Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“He should be disbarred”: Attorney disciplinary committee pushes ultimate punishment for Giuliani

An attorney disciplinary committee on Friday recommended that Rudy Giuliani be disbarred in Washington, DC, over his work on behalf of former President Donald Trump to skirt the 2020 election results.

CNN reported that the committee, which interrogates cases of legal ethics and attorney misconduct in the nation's capital, issued the report and recommendation following Giuliani's December, lawyer misconduct hearing. "He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it," the committee said in the report. "By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. 

The three-person panel's recommendation against Giuliani is not final, as D.C.'s Board on Professional Responsibility and the D.C. court of appeals still have to consider the case. The committee specifically slammed Giuliani for dishonesty after the 2020 election and what they called "calculated" efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the vote when he falsely asserted there had been election fraud that could overturn Joe Biden's win of Pennsylvania in one of that state's federal courts. A political advisor to the former New York City mayor, Ted Goodman, deemed the report a "great injustice" and said that "the decision-makers at the DC Bar Association are nothing more than an arm of the permanent regime in Washington."

Giuliani's legal team had argued to the panel that he had reasonable grounds to believe the claims were true and that he was reliant on what other Trump campaign workers told him about the alleged fraud. But the argument fell flat before the committee. "Mr. Giuliani has not acknowledged or accepted responsibility for his misconduct. To the contrary, he has declared his indignation over being subjected to the disciplinary process," the committee wrote in its report. "We are convinced that a sanction must be enhanced to ensure that it adequately deters both Respondent (Giuliani) and other attorneys from acting similarly in the future."

In addition to navigating the present, temporary suspension of his law license, Giuliani is also facing an attorney ethics review in New York. The committee's recommendation leaves another stain on the top federal prosecutor's credibility. "We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani's conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago," Friday's recommendation read. "The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments."

“Antisemitic” podcaster tells Jeanine Pirro Second Amendment is needed to deal with “vermin”

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, one of the right-wing cable network’s leading spreaders of false claims of election fraud in 2020, recently appeared on a podcast hosted by Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer and former Fox News commentator who has repeatedly suggested that Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and members of their family should be killed. Media Matters also describes Scheuer as a “virulent antisemite,” citing numerous occasions when he has asserted, for instance, that Jewish Americans are “unreliable and increasingly anti-American,” are “virulent haters of America, its traditions, its dominant faith, its conservative predilections and its Constitution” and are “determined to make America into a fascist state.”   

Pirro called into Scheuer’s podcast “Two Mikes” on July 3 to promote her latest book, although Max Tani of Semafor recently reported that Fox News has “severely limited Pirro’s promotional appearances by strongly discouraging her from appearing at multiple conservative religious and political events.” Scheuer told Pirro during their conversation that he believed the 2024 election would not make “any difference,” since both the 2020 and 2022 elections “were rigged … without question.” He then told her: “What happens then when things don’t change? … I praise God every night that the Second Amendment remains in the Constitution because I don’t know how else to take care of these vermin.” Listen to the audio clip here:

Scorching temperatures broke records three times this week and July is just getting started

The hottest day in recorded history was charted earlier this week. The record was broken the next day. Then again on Thursday. The planet Earth has likely experienced warmer days in its long history, but for humanity, this is uncharted territory. Experts agree that the primary culprit is human-caused climate change.

The other factor is El Niño, a cyclical weather pattern in which ocean oscillations in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean drive an influx in warm ocean weather. This is part of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and is entirely natural. In contrast, anthropogenic climate change is being caused by humans emitting so much carbon into the atmosphere that it unnaturally traps greenhouse gases, gradually overheating the planet.

That is why, on the heels of the hottest June ever recorded, humanity is reeling from a series of unprecedented heatwaves that bring about thermometer-busting heat records. These heatwaves have ranged from India and South America to the American southwest and eastern seaboard, where people have been choking on smoke due to Canadian wildfires.

“Climate change is ravaging the planet,” declared Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in an 11 minute address posted to social media. “If there is not bold, immediate, and united action by governments throughout the world, the quality of life that we are leaving our kids and future generations is very much in question.”

Scientists back up his declaration. Dr. Michael E. Mann, a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, told Salon by email earlier this week that research shows the planet heading toward a future where massive heatwaves and droughts occur to one-fifth of the planet on a regular basis. Similarly a January study in the journal Nature Sustainability concluded that “over 90% of the world population and GDP is projected to be exposed to increasing compounding risks in the future climate, even under the lowest emission scenario.”

Jack Smith is digging into Trump’s bizarre post-election Oval Office meeting: report

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has reportedly bolstered its interest in an infamous Oval Office meeting held at the eleventh hour of Trump’s presidency, during which the former president fielded proposals of desperate methods to keep him in office despite his White House counsel’s objections. 

Investigators have questioned witnesses before the grand jury and during interviews about the meeting, which occurred six weeks after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, multiple sources told CNN. Some witnesses were initially asked about the meeting several months ago. Others, like Rudy Giuliani, were questioned about the meeting more recently. Giuliani, in particular, conferred with investigators for two days last month in a voluntary interview about an array of topics, including the December 18, 2020 meeting he attended, CNN’s sources said. 

Prosecutors, the sources added, have specifically taken interest in three external Trump advisors who were present at the meeting: former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne and former national security advisor Michael Flynn. 

Giuliani’s lawyer, a lawyer for Powell and a lawyer for Byrne declined CNN’s request for comment.

Both Powell and Byrne spoke extensively under oath with the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection. Flynn, however, declined to answer the committee’s questions citing the Fifth Amendment.

“The special counsel’s sustained interest in the chaotic episode comes as Smith’s team appears to be nearing charging decisions in the investigation into efforts to overturn the election results,” CNN reports. “Investigators are still gathering evidence, reaching out to several new witnesses in recent weeks and working to schedule interviews.”

December 14 is of special interest to prosecutors.

The tense December 2020 Oval Office meeting descended into chaos as Trump’s outside advisors went toe-to-toe with top West Wing lawyers in a heated debate about a plan to have the military seize voting machines in the key states Trump had lost in the election. The meeting attendees also considered naming Powell as special counsel to investigate alleged voter fraud, as well as Trump invoking martial law in an effort to subvert the election results. Attendees shouted and hurled insults, and Trump capped off the night by tweeting that an upcoming protest of the election results on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. “will be wild.”

The special counsel prosecutor’s list of witnesses questioned about the meeting includes former national security advisor Robert O’Brien, who — according to a transcript of his deposition released by the panel — told the House select committee that he joined the December meeting by phone after it had devolved.


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


“The consistent emphasis on the December 18 Oval Office meeting appears to overlap with the special counsel’s broader effort to hone in on the actions of several Trump lawyers and allies during the period from December 14, 2020, to January 6, 2021,” CNN said.

December 14 is of special interest to prosecutors, sources told the outlet. That date is marked by a host of alternate Republican electors in seven battleground states falsely certifying that Trump had won the election, and a meeting of Electoral College members in every state to officially cast their ballots, ultimately confirming Joe Biden as the winner with 306 electoral votes compared to Trump’s 232.

The efforts to recruit unlawful electors, have them sign certificates falsely affirming Trump’s win, and use them to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stymie the certification of Biden’s electoral college win on Jan. 6 have been a primary focus for investigators during the probe.

In recent weeks, at least one witness has told the special counsel’s team that Trump allies ask Pence to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Biden’s electors in the seven battleground states over supposed widespread voter fraud, and turn over the decision of certification to the states themselves, one source told CNN.

Grubhub, Uber Eats and DoorDash sue New York City over imminent minimum wage increase

Uber Eats, DoorDash and Grubhub sued the City of New York on Thursday in order to block its new minimum pay rules for food delivery worker, as reported by the Associated Press. This comes on the heels of new regulations that would "nearly triple average earnings for app-based delivery workers in the coming years," including a raise to $17.96 per hour to take effect later this month. This would be nearly triple the current rate of just over $7 per hour, before tips. 

Per the report, the food delivery services are seeking a temporary restraining order in the state's Supreme Court in Manhattan to stop the changes from going into affect. The proposed hourly wage increase has been a controversial topic. Vilda Vera Mayuga, the commissioner of New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, told The New York Times that workers deserve fair pay for their labor and that  "these workers brave thunderstorms, extreme heat events and risk their lives to deliver to New Yorkers — and we remain to committed to delivering for them." Meanwhile, Uber spokesperson Josh Gold said that "the city's entire rule depends on the false assumption that restaurants make no money on deliveries — it must be paused before damaging restaurants, consumers and the couriers it purports to protect." 

As reported by CNN, another concern is the "new regulation is legally flawed because it targets only meal-delivery services and not grocery-delivery services." Delivery drivers are classified as independent contractors, not salaried employees, which accounts for the higher intended minimum wage. If the purposed minimum pay rate does go through, it'll be the first of its kind nationwide. 

Mass shooting suspect said he did it to clean up Philadelphia neighborhood: report

The man accused of fatally shooting five people in Philadelphia Monday night told police he carried out the shooting to clean up the neighborhood, two law enforcement sources told CNN.

Authorities are now looking into a since-deleted social media believed to have belonged to the shooting suspect, 40-year-old Kimbrady Carriker, that featured several posts about guns, the "loss of freedoms" and the Second Amendment, according to a source. The page's most recent public post, made at 10:49 a.m. ET Monday, included a video ad for a tactical weapons accessories company that showed a man in tactical gear holding what seemed to be a military-style rifle. The suspect also shared posts in May from pro-gun groups that supported the Second Amendment and former President Donald Trump.

Another social media post from last month featured a video mocking a speech by President Joe Biden, captioned with Carriker's belief that Biden was trying to "take our arms." another post from the same June day read" "The only thing more terrifying than blindness is being the only one who can see."

At a news conference, Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore told the press that other witnesses said Carriker had been displaying "abnormal behavior for quite a while," adding his housemates "thought he was getting more and more agitated as the days were passing."

Carriker was arraigned on charges of murder, attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment and weapons charges, and ordered to remain in custody without bail in a court hearing Wednesday. Officers arrested Carriker during a foot chase, authorities said, and the accused gunman, who appeared to have fired randomly along several blocks of southwest Philadelphia's Kingsessing neighborhood, was wearing a bulletproof vest and had an AR-style rifle, a 9mm handgun and a scanner that tracks emergency response radio traffic. Assistant District Attorney Bob Wainwright said it appears only the rifle was used in the shooting.

The attack is one of at least 350 mass shootings to have occurred in the country so far this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

“There were weird silver linings”: How Sarah Silverman worked through grief to still make us laugh

Many of the headlines related to the debut of Sarah Silverman’s latest stand-up special “Someone You Love” in late May noted the ways that Silverman wasn’t trying to make headlines. It’s not as if she ever has over her 30 years in the comedy game, although she’s certainly fueled her share of outrage over the years. But she’s aware of the expectations some attach to new comedy specials from one of the “greats,” as she somewhat jokingly refers to herself in the special.

“Someone You Love,” though, operates with clear and simple aims. First, it fulfills Silverman’s contractual obligation to produce a special for HBO, her fourth in 18 years. Second, it is earnest in the way it pokes at its targets while consciously refraining from provoking the audience — a change from the supposedly “equally opportunity offender” comedy she and her peers plied in the early 2000s.

But if you know what was happening in Silverman’s life while “Someone You Love” came together, the relative gentleness of the special takes on a new weight. In the weeks before Silverman’s special premiered on Max she lost both her stepmother Janice and her father Donald Silverman, who died within days of each other.

The special was in post-production when they died, enabling her to include a dedication to them in the end credits. Its creation, however, occurred while Silverman’s parents were ill and she was splitting her time between road gigs and spending time with them. Knowing this adds another level of tenderness to “Someone You Love” – it is funny, but it’s also a work that was created by an artist who is grieving.

Don’t take that the wrong way, Silverman still loves filthy humor and poop jokes. She opens with a bit that praises the loyalty of Jewish mothers by imitating one proudly bragging about her daughter’s standout performance in a hardcore porn flick.

From there she takes on antisemitism, a classic target that is unfortunately always relevant,along with the anti-choice movement and other facets of religious extremism from a place of not comprehending the inconsistency and obsessiveness driving them.

Along the way Silverman also looks inward, wondering aloud whether her jokes might have sold out her culture for laughs.

This ruminative turn is nothing new. Her short-lived Hulu series “I Love You, Americasought out people from the opposite side of the partisan divide from a place of understanding.

From there she launched “The Sarah Silverman Podcast,” providing a direct line between her and fans seeking her advice. Silverman does her best to counsel and comfort them without turning whatever they share into a punchline at their expense. And she reflected that sense of trust and vulnerability to the audience by sharing some of her final recordings of conversations she and other loved ones had with Donald before he passed away.

Watch Sarah Silverman episode of “Salon Talks” to hear more about her approach to this comedy right now, along with the new expectations the public tends to assign to a comedian’s work, and her recent experience of guest hosting “The Daily Show.”

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

This is different from “A Speck of Dust,” because it is more of a kind of loose “hangout with Sarah” versus a stand-up special.  Was that by intention?

No. I have very little intention. It’s not that I never think about the big picture because I do. This is my fourth special in 30 years or 18 years since my first special. I never think to do a special until somebody asks me and I’m like, “Do I have the material?” This one was part of a deal I made before the pandemic, and then all of a sudden they were like, “It’s time,” so a lot of the writing happened on the road, which is how a lot of comics do it but not usually how I do it. It was really interesting and it felt more immediate and . . . I don’t know. Sorry, my brain just turns off. I have no short-term memory right now.

No, that’s OK.

It’s like menopause and grief. I’ll be talking and then I just have no idea what the question was. [This special] is more of a hangout. It’s more loose. I think because I do so few specials, there’s more of a palatable change because I’m older and different, and my existence is different, and the world around me is different, and the things I’ve learned and implement and the work I do has changed, and that’s the effect of that. That’s more for you/the audience to observe. But I’m just in it, so I don’t see as much.

I know these words aren’t adequate, but I’m so sorry, and my condolences for the loss of your parents. Tell me if I’m wrong with the timeline, but when you were putting this special together, you were in the throes of that, so watching it knowing that, it took on a different tone for me.

Well, as I was putting the set together, I was on the road for three months, and my stepmother had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, but I had no idea my parents, both of them, let alone her, would be gone so soon. I thought it would be a couple of years or something. From diagnosis to her passing was four months, exactly almost. But the first three were not as dire as that final, so when I came home, it was right into being with them in their apartment with my sisters. 

“Grief takes care of itself. We can’t control it, right?”

Being on the road, I was able to kind of pretend it wasn’t happening, but it got realer and realer. Then I came home and I canceled shows obviously. It was just all hands on deck and we were consumed with sadness. It was just very all-encompassing, but there were weird silver linings, like being together. Just all of us being together and being so close and going through it together. I have three sisters, and two nieces and a nephew came, and it was heartbreaking and wildly sad, but kind of beautiful, and there was laughter and all this stuff. 

That couldn’t have been part of your question. Oh, so the special isn’t wildly touched by it other than knowing that my stepmom was sick and going through chemo, and we were all constantly in contact. It’s like, we have family Zoom every Sunday, and we have Silverman United WhatsApp. . . . We have WhatsApp chains with the whole family and then just the sisters and then just the sisters without the one we’re talking about. I mean, we’re just so up each other’s a**es and in a beautiful way. So, it’s not within the fiber of the special, but you watching it knowing what happened in the moments between, takes on a new [meaning]. 

In post, dedicating it to them once they had passed, and it all happened so fast, so I watched it back when it premiered and then when that came up, it was like, “Oh my God. So many things happened all at once.” After the funerals, which were nine days apart, we were coming back to the mortuary, like, “Do we get a punch card? Is there free coffee?” It just seemed like we were regulars. But there was relief because it was so intense, not euphoric by any means, but just a sense of relief. And then also just being with family and the shiva of it all. But then going back to normal life, it felt good to go into normalcy. But now, we were all on the sisters’ chain this morning, it’s just hitting us in all kinds of different ways. I mean grief takes care of itself. We can’t control it, right?

It comes in waves and we just never know when it happens. The reason I wanted to ask that is that for me, it struck a different level of intimacy. There’s always a level of partnership that I’ve noticed between the comic and the audience. 

I hope this isn’t a whiplash transition, but you talk a lot in your work about antisemitism. This one was very interesting to see this level of both going into these subjects where you’re joking about Hilter and say “‘My Struggle,’ is that not the most Jewish title you’ve ever heard?” . . . What was your approach to forming that part of your stand-up?

Well, I think just talking about the paradox of me on my podcast, talking without jokes or punchlines about antisemitism and being earnest, and then being on stage and making basically Jewish jokes, very base, and then talking about the hypocrisy of it and trying to find some kind of way to see it in the best light for me, was a fun, I don’t want to say journey, but I like blending heady stuff with aggressively dumb stuff because that’s me, and maybe everyone to a degree.

It just felt honest in a way, to call myself out on it. I’m a total hypocrite. I think hopefully everyone can see that in themselves to a degree. We’re different people at different times when surrounded by different elements.

With certain specials, there are expectations of things being said to make headlines and subsequent reactions. I’m particularly referring to John Mulaney or your friend Dave Chappelle. I’m wondering how you feel about that idea of call and response and controversy and whether that figured it all into the material of “Someone You Love.” 

I don’t court controversy. I don’t look for it in terms of publicity. But this didn’t happen with [“Someone You Love”] at all, and maybe you’re saying, “Hey, maybe you could have gotten headlines,” but that stuff has so little to do with me in terms of journalism or news outlets or gossip outlets or whatever the outlets are, whether they’re heady New York Times stuff or Page Six, whatever, it is about clicks because that’s how their revenue stream works now.

Anything that can be made into a headline will be made into a headline, and then you read it and there’s nothing really there. But people don’t read past the headlines. Often I don’t myself, admittedly. But boy, when I do, I understand it in a whole new way.

With Chris Rock, he had an entire set before he got to the issue of the slap. As a comedian, when you see this happening, regardless of your material, what is your impression of how you believe the culture is communicating with comedy or how they’re consuming the comedy?

There’s the participation of the audience in the moment and then there’s the participation of the audience online subsequently.

There’s the discourse, yes. Do you ever think of your work as contributing to a discourse? Do you think that that is changing our relationship with comedy? Do you feel like it’s changing our expectations for a comic and their work and their sets?

I have grown to believe that comedy dies in the second-guessing of your audience and what they want. As someone who is a comedian and feels an onus to comedy, I don’t try to predict what people are looking for and try to give it to them or predict how they might react and then change what I do according to that. I still think if I did that, it’s still art, but it’s not how I do it.

I’m affected by the world, and part of that world is my audience or other people’s audience, and I’m affected by the discourse of all the topics that are going on and the social politics of the world, and that changes how I think and how I communicate. So in that way, yes. But certainly not in that director way. I’m very bad at art and commerce. I mean, I could be worse. I’m not that bad. I own a house. But I’ve never been very good at figuring that stuff out. I just do my own thing and put it out and see what happens and talk to people like you to try to get the word out.

You were recently on “The Daily Show” as a host for a week, and you were the third most popular host in terms of ratings. Did you realize that?

I did not realize that. That’s very exciting. 

What do you think about that role? Do you consider yourself in the running for that and what would be the significance in your opinion of a woman being in that role?

There are so many people who would be great in filling those shoes, and I really had a blast doing it. The first day was crazy, but as the week went on, I was like, “Oh, I get this.” I really loved it. I felt like, “Oh, I could thrive doing this. I really understand this job.” It was such a lesson in immediacy and comedy. Which is funny because I’m a stand-up, but I’m a slow honer. Sure, on my podcast it’s fast and loose, but it seems loose and immediate, but I’m thinking about tiny little articles and things and stitching things together more meticulously than it looks.

With “The Daily Show,” the executive producer Jen Flanz sits there and you’re there with the writers and you’re working on stuff, and if you’re onto something but you’re trying to tweak it, she’ll go, “Use it or move on.” She’s watching the clock. It’s so thrilling because she just keeps you on track, and it’s really kind of that “the perfect is the enemy of good.” But you have to go with stuff and just do it or cut it or make big decisions fast and move on. That just makes me think of the song “Move On” from that Sondheim musical, “Sunday in the Park with George,” which is all about art and that stuff. The lyrics to that really makes me think of this.

“I like blending heady stuff with aggressively dumb stuff because that’s me.”

But anyway, it was really exciting. I thought, “Ooh, I would love this.” But I really don’t think I could do that for an indefinite amount of time. I don’t have the stamina of most people. Actually, my mother is this way too. I can go, go, go, and then I need a lot of rest. I really love doing odd jobs. I love acting. I love my podcast. I love stand-up. I love all these different things I get to do. And a job like that, for me, I know Trevor [Noah] would go off for the weekends and do stand-up. I can’t do that. I would need to be in silence and rest for the other days. 

I mean, no one offered me the job. But thinking about it, I don’t think I could do it, even though I think I would love it. If I were younger maybe, or on a different trajectory, but I like doing other things more. If it was a finite amount of time, I think I’d love it though. Which was that, and it was great.

So it sounds like you did it for fun, mainly.

Yeah. Yeah. And that probably was the reason why it went well. What matters most is when you s**t the bed, but when you’re just like, “Ah, this is so fun. Oh, cool. What an experience,” it tends to go well because you don’t have these things fighting you in your head.

One of the things that I’m writing about in addition to writing about your special is the history of women in late night comedy. One of the [shows] that I reference is “I Love You, America.” Did your experience of doing “I Love You, America,” where you’re doing talk variety, not necessarily late night because it’s streaming, did that inform your expectation of going in for “The Daily Show”

Yeah. I mean, nothing was a crazy surprise. I know a lot about that process, but it was that process on a daily level. It’s the same and totally different in terms of there’s something special in not being able to tinker with the minutiae of things. And the Hulu show, we did. It was a weekly show and we had lead up time to be working on stuff, so there was a lot of time to tinker on every little thing. And there’s something really that I didn’t learn until doing this.

When I guest hosted “Jimmy Kimmel Live” a couple times and being around that, that’s also very immediate. It’s the same. But that probably more informed the speed of it. The Hulu show informed kind of the process, but faster. But it was its own thing and it’s such a well-oiled machine. And so jumping into it, I was able to be pretty prepared for what it would be like. My boyfriend also ran the show for several years with Jon Stewart, so he had lots of tips, and his ex-wife is Jen Flanz, who runs the show now, which is funny because he writes for “Jimmy Kimmel Live” now. But yeah, there was so much I learned about comedy really in that kind of high-octane version of it.

Unless a show is created for a woman, there haven’t been any women substantially in the running for the legacy shows, except for “The Daily Show” when there was a turnover between Jon and Trevor. And this is a seven-decades-old format. 

Joan [Rivers], Joan is the only one you can point to that even came close to one of those legacy chairs and because she had the nerve to do what was best for her career, she was blackballed for decades. I mean, wow, that’s the male ego at work. Because it made [Johnny] Carson angry. He wasn’t angry at [Jay] Leno, but he was angry at her, like she should turn down an opportunity at something he knew she was elite at. And then that Leno carried that on, was odd. And it was wasn’t until Jimmy Fallon took over and immediately had her on that he broke that. But the fact that we’re pointing still to Joan. I mean, Chelsea Handler, I would say, made room for herself in that and still doesn’t get, in my view, reference in that, oddly enough.

As a person in the world, I’m surprised. As someone who knows this industry, I’m not very surprised. But from your perspective, does it surprise you that women haven’t been more considered for these roles over the years?

If you look at the big powerhouse women talk show hosts from comedy, it’s Ellen and Rosie [O’Donnell], and they’re both in daytime. You could say relegated to daytime, but they may have been exactly their lane and they certainly got immense success from it. But it is really odd. 

“I don’t try to predict what people are looking for and try to give it to them.”

But also as someone who grew up on late night TV and late night talk shows and also really came into existence in comedy through being guests on there, I’m really appreciative. But objectively, it’s beyond a dying form. I mean, is that OK to say?

But I mean, this article is really interesting that you’re writing because it comes kind of at the precipice of the death of late night, because I can’t promote this special on any late night shows because of the strike, but the truth is, what we see of late night shows are clips from monologues mostly online, and not really celebrity interviews unless something goes wildly awry. 

Everything’s going to streaming, and yet topical things haven’t reached streaming quite as much. But more than usual, I actually think people watch “The Tonight Show” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Hulu or Peacock often or something

The last thing I would want is for, not that I don’t want women to have a chance in late night, but as it’s about to die, to put women to be the ones who are killing it. Whoever’s there, it’s going to end soon, I think. I mean, I hope not. Or maybe it finds a new way through. I’m really interested to redo it.

One of the things that I loved about “I Love You, America” was the idea of empathy. It came together at this time when the country was just riven in terms of partisanship. But you had this show where part of the idea of approaching topical comedy and different social issues and politics was actually reaching out and finding an attempt to find common ground. I’m wondering, A, has that changed? And B, did you carry any of that experience into making “Someone You Love”?

To a degree, yeah, for sure. When you talked about the loose parts of the special, it’s interesting because I did two nights, I shot one show and then the next night at another show. The second night was way looser, and a couple heckled. It was so in the moment and came kind of full circle and was totally something you don’t see in specials because it was heckling and I was so excited about it and I was like, “Well, just use the second night. I love the heckles and what happened and the back and forth.” It was really neat. And the editor’s like, “I don’t think you’re going to like it.” I go, “I know I like it. I was there. It was so in the moment, and you don’t see that in specials.” 

“The last thing I would want is for, not that I don’t want women to have a chance in late night, but as it’s about to die, to put women to be the ones who are killing it.”

He sent me the clips of those moments, and it really didn’t play. There are a couple of moments that are in there that are cool like that, but there were really big moments were away from the material. But it’s so funny, and it’s why I think stuff like improv doesn’t translate to television or magic even really to it, is because somewhere in the audience’s mind, even though they don’t know the technicalities of it, they know that things could be edited and changed in post-production, even if they don’t understand. And so you don’t buy it as much as if it were live and you’re there.

And it’s almost like, you know that animation that’s too real and it creeps people out? It was like that. You just don’t buy that it’s in the moment, even though the truth was it a hundred percent was. I ended up not including any of it, except for those few moments that you see. And they were kind of talking about the psychology of yelling out in a show and what that really means, which I think, a hundred percent of the time the subtext is, “I exist.” Right? 

So I do think, yeah, to a degree I bring stuff from that show into, certainly “Someone You Love,” the bit that that is taken from is a kind of bastardized version of that sentiment. But also it informed a lot of how I approach my podcast and just me as a person. It’s just really just things I’ve learned in therapy and things I’ve learned in dynamic and relationship with others and trying to really implement it in my life, you know? I’m absolutely my best self on my podcast. People go, “Oh, you really have your s**t together.” And I’m like, “Yeah, for an hour a week, sure. Yes.”

“Someone You Love” is currently streaming on Max.

Taylor Swift changes controversial “Better Than Revenge” lyric 13 years later

Taylor Swift has changed a controversial lyric from her 2010 song “Better Than Revenge” on her “Speak Now” album re-recording, released at midnight today. The original line, “she’s better known for the things that she does on the mattress,” is now “he was a moth to the flame, she was holding the matches.” The original lyric has been criticized as slut-shaming and misogynistic, though fans have also turned Swift’s lapse in feminism into a meme, with some embracing the line. The lyric change doesn’t alter the overall message of “Better Than Revenge,” a song about one woman’s anger at her ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend, widely believed to be about Joe Jonas and actress Camilla Belle.

Swift wrote “Speak Now,” her third studio album, entirely by herself between the ages of 18 and 20, in reaction to criticism about the success of her first two albums, which some attributed to her male co-writers and producers. With the release of “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version),” Swift is halfway through her plan to re-record the six albums purchased in 2019 by Scooter Braun as part of his acquisition of her former label Big Machine. Swift owns the rights to her master recordings in her deal with Republic Records, her current label. While Swift has included previously unreleased songs (and one remix) on her re-recordings, she has not changed lyrics on previous Taylor’s Versions. But the “Better Than Revenge” lyric revision does have precedent: In 2008, Swift altered a line in “Picture to Burn” from her 2006 debut self-titled album, changing “So go and tell your friends that I’m obsessive and crazy / That’s fine / I’ll tell mine you’re gay” to “That’s fine / You won’t mind if I say.”

In advance of today’s release, Swift made a statement during a recent Minneapolis Eras Tour stop before launching into “Dear John,” a song widely believed by fans to be about John Mayer, which also appears on “Speak Now.” She encouraged fans to act with “kindness and gentleness,” adding, “I don’t care about anything that happened to me when I was 19.” 

Florida Republican lawmaker accused of sexual harassment by former male staffers

Rep. Fabián Basabe, a Republican who represents a Miami Beach district in the Florida House of Representatives, was hit with a sexual harassment lawsuit on Thursday. Nicolas Frevola, a former legislative aide in Basabe’s office, and Jacob Cutbirth, a former intern, accuse Basabe of soliciting them for sexual acts and subjecting them to graphic conversations about sex.

According to the lawsuit, Basabe stood in the back of an elementary school classroom full of children and whispered to Frevola, “I want all of that butt,” before allegedly smacking Frevola’s backside. Cutbirth, for his part, claims Basabe “began to physically touch and grope him and to grab at him to try to kiss him.” The allegations are included in a lawsuit filed in Leon County Circuit Court by Frevola and Cutbirth, which coincides with a “joint investigation” of Basabe’s conduct by CBS News Miami and the Miami Herald.

Basabe was investigated earlier this year by the Florida House for allegedly slapping Frevola in a different incident, which an outside law firm was unable to corroborate. After that inconclusive report was issued in June, Basabe described Frevola as “lazy, entitled, unscrupulous, self-involved, ungrateful, lying scum.” Basabe has denied any wrongdoing, and his attorney told CBS News Miami that the lawmaker “will not be litigating this frivolous and meritless lawsuit in the media or giving it any more public attention than it deserves — which is none.” 

 

 

Beatles fans get more time with the band’s history at Rock Hall’s extended “Get Back to Let It Be”

Today marks Ringo Starr’s 83rd birthday, and to commemorate the drummer’s life and work, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland will be treating visitors to a rare opportunity to commune with the former Beatle’s Peace and Love statue, which will be on display all summer long.

To mark the occasion, I caught up with Jason Hanley, vice president of education and visitor engagement, who shared the excitement that has been generated by the statue, as well as the Rock Hall’s ongoing Beatles exhibit, entitled “Get Back to Let It Be,” which has been extended through the end of the year.

For Hanley, the chance to observe music fans, young and old alike, as they make their way through the exhibit has been pure joy. In his role at the Rock Hall, Hanley recognizes the uniqueness of music as both an art form and an artifact. “Rock ‘n’ roll is so personal to people,” he remarked. “Almost everybody who walks in, whether they’ve been a lifelong Beatles fan or they just discovered them in the last year or two, they develop a personal connection to the music. Our work involves helping them to connect their personal narrative to the history of the music that they love.”

But sharing the story of music — any music — is no easy feat. “Music is not a physical art,” said Hanley. “It is a temporal art that exists in time; we hear it, and it happens to us, and then it goes away.” He takes gentle issue with folks who downplay the Rock Hall’s collection as an assemblage of mere memorabilia. For Hanley, the museum is home to the physical artifacts that participated in bringing the music to life.

“No matter what level people are at, they’re making emotional connections.”

One of those items is John Lennon’s iconic Epiphone Casino guitar, the Beatle’s go-to instrument that he played during the famous Rooftop Concert in January 1969. As he observes fans making their way through the exhibit, Hanley particularly enjoys watching them after they’ve seen an excerpt from Peter Jackson’s “Get Back” docuseries and then find themselves in the same space as Lennon’s guitar, big as life, which now stands before them. “That’s what I love,” Hanley said, referring to the moment in which the images of the Beatles that fans know by heart suddenly appear right before their eyes.

“Many of us are lifelong Beatles fans,” Hanley noted, but the exhibit reminds us that there is always something new to learn, as well as to share with others. “People who visit the exhibit have a real-time experience of observing the history that they have known and studied come to life. No matter what level people are at, they’re making emotional connections.” In many ways, Hanley pointed out, it’s like when “my mom and dad played the Beatles for me when I was a little kid, and now I’m playing them for my own kids.”

Hanley is especially buoyed by the younger generations of music lovers who visit the museum. “Right now we have a generation growing up with complete access to music,” he said, “and they engage with it in very different ways than older generations. They quickly move through genres and styles. One minute, they can be listening to an avant-garde jazz piece and then jump to hip hop and jump to a pop song. And to them, those genre boundaries don’t matter. For today’s listeners, music is something that is happening to them right now. It exists outside of time. Whether it’s Machine Gun Kelly or the Beatles, they’re experiencing the music as it happens, without concern about time or place or genre.”

In many ways, this latter point is one of the most refreshing aspects of the Rock Hall’s mission. To see an artifact such as Lennon’s Casino, which was deployed on countless classic songs, becomes eminently more powerful. Unlike our corporeal selves, the artifact of the guitar itself, as with the Beatles’ music, will live on for successive generations, whose Beatles stories are still waiting to be told.

Joe Biden’s quiet success goes much further than Bidenomics

It seems that every conversation I have about politics these days begins with someone making the breathless observation that “OMG! Joe Biden is soooo oooooold!”

I get it. The president is old. And he looks his age. Anyone but movie stars who have had extensive plastic surgery look old at 81 and they usually just look weird. He walks stiffly and he’s losing his hair — again. (Biden had a receding hairline before he was 30 and famously had hair transplants.) He also stumbles over his words and rambles when he’s speaking spontaneously, but as someone who’s been watching the guy for decades, I can tell you that he’s always done that. Everyone knows now that he’s been fighting a stutter all his life but Biden’s also one of those garrulous old-style East Coast politicians who tell stories and flit from subject to subject. Still, there’s no getting around the fact that he’s the oldest president we’ve ever had and he’s running for another term, so people are going to be concerned.

But if he’s so over the hill that he’s unable to function, how come he’s done such a good job in his first term under very trying circumstances?

Biden has been one of the most active presidents in recent memory, making changes that are abrupt departures not only from Republicans but Democrats as well, including his old boss.

I don’t really blame people for focusing so much on his age because if they watch the news only casually or just read the headlines as most people do, they don’t know about his accomplishments. Political coverage is still focused on the Trump Show starring the dancing House MAGAs (with special guest stars The Supremes) and there isn’t much time left to discuss the boring nitty gritty of what we used to call governing. As I’ve said before, the whole country was traumatized from the Trump years and the pandemic and frankly, the press has clung to a narrative of national misery for far too long. It seeps out into the ether and infects the body politic.

It seems as if every bit of good news from the past year has been qualified with gloom and doom:

“Yes, the job market is the best it’s been in more than 50 years but … the price of toilet paper has gone up by 35% since 2019!”

“Gas prices have dropped to less than they were before the pandemic but … interest rates are higher causing people to worry about their 401ks.”

It’s not that these worries aren’t legitimate but it feels as though any positive news is required to be followed by something designed to keep people from feeling too optimistic about the future. So it’s been difficult to make the case that Biden’s presidency has brought material improvement to most people’s lives even though it manifestly has done so.

I’ve noticed that others are starting to make note of this phenomenon:

I was like many progressive types who didn’t expect much from Joe Biden but I reconciled myself to the idea that it would be enough to have a caretaker president who would allow the country to calm down a little bit after the tumultuous Trump years. I was wrong. Biden has been one of the most active presidents in recent memory, making changes that are abrupt departures not only from Republicans but Democrats as well, including his old boss Barack Obama.


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


Taking office in the middle of a deadly pandemic and after an insurrection with a razor-thin margin in both chambers of Congress, Joe Biden’s legislative achievements include the American Rescue Plan, which staved off an economic collapse and created a massive rollout of life-saving vaccines. Despite much handwringing and gnashing of teeth that it would drive the economy into the ditch, it has done the opposite, creating 12 million jobs, the most of any single presidential term in history. Additionally, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act created major legacy-defining progress on domestic manufacturing, infrastructure, climate change mitigation, deficit reduction, corporate taxes and out-of-pocket health costs. After another paroxysm of gun violence, Biden even managed to usher through the first bipartisan gun safety bill in 30 years.

Did he get everything on his agenda done? Of course not. There have been many disappointments along the way. But his accomplishments are, as Biden would say, “big f-ing deals” and that they were accomplished in a Congress so closely divided is nothing short of miraculous.

On foreign policy, the administration has done an admirable job restoring relationships with America’s allies and bringing together a coalition to back Ukraine as it defends itself against the Russian invasion. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was messy but at least he did it, which is something his predecessors all claimed they wanted to do and didn’t. (I’m not sure there was any other way but awful for such an awful war to end anyway.) He doesn’t seem to consider dictators and despots as his special friends which is a nice change.

Biden is starting to campaign now and is touting “Bidenomics” which is succinctly described as an overturning of trickle-down economics to focus federal money in ways that benefit the middle class. (Trump and his followers call this communism.) On Thursday, he was in South Carolina touting a new manufacturing facility that will make solar energy products. Unlike a certain predecessor who constantly threatened to punish Americans who failed to support him, Biden’s making the point that he’s the president for everyone, not just those who vote for him, and his signature legislation is making a difference in a lot of red states (not that they will ever give him or Democrats credit.) He is, however, good-naturedly taunting all the Republicans who are racing to take credit for these projects after voting against the funding by saying, “I’ll be there for the ground-breaking.”

Meanwhile, the prices of groceries and gasoline have come back down to earth and most economists have lowered their expectation of a recession as the U.S. has seen better growth and lower inflation than any peer nation in the world over the past 12 months.

If this is what happens when you have an elder as a leader maybe we ought to think about amending the Constitution and raising the eligibility age for president.

There were reports a couple of weeks ago that Hollywood producer and big Democratic donor Jeffrey Katzenberg was advising the Biden campaign to lean into the age thing pointing out that people aren’t as ageist as we may think. After all, the biggest box office draw this past weekend was 80-year-old Harrison Ford reprising his role as Indiana Jones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, both 79, are about to go on tour again and can be expected to sell out. Paul McCartney at 81 is producing AI Beatles records.

Some people just have a strong life force no matter what their age and if they’re lucky they have wisdom, confidence and judgment too. Joe Biden seems to be among that group and his bucket list is to leave a legacy of major improvements in the way government works. For an old guy, he sure is getting a whole lot done and he wants to do more. The country will be much better off if we let him. 

Scientists warned of a Salton Sea disaster. No one listened

On the afternoon of Oct. 6, 2022, a massive dust storm rose in the drought-parched Sonoran Desert just southeast of California’s Salton Sea. Wind, gusting at more than 60 miles per hour, whipped the desert floor into a vaulting curtain of sediment that swept north across the Imperial Valley, engulfing low-slung agricultural towns like El Centro and Brawley in a mantle of suffocating dust. The storm knocked out power, downed trees, and shrouded the region in an eerie amber haze. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Quality Index, which considers scores above 150 unhealthy, and those above 300 hazardous, spiked to 659 at a monitoring station on the western shore of the Salton Sea. And as the avalanche of dust bore down, Trianna Morales, a 31-year-old baker at the local Vons supermarket in Brawley, looked on with dread. “Oh my God,” Morales thought. “We’re gonna get sick.”

Morales and their two children, 6-year-old Luna and 3-year-old Frederick, as well as Morales’ fiancé, Cyrus Ramirez, all suffer from severe asthma. Inhalers, nebulizers, and packages of various medications crowd the countertops of their apartment, while a homemade air purifier — built from a box fan and furnace filters — usually whirs away in the corner of the living room. These defenses, however, too often prove insufficient against the dust storms that now blow through the region with increasing frequency. During these events, there is little the family can do besides wait anxiously to see whose attack will be the gravest. This time, it was Luna’s.

The child began coughing soon after the storm arrived, and in the following days her symptoms worsened. When she started experiencing asthmatic retractions — a type of severely labored breathing that caused her chest to cave inward — Morales rushed her to the hospital. There, doctors administered steroids to open Luna’s airways. She soon recovered, and the family was allowed to return home. For Morales, the episode was frightening and demoralizing — but also depressingly familiar. It was Luna’s third or fourth visit to the ER for breathing issues in the last year alone. Frederick had also made several trips. “I just feel so bad for them,” said Morales. “They’re never going to get away from this.”

Morales attributes their family’s breathing problems to the Salton Sea, a strange and troubled body of water 17 miles by car to the north. The largest lake by surface area in California, the Salton Sea is a 316-square mile, exceedingly shallow glaze of water that stretches from the Imperial Valley in the south to the Coachella Valley in the north. The lake has been shrinking in recent years, the result of drought, reduced Colorado River inflows to the Imperial Valley, and a package of water transfer agreements (where parties buy and sell water rights) that depleted the Sea’s main source: agricultural runoff. As the shoreline recedes, it reveals swathes of formerly submerged lakebed, or playa, laced with heavy metals, agrochemicals, and potentially hazardous microbial byproducts. Toxic dust from the playa then blows into local communities, where scientists believe it is contributing to sky-high rates of respiratory disease. As even greater expanses of playa are exposed by the shrinking lake in coming years, those health impacts will likely become much worse.

“It’s one of the biggest crises in California right now,” said Emma Aronson, a microbiologist at the University of California Riverside. “And so many people don’t even know about it.”

For nearly a quarter of a century, scientists have warned the state of California that an ecological and public health catastrophe was imminent. But repeatedly, the state, which has assumed a statutory responsibility for the lake’s restoration since 2003, has failed to heed those warnings. It has instead approved water transfers known to be harmful to the region without implementing a long-term plan to mitigate their impacts. It has never enacted a comprehensive scientific program that many scientists believe is a critical first step toward developing a successful restoration strategy. And it has, after 20 years of neglecting the region, only recently begun to offer Band-Aid solutions that most scientists agree will do little to address the existing and impending problems — and even those projects have fallen far behind schedule.

State officials point to a complicated patchwork of land ownership and difficulties navigating regional water rights — as well as the sheer magnitude of the problem — as barriers to progress. However, Lisa Lien-Mager, a spokesperson for the California Natural Resources Agency, told Undark that she believes the state has turned a corner. “We recognize the slow progress over the decades,” she said. “But now we are really feeling hopeful that we’ve broken through some of those barriers.”

For many scientists, though, hope is not good enough. The state has run out of time, they say, and the shrinking lake has already begun to exacerbate the region’s poor respiratory health. A recent survey by researchers from the University of Southern California found that about half of elementary school kids in the region had either been diagnosed with asthma or had displayed asthma-like symptoms. In Imperial County, where Brawley is located, children visit ERs for respiratory issues at twice the rate of those in the rest of California. At least two children have died from asthma attacks in the last two decades.

For local residents like Morales and Ramirez, the crisis at the Salton Sea has become an inescapable fixture of daily life. “I wish they would just find a way to clean it up,” Ramirez said.

“When I think of the Salton Sea,” he added, “I just think of how much harm it’s doing to people.”


One morning in the late summer of 1996, Ken Sturm, then a biologist at the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, was patrolling the lake’s shallow waters when he began to spot dead pelicans. Their carcasses jutted from the surface like half-submerged stones, dotting the shoreline. Other birds, still alive, writhed in the water, slowly succumbing to paralysis. Sturm raced back to alert his boss, and together they returned to the lake. By mid-afternoon it was clear that something unprecedented was occurring. “All over the Salton Sea, every shoreline we patrolled, we were finding dead and dying birds,” Sturm recalled.

“It was shocking,” he added.

What Sturm witnessed that day was the beginning of the deadliest pelican die-off ever recorded. In just a few months, 15 to 20 percent of the western population of American White Pelicans, as well as several other species, perished at the Salton Sea, some 15,000 birds in total. The cause was determined to be type C avian botulism, a bacterial neurotoxin. To dispose of the carcasses, Sturm and his colleagues ran an incinerator 24 hours a day, but still could not keep up; the birds accumulated in 6-foot-high piles, rotting in the August heat. At night, Sturm would brush the maggots out of his socks, sleep for a few hours, and then begin again, collecting and incinerating pelicans. The grisly scene received national attention, and everyone seemed to ask the same question: Why was this happening?

By that time, the Salton Sea ecosystem had been declining for decades. Formed in 1905 when an engineering mishap allowed the entire volume of the Colorado River to gush into the Salton Basin for 18 months, the lake had long been sustained by irrigation runoff from farms in the adjacent Imperial Valley. Without the runoff, the Salton Sea would have swiftly evaporated, as had Lake Cahuilla, the ephemeral body of water that had periodically occupied the basin over centuries. Instead, the lake stabilized, even enjoying a spectacular tourism boom in the 1950s and ’60s. Celebrities like Frank Sinatra and the Beach Boys descended on the “Salton Riviera” for raucous motorboat regattas and boozy carousing at the North Shore Beach and Yacht Club.


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


But the good times were fleeting. A series of floods in the 1970s battered many of the shoreline tourism hubs beyond repair. The crowds vanished, leaving abandoned hotels and marinas. For those who remained — mostly poor agricultural workers in the Imperial Valley, as well as Indigenous Kamia-Kumeyaay, Quechan, and Cahuilla people — the problems continued to mount. The 1996 pelican die-off was just one in a string of lurid wildlife mortality events that sullied the lake’s reputation. One newspaper began to refer to the spring and summer months at the Salton Sea as the “season of death.”

The wave of negative publicity generated an upswell of political and scientific interest in the Salton Sea. Sonny Bono, the singer-turned-congressman from California’s 44th district, who used to water-ski at the lake as a youth, began advocating for the lake in Washington D.C., while the Secretary of the Interior simultaneously started to lay the groundwork for a coordinated, multi-agency scientific effort. When Bono died in 1998, Congress passed the Salton Sea Reclamation Act in his honor, unlocking millions of dollars in funding for research at the lake. The Salton Sea Science Subcommittee and, later, the U.S. Geological Survey Salton Sea Science Office were established, with a biologist named Doug Barnum serving as coordinator of the latter. Meanwhile, a University of Redlands environmental scientist named Tim Krantz was tapped to head the Salton Sea Database Program, under the auspices of the EPA, which would synthesize newly gathered data and model the lake system. It was a heady time for research at the Salton Sea, a rare moment when science and policy seemed to be working in concert. “The proverbial you-know-what had not yet hit the fan,” Krantz said in a recent interview with Undark.

As the scientific efforts began to generate results, it became clear that two distinct processes were threatening the ecosystem. The first was rising salinity — Colorado River water, naturally high in salt, entered the lake as irrigation runoff and then evaporated, leaving the salt behind. The creeping salinity levels threatened many of the lake’s organisms. The second was a process called eutrophication, in which nutrient-rich fertilizers fed explosive algae blooms. When the algae died, it fell to the bottom of the lake, where it consumed oxygen as it decomposed. The resulting “dead zones” were responsible for several large-scale fish die-offs, including a 1999 event where 7.6 million tilapia perished in a single day. But as the scientific understanding of the lake grew, researchers like Krantz began to worry that the most immediate threat to the ecosystem didn’t come from salt or nutrients — it came from policy.

At the time, California was under federal pressure to reduce its Colorado River water usage, which far exceeded its legally allotted 4.4 million acre-feet per year. (An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover an acre with one foot of water, roughly 326,000 gallons.) In order to scale back, it had been proposed that the Imperial Irrigation District, or IID, which was by far the largest user of Colorado River water, transfer some 300,000 acre-feet per year to other southern California water districts, mainly the San Diego County Water Authority. With the money IID earned through the transfers, it would be able to pay for more efficient irrigation infrastructure, as well as initiate a fallowing program, where local farmers would be compensated in exchange for not producing crops. Less water used for irrigation in the Imperial Valley, however, meant less agricultural runoff — the lifeblood of the Salton Sea. The already troubled ecosystem, Krantz realized, was about to be dealt a devastating blow.

Using new data from the ongoing scientific efforts at the lake, Krantz began to model the potential impacts of the water transfers. The results, he said, were “jaw-dropping.” Within seven to 12 years of those transfers, his models showed, the lake’s salinity would rise to a level that would no longer support fish life, rendering conversations about the ecosystem moot. The lake would shrink rapidly, eventually exposing over 100 square miles of playa, an expanse larger than Sacramento. Wind could then pick up the ultra-fine silt, Krantz realized, and potentially cause devastating air quality events. “That’s where it suddenly became really concerning to all of us that were working on the science subcommittee,” he recalled. “That it’s not about fish and wildlife anymore. It’s about human life.”

Krantz and his colleagues were keenly aware of the case of Owens Lake, about 300 miles to the north, whose tributaries had been diverted in 1913 to slake a thirsty and rapidly growing Los Angeles. By 1926, the lake’s desiccated basin had become the largest source of particulate matter air pollution in the United States (particulate matter pollution, also known as PM10 or PM2.5, depending on the size of the particles, is harmful to human health, no matter its chemical composition). The potential exposed area at the Salton Sea, however, was more than twice as large as the dust-producing area at Owens Lake, and while roughly 40,000 people are affected by the dust fluxes at Owens Lake, some 650,000 people live within the Salton Sea airshed. Barnum recalled that when the USGS Salton Sea Science Office invited Ted Schade, an air quality expert from Owens Lake, to the Salton Sea to assess the potential danger, he told them to keep the lakebed covered by water at all costs.

In the spring of 2002, the State Water Resources Control Board, the ultimate arbiter of water rights in California, held a series of hearings to determine whether to approve the transfers, which by then had been folded into a larger set of deals called the Quantification Settlement Agreement, or QSA. Krantz, Schade, and several other scientists resolved to testify so that the board would understand the stakes.

Schade, in written and oral testimony, offered a conservative scenario: If the Salton Sea playa proved just one-tenth as emissive as Owens Lake, it could produce air quality events 27 times over the federal safety standard for PM10. But it wasn’t just the particulate matter that was worrisome. A hydrogeologist named Richard Vogl testified that Salton Sea sediment contained potentially harmful levels of chemicals: cadmium, copper, zinc, nickel, molybdenum, and selenium. The PM10 was harmful on its own, but the presence of these elements in the sediment, according to Schade, was a “double whammy.”

Since the late 1990s, Barnum and many other scientists had been calling for a comprehensive, integrated science program at the lake

Krantz, in his written testimony, painted a bleak picture: If the transfers went through, the Salton Sea would contract dramatically, dropping by up to 30 feet and exposing huge expanses of lake bottom sediment. Salinity levels would jump, leaving the lake uninhabitable for most wildlife within seven to 12 years. Roughly 200 million fish would die. Bird populations would plunge. And human health in the region would decline, with the blowing dust potentially triggering higher rates of respiratory disease. The board, by denying the water transfers, could avoid the worst of these impacts for another 30 to 60 years, giving scientists time to develop solutions. “The choice is yours,” Krantz told the board.

The board approved the transfers.

To temporarily stave off the worst impacts of the deal, however, the Imperial Irrigation District was ordered to supply 15 years of mitigation water to the lake, offsetting the lost inflow. In return, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed the Salton Sea Restoration Act, committing the state to “undertake the restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem.” A deal, then, had been struck: California had 15 years to find a solution.

Arthur Baggett, who chaired the water board at the time, told Undark that he felt the 15-year window amounted to a satisfactory compromise between a complex set of competing interests. But for Krantz, the negotiations over the QSA revealed a troubling reality. “There was this schism between the water politics and the scientific community,” he said. “That schism still is very strong and enduring, and very difficult for us to combat.” Watching the policy diverge from the science, he added, “was like watching a slow-motion train wreck.”


Following the passage of the QSA, Barnum, the Salton Sea Science Office coordinator, began working with state officials, offering recommendations on how to develop a scientifically sound restoration strategy that considered the anticipated diversion of water. When the California Natural Resources Agency, which had been tasked with leading the restoration effort, established a science advisory committee to provide direct scientific input to the state, Barnum was chosen as its chair.

Since the late 1990s, Barnum and many other scientists had been calling for a comprehensive, integrated science program at the lake. As the committee chair, he hoped his input could help put such a program into action. Among other things, he advocated for using regular data collection at the lake to develop conceptual and predictive models of the Salton Sea system, which could be used to evaluate potential management scenarios. Such a program, Barnum believed, was a crucial first step in developing an effective strategy. Without it, managers would be shooting in the dark. “You can’t make recommendations based on speculation,” Barnum said in a recent interview.

But Barnum’s vision, which was widely shared in the scientific community, failed to gain traction within the state agencies. Instead, he said, they reverted to a piecemeal approach, looking at slices of the lake system that were deemed important for specific management decisions, with no regard for how they interacted to form a dynamic whole. Crucially, the state failed to establish a central repository for the scattered data that was collected by various scientists, so there was no way to synthesize the information into useful models. (Krantz’s efforts to fill this role began to run aground in 2003, when his funding dried up.) Furthermore, Barnum said, the state neglected to implement a basic monitoring program, to keep track of changes in the evolving body of water.

Barnum grew increasingly vexed by what he saw as the state’s unwillingness to gather critical data on the lake system. In 2005, he recalled, he attended a meeting in San Diego whose attendees included the state’s Secretary of Resources, as well as state senators and congressional staff. There had been a recent gypsum bloom at the lake — a then-poorly understood phenomenon where hydrogen sulfide interacts with oxygen and calcium to produce the mineral, lending the lake a peculiar, green appearance. After Barnum showed images of the event, which drew gasps, the participants waited for an explanation. “Here’s the problem,” he recalled telling them. “This is going to happen again and again and again, and every time you’re going to ask me, ‘Why is it happening?’ And I’m going to shrug my shoulders 10 years from now and say ‘I don’t know, because we don’t have any monitoring to tell us what’s going on.'”

The scattershot scientific approach of the state, according to Barnum, led to critical knowledge gaps — especially regarding the dust. Barnum had come to view the potential health impacts of the dust as one of the most urgent questions facing the region. It was imperative, he believed, to determine not only how much of the dust was likely to become airborne, but also its potential toxic impact on humans. Yet despite Barnum repeatedly raising the issue with agency officials, nothing was ever done. “Management was just not concerned to throw any money at it — to throw any research dollars at it,” he said. “Despite the urgency, despite the legal ramifications, there just was no interest.”

Others within the scientific community were similarly trying to foreground the issue. In 2006, Michael Cohen, a researcher with the Pacific Institute, a water policy think tank, co-authored a report — reviewed by Barnum, among others — that described a future even more dire than Krantz’s projections. Using a new hydrological model developed by an independent consultant hired by the state, Cohen predicted that 134 square miles of playa would be exposed by 2036 — an area nearly twice as large as Washington D.C. That exposure would result in roughly 86 tons of additional dust entering the Salton Sea airshed per day. The report concluded that the problems at the Salton Sea would ultimately result in “exorbitant costs, in terms of human health, ecological health, and economic development.”

The science program that Barnum had been calling for never happened, nor was there ever any rigorous study of how much of the playa’s dust may become airborne. But the scientific community’s concerns did trickle into a plan that the California Natural Resources Agency delivered to the legislature in May of 2007. Called the Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program, or the “preferred alternative” colloquially, the plan noted that, if approved, “monitoring and testing activities would be conducted to identify the potential for and rate of dust emissions, determine chemical characteristics of the playa, and analyze response of salt crusts and sediments to humidity and wind.” An earlier draft had acknowledged that if the lake shrank as expected in coming years, “there could be dust from the exposed playa, affecting both wildlife and humans.”

Ultimately, the agency’s measured recognition of the dust problem didn’t make any difference. When the California legislature considered the “preferred alternative,” which would cost an estimated $8.9 billion, they promptly shelved it.


By 2013, a full decade after the passage of the QSA, the state of California had still done nothing to restore the Salton Sea. Following the dismissal of the “preferred alternative” by the legislature, agency officials had shifted focus to salvaging one small part of the plan, a several-thousand-acre wetland complex on the lake’s southern shore, called the Species Conservation Habitat, or SCH. But even that modest project stalled — five years after it had originally been proposed, all that existed of the SCH was an environmental impact report. Meanwhile, other southern California water districts continued to enjoy the benefits of the water transfers. As locals of the Salton Sea region stared down an imminent ecological and public health calamity, residents of San Diego used nearly 200,000 acre-feet of water — roughly double what they received from the QSA transfers that year — to water their lawns.

As it became clear that California was faltering on its legal obligation to restore the lake, tensions began to rise among the parties of the QSA. Board members at the Imperial Irrigation District, which had been fulfilling its side of the bargain every year by transferring the water, grew impatient with the state. “We weren’t seeing progress, the board was incredibly frustrated, we were starting to see shoreline receding,” recalled Tina Shields, the water department manager at IID.

“The board said we’d had enough,” she added. In 2014, IID filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board, asking it to intervene.

While the IID petition churned through the bureaucracy of the water board, which would not ultimately act on it for three years, the scientific community continued to advocate for a comprehensive science program at the lake. Barnum and others had spent seven years after the demise of the preferred alternative developing the Salton Sea Ecosystem Monitoring and Assessment Plan, a framework for how to integrate scientific inquiry into future management (the plan had no funding, and waited, as it said in its executive summary, “in anticipation of direction from the legislature”). In 2014, following the MAPS completion the previous year, Barnum, along with Cohen, the Pacific Institute researcher, and a biologist from the University of California Irvine named Tim Bradley, organized a meeting of some 50 scientists to assess the current state of Salton Sea science. The meeting yielded a package of research proposals, amounting to roughly $47 million, that would plug the perceived knowledge gaps at the lake and help guide state officials toward meaningful solutions. A summary report concluded: “The focus of immediate, urgent priority is related to air quality, fugitive dust, and related human-health issues.”

Still, the state failed to act. Cohen, hoping to capture the attention of policymakers by putting the problem in monetary terms, authored a sequel to his earlier report in which he argued that inaction also generated costs — but those costs would ultimately be borne by those least able to afford them: the residents of the area. He estimated that without state intervention, health care costs directly related to the dust could soar to $37 billion through 2047. Additional costs from decreased property values, potential loss of agriculture, diminished recreational revenue, and up to $26 billion in lost ecological value would combine to make restoration plans — even the $8.9 billion preferred alternative — seem frugal in comparison.

Cohen told Undark that he believes the report moved the needle somewhat. Still, he said, policymakers tend to incorporate science selectively, using “science if it supports their policy objectives. But if it doesn’t, then they ignore it.” He later added, “I’m used to being ignored.”

As the 15-year clock was running out on the mitigation water, scientists, once again, tried to sound the alarm. They attended meetings with agency managers, wrote op-eds, organized public speaking events. Tim Bradley, who headed a research effort at UC Irvine, helped launch a petition calling for the water transfers to be regulated until the state could implement mitigation measures. Years passed with no concrete action. “We just kept saying, ‘Is anybody paying attention?’ It’s very clear what the science is here, is anybody paying attention?'” recalled Bradley. “We just kept trying and we just kept trying.”

Finally, in March of 2017, the state of California, which had reorganized its efforts into a new initiative called the Salton Sea Management Program, released a 10-year plan calling for roughly 30,000 acres of habitat and dust suppression projects, to be completed by 2028. The plan, which was estimated to cost $383 million (and had secured funding for less than a quarter of that amount), no longer discussed restoring the Salton Sea — instead, it laid out a partial mitigation and management strategy for a “smaller and sustainable sea.” The original 2003 legislation committing California to the restoration of the lake had set an objective to attain “historic levels and diversity of fish and wildlife.” The new plan ignored that goal, instead aiming for simple acreage milestones — which together accounted for less than half of the playa expected to be exposed by 2028. Still, after 14 years of stagnation, the state now appeared committed to a course of action.

A few months after the release of the 10-year plan, the water board finally convened to settle the matter of the 2014 Imperial Irrigation District petition. Cohen, Bradley, and others traveled to Sacramento to speak, as did several residents of Mecca, a town on the north side of the lake. Bradley attempted to persuade the board to slow the water transfers until the state could catch up with its mitigation strategy. “It’s unconscionable,” he told them, “to wait for illness and deaths to manifest themselves in the communities around the sea before acting.” Later in the meeting, a young man from Mecca named Christian Garza spoke. Garza had suffered from asthma his whole life, and two years prior had nearly died from a collapsed lung during an attack. “I love the valley. I love my community. But I’m also scared of it,” he told the board.

“I will die in the valley if I stay there for more than five years,” he added. “I’ve seen the dust.”

The water board opted to allow the transfers to continue unchanged. But in an effort to improve California’s accountability, it obliged the state to reach the annual acreage goals laid out in the 10-year plan, and required that officials deliver an annual report updating the board on its progress. The order, however, completely lacked an enforcement mechanism. “The only tooth in there is shame,” Cohen told Undark. “It’s not clear how responsive they are to shame.”

On Jan. 1, 2018, the mitigation water essentially stopped flowing to the Salton Sea. The lake’s surface elevation began to decrease at nearly twice its previous rate, losing roughly a foot annually. To date, nearly 30 square miles of playa have been exposed — the equivalent of roughly 13,000 football fields. Meanwhile, the state has missed every single one of its acreage milestones, and each year it falls further behind.


In Brawley, decades of living with asthma have made Trianna Morales and Cyrus Ramirez adept at reading wind patterns. Morales uses a nearby crop of hills, called Superstition Mountain, as a quick and simple gauge of air quality — if they can see the hills clearly, criss-crossed by off-road tracks and buzzing with dune buggies and dirt bikes, they know to relax. If the hills appear hazy, though, or shrouded by plumes of blowing dust, Morales knows to keep their inhalers close, and pay keen attention to the sound of their children’s breathing. And if the wind is blowing from the north, the direction of the Salton Sea, they remain especially vigilant.

These are the subtle adaptations that occur over a lifetime of coping with asthma. Less subtle are the constant doctor’s appointments, the trips to the emergency room. Although Morales and Ramirez both connect their family’s asthma to the Salton Sea, they can’t afford to leave, and have lost faith that the state will ever do anything to improve the situation. “The word that comes to mind,” said Morales, “is ‘hopeless.'”

In the absence of much government intervention, residents of the so-called fenceline communities of Brawley, Westmoreland, Calipatria, and Niland, have tried to design and implement their own programs to reduce harm from the Salton Sea. The Brawley-based nonprofit Comité Cívico del Valle has developed a flag-warning system with local schools: each morning a green, yellow, orange, or red flag is hoisted in accordance with the day’s air quality risk. CCV also runs an asthma-education outreach program that sends workers into the community to teach families how to best protect themselves — the box-fan air purifier in Morales’s living room was brought over by their asthma outreach worker, who suffers from respiratory issues herself.

But preventative measures can only do so much. When severe asthma attacks strike, the emergency room at Pioneer Memorial Hospital in Brawley serves as the first line of defense. Oscar Garcia, the emergency room director, said that roughly 20 percent of admissions are pediatric respiratory cases. “Winter time, every day we have one, two, three, four, or more patients that come in with an asthma attack,” said Garcia. “Our supply of asthma tools and equipment is always ready.” Usually, the children respond to increasingly aggressive treatments with albuterol and steroids. Sometimes, though, they must be intubated and flown to Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego. Garcia knows how distressing these ER visits can be for families — he used to have to take his own asthmatic son to the hospital about once a year.

Some children, though, don’t make it to the emergency room in time. In April 2022, in Bombay Beach, on the eastern shore of the Salton Sea, a 12-year-old girl named Tashia Taylor suffered a severe asthma attack after riding her bicycle near the shoreline. After several days on her nebulizer, her condition failed to improve. While her mother, Tashi Bolden, was out getting gas for her vehicle in case she needed to bring her daughter to the hospital, Tashia collapsed. Bolden says it took the paramedics 45 minutes to reach Bombay Beach from Brawley, during which time she and a police officer performed CPR on her daughter. But neither they, nor the paramedics when they arrived, were able to revive Tashia.

Although such deaths are rare, they rattle the community, and add a desperate urgency to calls for a lasting solution at the Salton Sea. Bolden, now haunted by grief, has a simple request for policymakers: “Clean it up,” she said. “Clean up that beach, that water.”

But Morales believes such pleas fall on deaf ears. Imperial County is poor, mostly Latino, and geographically set apart from the southern Californian urban centers of San Diego and Los Angeles. It’s not that policymakers are unaware of what’s happening there, said Morales, it’s that they simply don’t care. “We won’t probably get help until everybody else gets help,” said Morales. “We’re the bottom of the dogpile.”


On an overcast morning in early January 2023, Charlie Diamond and Caroline Hung, geochemists from UC Riverside, pulled their car onto a dirt road leading to Obsidian Butte, a slight promontory of volcanic rock overlooking the Salton Sea. They parked on the far edge of the outcrop, then continued on foot through a sloping scree field of glassy black stone until they reached a view of the mud flats to the east. There, a wide sweep of barren earth stretched from the water’s edge to a pale band of vegetation some 200 yards away. “This is just a nice visual representation of the rapidly receding shoreline,” said Diamond.

“This is all recently exposed,” he added.

Diamond and Hung are members of the UC Riverside Salton Sea Task Force, an interdisciplinary research group that comprises the latest effort by scientists to mount an organized response to the unfolding regional catastrophe. As one of only two teams that studies the lake by boat, Diamond and Hung say that the dropping water level has begun to pose serious logistical challenges to their research. There are no longer any functioning docks at the Salton Sea, and to launch their 300-pound, fiberglass-hulled Zodiac, they must now drag it through mud that can feel like quicksand. “Every little foot the water has receded is going to pose like 30 more minutes of effort,” Hung said.

Of their ability to launch the boat on the lake, she added, “there’s going to be a limit.”

In 2021, the task force published a report, in which the team noted “the absence of an adaptive, science-based approach to addressing the environmental and human health challenges at the Salton Sea.” By then, the state had finally broken ground on the Species Conservation Habitat, the 4,100 acre wetland complex that had originally been proposed as a smaller, 2,400-acre project 13 years prior. It had also begun implementing several hundred acres of temporary dust suppression projects on the newly exposed playa (mostly surface-roughening), although these were within the boundaries of the SCH and would be flooded upon its completion. But the task force argued that “although state agencies are making efforts to mitigate the problems, the scientific assumptions informing current management practices are outdated or lacking entirely, making outcomes unpredictable at best.”

In the report, as well as in subsequent interviews with Undark, the UC Riverside group flagged several worrisome oversights. The group’s hydrologist argued that the state’s hydrology model was incomplete, overlooking the potential for lake water to discharge into underground aquifers, as well as failing to explicitly represent how shifting human activities in the region could affect inflow. Additionally, the task force noted that the exposed playa will likely not be uniformly hazardous, and that, as the lake recedes, the exposed dust could become increasingly toxic. Mice exposed to that dust, the team found, displayed dramatic pulmonary inflammation, while mice exposed to control dust collected 50 miles away from the lake did not. That type of inflammation, the researchers noted, could present as asthma-like symptoms in humans.

For Timothy Lyons, a UC Riverside geochemist, the dust is especially worrisome given the changing demographics of the region. Spurred in part by a potential lithium bonanza (geothermal brine underground near the Salton Sea could contain enough lithium to meet one-third of the global demand), the population of the Salton Sea airshed is predicted to double in the coming years. “They’re talking about bringing thousands of people down there on the south shore of the Salton Sea,” said Lyons. “An area that by some measures should be evacuated.”

Yet despite the increasingly well-understood dangers posed by the shrinking lake, the state’s response has stopped short of addressing the community’s health concerns. Tonya Marshall, a senior official with the state’s Salton Sea Management Program, said that the community’s health problems are beyond the scope of the current mitigation efforts. “That’s not where the goal of the SSMP was or is,” she said. “If somebody had stated ‘well, the SSMP’s goal is to make it better for all of humans there,’ then there would be that aspect of that. But our goal right now is 30,000 [acres] of the habitat and dust suppression projects with the 10-year plan.”

For many scientists, however, it is precisely that kind of rigid, compartmentalized thinking that lies at the core of the problem at the Salton Sea. “We can’t just put blinders on,” said Cohen. “We need to know what’s going on with the Salton Sea, not just how many acres we’re building.”

Diamond and Hung agree. “There’s a lot of disconnect,” said Hung. “Everybody’s just trying to do their job.”


On Dec. 3, 2022, a community advocacy group called the Salton Sea Coalition held a public forum at an auditorium in Palm Desert, about 30 miles northwest of the lake. Many of the members of the UC Riverside task force appeared as expert panelists, and the crowd (who appeared to largely support a hypothetical plan to import water from the Sea of Cortez, which many scientists view as unrealistic) listened attentively as they described the scientific nuances and lingering uncertainties at the lake. But at one point, frustration boiled over. During a Q&A with the scientists, a community member named Art Gertz took the microphone. “We’re being told we need more studies!” he quipped. “We should study why we need more studies!” For Gertz, a longtime advocate of importing water, the solution to the lake’s woes was blindingly clear: “Just. Add. Water!” he proclaimed. The crowd erupted in applause.

Sitting a few rows back, Diamond and Hung listened patiently. Gertz’s was an attitude they had encountered frequently in their outreach work, and although they disagreed with his viewpoint, they sympathized with the man’s frustration. Years of neglect, false starts, broken promises, blown deadlines, poor communication, and bureaucratic torpor had made locals weary of anything that smelled of can-kicking — they were desperate for action that would yield results. “That is a very real sentiment: ‘Enough studies, we need action,'” said Diamond. “I completely understand that sentiment.”

But in December 2022, after contemplating a range of potential restoration strategies beyond the lagging 10-year plan, California decided to punt to the Army Corps of Engineers, which, in partnership with the state and local stakeholders, recently initiated a study aimed at determining the best long-range course of action. It is anticipated to be done by 2025. Once completed, the agreed-upon plan must be delivered to Congress, which would only then decide whether to furnish federal funding to enact it. For a community whose children are sick and getting sicker, and whose exasperation is already white hot, the Army Corps study will likely only inflame the opinion that the lake is, as Gertz claims, being studied to death.

Researchers like Cohen, meanwhile, are left feeling ambivalent about the best path forward. Historically a staunch advocate for a rigorous, science-based approach, Cohen said that lately he’s been identifying increasingly with the position that the state should just do something — anything — and hope that it works. “On one hand, I think ‘Screw it, just build some projects.’ You get some water on the ground, birds are going to show up and vertebrates are going to populate those ponds. And then you’re going to minimize dust. So let’s just do that,” he said. “On the other hand, it’s kind of irresponsible to spend a billion dollars and not really know what’s going to happen.” Either way, as the ecosystem approaches critical thresholds and more playa is exposed each year, one fact has become vividly clear to Cohen: “We’ve run out of time.”

The problems at the Salton Sea have now persisted for so long that multiple generations of scientists have come and gone. Krantz, Barnum, and Bradley have now all retired, making way for a new generation — Diamond and Hung among them — to continue advocating for the role of science at the lake. Among the older generation, a certain jaded pessimism has settled in; Cohen said that the past two decades didn’t even feel Sisyphean, because “that suggests we actually got the rock to the top.” Particularly troubling to many scientists who spoke to Undark is the sense that local residents have been deemed acceptable collateral in the west’s great water wars. The Salton Sea, Krantz said, “boils down to one of the most serious, exigent environmental justice issues globally.” For younger scientists like Diamond and Hung, the inequities of the region have exerted a moral pull, shifting the priorities of their lives. Diamond, who has become besotted by the lake’s oblique, alien beauty, said that working on a problem with real-world implications has changed him. Now, he said, “I want to do things that have an impact.” Hung has been galvanized by her experiences at the Salton Sea into considering law school, so that she can study how to better incorporate science into policy. “I think it takes expertise in both to really think of a solution,” she said.

Yet just as the lake, and the region surrounding it, have drawn researchers in, others are desperate to get out. Morales and Ramirez believe their asthma, and Luna and Frederick’s, is getting worse. They say they are exhausted, and have lost all faith in anyone helping them or their community. “If we had money, obviously we would be gone,” Morales said. “But we just don’t.”

Still, they like to picture it: a farmhouse near Flagstaff, Arizona, with a wraparound porch and clean, mild wind. Or maybe somewhere near San Diego — they aren’t too picky. Morales has just one strict criterion: “I want it to be fresh,” they said. “I want to be able to breathe.”


This article was supported in part by The Water Desk, an independent journalism initiative based at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

Fletcher Reveley is a freelance writer based in Tucson, Arizona.

Kitra Cahana is a Peabody Award-winning documentary filmmaker and photographer.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Mike Pence’s Big Lie campaign trail torture: He’s reaping the disinformation he sowed

Campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination is not going well for Mike Pence. The former vice president’s pitch to voters is that he stood up for the Constitution in the face of pressure to do otherwise. But even as he avoids saying who was exerting the pressure and for what purpose, Pence finds that Republican voters remember all too well — and they very much do not like all this talk about putting honor and the law ahead of stealing an election for Donald Trump. 

“Do you ever second-guess yourself? That was a Constitutional right that you had to send those votes back to the states,” a woman griped at Pence during an Iowa meet-and-greet at a pizza restaurant on Wednesday. She was, of course, flat wrong, and Pence told her as much.

“The Constitution affords no authority for the vice president or anyone else to reject votes or return votes to the states,” Pence pushed back. He even sucked it up and mentioned Trump by name, saying, “President Trump was wrong about my authority that day and he’s still wrong.”

Pence’s willingness to stand firm on this point has drawn him praise in the mainstream media, especially from the legion of never-Trump Republicans who are well-represented on cable news but not much elsewhere. Certainly, Pence has distinguished himself from most Republican leadership, especially people like Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who voted in favor of overturning the election even after Trump sent a bloodthirsty mob to the Capitol on January 6. Pence did hang in and make sure the election was certified that day, which showed a sense of duty lacking in most of his party. 

What all this praise fails to take into account, however, is just how much responsibility Pence bears for getting the GOP to a place where January 6 was even possible.


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


When Trump sold the Big Lie about President Joe Biden stealing the 2020 election to his voters, he was building on decades of Republican devotion to disinformation-fueled propaganda. Starting at least in the 80s, if not earlier, a culture of lying took root in the Republican Party. There were corporate-friendly lies about everything from cigarettes to climate change. The Christian right pushed lies about evolutionary biology and sexual health. Right-wing media normalized conspiracy theories, like Donald Trump’s birther campaign harassing Barack Obama for his long-form birth certificate. Pence was an eager member of the liar corps of the GOP from the get-go.

When so few Republican politicians have to reap any of what they sowed, it’s nice to see at least one of them brought lower by the immoral culture he cultivated.

Even by the GOP’s low standards, Pence spent his career as an especially dishonest operator. He even did his time as a Rush Limbaugh-knockoff in the 90s, hosting an AM talk radio show in Indiana, where he would frequently rail on about how adulterers had no right to be in political or military leadership. Of course, he would later be the vice president for the most unapologetic adulterer in America’s political history.

Pence loved every flavor of B.S. on offer by corporate lobbyists and Christian zealots. It would almost be easier to make a list of topics he didn’t lie about, except for the very real threat it would be an empty set. In a precursor to Trump’s inauguration crowd size lies, Pence indignantly used his talk show to insist that the crowd at a car race was bigger than it actually was. But that’s on the more harmless side of his lies. On many more serious topics, Pence embraced all the damaging right-wing lies. 

“Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill,” Pence wrote in a 2001 column posted to a campaign website

“Global warming is a myth,” he wrote in 2000. “There, I said it,” he added as if he was some great truth-teller, instead a liar misleading people about science. He was less bold about his anti-science views when pressed by Jake Tapper of CNN in 2019, but still dodged the question of whether he accepts the reality of climate change. 

Trump represented a continuation of a project Pence had devoted his entire life towards.

When serving in Congress, Pence would rant against the teaching of evolution in biology, claiming “Charles Darwin never thought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday it would be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor have we.” As with most other things Pence says, he was lying. He misrepresented what the word “theory” means in science, pretending it had less certainty than it actually does. And, contrary to his claims, the fossil record has shown evolutionary theory to be true. 

In 2002, during a forum hosted by MTV, Pence railed against then-Secretary of State Colin Powell for correctly stating that condoms protect against sexually transmitted infections. “Condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted diseases,” Pence lied. (The Centers for Disease Control notes that “Consistent and correct use of latex condoms is highly effective in preventing sexual transmission of HIV.”) He then lamented that the problem with condoms is they are “modern,” which is closer to his true objection to them. 

In the 90s, Pence lied about homosexuality, claiming “the great vast majority of the psychological community says homosexuality at a very minimum is a choice by the individual, and at the maximum, is a learned behavior.” In reality, as CNN reported, “The American Psychological Association said in 1992 that data did not support the view that homosexuality was a choice.” 

Pence was part of a multi-decade effort by Republican leaders and pundits to train their base to believe that lying is not only okay but totally justified if it’s done in service of the party’s political goals. He would have denied the existence of gravity if he thought it would help a corporation evade regulation or promote the Christian right’s agenda. It’s no surprise he was so eager to buddy up to Trump, despite his past moralistic posturing against adultery. Trump represented a continuation of a project Pence had devoted his entire life towards, which is dismantling the value of empirical facts in the realm of political discourse. 

It would be one thing if Pence had renounced his lying ways and was reckoning with how his own disinformation laid the groundwork for the Big Lie. But either he’s too stupid or cynical — likely, a bit of both — to think about how his own contributions to the GOP culture of lying made Trump possible. Now Pence has to squirm, as Republican voters voice feelings of betrayal that Pence finally found a line he wouldn’t cross. It’s a pleasure knowing that Pence will finish his political career hated by everyone across the political spectrum. It’s far less punishment than he deserves, of course. But when so few Republican politicians have to reap any of what they sowed, it’s nice to see at least one of them brought lower by the immoral culture he cultivated. 

Who will entitled white people blame now that affirmative action is over?

Last week, the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court killed affirmative action in colleges and university admissions. These five men and one woman are political hitmen. They are zealots and ideologues who were and remain totally committed to their mission. There was no evidence or facts that likely would have changed their minds; The outcome was a fait accompli. Their decision to end affirmative action was part of a larger political judicial massacre: that same week the right-wing majority voted to void President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and to make it legal to use religion as a justification to discriminate against gays and lesbians (any by implication Black and brown people and members of other marginalized groups) – in violation of the country’s civil rights laws.

In all, today’s right-wing revanchist-controlled Supreme Court is doing the work of returning American society to the Gilded Age (if not before) as part of a neofascist revolutionary political project to end the country’s multiracial democracy and pluralistic society.

In her dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is the first Black woman Supreme Court Justice in the history of that institution, focused on the absurd reasoning and claim that American society is fundamentally “colorblind”:

With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces “colorblindness for all” by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.

No one benefits from ignorance. Although formal race-linked legal barriers are gone, race still matters to the lived experiences of all Americans in innumerable ways, and today’s ruling makes things worse, not better. The best that can be said of the majority’s perspective is that it proceeds (ostrich-like) from the hope that preventing consideration of race will end racism. But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain. If the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. It will take longer for racism to leave us. And, ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more.

And in her dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the first Latina on the court, wrote:

[T]he Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter….The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.

Of course, Donald Trump, the twice-impeached ex-president and presumed 2024 Republican presidential nominee felt compelled to issue a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to kill affirmative action. On his Truth Social disinformation propaganda platform, Trump celebrated that:

This is a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our Country, are finally being rewarded. This is the ruling everyone was waiting and hoping for and the result was amazing. It will also keep us competitive with the rest of the world. Our greatest minds must be cherished and that’s what this wonderful day has brought. We’re going back to all merit-based—and that’s the way it should be!

The never-magnanimous Trump would later claim credit for the ruinous Supreme Court decisions of these last few terms, declaring that “his” justices are “gold.” 

Trump’s “merit-based” society is white privilege, white power and white domination unrestrained and unchecked.

Trump’s statement in response to the SCOTUS affirmative action decision is rife with white racist lies, white rage, distortions and abuses of historical facts, white racist fantasies and white victimology, prejudice, white supremacy, anti-rationality, ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and a deeply held belief that any outcome in American society where a white person (or white people as a group) do not automatically “win” or otherwise get their way is somehow unfair and unjust. The unifying thread in Trump’s statement and the racist imagination it represents is white entitlement. It is what American Studies scholar George Lipsitz has compellingly described as “the possessive investment in whiteness.” 

Trump’s statement proceeds from the racist fiction and lie that “affirmative action” is some type of “quota” for “undeserving” Black people. In a recent interview here at Salon, Berkeley law professor Khiara M. Bridges intervenes, explaining that, “Race-based affirmative action specifically says that we ought to be conscious of a student’s race when making admissions decisions, because a student’s race might help us understand their grades and standardized test scores. Race contextualizes those numbers. Despite what conservatives say about it, affirmative action is not some type of ‘handout’ like ‘welfare’ for lazy and unqualified Black and brown people.”


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


Unfortunately, Donald Trump is not just speaking for himself. He is a fountain and mouthpiece for White America (the not so “silent majority”) writ large and the delusional and paranoiac belief that somehow it is white people, not Black and brown people, who are the “real victims” of racism in America. In the world as it actually exists white people in America control every major political, social, and economic institution, and by extension the vast majority of the country’s income, wealth, and other resources.  

Donald Trump said that the Supreme Court’s decision was a “great day for America.” Who is included in his “America”? Who was it in fact “great” for? Most certainly not the Black and brown Americans and others who will be denied a fair opportunity to enroll in some of the country’s most elite institutions of higher learning, and by doing so improve their chances of accessing the American Dream and contributing their talents and skills to the betterment of American society at the highest levels. It is also not a “great day” for the white students and others who greatly benefit from being in classrooms and other spaces with Black and brown people and other students from racially diverse backgrounds. Who are these people with “extraordinary ability” who have somehow been denied their “rewards”?

Donald Trump is most certainly not speaking about how American society from before the Founding to the present continues to deny equal and fair opportunities to extraordinary Black and brown people and members of other marginalized groups because of the color of their skin. Here Trump is also assuming that Black and brown people are intellectually inferior as compared to white people. The greatness that Trump is yearning for as the leader of the neofascist MAGA movement and larger white right is to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy by returning the country to the “good old days” when Black and brown people were second-class citizens, women were not considered equal to men, and gays and lesbian people were disappeared from mainstream public life. 

Trump’s “merit-based” society is white privilege and white power and white domination unrestrained and unchecked. America has never been a “merit-based” society. Moreover, Trump himself is a living embodiment of how American society is not “merit based”. Trump inherited and was loaned large sums of money from his father that he in turn used to start his business(es). He gained admission to Wharton Business School, most certainly not based on intellectual merit or ability, but because of family connectionsOne of Donald Trump’s professors at Wharton described him as “the dumbest goddamned student” he ever had. In many ways, Donald Trump’s entire life is a story of the types of privilege and other unearned advantages afforded to rich white men in America.

He has also convinced himself that ending affirmative action programs will make America “competitive with the world.” The actual data shows, however, that more diverse and inclusive groups, organizations and societies are more dynamic, innovative, successful and prosperous.

The real story of a given Supreme Court decision is in the footnotes. This is especially true of the recent decision to end race-based affirmative action in higher education. In that vein, the following footnotes and annotations would illuminate and rebut the incorrect beliefs and conclusions that Donald Trump’s statements about affirmative action — and by implication the color line in America — represent.

In this 2020 interview, sociologist Joe Feagin explains how what he describes as “the white racial frame” distorts how (most) white people understand the realities of race and racism in American society:

For centuries, that white racial frame has provided a dominant worldview from which most whites (and many others) regularly view this society. While it includes racist prejudices, even more important are its racist narratives about society, its strong racist images, its powerful racist emotions and its inclinations to racist actions. Especially important is that this broad white framing has a very positive orientation to whites as generally superior and virtuous (a pro-white subframe) and a negative orientation to various racial “others” substantially viewed as inferior and unvirtuous (anti-others subframes).

This frame motivates and rationalizes white racist discrimination targeting African Americans, including police brutality and violence such as that involved in the cases of African American men and women that you mention, and hundreds of others. The likely motivation for such police malpractice is more than racial bias. These events typically involve a white racial framing that not only stereotypes and interprets Black people and their actions in negative terms as unvirtuous — e.g., dangerous, criminal, violent, druggies — but also portrays whites, including police officers, as virtuous, manly, superior and dominant. Also central in many such incidents appear to be white emotions of anger, fear, resentment or arrogance. The way in which whites view themselves in these settings is at least as important as their negative views of those they target with discrimination.

In her book “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide”, historian Carol Anderson highlights the power of white rage and the harm it causes Black and brown people:

The trigger for white rage, inevitably, is Black advancement. It is not the mere presence of Black people that is the problem; rather, it is Blackness with ambition, with drive, with purpose, with aspirations, and with demands for full and equal citizenship. It is Blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. A formidable array of policy assaults and legal contortions has consistently punished Black resilience, Black resolve.

In his essential book “When Affirmative Action Was White,” historian Ira Katznelson details how government policies and laws have systemically given resources and other opportunities to white people and denied them to nonwhites, especially Black Americans:

When Affirmative Action Was White is one result of this endeavor. It reveals how policy decisions dealing with welfare, work, and war during Jim Crow’s last hurrah in the 1930s and 1940s excluded, or differentially treated, the vast majority of African Americans. It also traces how inequality, in fact, increased at the insistence of southern representatives in Congress, while their other congressional colleagues were complicit. As a result of the legislation they passed, Blacks became even more significantly disadvantaged when a modern American middle class was fashioned during and after the Second World War. Public policy, including affirmative action, has insufficiently taken this troubling legacy into account.

I wonder who white folks will now blame for their life failures and other frustrations and disappointments now that affirmative action in higher education — and soon across American society — is dead? Who will they rage against when they and/or their “best and brightest” and so “very smart” and “special” and “unique” children don’t get admitted into their first choice of a college or university? When they, who of course are the “best at their job”, are not promoted because a “minority” supposedly “took my spot!”

Will that frustrated white entitlement shrivel and explode or will it become something else?

I know the answer. It will be the same one that it has always been for centuries in America. Nonetheless, the question still demands to be asked because of what the answer reveals about the character and nature of American society and the enduring power of the color line in these horrible days of the Age of Donald Trump and beyond.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article identified Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black Supreme Court Justice; she is the first Black woman to serve in that role. The story has been corrected. 

Wasps are some of nature’s smartest, meanest and most misunderstood bugs

Wasps are some of the most misunderstood creatures on the planet, but you definitely do not want to harass them. Although the ubiquitous insects are quite pretty — northern paper wasps, for example, sport various shades of black, yellow, brown and gold on their exoskeletons — these particular wasps are also quite aggressive if they believe their colonies are being threatened. Paper wasp stings are notoriously painful, and can indeed be deadly if one is allergic to their poison.

“I’m confused by the suggestion that wasps are cruel and sadistic! Wasps are just trying to make their way in the world, like every other creature.”

Just as humans are urged to avoid messing with wasps, it appears that wasps follow that same advice when it comes to potentially antagonizing members of their own species. One could even say that wasps are the cunning analysts of the animal world, strategically plotting how to maneuver in the game of life with their peers like a Machiavellian schemer in any melodrama. It is all the more reason to treat these creatures with respect instead of derision.

Scientists studied how wasps eavesdrop on each other in 2020, as detailed in the journal Current Biology. They studied the northern paper wasp (Polistes fuscatus), which can be found across eastern North America. Researchers singled out specific northern paper wasps to observe other northern paper wasps fighting each other through a clear partition.

When the observer wasps were then permitted to interact with the fighter wasps, the observers’ behavior was “strongly influenced by the observed fight,” meaning wasps were less aggressive toward insects from their own species that demonstrated they were skilled, confrontational fighters. Once control trials confirmed that there were no plausible alternate explanations for the wasps’ behavior, the researchers concluded that wasps can learn about new individuals simply through observation. Additionally, because wasps live in colonies, it is theoretically possible that they may even communicate this information somehow to other members of their communities.

In other words, wasps are smart enough to look at other individuals of their species and make individual-specific decisions based on their behavior.

“Wasps are an extremely large and diverse group with over 100,000 species. As a result, it’s difficult to generalize about wasp intelligence,” wrote Elizabeth A. Tibbetts, a professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Michigan and lead author of the paper, told Salon by email. “The wasps I study, paper wasps, are surprisingly intelligent. Their brain is about the size of a grain of rice, yet they engage in incredibly complex social behavior.”

This includes tracking other wasp’s social relationships via eavesdropping, remembering and recognizing individual wasp faces, and even human faces, and even some skills humans can’t pull off.

“Wasps are also capable of things that humans are not,” Tibbetts told Salon. “For example, wasps can navigate accurately and precisely over many miles without needing a compass or phone.”


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


The agricultural community depends on many wasp species to pollinate, protect their gardens from pests and control invasive species

Perhaps people assume wasps are unintelligent because many wasp species do seemingly sadistic things like engage in brood parasitism, where animals force other species to raise their young (four wasp species are confirmed to do this, including the paper wasp species Polistes semenowi.) Wasps are also known for being viciously efficient hunters. Perhaps people assume that wasps, if they are sentient, are also sadistic simply because of how they go about their lives.

Tibbetts strongly disagreed with this interpretation of wasp behavior.

“I’m confused by the suggestion that wasps are cruel and sadistic!” Tibbetts exclaimed. “Wasps are just trying to make their way in the world, like every other creature. They hunt to feed themselves and their babies. Is there a moral difference between a wasp feeding their offspring a chunk of caterpillar and a human feeding their toddler a chicken nugget?”

That said, Tibbetts was not downplaying the question of how intelligent wasps truly are. Quite to the contrary, she acknowledged it’s a murky subject.

“The question of whether animals have emotions is pretty tricky,” Tibbetts told Salon. “Experiences are subjective. As a result, it’s difficult to know exactly what another human is experiencing, let alone a creature as different from us as a wasp. However, there is lots of evidence that animals likely have emotions that are relatively similar to human emotions. I imagine that wasps might get some enjoyment out of biting a caterpillar in the same way that many humans enjoy biting into a steak.”

Additionally, regardless of how smart wasps truly are, it is clear that humans are dumb when they try to harm them. (A TikToker has attracted viral criticism for killing the poor bugs through the so-called “gasoline trend.”) The agricultural community depends on many wasp species to pollinate plants, protect their gardens from pests and control invasive species.

Because there is such a large number of wasp species, they are also valuable in terms of understanding evolution. From a strictly strategic standpoint, there is obviously something about being a wasp that gets rewarded by nature. In fact, it is estimated that there are more diverse species of wasps than any other creature on Earth, outpacing even beetles, which have an estimated 380,000 species. But because so many wasps are parasites of beetles, some argue that wasps must be even more abundant and diverse. Humans stand to gain far more from studying the wasps around them, rather than trying to wipe them out.

After all, most wasps are canny enough to not mess with humans unless they absolutely need to, usually in the context of defending their nests. They already have the ability to assess potential threats accurately.

“Many wasps never attack humans,” Tibbetts told Salon. “They use their stinger only for hunting. The wasps that do sting for protection only attack when their lives or their nests are in danger. I’ve handled and studied wasps for years and I rarely get stung.”

Neglect of a museum’s collection could cause scientific setbacks

In a dusty room in central Florida, countless millipedes, centipedes, and other creepy-crawlies sit in specimen jars, rotting. The invertebrates are part of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods in Gainesville, which totals more than 12 million insects and other arthropod specimens, and are used by expert curators to identify pest species that threaten Florida’s native and agricultural plants.

However, not all specimens at the facility are treated equally, according to two people who have seen the collection firsthand. They say non-insect samples, like shrimp and millipedes, that are stored in ethanol have been neglected to the point of being irreversibly damaged or lost completely.

When it comes to how the FSCA stacks up with other collections she’s worked in, Ann Dunn, a former curatorial assistant, is blunt: “This is the worst I’ve ever seen.”

Experts say the loss of such specimens — even uncharismatic ones such as centipedes — is a setback for science. Particularly invaluable are holotypes, which are the example specimens that determine the description for an entire species. In fact, the variety of holotypes a collection has is often more important than its size, since those specimens are actively used for research, said Ainsley Seago, an associate curator of invertebrate zoology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

A paper published in March 2023 highlighted the importance of museum specimens more generally, for addressing urgent issues like climate change and wildlife conservation, with 73 of the world’s largest natural history museums estimating their total collections to exceed 1.1 billion specimens. “This global collection,” the authors write, “is the physical basis for our understanding of the natural world and our place in it.”

Through Aaron Keller, the communications director of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services — which oversees the FSCA — the museum declined to speak with Undark for this story. In response to a complaint that Dunn filed with the FDACS Office of Inspector General, the director of the museum’s parent agency Trevor Smith wrote: “scientific specimens do not need to be pristine or perfect specimens” and “museum staff strive to maintain materials in the best condition possible because they cannot be replaced.”


Dunn started working at the Florida State Collection of Arthropods in April 2022 as an assistant to curator Felipe Soto-Adames. She was initially hired, she told Undark in a recent interview, in part to help maintain part of the FSCA’s collection — some of the so-called wet specimens, or invertebrates stored in vials and jars filled with alcohol. But she said she was shocked when she saw the condition of many of the specimens that were supposed to be under her care. (The FSCA did not respond to a request for comment on Dunn’s hiring or specifics about her role, nor did the museum respond to multiple requests for an interview with Soto-Adames.)

Dunn told Undark that she found mushy specimens sitting in brown ethanol, some with stoppers so eroded that they were dripping a waxy substance onto the contents of the vial. Most of the damage is in the collection of non-insect arthropods, like sun spiders, millipedes, and shrimp. She estimates that half of the FSCA’s ethanol collection, which included 200,000 vials and approximately 1.1 million individual arthropods as of 2022, is damaged or rotten. Another person who is familiar with the FSCA collections agreed with Dunn’s assessment. (They asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retaliation.)

The FSCA was founded in 1915 to house the collection of the Florida State Plant Board (now the Division of Plant Industry), and merged with other state collections in the 1960s after the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services formally took it over. Today, the FSCA seeks “to build the best possible worldwide collection of terrestrial and aquatic arthropods in support of research, education and the functions of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,” according to its website.

The state of the collection, Dunn said, prevented her from fulfilling the FSCA’s mission of identifying pest species. When people asked the museum for help identifying lawn shrimp — terrestrial crustaceans that are invasive in Florida — Dunn had to rely on Google Images. “I knew from experience that the collection would not help me at all,” she said, due to a lack of organization and degradation of specimens.

At the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, there are approximately 76,000 containers of ethanol specimens, mostly stored in a World War-II-era Quonset hut, which is made from corrugated steel and is uninsulated.

Maintaining such a vast collection isn’t easy, particularly when it comes to specimens preserved in alcohol. While a few institutions have well-managed alcohol collections, many others do not, said Seago of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. (Seago is also president of the Entomological Collections Network, a nonprofit that provides best practices for insect and other arthropod collections.) She demonstrated one such challenge in a Zoom interview, holding up jars of crabs that were bone dry — all the alcohol within had evaporated over time. While hard-bodied crabs can remain intact when desiccated, soft-bodied invertebrates fare worse. And evaporating alcohol can also degrade the stopper used to seal the specimen’s container, especially if it’s made of cork or rubber.

At the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, there are approximately 76,000 containers of ethanol specimens, mostly stored in a World War-II-era Quonset hut, which is made from corrugated steel and is uninsulated. According to Seago, replenishing the required ethanol of each sample takes a lot of work. Even if interns or volunteers are available to go through them all, supervisors have to oversee the process to ensure they’re using the correct alcohol concentration and understand how the specimens should be properly organized.

“Just keeping an alcohol collection at baseline ‘okay’ is a monumental amount of effort,” Seago said.


According to Dunn, her work at the Florida State Collection of Arthropods came to a halt when her one-year contract was not renewed in April, just days after she posted negative comments about the workplace behavior of head curator Paul Skelley on her personal, anonymous Twitter account. Dunn had submitted a formal complaint against Skelley and the state of the ethanol collections to the FDACS Office of Inspector General on April 17. The inspector general’s office determined that Dunn’s complaint did not warrant an investigation, and in a written evaluation, they noted that Dunn was let go for “conduct unbecoming a public employee and insubordination associated with derogatory comments posted on social media.”

Following her firing, Dunn tweeted photographs of damaged specimens from the FSCA’s collection. Jackson Means, a millipede taxonomist at the Virginia Museum of Natural History, told Undark he had only seen similar conditions in an alcohol collection that had been left unattended in a warehouse for 22 years. “These images are definitely long-term neglect,” he said.

Some of the neglected specimens included holotypes, Dunn told Undark. The loss of holotypes can cause uproar among the scientific community, but they can be replaced — if someone goes through the effort of formally describing a neotype (a new holotype meant to replace one that has been lost or damaged). But designating a neotype “usually relies on other people being able to determine whether or not you can find a specimen of the same species from the same locality” as the holotype, said Seago. For many species, there aren’t enough experts to do that work, she said, “and the fewer taxonomists you have for that group, the less likely that is.”

Seago is currently applying for a grant to help locate, consolidate, and digitize holotype specimens at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. And Means said the Virginia Museum of Natural History is working to catalogue its holotypes too. Dunn had been working on a similar organizational endeavor at the FSCA before her firing.


Many collectors, from scientists to hobbyists, donate their personal collections to museums. This was the case for Nell Causey, who had her millipede collection given to the FSCA after her death in 1979. Causey earned a Ph.D. from Duke University in 1940, and was “the predominant myriapodologist of her time,” said Means. “She was a really good collector, and she described a lot of species.”

During Dunn’s efforts to help catalogue the FSCA’s holotypes, she says she found eight of Causey’s millipedes sitting mislabeled on a shelf in the wrong building gathering dust. The samples had been described in 2010 by William Shear, a professor emeritus at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, who had borrowed the specimens several years prior for a research project. Neither Dunn nor her coworker on the project knew they existed before Shear reached out to check on them. (Shear told Undark that this snafu was caused by a lack of communication from the previous curator, and he has since borrowed and deposited specimens at the FSCA with no problems.)

Dunn is worried that the life’s work of Causey and other passionate collectors, like arachnid specialist Martin Muma, who died in 1989, is at risk of degradation at the FSCA, especially without dedicated taxonomists to care for them. It is a shame, Means told Undark, to lose parts of a prominent collector’s work. “Maybe art historians will be mad at me, but it’s a lot like the degradation of a painting,” he said. “You are losing a piece of history.”

Many museum curators have a preference or bias for the specific group they work on, said Seago, and will prioritize care for that group — especially if they’re in a collection where “the people in charge don’t care at all about those groups.” Meanwhile, taxonomists can be hard to come by, and she said this is even truer for small, obscure, and uncharismatic groups of organisms. Dunn said this taxonomic bias was strong at FSCA, which especially favors beetles. The person familiar with the museum’s collections who did not wish to be named agreed with Dunn that there is a persistent attitude of favoritism toward charismatic insects at FSCA.

Museum donors also usually have preferences for certain groups — Seago said she could easily raise funds for a new butterfly cabinet — but natural history museums need more money if they’re going to adequately care for their entire collections. That hasn’t always been the case even for more popular creatures. “Funding has been dropping across the board,” said Means. “And because of that, staffing is down.”

Dunn accepts the commonality of neglect in ethanol collections, but said “that doesn’t make it acceptable.” And when it comes to holotypes, she said, there’s no excuse. “Holotypes should never go without care.”

Means and Seago agreed. “The whole point of a museum,” said Means, is to take care of type specimens “in perpetuity.”


Darren Incorvaia is a journalist who writes about animals and the natural world. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Scientific American, and Science News, among other publications. He holds a Ph.D. in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior from Michigan State University.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Marjorie Taylor Greene convinced that Instagram’s “Threads” is for Marxist election thieves

On Wednesday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg launched his own Twitter alternative, “Threads” — an off-shoot of the Instagram platform — and so far, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. isn’t a fan. In response to a tweet from Trump supporter @alx, in which he shares a screengrab of a prompt from Threads to verify if his attempt to follow Trump Jr. on the platform is valid, since his account has been known to spread false information, Greene hits the proverbial panic button. “Now I’m definitely sure Threads will be the same Marxist style social media experience that Zuckerberg usually offers,” she tweeted on Thursday. “All social experimentation serving Big Pharma, the Intelligence Community, and DEI Initiatives to strengthen corporate stocks supporting garbage DEI issues and steal elections. No thank you!”

Jumping in the same boat, Greg Price, Comms Director for State Freedom Caucus Network, tweeted his own suspicions towards the new platform saying, “Remember when we learned that Instagram connected a vast network of child predators? That was literally less than two weeks ago. Instagram helped pedophiles find child porn and nothing happened to him. Instead, Zuckerberg is now launching new apps with the goal of using the data from Instagram to compete with Twitter.”

“Congress needs to talk with Zuckerberg on many issues,” said Greene. “We are back in session next week and I look forward to bringing these issues up. Could be several committees.” According to CNBC, “Meta said that Threads is the company’s first app ‘envisioned to be compatible with an open social networking protocol,’ which it believes could usher ‘in a new era of diverse and interconnected networks.'”

“WHAM!”: The 6 biggest revelations from Netflix’s documentary on the ’80s pop duo

When childhood best friends George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley first dipped their toes into the music scene, they didn’t have much luck. Even when they formed their famed musical pop duo, Wham!, things didn’t come easy for the pair.

There were months of financial hardships (the duo was barely compensated for their early gigs and performances), lack of resources (they didn’t have a proper manager until much later in their career) and plenty of Billboard flops, even when they were convinced that they had released a hit song. Despite being debilitating, those difficulties turned into success almost overnight, when both Michael and Ridgeley attained superstar status. Soon enough, the pair had everything they dreamed of: the fans, the fame, the acclaim and the status. And they were able to achieve it all as teenagers.

Wham! was eventually a short-lived project — the duo was conceived in 1982 and came to a bittersweet end in June of 1986. But it was also incredibly remarkable. To this day, Wham! is still regarded as one of the greatest musical duos to have existed in pop history. It’s not hard to see why that’s so. After all, the duo introduced a new genre of music, found an ardent fan base amongst the youth of the ’80s and released hit after hit — “Careless Whisper,” “Wake Me Up Before You Go Go,” “Freedom,” “I’m Your Man” and, of course, “Last Christmas.”


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


The duo’s inspirational journey, from their heartfelt early beginnings to their big break in Hollywood, is narrated by the late Michael and Ridgeley in Netflix’s documentary “WHAM!” There’s also never-before-seen footage, intimate clips of the pair and previously unheard interviews.

Here are the six biggest revelations from the documentary:

01
George Michael felt his meeting with Andrew Ridgely was “predestined”
WHAM!George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

“Basically, we met when I was 11 and Andrew was 12 in North London,” said Michael when asked to recount the early beginnings of his friendship with Ridgeley.

 

Michael described himself as a “very awkward, slightly porky, very strange-looking bloke” who walked into his first day of school with a mop of curly hair and wearing “sodding great big window-frame glasses.” It was Ridgeley who volunteered to look after Michael and soon enough, the pair developed a lasting friendship.

 

“I genuinely believe there’s something predestined about it,” Michael recalled. “I mean, the path might have been totally different had I sat down next to someone else that day.”

 

“Musically, we were joined at the hip,” said Ridgeley. The pair spent hours doing skits and putting together comedy radio shows. They also wrote songs and started a band called The Executive when they were around 16 years old. The band eventually “imploded” because they were awful performers. But Michael and Ridgeley stuck together. 

02
The band’s official name was conceived after a night out
WHAM!George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

During a night out in London’s West End neighborhood, Michael and Ridgeley went dancing in Beat Route. Michael recalled that Ridgeley began rapping, “Wham, bam, I am the man,” which inspired the name for their musical duo: Wham! 

 

“Andrew and I had developed a knack for writing these catchy little songs,” said Michael. “We had a broom with a microphone tied to it and one of those little four-track portastudios that had just come out at the end of the ’70s.”

 

“The songwriting was dictated by our circumstances, the environment around us,” said Ridgeley. Wham! songs were inspired by protests and the rocketing rise of unemployment among 16- to 18-year-olds. Ridgeley added that the duo experimented with various musical genres — they fused rap with disco and then added pop — Wham!’s finished songs had social lyrics with a disco backing.

 

“We just kept writing songs from there,” said Michael.

 

The pair later released their first single, “Wham Rap! (Enjoy What You Do),” which they thought would be a hit. Unfortunately, the song failed to make it to the Top 100 list. 

03
Michael came out as gay while shooting a music video in Ibiza
WHAM!George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

It was while shooting the “Club Tropicana” (Wham!’s 1983 song) music video in Ibiza that Michael came out to Ridgeley and Wham! backup singer Shirlie Holliman. 

 

“About six months before we went to do the video for ‘Club Tropicana,’ I’d actually had something going on that, you know, made my attraction to men fairly clear,” Michael recalled. “I had stayed over at this guy’s house. He tried to have sex with me, and I’d been too scared. But I realized that I wanted to stay in the bed for the night. I wanted to be close to this guy, which had never happened before.”

 

Michael revealed that “Club Tropicana” was about his sexual escapade.

 

“For me, his sexuality had absolutely no bearing on us,” Ridgeley said. “I wanted him to be happy.”

04
Elton John believed in Wham!, even when others didn’t
WHAM!Elton John, George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

“Probably one of the best songwriters out of Britain for a long time,” John said in an old clip in the documentary. “And that’s serious. People tend to put Wham! down as a teenybopper band that won’t last. The people that put them down are the bands that won’t last. I’m experienced enough to know.”

 

When talking about Michael, John called him “a great songwriter.”

 

“On stage, I compared him to Barry Gibb, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, people like that,” said John. “He has got what Bowie and I would’ve loved to have had when we were 21, 22. And I’m not talking about performing on stage, records . . . The man’s a great songwriter, and this award ceremony today, it’s about songwriting.”

 

Michael said he was “kind of in shock” when he was awarded for his songwriting. “The idea of being in the same room with famous people that actually recognize you as a musician, people like Elton John, you know . . . it took me a long time to get used to the idea.”

05
Grappling with the challenge of “being George Michael”
WHAM!George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

“I was happy for my friend. He stood on the cusp of greatness,” Ridgeley said of Michael’s success as a singer and musical artist. “But I didn’t know what being George Michael truly meant.”

 

In the documentary, Michael opened up about the struggles of grappling with fame, his sexuality (which was still a secret at the time) and the increased publicity: 

 

“In reality the turning point with Wham! was nothing to do with Wham!. The turning point with Wham! was me as I suddenly thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m a massive star, and I’m gay,’ and the depression was about that,” Michael said. “It was about the way I’d boxed myself in. You know, careful what you wish for.”

06
Wham! officially split up in 1986
WHAM!George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley in “WHAM!” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

The pop duo officially broke up in 1986, when Michael also began his career as a solo artist and performer. On June 28, 1986, the duo celebrated its end with a farewell concert, notably called The Final, at Wembley Stadium in London. A total of 72,000 people attended the event, which included support artists and special guests, such as Elton John and Simon Le Bon.

 

Wham!’s break up didn’t tarnish Michael and Ridgeley’s friendship, as the pair knew that their time as a close-knit musical duo would eventually come to an end. But it was still incredibly bittersweet:

 

“If I was going to go to the place that I believed I was about to go to, there was no way that we could hang out in the way we had always done,” Michael said of his relationship with Ridgeley post-Wham!. “So it was a sad day in some ways. It was the end of something.”

“Wham!” is currently available for streaming on Netflix. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube:

 

New Alzheimer’s drug gets full FDA approval

On Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration granted full approval for the manufacture of an innovative new Alzheimer’s drug called Leqembi — made by Japanese drugmaker Eisai and U.S.-based drugmaker Biogen — which has proven to slow the progression of the disease. While other drugs that have come before it mainly attack symptoms, Leqembi “targets a type of protein in the brain called beta-amyloid, long thought by scientists to be one of the underlying causes of Alzheimer’s disease,” according to NBC News.

“In real-world terms, this likely means more time for the patient to be living independently, enjoying their hobbies, their friends and having a better quality of life,” said Donna Wilcock, the assistant dean of biomedicine at the University of Kentucky. “Time will tell how much, but the clinical trial did show significant benefit on activities of daily living measures.” As NBC points out, there have been concerns as to the safety of the drug, which will be packaged with the FDA’s strongest warning label.

“The odds for brain swelling and hemorrhage are far higher than any actual improvement,” said Dr. Alberto Espay, a neurologist at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. The cost of the drug is also a factor — averaging out at $26,500 a year — as well as the three patients who died during clinical trials, but the overall promise of prolonged mental functionality outweighs those concerns for many. “Leqembi’s traditional approval is a ray of hope for millions of patients who are doing everything in they can to enhance and extend their lives and reduce their families’ burdens,” said George Vradenburg, chairman and co-founder of the patient advocacy group UsAgainstAlzheimer’s.

Richard E. Grant on sex, lies and playing an entitled man similar to the “Teflon-coated” Trump

Richard E. Grant, who received an Oscar nomination for his caddish Jack Hock in “Can You Ever Forgive Me,” will forever be associated with another feckless character, his breakout role of Withnail, the vain actor who is broke and alcoholic — he drinks lighter fluid out of desperation at one point — in the cult classic “Withnail and I.” Now add J.M. Sinclair in “The Lesson” to the roster of the many scoundrels Grant has played over the years. 

In this juicy drama, Sinclair is a famous writer, who, with his elegant wife Helene (Julie Delpy), hires Liam (Daryl McCormack of “Good Luck to You, Leo Grande“) to tutor their son Bertie (Stephen McMillan) to help him get into Oxford. As Liam observes the goings on in the household — Sinclair both treats his son with disdain and has a series of intimate sexual moments with Helene — the film suggests it may be a cuckoo in the nest story of a strapping young man seducing a troubled family. 

“It is satisfying when someone so up themselves gets their just deserts.”

But there is more to “The Lesson” than that. Liam comes to learn that the family is grieving from the recent loss of Bertie’s older brother Felix. As Liam gains the trust of his esteemed host, he is asked to read his latest novel. In exchange, Sinclair offers to read Liam’s book and provide his thoughts. Things get tricky when Sinclair’s work goes missing from his computer. What unfolds with this setup is best left for audiences to discover.

Grant plays Sinclair with tremendous brio, capturing his pompousness and authority as with some bon mots about good writers “stealing” work. He also demonstrates considerable bad behavior. The actor, who is nice, not nasty, in real life spoke with Salon about “The Lesson.”

Before we begin, is it Sinclair or James or J.M? 

J.M. Sinclair. 

Speaking of initials, what does the E. stand for? 

There was another actor with the same name, and I couldn’t afford to buy new photographs in 1983 so I asked, “Please, can I put a letter in between?” and I just came up with one.

You just came up with one!? So, it doesn’t stand for anything?
It doesn’t. What does your M. stand for?

Michael. But back to you. You excel at playing cads — Withnail, Jack Hock and now J.M. Sinclair. What is the appeal of being well, despicable on screen?

Well, Gary Michael Kramer, I think if you are born with a very long, tombstone-featured face, and unless you smile, you look absolutely miserable. So, people assume you are very snooty or entitled. I remember my mother said to me when I was 12 years old and doing school plays, “Why do you aways play these snotty people?” When I was older, someone said, “You were born with that long face. Everyone who has a long face, they look miserable,” So people can project things onto you. I’ve been in the street at times and people come up to me and ask if I am OK, and I say, “I’m fine, why?” and they say, “You look miserable as s**t.” So, I now try to smile. 

Sinclair is smug and haughty. He has authority and commands power but does not necessarily deserve it. Can you talk about finding his character, about whom someone claims, “Nothing can be raised around him?”

He is someone who has been successful for so long and unchallenged. He has had great financial and critical success which is a lethally strong combination. When his creative well is completely dry, he has to resort to subterfuge, and you realize that for all the bluff and entitlement, he is a hollow man. The suicide of his teenage son has absolutely annihilated him. It has gone off like a silent bomb for his family. Nothing is what it seems, and he employs a tutor to come into the hermetically sealed family unit, and the chain of events unravels him. It is satisfying when someone so up themselves gets their just deserts. That doesn’t happen in real life too often. Idi Amin lived to a grand old age and never took responsibility for what he’d done. And it seems like Donald Trump, likewise, is Teflon-coated. He will never go to jail. 

Boris Johnson is right up there with Trump. It’s a race to the bottom. But what is it about playing Sinclair as so magnetic and hateful?

There are many complaints that people can’t watch or get into “Succession” because the characters are so unlikable and irredeemable. I think there is something fascinating about seeing somebody like Sinclair, who is so unequivocally rude and so entitled and self-possessed, and so self-assured that you look at him and think how can someone get away with this? There is satisfaction in that. This is certainly part and parcel of the frustrating age we live in, where the ex-leaders we’ve mentioned do not take responsibility for what they have done. Maybe it’s always been like that, but it is particularly prevalent at this point in time. 

What observations do you have about Sinclair’s relationship with Helene? It is surprising that they are still together because many marriages dissolve after the death of a child. They seem to have an active sex life. 

“The terror for any writer is that the well is going to be dry.”

He has total autonomy. Everything regarding the family is according to his rules. He is the most financially successful, and yet she has this great sexual power over him. They don’t have regular intercourse, they have cunnilingus, where he is literally on his knees before her. That is the power dynamic that they have. Whatever gets you through the night, baby! It is their contract of how they do it. We never see them in a flashback that shows their marriage prior to the suicide of their son, so you can only speculate on that, but it has got to a point where it is barely concealed contempt for one other. I know a couple in London who have been married for 40 years. They have the most toxic marriage imaginable, and no one can understand why they are still together. Maybe sex is what does it? I have no idea, but it is astonishing. The verbal abuse these people hurl at one another is up there with “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” What goes on in marriages or partnerships is a mystery. 

Let’s talk about Sinclair’s fits of madness. I’ve long enjoyed watching you as an actor get a little wild and have these amazing rants. Now that I think about it, when I have an outburst of frustration, you are probably my role model as to how to behave in those situations. What can you say about depicting Sinclair’s temper?

How do I answer that? These are not things I have, but they are written by brilliant writers. That’s the kick of being an actor, that you can say and do stuff that I would never be able to do in my real life. Being given the opportunity to do that is a great release.

How do you find the right level of madness?

I have no – well, when I was 10 years old, I woke up in the back of a car and inadvertently saw my mother f**king my father’s best friend on the front seat. And I had to keep that secret. When my father found out and got divorced and became a violent alcoholic, I suppose my teenage life was living on the edge with someone who was a Jekyll and Hyde character, who at 9 p.m., when he had a full bottle of whiskey, suddenly turned into this unrecognizable monster. The frustration of having to navigate the person I loved and respected by day when he was sober and having to reconcile this with the maniac after 9 p.m. is probably the source of my rage. Calling Dr. Freud. So, I suppose that is what I very easily draw on.

Sinclair is a bit of a puppeteer — until he isn’t. Both Liam and Bertie seek Sinclair’s approval. Sinclair doesn’t have much humility, but he does exhibit fits of jealousy. What observations do you have about him and the ideas of manipulation in the film? There are several levels of sexual tension because everyone is trying to seduce everyone else, sometimes physically, sometimes emotionally.

Sinclair employs Liam, who causes havoc, and because Sinclair finds out that Liam is a wannabe writer as well, there is instantly a tussle between a man in his twilight zone — I am, at 66, the oldest person on every job I do now — and there is young Liam, the young buck who has more testosterone than five bulls in a row. So, for Sinclair, that is a challenge, and it causes a kind of sexual tension. Because Sinclair sees Liam as this is what I was or what I could have been. When it results in physical violence, it is charged with that. The old stag fighting for his place with the young one. A tale as old as time, as Disney movies would tell us.

What do you think of the idea of Liam being a surrogate son for Sinclair? Sinclair is grieving and he takes some of his grief out on his surviving son. Does Sinclair seek to “replace” Felix with Liam since Bertie is a disappointment?

I can think of the equivalent where Sy Newhouse didn’t appoint his son to be the head of Vogue magazine and that whole empire; he chose his nephew, Jonathan Newhouse to do it instead. So, there is that thing where if somebody doesn’t fit within your own family, you seek the surrogate somewhere else, and that causes unbelievable havoc in a family.

Look at “The Godfather“!

Exactly! Conde Nast in real life or the Corleone family. Sonny thinks he’s in charge, and it’s Michael who is the dark horse.

Sinclair is trying to finish his book and salvage his reputation. Why is this so important to him? Is he that vain? “Writers must write,” he says, but he steals as a writer. Can you talk about his talent? Is it just ego and hubris that makes him feel he has to write?

I think so. It’s very difficult when writers get “written out.” I’m not saying Martin Amis got written out, but he stopped producing a novel every two or three years. It then turned into essays and compilations and very clearly, biographical things rather than writing fiction. The terror for any writer is that the well is going to be dry. That is exactly what has happened to Sinclair; his whole persona is being a successful writer; hitting writer’s block, his ego can’t get around that. How can he say, “I can’t do it anymore? I have nothing left.” That’s why he has to purloin someone else’s work in order to finish off his novel. That’s a very human thing. You think, I can’t go out there and be exposed as a fraud.

Writers must write; Actors must act. Why do you act? 

I will ask you, Gary Michael Kramer, why do you write?

Because I want to tell other people’s stories. I like to make folks aware of films that inspire me, and actors like you, who inspire me. I want to share that with others.

You felt compelled to write since you were a little boy?

Yes. 

I can say the exact same thing. I have no idea where it comes from. I never thought I’d end up with the career I have or let alone be in a movie. My final assessment in theater school, I was told I looked like a funeral attendant because of my long face. I was told if I ever wanted to make it in the theater, I should stick to writing and directing. I thought, maybe they know something I don’t. That compulsion to do it is in essence what you say about wanting to share and connect with other people. There is no better way than doing that.  


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


Sinclair is a writer. What do you like to read? 

What are you reading?

I review books, so I’m currently working my way through “Idlewild,” about two teens in a Quaker school in New York circa 9/11, and I have Bryan Washington’s “Family Meal” to review after that. Also on my nightstand is my pleasure novel, the latest Brett Easton Ellis book, “The Shards.” 

I am currently reading the new doorstop-thick biography of Noel Coward, called “Masquerade,” which gives the real difference between the public life he led and his secret life. He was such a multihyphenate talent in the first half of the last century. I’m addicted to biography and autobiography, and history. Getting a new view on someone I had such a fixed idea of who or want he was, and this is a way of understanding that. The hunger and excitement of all that era after the first World War, is something I find riveting. 

“The Lesson” opens in theaters July 7.

QAnon leader who encouraged the belief that JFK Jr. walks among us has died

60-year-old Michael Protzman — a Trump supporter and leader of a group of QAnon members who believe that both JFK and JFK Jr. are still alive — died last Friday from “multiple blunt force injuries.” In a report from the Southern Minnesota Regional Medical Examiner’s Office obtained from Vice News, Protzman’s injuries were the result of losing control of his dirt bike while riding at the Meadow Valley Motocross track in Millville. Following his accident, he was taken to Mayo Clinic in Rochester but did not gain recovery.

Known within the QAnon community as Negative 48, Protzman was most infamous for herding his flock to Dallas in 2021 for the purpose of welcoming a long-deceased JFK Jr. to Dealey Plaza, the location of former President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination. According to The Dallas Morning News, the gatherers at this unusual event believed it heralded the reinstatement of Donald Trump as president. Vice reported on this Dealey Plaza gathering at the time, giving insight into Protzman’s strange belief that “John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy are the physical second incarnation of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, while JFK Jr. is the Archangel Michael, and Donald Trump is the Holy Spirit.”

“When JFK failed to materialize in Dealey Plaza . . . Protzman and many of his followers went to a Rolling Stones concert, where many claimed they met Michael Jackson in disguise,” wrote Senior Reporter David Gilbert. “I hope he’s finally at peace,” Rachel Boullion, whose mother left her family to follow Protzman, said in a text message obtained from The Dallas Morning News in response to his death. “Clearly, a person who enjoys taking advantage of the vulnerable and feeding them false promises and lies is someone who isn’t right within themselves.”

How fine dining came to exclude immigrant cuisine — and how social media is pushing back

The history of restaurants, food and, especially, fine dining, is deeply tied to the history of immigration to the U.S. and French cultural power in the early 20th century. Not surprisingly, the story that leads to Yelp and Anthony Bourdain is not without its share of racism that the modern food world and its tastemakers are still grappling with today.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we speak to three experts who study food culture and fine dining about the perceptions and definitions of “good food.” We explore how food trends are deeply tied to immigration, how the history of Western culinary techniques limits the creativity and authenticity of modern restaurants and how social media compares with the Michelin Guide as a tool in the quest for good food.

 

The definition of ‘good food’

Between ever-increasing culinary skill and creativity, the boom in organic and seasonal ingredients, a growing interest in ethnic food and flavors and a glut of food media — from the Michelin Guide and Zagat to Instagram and TikTok — there has arguably never been a better time to eat, drink and appreciate a truly good meal.

What defines “good food”? This is a subjective question in many ways, but a chef’s career can single-handedly be made or broken by a review in the esteemed pages of the Michelin Guide or The New York Times food section. Even in the world of social media, some restaurants consistently rise to the top of Yelp and Instagram, so there is some consensus idea of what “good food” is.

To understand where the ideas that define good food come from, it’s helpful to understand how the modern restaurant came to be. “At the turn of the 20th century, you have Georges Auguste Escoffier, who, with his friend Ritz, opened the Ritz-Carlton,” explains Gillian Gualtieri, a sociologist at Barnard College in New York City. “The Ritz becomes this training ground for European cooks and chefs, and you then send them out to these glamorous hotels all over Europe to cook for the European and American elites.”

To this day, the techniques and even the language developed by Escoffier are taught in culinary schools across the world.

As the world urbanized, more and more people began to eat at restaurants and the concept of the food critic emerged. These critics wield power. When Gualtieri asked 120 New York chefs whose opinions mattered most, they most valued the opinions of their peers — and the Michelin Guide.

           

Immigration and ethnic food

The Michelin Guide and many of its peers in the legacy food media have historically been gatekeepers of fine dining, focusing on white, Eurocentric restaurants and in many ways controlling what kinds of cuisine are worth paying a premium for. But ethnic food — whether it is Mexican, Japanese or, in the past, Italian food — is a massive part of the U.S. food scene.

As Krishnendu Ray, a professor of food studies at New York University in the U.S., explains, the perceptions of immigrant food are closely tied to perceptions of the immigrants themselves.

“What you see is there’s a kind of a early popularity of immigrant foods, first inside the community, and then slowly it spreads outward. Other people start eating, journalists are eating and writing about it, but it does not acquire prestige,” Ray explains. “That changes over time, depending on which immigrant group is coming into the U.S. in the largest numbers and which cohort is slowly moving up in terms of upward mobility.”

After looking at prices of various types of cuisine over the decades and comparing it with immigration trends, Ray found a consistent pattern. Immigrant foods are first considered cheap and not prestigious when lots of immigrants move to the U.S. but slowly gain clout as the people themselves become more culturally established.

            A top-down photo of a plate of food.
The Instagram gaze is a normalized style of posting about food that many food influencers on Instagram use. Alexander Spatari/Moment via Getty Images
           

         

Social media influencers as food critics

In an era of social media, many people are now turning to Yelp, TikTok or Instagram to figure out where they want to get a meal. Zeena Feldman is a professor of digital culture at King’s College in London, in the U.K. She was interested in seeing whether Instagram viewed good food in the same Eurocentric ways as the Michelin Guide or whether, as she explains it, “because anyone can have a voice on Instagram, underrepresented cuisines from different parts of the world and from less expensive price points might be getting more of the attention there.”

To answer this question, Feldman looked at the reviews of Instagram food influencers in London and New York and then compared them with the Michelin Guide.

“Culturally and economically, Instagram food criticism is a lot more inclusive than Michelin,” says Feldman. “So you have many more cuisines, and especially cuisines outside of the Global North, being represented.”

But Instagram wasn’t completely without flaws. “I started out thinking of Instagram food culture as being something created by amateurs, by just people as obsessed with food as I might be,” says Feldman. “What I found is actually these are professionals, either people making money from promoting content or people aspiring to make money from promoting content. And so what that means is that there’s a certain standardization to how food is being represented on Instagram.”

Most people have seen what Feldman has termed the “Instagram gaze.” These are the overhead shots of well-lit food that, Feldman notes, almost never feature any people.

Feldman thinks that, with so much food media out there, there is more opportunity to find good food, but the definition of that, as she puts it, is “food that you actually enjoy eating.”


This episode was produced and written by Dan Merino and Katie Flood. Mend Mariwany is the executive producer of The Conversation Weekly. Eloise Stevens does our sound design, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.

You can find us on Twitter @TC_Audio, on Instagram at theconversationdotcom or via email. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s free daily email here.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

Daniel Merino, Associate Science Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation and Nehal El-Hadi, Science + Technology Editor & Co-Host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

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

New study shows a link between food insecurity and cognitive decline in older adults

According to a recent study published in in JAMA, there may be a correlation between hunger and "slightly faster mental decline" in older adults in the United States. The study — which spanned 18 years and was conducted by researchers from Colombia University, the University of California, San Francisco and the University of New Mexico —  noted a "longitudinal association between food insecurity and memory decline, suggesting possible long-term negative cognition function outcomes of exposure to food insecurity in older age," among the 12,609 study participants, aged 50 and older. 

Food insecurity, according to the study, is defined as "the inadequate and unreliable access to food for a health life." This study is released only weeks after SNAP's working age requirements were increased up to age 55, as well as as the fact that, currently, "food insecurity is at its highest since December 2020," as reported by Salon Food. 

In order to assess food insecurity, participants were asked if they always had enough money to buy the food they needed, as well as if they ever ate less than felt they should because there wasn't enough money to purchase food. Cognitive and memory function were assessed as such: participants "complete[d] memory assessments," which focused on memory function, which was then tested via "immediate and delayed word recall tasks." Other demographic information and health issues were taken into account as the researchers monitored for changed in cognitive functioning over time. According to the study, "food-insecure respondents were also more likely to be born in the South and smoke, reported more chronic conditions and depressive symptoms, attained fewer years of education, and had higher body mass index and lower household income and wealth." 

Too scorching to even turn on your stove? Here are 3 cold shrimp dish recipes, plus a summer salad

Every summer where I live, there is a period when nearly every conversation you have revolves around how hot it is. It is all we can talk about here when it gets hot like this. And at least once on any given sweltering summer day, someone will thoughtfully point out that “It’s not the heat — it’s the humidity.” That person is not wrong, but it is odd that what I read on their sweaty face is something like disbelief or shock. 

We all know this heat is coming, just like hurricane season and everything else we either dread or look forward to. Most of us here have dealt with it every summer of our lives, but yet we all seem to be caught off guard and a bit surprised by just how bloomin’ hot it gets each year. 

Like many around the country, we are in the middle of a heat wave, so maybe it is a little worse than usual for this time of year. Thankfully, neither my husband nor I have much of an appetite for hot food in the summer, so the kitchen is used more for prepping and assembling than for baking or extensive cooking. Other than an occasional pot of peas, we prefer dips, cold appetizers, finger foods, cold fruit and salads.

These are some of my favorite “party shrimp” recipes that are good all year round, but I love making a batch to have ready in the refrigerator for when it is truly too hot to cook.

I am also including a favorite salad recipe for this time of year when gardens and farmers markets are full of sweet corn, tomatoes, new potatoes and basil. It is dressed simply with olive oil, fresh lemon and a little salt and pepper and won’t ruin your appetite for a little something sweet afterwards.   


Cook’s Notes

Hands on time varies if you have to cook, peel and/or devein your shrimp.

-How to boil shrimp for these recipes: Rinse your fresh shrimp well then add them to a pot of boiling, salted water, just enough water to cover them. Cook only until they curl into a “c” shape, about 4-5 minutes for medium shrimp, then cool them down quickly to stop them from continuing to cook.

-How to peel boiled shrimp: Once cool enough to handle, you “pull, peel and pinch:” Pull the head off (hopefully, like me, you purchase yours with this first step done for you), peel the shell off (starting with the legs and going around) and pinch the tail to remove it from the shrimp.

-How to devein shrimp: Oftentimes, you don’t need to devein a medium sized shrimp, which is the size called for in these recipes. But, if you can see it, you should remove it. Although not harmful to eat, it is unappetizing to see. Use a sharp paring knife to make a small slit lengthwise down the middle of the back of the shrimp (where you see the vein) and run under water to remove. Be careful not to slice the shrimp in half. You only need a very shallow slice.

-Actual cook time for medium sized shrimp is less than 5 minutes, but these will all need to marinate overnight or longer.

-These recipes can all be halved for a smaller group.

 

Cocktail Party Shrimp
Yields
15 to 20 servings
Prep Time
12 hours 10 minutes

Ingredients

1 cup neutral oil, such as canola, vegetable or safflower

3/4 cup apple cider vinegar

8 to 9 bay leaves

2 tablespoons capers, plus 2 tablespoons juice (from jar)

1 1/2 teaspoons celery seed

Salt and pepper to taste

3 pounds medium shrimp, cooked, peeled and deveined

1 large sweet onion, thinly sliced

2 to 3 limes, thinly sliced

 

Directions

  1. Combine oil, vinegar, bay leaves, capers and juice, celery seed, salt and pepper in a large bowl.

  2. Add the cooked shrimp to the marinade, stirring to coat thoroughly.

  3. Refrigerate overnight. Stir occasionally. 

  4. To serve, remove the bay leaves and drain. Arrange in a pretty serving bowl or dish with toothpicks or cocktail forks. 

 

Spicy Shrimp in Mustard Sauce
Yields
15 to 20 servings
Prep Time
24 hours 10 minutes

Ingredients

3 pounds medium shrimp, cooked, peeled and deveined

1/2 cup chopped parsley

1/2 cup finely chopped onion

1 1/2 cups chopped celery

1/2 cup tarragon vinegar

1/2 cup white wine vinegar

1 cup olive oil

6 tablespoons Dijon mustard

2 to 4 teaspoons crushed red pepper flakes**

Salt and pepper to taste

 

Directions

  1. Place cooked shrimp in a bowl and set aside. 

  2. Combine the remaining ingredients, stir well and pour over shrimp.

  3. Cover and refrigerate at least 24 to 36 hours before serving, stirring every so often.

  4. To serve, drain off marinade and arrange on a pretty dish with toothpicks or cocktail forks


Cook’s Notes

-The longer these marinate, the better they are — but they can get quite spicy!

 


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


 

Marinated Shrimp with Artichokes and Mushrooms
Yields
12 to 15 servings
Prep Time
12 hours 

Ingredients

2 pounds medium shrimp, cooked, peeled and deveined

2 to 14 oz cans artichoke hearts, drained

1 to 2 containers small button or cremini mushrooms, halved*

3/4 cup olive oil

2 tablespoons water

1/4 cup tarragon vinegar

2 to 3 cloves garlic, crushed

1 1/2 teaspoons dry mustard

Hefty pinch of sugar

Salt and pepper to taste

 

Directions

  1. Combine, shrimp, artichokes and mushrooms in a large bowl and set aside.

  2. Stir together the oil, water, vinegar, garlic and remaining seasonings, then pour over shrimp and vegetables.

  3. Cover and refrigerate overnight.

  4. To serve, drain off the marinade and into a serving dish. Serve with toothpicks or cocktail forks.


Cook’s Notes

-Feel free to parboil or precook the mushrooms before adding them if you like, but make sure to dry them before adding them to the mix.

 

Summer Salad
Yields
6 to 8 servings
Prep Time
20 minutes
Cook Time
20 minutes

Ingredients

1 pound small red new potatoes, scrubbed clean

5 to 6 ears of fresh shucked sweet corn on the cob

1 pint grape or cherry tomatoes, halved 

1 small red onion, peeled and sliced very thinly

1/2 to 1 cup or the leaves of a nice bunch of fresh basil

1/4 cup olive oil

1/2 cup fresh lemon juice

Salt and pepper to taste

 

Directions

  1. Boil potatoes in salted water until just tender enough to fork, about 12 minutes. Place potatoes in an ice bath to cool down.

  2. Add corn on the cob to the same boiling water. (You may need to break the cobs in half so they fit in your pot.) Cook corn 7 to 8 minutes or to your liking. Move to ice bath when done.

  3. Drain and dry potatoes once cooled and cut in half or in quarters to make bite-size and place in a large salad bowl.

  4. Drain and dry corn, then cut kernels off the cob using a sharp knife. Add to salad bowl with potatoes.

  5. Add remaining vegetables and basil leaves. Cover and refrigerate until time to serve.

  6. When ready to serve, add oil and lemon juice, salt and pepper and gently toss.