vaccinated communities outside of the city, the U.K.’s National Health Security Agency reported Friday. The risk is limited to those who have never had a routine childhood Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the country’s National Health Service estimates susceptibility may be highest among 19- to 25-year-olds. The NHS has launched a targeted “catch-up campaign” to encourage MMR vaccine uptake among affected populations, similar to those it launched targeting children up to 11 years old who may be at risk for polio.

“Measles can easily spread between unvaccinated people and can be serious, but it is preventable, which is why we continue to encourage Londoners to take up the vaccine – with GPs calling over 10,000 parents of unvaccinated children, and hundreds booking appointments to get vaccinated as a result,” said Jane Clegg, Regional Chief Nurse for the NHS in London.

The agency said this year there have been 128 cases of measles between 1 January and 30 June this year, compared to 54 cases in the whole of 2022 — and that current MMR vaccine coverage in the NHS routine childhood program is the lowest it’s been in a decade. Only 85% of English children have had both doses of MMR by age 5, falling short of the World Health Organization’s 95% vaccination rate target. But given the way that these diseases spread, even a 10% gap can be significant. The report predicts between 40,000 and 160,000 cases could occur in London alone, with between 20 and 40% requiring hospitalization.

“Authoritarianism will be on the ballot”: Experts worried over Trump’s “alarming” 2025 plot

Former President Donald Trump and his allies are already scheming up plans to significantly expand his presidential power if he wins back the White House next year.

The New York Times reported on Monday that Trump and his inner circle have a “broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.”

This wide-ranging plan would include bringing independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency directly under the president, the return of “impounding” funds  — a strategy banned during the Nixon administration that empowered a president to refuse to spend Congressionally-allocated money on programs they dislike — as well as the removal of employment protections for thousands of career civil servants and an intelligence agency purge of officials he holds personal vendettas against and has deemed to be “deep staters” and “the sick political class that hates our country.”

“We will demolish the deep state,” Trump said at a rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”

Under Trump’s plan — which was drafted during his first term — independent agencies would be required to submit actions to the president for review, in an effort to consolidate such organizations “under presidential authority.” The order was ultimately not enacted due to internal concerns such as how the market would react if the Federal Reserve was stripped of its independence.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s administration, told the Times. Open discussion of such political strategies is rife in Trump’s rallies and campaign websites, according to the report, a tactic Vought described as planting “a flag” ahead of the election. 

Vought added that “at the bare minimum,” the Federal Reserve should be subject to presidential review. “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” he told the Times.

Former White House personnel chief John McEntee, who is credited with initiating Trump’s 2020 efforts to expel officials he personally opposed, also did not mince words regarding the ex-president’s scheme. 

“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” McEntee said. “Our current executive branch was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung observed that Trump has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.”

“Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all,” he added.

But former White House chief of staff John Kelly said he felt the strategy would be “chaotic” because Trump would “continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”


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


Experts raised major concerns over Trump’s “alarming” plot.

“Anyone who opposes a Presidential autocracy in America should read this closely,” warned presidential historian Michael Beschloss.

“The conservatives who are pushing this should imagine for one second the panic they would express if Biden did it,” tweeted national security attorney Bradley Moss.

“In 2024, authoritarianism—unchecked, unembarrassed and undisguised—will be on the ballot,” wrote Bill Kristol, a longtime NeverTrump conservative and founder of The Weekly Standard.

“Be afraid. This is on the verge of happening 18 months from now,” tweeted MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan. “Now ask yourself this question: are cautious, in-denial, business-as-usual establishment Dems equipped, or even willing, to address this anti-democratic, autocratic threat?”

How your body (and the environment) is affected by the consumption of both red and processed meats

Emotions can run high when the topic of how much red and processed meat to eat is raised. For many of us, eating these foods is culturally important — often tied to specific dishes and traditions.

That’s why this week’s landmark new report from the World Health Organization (WHO) is welcome. The report focuses explicitly on what the science says about how red and processed meat affects our health — and the health of the ecosystems on which we depend.

What does it say? Moderation is important. In high-income countries, we tend to eat too much red meat, which boosts the risk of some cancers and heart disease. We should treat processed meat, such as salami, with even greater caution, as the link to cancer risk is even clearer.

If you want a quick take-home, it’s this: eat less red meat, avoid processed meat and choose meat farmed under better conditions. But this is not always easy or affordable for everyone. So most importantly, we need changes to the policies that affect how our food systems operate so that our well-being and the health of the planet are prioritised.

 

What does the evidence say about red meat and our health?

Red meat is a rich source  of many important nutrients, including iron, B-vitamins and all essential amino acids. These are compounds essential for human growth, development and good health.

Importantly, these nutrients are not exclusively found in red meat. Beans and legumes are also high in iron and B-vitamins, though in less easily absorbed form. Many cultures have developed healthy diets without an over-reliance on red meat by including beans and legumes.  

In populations that experience food insecurity, red meat can be an important source of nutrition. In these contexts, it doesn’t make sense to advise people to avoid red meat.

But in other parts of the world, red meat intake is too high. Australians are some of the world’s biggest red meat eaters, which puts us at higher risk of chronic diseases such as bowel cancer and cardiovascular disease. Both of these are amongst Australia’s top killers.

Processed and ultra-processed meats such as ham and chicken nuggets come with even greater health risks, especially when consumed in excess. The WHO considers processed meat a Group 1 carcinogen. That means there’s strong evidence linking consumption to cancer risk.

The way we produce red and processed meat comes with a host of other health issues, such as antimicrobial resistance due to overuse of antibiotics, as well as the risk of new zoonotic animal-to-human diseases. Intensive farming done on industrial scales poses particular risks.

 

What does the evidence tell us about red meat and the environment?

Ruminant livestock need grass, which often means farmers chop down the trees or shrubs previously there, making pasture inhospitable for native species. In feedlots, these animals are often fed on grains or soy. Producing the volumes needed — of both animal feed and livestock — means felling more forests. That’s why we can clearly link increased livestock farming to damaged biodiversity.

There are issues on the climate front, too. Livestock production accounts for up to 78% of all greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Of this, cattle farming contributes 80%.

In Australia, livestock farming is generally less intensive compared to the United States. Even so, deforestation to make room for cattle is still a major issue in Australia. In the last five years, 13,500 hectares have been cleared for beef cattle operations in Queensland alone.

It doesn’t have to be so destructive. Mixed farming systems, where cattle graze on land covered by trees and native grasses, is less destructive.

So are farming methods built around agro-ecological principles where the health of the land and fairness are prioritised.

As global heating escalates, it will pose increasing challenges for livestock farmers (and livestock animals). Increases in extreme weather have major implications for animal welfare, farmer livelihoods and food security.

 

What does the evidence say about industrial farming?

Many farmers care greatly about the welfare of their animals and the environment.

But meat production in many parts of the world is now dominated by large corporations. To maximize production, these companies rely on intensive farming techniques such as feedlots and extensive use of antibiotics. These techniques are spreading as low- and middle-income countries such as China and Brazil gain more appetite for meat.

Industrial scale farming comes with real costs. If we can make meat production better, we will lower the risk of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss and improve the lives of workers and the animals themselves.

 

Knowing this, what should we do?

If we leave the situation as it is, intensive farming and red and processed meat consumption will continue to increase.

But this is not sustainable. To improve the health of people and the planet we need to change how we produce meat. And we need to consume more diverse diets. These changes have to be sensitive to the local context.

Changing what we eat must involve governments. Just as governments have a role in encouraging food manufacturers to avoid carcinogens or dangerous chemical additives, they have a role in promoting healthy diets from food systems that are sustainable over the long term.

What does that look like? It could be investing in agro-ecological farming practices, tackling corporate concentration of meat production, penalizing antibiotic overuse and subsidizing healthy options like beans and legumes. Taxing the riskiest meat-based foods, such as heavily processed meat, is another option.  

Sensible policy-making may also help shift cultural norms in which meat is so highly valued.

Could we just swap red meat for different meat? It’s not that simple. The majority of chickens are intensively farmed, too, meaning antibiotic resistance remains a risk. Ultra-processed plant-based meats may also pose problems for human health.

A better option is to focus on minimally-processed whole foods (think brown rice, nuts and pulses) and sustainably-produced foods from animals. But we need action from the government to make these options affordable and convenient.

Importantly, the WHO report does not say stop eating red meat — it simply lays out the evidence about what it does to your health. It also points to ways of farming livestock that are less destructive and outlines ways to reduce our habitual consumption.

Katherine Sievert, Research Fellow in Food Systems, Deakin University and Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin University

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

“It’s never too late to find love”: A 71-year-old grandfather is ABC’s very first “Golden Bachelor”

ABC has finally revealed the identity of its very first “Golden Bachelor.”

Indiana’s Gerry Turner will front the new reality dating series, itself an expansion of the larger “Bachelor” universe. Turner, a retired restaurateur, was married to his high school sweetheart for 43 years before she “suddenly fell ill and passed away in 2017.” The network describes Turner as a “charming 71-year-old patriarch,” who is not only the father of two children, but also the grandfather of two grandchildren.

The format of the new series “will be similar to that of the flagship dating show,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. Typically, a group of individuals live in a mansion, go on various group and one-on-one dates and even travel internationally as they compete for a rose from the bachelor. Only this time, the women will all be 65 years old or older, as “it’s never too late to find love.”

“On this all-new unscripted series . . . one hopeless romantic is given a second chance at love in the search for a partner with whom to share the sunset years of life,” ABC said in a statement. “The women arriving at the mansion have a lifetime of experience, living through love, loss and laughter, hoping for a spark that ignites a future full of endless possibilities. In the end, will our Golden man turn the page to start a new chapter with the woman of his dreams?”

Watch Turner’s interview with “Good Morning America” here. “The Golden Bachelor” will air this fall at 10 p.m. Mondays on ABC.

Anthony Bourdain was right about Guy Fieri

When a photo published in July 2023 of celebrity chef Guy Fieri warmly greeting former president Donald Trump ringside at Las Vegas’ UFC 290, hosted in the T-Mobile Arena, Seattle-based chef Eric Rivera posted it on Twitter with a simple caption: “I’ve been trying to tell you about Guy Fieri, but a lot of you didn’t want to listen.”

Since Fieri first hit the national culinary scene during his successful run on the second season of “The Next Food Network Star,” which aired in 2006, there have been clues to his political beliefs, the most memorable of which veer unsavory. About a decade ago, for instance, a former producer on “Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives,” one of Fieri’s long-running Food Network programs, alleged via a lawsuit that the host was openly homophobic and lewd on set.

As Gothamist reported in 2011, the producer, David Page, said that “anytime any woman mentioned ‘cream,’ Guy went into a sexual riff” and that Fieri reportedly told show producers, “You can’t send me to talk to gay people without warning! Those people weird me out!” However, unlike some other culinary personalities — like José Andrés, Padma Lakshmi or even the late Anthony Bourdain — Fieri has by and large remained pretty tightlipped about his personal politics in the way that is very much de rigueur for Food Network celebrities.

But if the Trump photo introduced questions, the company Fieri has appeared comfortable keeping since has only sharpened the picture. Earlier this week, Fieri was seen at another UFC fight extending a friendly greeting to Andrew Tate, the former kickboxer and online personality who has built a following on overt misogyny, once saying women should “bear responsibility” for sexual assault.

As the New York Times reported in December, Tate and his brother, Tristan, had been under criminal investigation in Romania since 2022, accused of coercing women into pornography. Andrew Tate was also accused of rape and of having sex with and beating a 15-year-old. At the beginning of Trump’s second term, the Times discovered, the administration put pressure on the Romanian government to “find compromise” with the Tates, ultimately resulting in them returning to the United States.

Both brothers have denied any wrongdoing. Still, the image of easy familiarity — a quick hello, a shared smile — lands differently when placed alongside those allegations, less an isolated moment than part of a broader pattern of who, exactly, gets welcomed into Flavortown. It’s a valid question about one of The Food Network’s most recognizable starts, and one that has been muffled by years of tired debates about the aesthetic merits of bleached tips and Donkey Sauce.

* * *

Much of the criticism that was leveled at Fieri early in his career did smack of classism. Compared to the pressed chef whites of a young Jacques Pépin or Ina Garten’s understated custom-made button-downs, Fieri’s spiked hair and flame decal-style shirts were a departure from perceived industry standards (or, as a tweet from 2010 put it, “Guy Fieri is proof that Ed Hardy has started manufacturing actual human beings.”)

But when combined with an incendiary review of Fieri’s Time Square restaurant by New York Times’ food critic Pete Wells — who pointedly asked “Is it all an act? Is that why the kind of cooking you celebrate on television is treated with so little respect at Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar?”— a familiar narrative began to develop, one that constantly cycles through the worlds of music, literature, film and art.


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


On one side, you have the establishment, whose tastes are grounded in, or perhaps stymied by, an understanding of craft, technique and tradition. On the other, you have disruptors, who don’t necessarily think all that is important in the pursuit of a good time. Inevitably, when these two sides collide, it sparks conversations about snobbery. This isn’t a bad thing, but it feels like culturally we have defaulted to the idiom “don’t yuck someone’s yum” as a guiding societal principle, to the point that it’s almost regarded as snobby, at least among the terminally online, to criticize certain things with a certain level of mainstream appeal.

In order for someone to become mayor of anything — even if it’s just the Mayor of Flavortown — they have to run on a platform

And the thing is, we could caught get in the cycle of discussing the tension between what is critically slammed and culturally embraced almost indefinitely — art and film historians certainly have — but that conversation at large seems to have stalled out on this flawed belief that it is somehow radical to say, “Hey, I like nachos served in a trash can and Pete Wells can shove it.”

Fieri has embodied that upbeat “live and let live” ethos well on television. He’s gone, with the help of a few well-placed profiles in the right magazines, from being a kind of culinary world sideshow to having his own prayer candle (Saint Guy, Lord of Flavortown) sold alongside the likes of Julia Child (Patron Saint of the Kitchen). He’s been reclaimed by some as a kind of camp icon-turned-populist hero in studded denim who also happens to do charitable work, like when he raised $25 million for restaurant workers left unemployed by the pandemic.

But you know what is even more radical than that? Recognizing you can have taste without being a snob, but you can’t be a “Guy of the People” while pretending food is apolitical.

* * *

During his lifetime, Anthony Bourdain was not a fan of Guy Fieri.

In fact, before the chef and author’s death in 2018, the two had been involved in what the media had teased out as a multi-year feud. There were hints of its beginnings in 2008 when Bourdain said to TV Guide that Fieri looked like a “Simpsons” character who had “been designed by committee,” but it really kicked off when Bourdain said in 2011:

I look at Guy Fieri and I just think, ‘Jesus, I’m glad that’s not me.’ You work that hard and there’s not a single show of yours that you’d want to sit down and say, ‘Hey, I made that last week. Look at that camera work. It’s really good, huh?’ I’m proud of what I do.

The pair traded pointed barbs back and forth until 2015, when Fieri told GQ that he “didn’t like [Bourdain] making fun of people.”

“And I don’t like him talking s**t,” Fieri said. “And he’s never talked s**t to my face. I know he’s definitely gotta have issues, ‘cos the average person doesn’t behave that way. It’s not that I’m not open to the reality that the food world was like this from a few people’s perspective. It’s just, What are you doing? What is your instigation? You have nothing else to fucking worry about than if I have bleached hair or not? I mean, f**k.”

When it was playing out in real time, the conflict between Bourdain and Fieri was certainly painted as a stand-off between traditionalism (or snobbery) and disruption (or commercial garbage). However, in retrospect, it’s interesting to consider the differences in how the two food personalities allowed politics to intersect with their careers.

We need your help to stay independent

Bourdain was a complicated man in his own right, but through “Parts Unknown,” “No Reservations” and his own writing, he was always a shining example of how understanding both the sociopolitical origins of food — even if difficult or uncomfortable — and the hard-won techniques that go into making them can actually augment someone’s dining experience.

In a 2016 interview with CBC News, he said of food: “There is nothing more political.”

One of my favorite images of Bourdain is one you’ve probably seen before. It’s of him and former president Barack Obama in Vietnam, sitting on electric blue plastic stools, eating noodles and drinking cold beer. The weight that image, which is seven years old, still holds is apparent every time I walk through my neighborhood, which is sometimes called Chicago’s Little Vietnam.

Four or five restaurants along the main drag have the image displayed under glass, just like the table where Bourdain and Obama ate. I wonder what kind of restaurants will hang a framed photograph of Donald Trump and Guy Fieri shaking hands?

Fieri has mostly kept mum about his thoughts on politics, and if or how they connected to food, unless it slipped, like when he slammed the same restaurant workers that were struggling during COVID for collecting unemployment, likening them to kids filling up on Doritos instead of eating their broccoli.

I wonder what kind of restaurants will hang a framed photograph of Donald Trump and Guy Fieri shaking hands?

However, as a country, I think we grew to understand exponentially more during the pandemic — as supply chain disruptions and food insecurity rocked the nation —  how inherently political food has always been, which is why it was potentially so jarring for some to see Trump and Fieri shaking hands.

Zoom out a bit beyond the incessant “Triple D” re-runs, and perhaps it’s not really a surprise that the multi-millionaire Guy of the People would be a fan of the former president who continues to pretend he is an everyman, but it does crystallize that there are systems underpinning what we eat and confronting those is often uncomfortable.

Absent Bourdain’s thoughts on the matter, musician Jack White (who participated in the “Parts Unknown” episode filmed in Nashville) delivered a statement that I imagine would be similar to what the late chef would’ve said.

“Anybody who ‘normalizes’ or treats this disgusting fascist, racist, con man, disgusting piece of s**t Trump with any level of respect is ALSO disgusting in my book,” White wrote. “That’s you Joe Rogan, you Mel Gibson, you Mark Wahlberg, you Guy Fieri.”

MAGA Republican: Feud between MTG and Boebert so bad “a fistfight could break out at any moment”

Tensions between right-wing Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., are worse than people think and have escalated to the point that a “fistfight could break out at any moment,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told The Daily Beast, clarifying that he was being serious. Burchett, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, added that as a “professional wrestling fan” and a friend to both Republicans, it’s “entertaining to think that a fistfight could break out at any movement. I kind of dig that.”

The Freedom Caucus voted to boot Greene after she called Boebert a “little b*tch” on the House floor last month. One unnamed member of the caucus told The Daily Beast that “you can’t have too many of these rifts for too long.” Another predicted that the two far-right lawmakers would destroy each other: “They will be nailing that coffin shut, and one of them is still in there kicking and screaming!”

The feud is a “two-way sword,” Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., told the outlet. “I just think that whatever is there, could be utilized both ways,” he said, adding that “people make decisions that they have to work and live by, and you kind of hate being in their shoes.”