Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

James Comer’s big “informant” against Joe Biden goes “missing” — but MAGA won’t care

File under “Fox News learned nothing from the Dominion lawsuit.” Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo was one of the worst offenders for behavior that led to the record-setting $787 million settlement Fox News paid in a defamation lawsuit filed by a voting machine company falsely accused of “stealing” the 2020 election from Donald Trump. During the height of the Big Lie, Bartiromo had a steady stream of guests touting wild conspiracy theories, usually based on shady claims of “sources” that were often entirely fictional. Or, in the case of Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, based on emails from a woman who claimed she is a ghost who speaks to the wind. 

Yet Bartiromo was at it again on Sunday night. This time she interviewed Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., about his highly implausible claims to have “evidence” to back up the increasingly baroque right-wing conspiracy theories accusing President Joe Biden and his family of running a crime syndicate. Comer claims to have an “informant,” but somehow, said person never materializes, and neither does their evidence. Even Bartiromo asked where this person was. 

“Well, unfortunately, we can’t track down the informant,” Comer replied, making up some wild story about how “informants are kind of in the spy business” and thus this disappearing act is no surprise. 


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


Rather than point out how convenient it is that Comer can’t  produce the evidence for his claims, Bartiromo gave Comer the full Sidney Powell treatment, declaring it is a “stunning breaking news story this morning that some of these people now may be missing.”

The possibility that Bartiromo is ignoring: One cannot be “missing” if one never actually existed.

Republicans’ “informants” probably live in the same right-wing alternate reality as “Q” from the QAnon cult or the wind ghosts who gave Sidney Powell psychic evidence for the Big Lie.

Republicans’ “informants” probably live in the same right-wing alternate reality as “Q” from the QAnon cult or the wind ghosts who gave Sidney Powell psychic evidence for the Big Lie. It’s not like Comer is especially shy of letting people know he intentionally spreads disinformation from his perch as the chair of the House Oversight Committee. In March, he bragged about flogging conspiracy theories to the New York Times by noting that Republican voters want to hear “QAnon stuff” and arguing that “the customer’s always right.” The odds that this “informant” is a real person, therefore, are roughly equal to the possibility that Rudy Giuliani is sober during any post-5PM TV interview. 

No one should hold their breath waiting for any in the Republican base to be embarrassed by the obvious bullshit fueling the “Biden crime family” lie. A few, whose brains are totally pickled by QAnon message boards, will believe there was once an “informant” and said person “suddenly” disappeared. Most, however, will take the story of Mysterious Disappearing Whistleblower in the spirit it’s intended: as a fairy tale that MAGA heads recite not out of true faith, but to demonstrate fealty to the tribe.

As with the Big Lie or any of the other whoppers Trump and his acolytes peddle, it’s not that the GOP voters are seriously deluded, so much as they enjoy the transgressive thrill of lying and getting away with it. I’ve been writing for years about the psychology of MAGA lies, and how few who espouse them truly believe them. It was only recently, though, that a reader shared with me this Scientific-American article by Jeremy Adam Smith about the concept of the “blue lie.” As Smith explained, blue lies are “told on behalf of a group” to or about another group, as a way to strengthen the in-group while demonizing an out-group. In “Capture the Flag,” for instance, your team might throw up a decoy to mislead the other team about where your flag is. In politics, this is where one political group tacitly agrees to share in a lie that they think will benefit themselves at the expense of others. The Big Lie, for instance. Or claiming to disbelieve E. Jean Carroll. Or birtherism. It’s less an expression of authentic belief and more about point-scoring against political opponents. 


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


The Dominion lawsuit helped a lot more journalists understand the extent of blue lying among the GOP base. Before Dominion published reams of internal communications from Fox, the widespread belief was that the Fox audience was a passive recipient of conspiracy theories. Most commentators spoke as if the network set out to deceive its viewers, who just haplessly fell for the lies. What the documents show, however, was the opposite. When Fox tried to tell viewers the truth about the 2020 election, the viewers revolted. It was only after Fox started to lie to them about the election that they came back. The audience isn’t just complicit in the lies. The viewers demand lies. 

The odds that this “informant” is a real person, therefore, are roughly equal to the possibility that Rudy Giuliani is sober during any post-5PM TV interview.

Paul Waldman of the Washington Post addressed this reality last week, rebutting the naive commentators hoping that “fact checks” of Trump would somehow diminish him in the eyes of his supporters. Waldman correctly noted that Trump’s supporters are perfectly aware he is lying, and so are impervious to said “corrections.” 

The ability to lie and get away with it is a show of power. As fascists, all the MAGA base cares about is power. And as Waldman noted in a follow-up column, “The very act of lying, then shouting down those who would correct you, is what creates the excitement the party’s voters crave.” It’s why Trump voters don’t care that he contradicts himself from moment to moment. One moment he’s denying that he raped E. Jean Carroll. The next moment, he’s winkingly bragging about it, saying both that she had it coming and he was entitled to do it. To the GOP, the whole point is rubbing people’s noses in Trump’s ability to lie and get away with it.

That’s why Comer playing “the dog ate my informant” is not going to diminish him or his conspiracy theories to Republican voters. Likely, they never believed there was an actual informant, or cared if he ever produces one. The point is not any sincere belief that Biden has done anything wrong. If anything, the accusations against Biden are more thrilling because they’re so obviously false. The conspiracy theory will keep chugging, getting more bizarre as it goes, all without a shred of real evidence to back it up. The point for the GOP base is playing their hateful game of make-believe, and they are never going to let petty little things like facts get in the way of their fun. 

What the media missed from Trump by falling for his CNN distraction

Which version of Donald Trump showed up for his special fake town hall meeting on CNN?

Did the world get Donald Trump the fighter, wannabe warlord, and demagogue professional wrestling heel? Or did the world get a tired and humbled version of Trump, cowed and made weaker by how just a day earlier a civil court found him liable for sexually assaulting and defaming E. Jean Carrol – and awarded her 5 million dollars in damages?

Much to the frustration of Trump’s critics, it was not the latter.

To borrow from one of my favorite movies, Donald Trump went on CNN to chew bubblegum and kick ass….and he was all out of bubblegum. For more than an hour, Donald Trump unleashed a torrent of fascist lies, authoritarian broadsides, white supremacist invective, and engaged in an assault on human decency and reality itself. He was in his glory.

Trump showed no fear of further defaming E. Jean Carroll. He celebrated the Jan. 6 terrorists and promised to pardon most of them if he returns to power. He continued his threats against democracy saying that the Jan. 6 coup and attack on the Capitol was a “beautiful day”. He basically called the Democrats and others who want women to have control over their own bodies baby killers that are guilty of blood libel. Trump continued with the Big Lie about the 2020 Election being stolen, which by implication means that he is the “real” president and Joe Biden is a usurper who should be removed from office by force if necessary. Trump bragged about the non-existent accomplishments of his presidency.

Trump even went so far as to call Kaitlan Collins, the host of the town hall, a “nasty person” as he postured, mocked, and showed utter contempt for her.

To paraphrase another of my favorite movies that is useful for explaining Donald Trump, “You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? A perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility….I admire its purity. A survivor. Unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality… I can’t lie to you about your chances. But you have my sympathies.”

CNN filled the audience with Republicans and right-leaning independents. Predictably, they cheered for Donald Trump and laughed when expected to. Donald Trump is a sociopath and a malignant narcissist. The live audience filled him with the narcissistic fuel he craves.It is now being reported that the CNN town hall audience was told not to boo or otherwise show disapproval (the producers of the show described it as “disrespect”) for Trump.

 

Trump’s CNN town hall was a promise of more misery, fear, and even worse and more cruel policies that will shorten lives, tear the country even more apart at the seams, and imperil democracy.

As I explained in a previous essay here at Salon, I was not going to watch CNN’s Trump town hall spectacle. But after the E. Jean Carroll decision I changed my mind. It was now must-see TV — and I was not disappointed.

As I watched Donald Trump’s performance, I was simultaneously disgusted and transfixed. Trump is great at being a villain; he has natural timing and is very funny.

Several times I said to myself “this MF’er is crazy”. He truly is. Trump’s natural comedic timing is a trait he shares with other demagogues and fascists such as Mussolini.

It is that dark charisma that compelled almost 75 million Americans to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. Sick societies produce and reward sick leaders.

As I was writing this essay, almost on cue, Trump’s people sent out a series of emails celebrating his victory – and it was a victory – over CNN. Donald Trump is now selling t-shirts that feature an image of him wearing sunglasses. Under his face, in huge bold letters, the t-shirt reads “This is TNN”.

Here is the email:

Democrats were hoping CNN would trap President Trump and destroy his presidential campaign on live TV during last night’s town hall.

But President Trump TOOK COMMAND of the CNN town hall and spoke directly to the VOTERS who responded with cheers, applause, and even laughs.

His CNN town hall was so masterful that many are now saying CNN should be renamed TNN – the Trump News Network…

I let out a loud spontaneous laugh when I saw the image of Trump on this new t-shirt wearing sunglasses. It felt good to laugh so hard.

On Friday, Trump continued to gloat and celebrate his victory by sharing a a fake video of CNN personality Anderson Cooper on his Truth Social disinformation platform. In the obviously faked video, Cooper says “That was President Donald Trump ripping us a new asshole here at CNN’s live presidential town hall.” 

Some observers tried to diminish Trump’s performance during the CNN town hall special with the criticism that “he was just repeating himself” and “there was nothing new about anything Trump said or did”.

When the greatest hits work with your audience why change them up? Trump’s public loves and enjoys his hate sermons and would be disappointed if he did not give them what they want. Those who live outside of the MAGAverse and the right-wing echo chamber refuse to accept that fact because they find it so upsetting and confusing.

On Twitter, Keith Olbermann succinctly described CNN’s Trump town hall as “THE HINDENBURG DISASTER OF TV NEWS”:

CNN gave away 70 minutes of primetime and all its credibility to Trump: a madman, a criminal, a liar, a fascist. Its moderator believed “no, you’re wrong” would silence him.

Olbermann is correct in the most general sense. But the more accurate analogy is that CNN and Trump conspired to set fire to the Hindenburg, record the disaster, and then sell the footage for lots of money.

Ad revenue and ratings are why CNN decided to host Donald Trump and his town hall. Contrary to what CNN’s leadership has claimed, this was not a decision based on doing what is good for democracy or serving the public interest more generally.

CNN’s calculation would prove to be correct – at least in the short term. More than 3 million people watched Trump’s town hall, which is some 2 million more than usually watch the network’s regular programming at that time. The Trump town hall was also one of CNN’s most watched shows in recent years. Donald Trump also helped CNN to outpace its rivals (MSNBC and Fox News) by almost 2 million viewers.

At the Atlantic, Tom Nichols said this about CNN’s choice to host Donald Trump and his town hall:

Last night, however, CNN chose one of the worst possible options. Instead of a candidate interview, CNN Chairman Chris Licht apparently thought it would be a great idea to cast Trump in a remake of The Jerry Springer Show, complete with vulgar jokes, hooting fans, and a mild-mannered host—in this case, the CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins—stuck with the thankless of job of trying to intervene in the shouting and angry finger-pointing. Instead of an important one-on-one interview with a dangerous and malevolent demagogue, CNN presented another episode of Trump’s ongoing reality show.

The result was a disaster that was not only foreseeable but also as predictable as the laws of physics, a cringe-inducing display that damaged CNN’s reputation, put one of its rising stars in a no-win situation, cheapened journalism, and undermined our political process—all in the span of little more than an hour…

How anyone—especially the head of a news network—can believe that this group of people has been ignored is astonishing. Perhaps he missed the many years of journalists conducting ritual pilgrimages to America’s diners and asking every angry old guy in a red hat to please, please tell us what he wants.

Perhaps what Licht really meant is that CNN should see MAGA world as an underserved community that is up for grabs while Fox News reels from its scandals. It seems an odd strategy, however, to push Collins onstage as the blood sacrifice for an hour, and then follow that up with Jake Tapper and other CNN hosts wrestling with the cognitive dissonance of talking about what a miserable fiasco their own network just splattered across the nation’s screens.

As many observers have noted, CNN has learned nothing since 2016. Or maybe CNN has learned everything since 2016, and intends to do it all over again.


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


In an essay at the Courier Newsroom, Mark Jacob, a former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, focused in on how CNN should have handled Donald Trump:  

Here’s what should have happened at Donald Trump’s CNN town hall Wednesday night:

When Trump said Wisconsin officials “virtually admitted that the [2020] election was rigged,” a loud buzzer should have sounded.

CNN host Kaitlin Collins should have said, “Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Trump, but our panel of fact-checking experts has sounded its Truth Buzzer. The panel thinks your statement may not be 100 percent accurate. So let’s hit the pause button for a minute and listen to our panel’s deliberations.”

Then the panel — if it existed — should have cited the verified facts and concluded that, no, the 2020 election was not rigged in Wisconsin or anywhere else.

And then the town hall should have resumed until the next Trump lie and the next Truth Buzzer and the next fact-check.

It would have been good television — much better television than CNN delivered Wednesday night….

CNN needed the Truth Buzzer. But cable news programmers wouldn’t like that innovation because any show with Trump would spend more time sorting out his lies than hearing him speak. If this era has shown us anything, it’s that it’s easier to lie than to fact-check lies. And professional frauds such as Trump and former aide Kellyanne Conway know that if you string your lies together in a flurry of falsehood, even the most hard-nosed journalist has trouble getting the discussion back to the first lie in the string.

As expected, the event was a big win for Trump and yet another defeat for real news. But that’s what CNN seems to be after these days, as long as it’s a player in the game. The very act of letting a known liar like Trump on the air normalizes him.

Slate’s Justin Peters described what he saw as the carnage of a host wholly ill-equipped for the task at hand.

Though Collins came prepared, she was ultimately defenseless against Trump’s dark talents for ignoring or belittling people he deems less important than him, which is everybody. She’d try to get him to answer a specific question. He’d ignore her and talk about some bullshit. She’d interject with a hapless “But Mr. President …” He’d ignore her again, and then she’d move on. “The election was not rigged, Mr. President. You can’t keep saying that,” Collins said at one point, and then Trump kept right on saying that. At one point, Trump called Collins “a nasty person.” The audience cheered. Collins tried her best, but her best was nowhere near good enough.

That said, it’s CNN’s fault for putting her in a position to fail in the first place. Absolutely every single moment of this debacle was predictable, and it is enraging to see CNN making the exact same mistakes it made when Trump first entered into the public sphere eight years ago. The network gave a seditious would-be despot carte blanche to openly lie on live television for an hour, in front of an adoring crowd, with ineffective pushback from a reporter who, if Wednesday night is any indication, is nowhere near ready for prime time. The pregame chatter among CNN’s vacuous panelists, meanwhile, used the same empty framing that has long made the term “talking heads” a pejorative. “What does Trump need to accomplish at this town hall?” Wolf Blitzer asked just before the town hall began.

As part of a broader pattern of failure, the mainstream news media will focus in on the horse race aspects of Trump’s town hall, polls, focus groups, and what it all portends for the 2024 campaign. As an institution, the mainstream news media and commentariot will also default to the comfortable frame of theater criticism and the superficial about Trump’s performance and style and pretending to be shocked at the traitor ex-president’s behavior when, after (at least) seven years of it, there is nothing at all shocking or surprising about it. 

In this moment of democracy crisis and ascendant fascism the most important and critical focus should be on implications and what Trump’s words and promises – and threats – as further amplified and repeated during the CNN town hall spectacle means for real people’s lives. When understood in that way, Trump’s CNN town hall was a promise of more misery, fear, and even worse and more cruel policies that will shorten lives, tear the country even more apart at the seams, and imperil democracy and the civil and human rights and freedoms of not just black and brown people, the LGBTQ community, women, the poor and working class, Muslims, Jews, and other targeted groups but all Americans. 

Moreover, to fully understand the existential threat that Trumpism and the Republican fascists and larger white right pose to the United States and the American people, this moment of crisis must be located in a larger global context.

To that point, what Trump was saying on CNN in many ways is a much nicer and G-rated version of what he recently told a meeting of neofascists and white supremacists in Hungary.

In her newsletter Letters from an American, Historian Heather Cox Richardson sounded this alarm:

Last week, on May 4 and 5, the Conservative Political Action Conference met in Budapest for the second time, and once again, Orbán delivered the keynote address. The theme was the uniting of the radical right across national boundaries. “Come back, Mr President,” Orbán said of Trump’s 2024 presidential bid. “Make America great again and bring us peace.” Orbán claimed his suppression of LGBTQ+ rights, academic freedom, and the media is a model for the world.

Plenty of the people there from the U.S. seemed to agree. “Hungary,” Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said, “is a beacon.”

In a recorded message, Trump said conservatives were “freedom-loving patriots” who are “fighting against barbarians.” “We believe in tradition, the rule of law, freedom of speech and a God-given dignity of every human life. These are ideas that bind together our movement,” he said. He called for the audience to “stand together to defend our borders, our Judeo-Christian values, our identity and our way of life.”

What does one do in a battle against “barbarians? You fight and kill them.

Once again, Donald Trump continues to channel Adolf Hitler and such eliminationist and genocidal language and threats of massive violence – and the American news media and commentariot and the Church of the Savvy mostly dismiss it as bluster and hyperbole or have just outright decided to ignore it.

Ultimately, CNN’s decision to host a Donald Trump town hall was not a public service. It was a selfish decision to make money by hurting democracy and undermining civil society.

However, CNN’s bad choice did do something valuable by serving as an example of exactly what the American news should not do with how it covers Donald Trump – and the Republican fascists and other malign actors more generally.

Going forward responsible voices among the mainstream news media should ask themselves “What Would CNN Do?” – they should then do the exact opposite.

How did nonstick “forever chemicals” get into our food? Blame pesticides

Pesticides have come under increased scrutiny in recent years. From the discovery that the herbicide glyphosate is in 80 percent of Americans’ urine to concerns that weedkillers’ neonicotinoids in pesticides are killing off bees, scientists keep amassing alarming information about the products ostensibly intended to protect our food. Now a recent study by a nonprofit focused on protecting the environment reveals a new problem with pesticides: They are filled with forever chemicals, a class of compound that is typically used in nonstick and waterproof surfaces. These chemicals aren’t used as pesticides and shouldn’t be in them, a fact which at first puzzled scientists who discovered the contamination.

A recent study… reveals a new problem with pesticides: They are filled with forever chemicals.

The findings come courtesy of the Center for Biological Diversity in their March report on the most widely used pesticides in the United States. The authors find that “dangerous” PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) that are linked to cancer, kidney disease, high blood pressure, thyroid disease, autoimmune disease, birth defects and other serious health problems — even when people are only exposed at low levels.

PFAS are popularly known as “forever chemicals” because they never organically degrade, meaning once in the environment they linger there permanently. The authors of the report express concern that, because these PFAS were found in three out of the seven most commonly used pesticides, they could be covering our food and leaching into our water supply. 

“I can’t imagine anything that could make these products any more dangerous than they already are, but apparently my imagination isn’t big enough,” Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Guardian. “The EPA has to take control of this situation and remove pesticide products that are contaminated with these extremely dangerous, persistent chemicals.”

This is not the first time that scientists have criticized the EPA for allegedly not doing enough to protect the public from PFAS. Last month a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) tested water samples from across the United States and learned that more than two-thirds of them were contaminated with PFAS. Speaking with Salon at the time, the scientists behind that research argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not doing enough to monitor PFAS and protect the public.


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


“Scientists, policymakers, and regulators struggle to keep pace with the rate of industry’s unchecked production and use of new PFAS. The detection of a significant number of PFAS not monitored by EPA is part a reflection of this reality.”

“The majority of unmonitored PFAS found in this study are newer generation PFAS that are being used as replacements for legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS,” study co-authors Dr. Katie Pelch and Dr. Anna Reade told Salon by email at the time. “Scientists, policymakers, and regulators struggle to keep pace with the rate of industry’s unchecked production and use of new PFAS. The detection of a significant number of PFAS not monitored by EPA is part a reflection of this reality.” Companies are particularly effective at keeping regulators at bay by constantly creating slightly different chemicals to replace old ones that are banned or restricted. This practice is known as regrettable substitution and last month Dr. Sara Brosché, Science Advisor with IPEN, told Salon that “every time one of these PFAS molecules are getting regulated, the industry just comes up with a new one that is slightly shorter or slightly different, but it still has basically the same function and the same health impacts.”

As Brosché explained to Salon at the time, PFAS are shiny, greasy chemicals that serve a number of purposes in products, from making fabrics resistant to stains to helping umbrellas slough off droplets of water. “It’s almost like it’s oil or something like that,” Brosché described to Salon. As The Guardian noted, though, it is unclear why pesticide companies would use PFAS, although one theory is that they are used as a dispersing agent. Either way, it is imperative to note that PFAS do not merely look unappetizing, but have been linked to serious health problems including pregnancy issueslower sperm countsliver disease and high blood pressure.

PFAS are also found in a wide range of commonly used products including microwavable popcorn bags, paper packaging, fast food wrappers, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant clothing, furniture coating and other commonly used products. Pesticides, meanwhile, are used throughout the United States to keep insects and other organisms that might destroy agriculture off of foods. In addition to the news that they may have PFAS, pesticides are controversial because they contain chemicals like glyphosate, which has been repeatedly linked in studies to diseases like cancer.

“What we know is that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a division of the World Health Organization (WHO), looked at the evidence in 2015,” Dr. Chadi Nabhan, author of the book “Toxic Exposure,” told Salon in February. After explaining how the organizations work, Nabhan added that “they determined that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. What that means is that there is a possibility that glyphosate could cause cancer in some patients. Most of the linkage based on the epidemiologic studies was with a disease called Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which is a form of cancer that involves the lymph glands and the bone marrow.”

GOP candidate wants to restrict voting for Americans between 18 to 25 amid Republican struggles

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, a longshot candidate for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, tweeted his belief on Friday that some young people in the United States are undeserving of the democratic right to vote.

Ramaswamy went on to say that Congress should pass a constitutional amendment barring 18-25 year olds from voting, with some exceptions.

“Young people no longer value a country that they simply inherit,” Ramaswamy claimed in his tweet. “People value something more if they have a stake in creating. That’s why I’m proposing a constitutional amendment that requires 18-year-olds to pass a civics test or meet a national service requirement.”

Ramaswamy’s tweet included a link to his website, where he details his proposal.

Under Ramaswamy’s proposal, individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 would have to serve in the military for at least six months in order to be eligible to vote. Barring that, people within that age range could vote only if they served in a first responder role or passed a civics test similar to the one used for naturalization citizenship tests.

Notably, just 7 percent of the U.S. population has served in the military, and fewer than 2 percent of the populace is currently a first responder. Furthermore, a 2018 survey found that two out of every three American voters would fail the civics test that Ramaswamy is saying young adults should be required to pass.

The provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently ban tests for voting, which were used to disenfranchise people of color for decades. Additionally, the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that states allow people to vote if they are 18 years of age or older.

Ramaswamy’s proposal, which would be a constitutional amendment, would overturn both standards, which have been in place for more than half a century. It’s unlikely that enough states would ratify the amendment for it to pass, but other Republicans have also expressed a desire to raise the voting age, following their party’s less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections, which saw many young voters support Democratic candidates for office.

Notably, because Gen Z is more racially diverse than any other generation in U.S. history, restricting the voting rights of people in this age range would disenfranchise millions of nonwhite voters. These voters are also more likely to support LGBTQ rights or identify as LGBTQ than any other generation, and disrupting their ability to vote could result in state and federal governments that are more likely to impose homophobic and transphobic laws.

Just after the midterms, ACT For America chair and anti-Muslim commentator Brigitte Gabriel expressed her support for changing the threshold to vote. “Raise the voting age to 21,” she wrote on Twitter.

Fox News personality Jesse Watters also disparaged young voters after the midterm elections. “The fact that these youth voters are coming in so strong in an off-year is very concerning. It looks like they’ve been brainwashed,” he said.

Conservative radio host Peter Schiff has similarly called for raising the voting age. “Let’s raise the voting age to 28,” he said on his program last year. “If I was still 18 I’d support this.”

While it’s unlikely that Republicans will succeed in implementing changes to the voting age, GOP lawmakers in states across the country have proposed and passed a number of bills imposing voting restrictions that disproportionately impact young people. These laws include voter ID requirements that do not include college or university cards, mandates that bar polling places from being located on or near campuses, and the shortening of mail-in ballot deadlines, all of which make it harder for young people to vote.

Young people and organizations dedicated to empowering youth voters are fighting these efforts by filing lawsuits against voting restrictions, providing campuses with financial resources to help students overcome geographical barriers, and educating young people about efforts to curtail their rights.

Young people are much more civically engaged than Ramaswamy claimed in his recent social media posts, organizers for young voters say.

“There is so much power in voting, and for youth, there is an extraordinary commitment to voting,” said Maxim Thorne, CEO of Civic Influences, a nonprofit group that aims to help young people vote, speaking to Truthout’s Ngakiya Camara in February.

Expert: Supreme Court could force co-workers to bear cost of accommodating religious employees

The Supreme Court may soon transform the role of faith in the workplace, which could have the effect of elevating the rights of religious workers at the expense of co-workers.

On April 18, 2023, the court heard oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy, a case addressing an employer’s obligation to accommodate religious employees’ requests under federal law. The dispute involves a Christian postal worker who quit his job and sued the U.S. Postal Service after he was unable to find coverage for his Sunday shifts. Current law requires employers to make accommodations for workers’ religious requests only if doing so doesn’t impose more than a minimal cost on their business, known as the “de minimis” standard.

After listening to the oral arguments in the case, I believe it’s very likely the court will overturn the de minimis standard and require employers to accommodate more religious requests. As Justice Gorsuch stated, “I think there’s common ground that de minimis can’t be the test, in isolation at least, because Congress doesn’t pass civil rights legislation to have de minimis effect, right?”

In my view, as a scholar of employment discrimination, the only questions are how far the justices will go – and who will ultimately pay the price.

Religious rights in the workplace

Employers are required to accommodate the religious needs of employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so long as they can do so without imposing an “undue hardship.”

Congress didn’t define what that term meant, and it took another dozen years for the U.S. Supreme Court to do so in Trans World Airlines v. Haridson. The court determined that Title VII does not require employers to bear more than a “de minimis” or minimal cost in accommodating religious employees.

Relying on this narrow decision, employees requesting religious accommodation in the workplace have generally fared poorly in the courts. Supporters of more religious accommodation in the workplace have tried many times to amend Title VII to redefine undue hardship as a “significant difficulty or expense.”

From 1994 to 2013, over a dozen bills attempting to codify this definition were introduced in Congress, with none coming close to passage. After failing to persuade Congress to amend Title VII, religious advocates turned to the Supreme Court. However, the court’s decision to hear this case is highly unusual, since it suggests it is considering overturning its own long-standing precedent.

The other key issue in the case is whether or not a religious accommodation that imposes on co-workers can count as an undue hardship on the employer.

Since Trans World Airlines v. Haridson, most federal appellate courts have determined that accommodations affecting religious employees’ co-workers – such as those requiring them to take over undesirable weekend shifts – can be an undue hardship, even if the business is not directly harmed. In practice, that has made it easier for an employer to avoid accommodating a religious request.

Business interests vs. religious rights

Ultimately, the Groff case pits business interests against religious rights. That presents a unique dilemma for the current court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, which is both the most pro-business and the most pro-religion court in recent memory.

One way to resolve these two apparently competing interests would be to overturn the de minimis standard and require employers to provide greater accommodation to religious employees while allowing employers to sometimes shift this cost to co-workers.

Based on what the justices said at the hearing and their discussion about accommodations that affect worker morale, I believe it’s likely that that’s exactly what the Supreme Court is going to do. That would have the effect of dramatically limiting employee rights.

Take, for example, one common type of accommodation request, which is time off from work for religious observance.

In those cases, either co-workers can bear the cost of accommodation, by covering for the religious employee without necessarily earning more income, or the employer can bear the cost of accommodation, by hiring additional workers, paying premium wages or suffering a loss of productivity. If the Supreme Court determines that a cost to co-workers alone can never be an undue hardship under Title VII, employers would likely shift the cost of accommodation onto co-workers – for example, requiring them to work to work an undesirable weekend shift.

Unless an accommodation also leads to a significant difficulty or expense on the business itself – such as through a loss of productivity or efficiency – harm to co-workers would never be a justification for denying an accommodation, as it has been in most federal appellate courts.

Co-workers bearing the brunt

Co-workers could also be harmed in cases involving accommodation of religious expression. This is of particular concern in cases in which religious expression demeans LGBTQ+ people.

In 2004, the 9th Circuit determined that it would pose an undue hardship and be demeaning to co-workers for a religious employee to post in his cubicle the Bible verse “If a man also lie with mankind … both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.”

Yet if the Supreme Court broadens the definition of undue hardship and determines costs to co-workers alone never create an undue hardship, employers might be required – by a civil rights law originally aimed at prohibiting employment discrimination – to accommodate religious expression that demeans LGBTQ+ employees.

Assuming the Supreme Court decides this case as expected, the losers would be co-workers who will bear the brunt of the increased religious accommodation requirement. And the Roberts court would maintain its status as one of the most pro-business and pro-religion courts in modern times.

Debbie Kaminer, Professor of Law, Baruch College, CUNY

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

How corporations use greenwashing to convince you they are battling climate change

Many corporations claim their products are “green-friendly.” But how do you know if what they’re selling is truly eco-safe? SciLine interviewed Thomas Lyon, professor of sustainable science, technology and commerce at the University of Michigan, on how to buy environmentally sustainable products, whether carbon credits actually work and the prevalence of greenwashing.

Dr. Thomas Lyon discusses the impact of corporate sustainability initiatives.

Below are some highlights from the discussion. Answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.

What is greenwashing?

Thomas Lyon: Greenwashing is any communication that leads the listener to adopt an overly favorable impression of a company’s greenness.

How can the consumer avoid falling for it?

Thomas Lyon: I still love the old concept of the seven sins of greenwashing. The first and most common is what’s called the sin of the hidden trade-off, where an organization tells you something good they do but neglects to tell you the bad things that go along with it.

For example, when you see an electric hand dryer in a public restroom, it may say on it: This dryer protects the environment. It saves trees from being used for paper.

But it neglects to tell you that, of course, it’s powered with electricity, and that electricity may have been generated from coal-fired power, which might actually be more damaging than using a tree, which is a renewable resource. That’s the most common of the seven deadly sins.

Other ones include the sin of irrelevance. For example, telling people that “this ship has an onboard wastewater recycling plant,” when all ships that go to Alaska are required by law to have exactly that kind of equipment. It’s no reflection of the company’s quality.

The sin of fibbing is actually the least common. Companies don’t usually actually lie about things. After all, it’s against the law.

One of the increasingly common forms of greenwashing … is a hidden trade-off between the company’s market activities and its political activities.

You may get a company that says: Look at this, we invested US$5 million in renewable energy last year. They may not tell you that they spent $100 billion drilling for oil in a sensitive location. And they may not tell you that they spent $50 million lobbying against climate legislation that would have made a real difference.

What are carbon credits (or offsets)?

Thomas Lyon: I think the easiest way to understand these may be to step back a little bit and think about cap-and-trade systems … under which the government will set a cap on the aggregate amount of, say, carbon emissions. And within that, each company gets a right to emit a certain amount of carbon.

But that company can then trade permits with other companies. Suppose the company finds it’s going to be really expensive for it to reduce its carbon emissions. But there’s some other company next door that could do it really cheaply.

The company with the expensive reductions could pay the other company to do the reductions for it, and it then buys one of the permits – or more than one permit – from the company that can do it cheaply.

That kind of trading system has been recommended by economists for decades, because it lowers the overall cost of achieving a given level of emissions reduction. And that’s a clean, well-enforced, reliable system.

Now the place where things get confusing for people is that a lot of times the offsets are not coming from within a cap-and-trade system. Instead they’re coming from a voluntary offset that’s offered by some free-standing producer that’s not included in a cap.

Now it’s necessary to ask a whole series of additional questions. Perhaps the foremost among them is: Is this offset actually producing a reduction that was not going to happen anyway?

It may be that the company claims, “Oh, we’re saving this forest from being cut down.” But maybe the forest was in a protected region in a country where there was no chance it was going to be cut down anyway. So that offset is not what is called in the offset world “additional.”

What should consumers make of companies that offer programs such as planting a tree for every widget they sell?

Thomas Lyon: Overall, it’s better that they’re trying to do something than just ignoring the issue. But this is where you, the consumer, have to start doing your homework … and look for a provider that has a strong reputation and that is making claims validated by external sources.

Which rating schemes can people trust?

Thomas Lyon: There’s a cool little app that I like a lot. You can download it. It’s called EWG Healthy Living. EWG stands for Environmental Working Group. It’s a group of scientists who get together and draw on science to assess which products are environmentally friendly, and which ones aren’t. And they have something like 150,000 products in their database.

You can scan the UPC code when you go to the store, and you just immediately get this information up on your phone that rates the quality of the company’s environmental claims and performance. That’s a really nice little way to verify things on the fly.

Are there any examples of business practices that really do benefit the environment?

Thomas Lyon: Building is one big area. LEED building standards or Energy Star building standards reduce environmental impact. They improve the quality of the indoor environment for employees. They actually produce higher rents because people are more willing to work in these kinds of buildings.

You can look at the whole movement toward renewable energy and companies that produce solar or wind energy. They’re doing something that really is good for the environment.

The move toward electric vehicles – that really will be good for the environment. It does raise trade-offs. There are going to be issues around certain critical mineral inputs into producing batteries, and we’ve got to figure out good ways to reuse batteries and then dispose of them at the end of their life.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Tom Lyon, Professor of Sustainable Science, Technology and Commerce and Business Economics, University of Michigan

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

“Unconscionable and devastating”: Democrat’s staff attacked with baseball bat at district office

Two staff members were attacked on Monday by a perpetrator brandishing a baseball bat at the office of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va.

Officers responded to the scene in Fairfax, Va., on Monday morning, police told Fox 5 DC.

Connolly told CNN that the assailant attacked two of his staffers with a metal bat. The congressman said the attacker hit a senior aide in the head and hit an intern — who was on her first day on the job — in the side.

Connolly, who was at a ribbon cutting at a food bank at the time of the incident, told the outlet that the attacker was a constituent that he does not know and that he also caused damage to the office, smashing glass and computers.

“He was filled with out-of-control rage,” Connolly said.

Connolly said in a statement that both aides were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries and the man was arrested.


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


“The individual is in police custody and both members of my team were transferred to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. Right now, our focus is on ensuring they need. We are incredibly thankful to the City of Fairfax Police Department and emergency medical professionals for their quick response,” the statement said.

“I have the best team in Congress. My District Office staff make themselves available to constituents and members of the public every day. The thought that someone would take advantage of my staff’s accessibility to commit an act of violence is unconscionable and devastating.”

Why the US is trapped in an unending state of post-COVID “recovery”

An unprecedented chapter in global public health has drawn to a close — at least according to international and U.S. public health officials. The seemingly interminable thrall of the COVID-19 pandemic, which held the world in a state of alarm for three harrowing years, is being declared over.

As of this month, public health organizations around the world have been called upon by the World Health Organization to end their pandemic public health emergencies.

“For more than a year the pandemic has been on a downward trend,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. “This trend has allowed most countries to return to life as we knew it before COVID-19.”

Yet some public health experts attest that the declaration belies public health data — which suggest not only that novel mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which causes COVID-19 are still spreading in pockets around the world, but also that the US has yet to recover in the true definition of the word.

In the United States, the COVID-19 public health emergency officially ended on May 11. This will result in logistical changes as it relates to federal aid. For example, COVID-19 tests and treatments are no longer guaranteed to be free. The CDC will no longer track transmission.

Yet the coronavirus has not only taken lives, but also changed our way of living. Hence, this declaration doesn’t necessarily mean that a previous way of life will snap back to “normal times.”

Researchers like Daniel Aldrich, who is a professor of political science and Director of the Security and Resilience Studies Program at Northeastern University and studies the characteristics of resilient communities, say the U.S. could now be stuck in a phase of recovery — because it wasn’t “resilient” enough to overcome the adversities of the pandemic in the first place.

A baseline, or the lowest level of resilience, would simply mean to be able to resume some kind of normalcy again afterwards.

What’s the difference between recovery and resilience? Resilience, Aldrich said, is “the ability of an individual, institution or community to go through a shock and ideally transform.” A baseline, or the lowest level of resilience, would simply mean to be able to resume some kind of normalcy again afterwards. While vague, Aldrich pointed to Japan’s Tohoku earthquake in 2011 which caused a tsunami. Rebuilding homes on the coast wouldn’t necessarily be an example of resilience in the communities affected by the tsunami; rather, moving people uphill, building bigger sea walls, and “changing the system” to make future disasters less damaging would go beyond recovery and define resilience.

As a researcher studying resilience, post-disaster, he’d ask businesses about the numbers of clients they’ve had returned. Cities, he added, can measure how many cars are in the streets, how many kids are catching school buses, what is referred to as “mobility data.” If these numbers match those from pre-disaster levels, that’s a display of societal resilience. Aldrich said population is another example of a tangible way that resilience can be assessed.


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


When considered in terms of resilience, American cities don’t stack up very well. As the U.S. Census Bureau found, the growth of what were considered to be the fastest growing cities in 2019 slowed down during the pandemic. Six of the cities on the declining list were in California. New York City’s population decline in 2021 was six times greater than what the city experienced in 2019. Chicago exhibited a similar decline.

One study published in JAMA Network Open found that during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, people took fewer steps; these steps have yet to recover to pre-pandemic levels. “On average, people are taking about 600 fewer steps per day than before the pandemic began,” said study author Dr. Evan Brittain, associate professor of cardiovascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, via CNN. “To me, the main message is really a public health message — raising awareness that COVID-19 appears to have had a lasting impact on people’s behavioral choices when it comes to activity.”

“There’s still a measurable impact, that shows that we have not been as resilient, in terms of mobility.”

Aldrich said he “100 percent” thinks the U.S. is stuck in a phase of recovery. And said he wouldn’t say COVID-19 is over.

“There’s still a measurable impact, that shows that we have not been as resilient, in terms of mobility,” he said. “Because we’re literally walking less, we’re staying closer to home.”

While loneliness was already considered to be an epidemic before the pandemic, the Surgeon General’s Advisory on Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation states that the COVID-19 pandemic advanced trends in declining social participation. In 2021, 49 percent of Americans reported having three or fewer friends; only 27 percent reported the same in 1990. One study found that there was a 16 percent decrease in network size between June 2019 to June 2020, highlighting the way the pandemic caused people to lose touch with their social networks. Despite technology, a quarter of Americans reported they feel less close to close family members now compared with before the pandemic.

“Yet, almost half of Americans (49%) in 2021 reported having three or fewer close friends — only about a quarter (27%) reported the same in 1990,” the advisory read. “Social connection continued to decline during the COVID-19 pandemic, with one study finding a 16% decrease in network size from June 2019 to June 2020 among participants.”

Cat Moore, the director of belonging at the University of Southern California, told Salon she’s seen students be more “intentional” about their social connections since the pandemic. That may be contributing to the difference in quantity.

“I do feel like students overall are finding a new way that’s comfortable for them to socialize,” Moore said. “What I see is students are being a lot more self-aware about what kinds of relationships and groups they want to invest in because I haven’t seen too much social energy bounce back, and so I think people are being a lot more intentional about how they’re spending their time and with whom.”

However, in order for a society to be resilient, Aldrich said it must have strong social capital, which is a term used to describe the strength of relationships of people in a society. As Aldrich’s research has found, social capital — not physical infrastructure — is more important to a community after going through a disaster. And it can be the best predictor on how well a society can handle catastrophe. In order to have strong social capital, a society needs to have a strong sense of trust, which the U.S. is lacking.

“I think part of it also is, you know, both sides of the aisle don’t really trust each other to the degree they’ve done in the past,” Aldrich said. “And if you don’t trust the government and don’t really trust people nearby, then there isn’t much space left.”

Pew Research Center shows trust in public government in the U.S. is currently near historic lows— which has been on a decline since the 1960s.

“Over the last 85 years now, we have really seen a tremendous decline” in social activity, Aldrich said. This includes basic things like Americans “leaving their home, putting themselves out there joining a club, joining a bowling league,” he added. 

Let me teach you the secrets to making a God-level grilled cheese

You’ll never be a God. However, you can eat grilled cheese like one. 

I was once a mortal, just like you, until I created God-level-grilled cheese. Its origin starts with my pops, just like many of my go to recipes that I rarely jot down. I cook like my dad, run my mouth like him, slam around the pots and pans like him, blast the music at a disturbing level like him, and even turn the burners up too high — just like him.

“You are going to burn the house down!” My wife Caron yells, reaching for the stove in an attempt to save us. I block the oven, shielding it from her.

“Hey baby, with love,” I say, defending my method, “I don’t bother you when you are making spaghetti. So can you please give a brother a little space?” 

She gasps while rolling her eyes until they bounce off of the top of her head while walking away. And sometimes she is correct: the burner is too high, and I set off every fire alarm in our zip code, but so what? Because my father did, too, and a little alarm never hurt anybody. I can take the sound of 2000 smoke detectors screaming until the batteries are drained and their wires popped out if it meant that I would be enjoying a God-level-grilled cheese

And while Dad’s grilled cheese was damn good, it wasn’t God-level. That wouldn’t come until later. 

As a delinquent, I was subjected to a year of homeschooling, also known as tel-la-teaching. This was the early 90s before everyone had a computer, so we operated solely on house phones. Tel-a-teaching required us to dial into four classes, using four different phone numbers, four times a day. My subjects were math/ science, English, history and Spanish. 

My dad worked nights, so he’d kick it with me on some days while I dialed in. Sometimes he giggled and made fun of my seriousness, “Boy, ya big head ass ain’t doing no work!” Sometimes he’d tell me to hang up and watch Jerry Springer with him. Occasionally he’d check my grades and say, “Don’t f**k around and fail!” And sometimes, he’d slam those pots around so loud that my teachers would disconnect me for being disruptive. 

It’s not God-level if tomato soup isn’t the side–– like, if the grilled cheese is Jesus, then the tomato soup is all 12 disciples.

The only thing consistent at those times was Dad cooking. He fried crab cakes, baked crab balls and sliced up hoagies. He whipped up tuna fish, pepper steak, and often, grilled cheese with a side of tomato soup. Remember, dad’s grilled cheese wasn’t God-level. However, tomato soup––  especially the kind that doesn’t come from a can — is always the right side for God-level-grilled cheese. 

It’s not God-level if tomato soup isn’t the side–– like, if the grilled cheese is Jesus, then the tomato soup is all 12 disciples. 

Dad used canned soup that he heavily seasoned or fresh tomato soup from a spot in the Northeast Market that he still spiced up. He made his grilled cheese using a chunk of butter, and two slices of American from the deli on Martin’s potato bread or rye bread. And even though I grew to hate American cheese, which I call the SPAM of all cheeses, his recipe worked. The result always left me wanting more especially when considering his bread choices. I was the only kid on my block who ate rye bread, my friends would say “Those little seeds look like mice s**ts.” I laughed. I still love rye bread and Martin Potato bread is baked nostalgia and will forever be classic. 

Dad used a cast iron, cut the burner 50-degrees past hell, and plopped in a chunk of butter, allowing enough to melt, ultimately coating the pan. Then he set two pieces of bread in, placing a slice of that American on each. Dad had to watch the pan like a hawk because as soon as the texture of the cheese appeared to soften, he had to join the two bread slices into one, smashing them together, hoping the sandwich didn’t get too dark from cooking on high. The second sandwich always cooked faster because he’s never turned the dial to low. 

Those sandwiches were as good as the house was smoky and I enjoyed them for years, all the way up until I was about to finish high school and realized I didn’t need cheese. I had abandoned dairy because it bothered my stomach, and that decision led me to being in the best shape of my life. Ditching dairy made the pounds fall off, and even allowed me to grow abs, which is crazy because I never had abs. Dad would continue to offer me a grilled cheese, and I quickly said, “Hell no.” I was free–– and then I met some white people. Those goddamned white people. 


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


I was out living my dairy free life, enjoying my abs and healthy digestive system, when LaTonya, a woman I dated in my early 20s asked me to take her to this fancy restaurant. 

“The place is so so nice,” LaTonya said, “It’s by the water, and I think you have to wear church shoes to get in!” 

“No, no, LaTonya,” I laughed, “I don’t need church shoes to get in. I have cash.” 

“I don’t need church shoes to get in. I have cash.”

So, they sat us at the bar because I didn’t have proper attire–– no jacket, no church shoes. She was upset until we met the too-cool bartender, an 8-foot white dude with bangs that made us all kinds of exciting drinks, using mixes and fresh juice combinations that he claimed to create. And we drank and drank and drank, so much that we wanted dessert. I ordered some cake-ice-cream thing I couldn’t pronounce, and while we waited, a white lady approached us with a cheese tray. Before I could wave her off, she named eight different types of cheese. I felt embarrassed because I had only heard of American, Swiss, pepper Jack and cheddar. I mean, mozzarella is on pizza, but no one called it mozzarella, We just said, “cheese pizza.” 

The waiter recommended some cheese, and like a dummy, I tried it, and like a sucker, I fell in love with fancy cheese, and like a dairy addict–– I have been hooked ever since. Goodbye abs, may you rest in peace. I haven’t seen them since. 

And when the level of cheese one consumes elevates, it is only natural that the grilled cheese sandwiches they consume elevate as well. For years I have experimented with different kinds of butter, olive oil, breads, and cheeses. After about a decade of undocumented research, backroom deals, and near-death experiences, I found the perfect combination and what has grown to become God-level-grilled cheese. 

One of the main differences between what I grew up on and what can be defined as God-level is the burner. You must cook on low. Dad would cringe, however, this is extremely important, as you cannot rush greatness. So yes, I broke away from dad and learned to let the fire burn low. 

But Dad had it right with the way he butters the cast iron, with that old-fashioned butter. None of that salt-free, “healthy,” chemically-modified margarine crap. Just regular, not-good-for-you, salty butter. Potato bread is always a good choice, being as though we are from the street; in most hoods, potato bread and Hawaiian rolls are like the Cadillacs of bread. 

However, if you want to play on this level, you must use fresh Challah bread. You must respect the Challah and know how to cut the Challah–– not too thick, not too thin. 

So cut the burner on low, heating up the cast iron. Add a few tablespoons of butter, and let them sit long until they melt and coat the pan. Then gently place your Challah in, with a healthy slice of white cheddar on one side and a healthy slice of Munster on the other. Allow the two kinds of cheese to soften. Then you must sprinkle sea salt on the white cheddar and drizzle organic honey on the Munster, before combining them and slightly smashing. 

Honey is the secret ingredient here. Its sweetness simultaneously elevates the creaminess of the Munster, cuts the sharpness of the cheddar and melds with the honey. You like honey-butter on rolls? You’re going to love it on grilled cheese. 

Once the sandwich reaches the appropriate shade of brown, take it out. 

God-level-grilled cheese should never be burned. Burned grilled cheese is the definition of the pedestrian.

Allow to cool and serve it with organic tomato soup and enjoy your heavenly creation.

Big food raking in huge profits from price hikes as US hunger persists

As the U.S. government on Wednesday released its latest inflation report, the watchdog Accountable.US put out a new analysis detailing how Americans face food insecurity while major food corporations are padding their profits with price hikes.

“Big Food’s staggering increase in earnings shows they did not need to raise prices so high on consumers but did so anyway to maximize record profits,” said Liz Zelnick, director of Economic Security and Corporate Power at Accountable.US, in a statement.

“It’s shameful that Americans are left food insecure and have to skip meals while corporations and their wealthy shareholders enjoy the spoils of supersized profits under unjustified price hikes,” she added. “It’s clear that the food industry will not hold itself accountable. It’s time Congress do more to rein in corporate greed, one of the main factors currently driving up costs for families.”

“It’s time Congress do more to rein in corporate greed, one of the main factors currently driving up costs for families.”

The Accountable.US report takes aim at General Mills, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez — three of the top “at home” food companies in the United States based on market capitalization — focusing on January through March, the first quarter of this calendar year.

General Mills is one of a few companies that dominate the U.S. breakfast cereal market, with brands including Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp and Lucky Charms. Kraft Heinz is known for not only ketchup and macaroni and cheese but also Jell-O, Kool-Aid and Philadelphia Cream Cheese. Mondelez’s top brands include Chips Ahoy! and belVita.

The companies’ combined net earnings for the quarter rose by 51% year-over-year (YoY) to a combined $3.47 billion and the trio collectively spent over $1.3 billion on shareholder dividends, Accountable.US found. Of the three, only General Mills saw its earnings drop from the first three months of 2022 to the same period in 2023 — though the company still spent more on dividends this year compared with last year.

The first three months of this calendar year were the third quarter of General Mills’ 2023 fiscal year. Accountable.US cited Reuters‘ March 23 report that the company “raised its fiscal 2023 forecasts for a fourth time after beating estimates for quarterly results, helped by price increases and steady demand for its packaged-food products.”

The watchdog also highlighted that General Mills “saw its net earnings increase by nearly $2 billion YoY for the first nine months of FY 2023, as the company spent over $2.16 billion on its shareholders through a combination of dividends and stock buybacks.”

For Kraft Heinz, the watchdog referenced Reuters reporting earlier this month that it “raised its full-year profit forecast on Wednesday on the back of higher prices and sustained demand for its packaged food items.” The analysis adds that the company “saw its Q1 2023 net income increase by 7.1% YoY to $837 million and spent $491 million on shareholder dividends.”

Accountable.US noted that during the first quarter of this year, “Mondelez — which touted price hikes for its double-digit increases in revenue and earnings — returned $928 million to shareholders through a combination of dividends and stock buybacks, after reporting $2.1 billion in profits, a 143% increase from last year.”

The group used its new analysis to call out the Federal Reserve, saying that “the findings are the most recent evidence that while inflation is slowing, the Fed’s single-minded policy of repeated interest rate hikes [is] doing little to contain the primary driver of rising costs — corporate greed.”

The report also emphasizes recent admissions from economists that corporate greed is driving inflation — which progressive organizations and experts have been stressing for months in response to the Fed’s interest rate hikes.

As the analysis points out, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month:

Consumers have . . . been unusually willing to accept higher prices lately. Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, said businesses are betting that consumers will go along because they know about supply bottlenecks and higher energy prices.

“They are confident that they can convince consumers that it isn’t their fault, and it won’t damage their brand,” Mr. Donovan said.

According to the consumer price index report released Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “the food at home index fell 0.2%” from March to April. While cereals and bakery products saw a slight increase, there were decreases for milk; nonalcoholic beverages; fruits and vegetables; and meats, poultry, fish and eggs.

However, the bureau’s report also provides context from the past year: “The food at home index rose 7.1% over the last 12 months. The index for cereals and bakery products rose 12.4% over the 12 months ending in April. The remaining major grocery store food groups posted increases ranging from 2.0% (fruits and vegetables) to 10.4% (other food at home).”

The Accountable.US analysis notes that in January and February, “food-equity advocates warned that ‘food insecurity for millions of American consumers is worsening’ despite overall inflation easing, with higher numbers of food stamp recipients reporting ‘skipping meals, eating less, and going to food banks to manage costs.'”

The U.S. Census Bureau has estimated throughout 2023 that based on household surveys, roughly 25 million people sometimes or often did not have enough to eat in the previous seven days. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that nearly 34 million people live in food-insecure households — though research published last month suggests that figure is likely an undercount.

Additionally, food insecurity figures don’t provide a full picture of how many families struggle to stay fed, as Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, CEO of food bank network Feeding America, explained to CNN in March: “The nuance is that some people are not ‘food insecure’ because they get access to the charitable food system. That doesn’t mean they’re able to achieve self-sufficiency.”

U.S. households are also contending with losing assistance related to the Covid-19 pandemic — including the end of the expanded child tax credit, universal free school meals and increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as food stamps.

As Common Dreams reported in late February, while experts warned that the end to boosted SNAP benefits would cause a rise in U.S. poverty, Public Citizen president Robert Weissman declared that “a decent society would not let this happen.”

Fox News host calls out GOP claims about the Bidens: “Jared and Ivanka made up to $640 million”

Fox News host Arthel Neville on Sunday pressed Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., to explain the difference between profits made by Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner during former President Donald Trump’s tenure and the profits of Biden family members Republicans have accused of corruption.

The GOP-led House Oversight Committee last week released a lengthy memo ostensibly to expose alleged underhanded family business deals by members of President Joe Biden’s family. Republicans have particularly honed in on Biden’s son, Hunter, who they allege engaged in corrupt overseas financial relations. 

Burchett on Sunday claimed that the Biden family has engaged in “money laundering,” according to the most recent committee report.

Neville questioned Burchett about how the Bidens’ businesses performing well while in office differs from the previous administration, in which Ivanka Trump and Kushner raked in up to $640 million during Trump’s time in office, per a 2021 report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, on record, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump made up to $640 million while her father was in office, and they were official advisers to the president. If you would explain to our viewers why the Hunter Biden scenario is different,” Neville said. 

“Well, during the Trump administration, those transactions were not hidden. They’re on bank forms. There were not violations filed because of that. That was business dealings that they were doing, and they were business people,” Burchett replied. “Whether it was, I think that should be looked at as well.”

“So if the problem is corruption and compromise, wouldn’t any income of such of that substantial amount be problematic for our country while someone is in office and their family members are receiving those sorts of payments?” Neville pressed.

“I think so,” Burchett responded. “There should be no stone left unturned. But apparently, this is one that they refuse to even look at, so I think that shines a straight light right at the Biden administration.”


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


The GOP’s seemingly thinly veiled political charade has been shot down by several Fox News hosts, with host Steve Doocy telling House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., last week, “You don’t have any facts.” 

Fox host Maria Bartiromo questioned Comer about the probe’s evidence on Sunday, pressing him on the anonymous whistleblowers touted by the GOP.

“Well, unfortunately, we can’t track down the informant,” Comer replied. “We’re hopeful that the informant is still there. The whistleblower knows the informant. The whistleblower is very credible.”

“Hold on a second, Congressman. Did you just say that the whistleblower or the informant is now missing?” Bartiromo said.

“Well, we’re hopeful that we can find the informant,” the congressman said. “Remember, these informants are kind of in the spy business, so they don’t make a habit of being seen a lot or being high profile or anything like that.”

Bartiromo called Comer’s assertion “absolutely extraordinary.”

A stunning breaking news story this morning that some of these people now may be missing,” she said.

Cousin Greg was the feckless joke of “Succession.” Now he’s the idiot who abets democracy’s fall

Before we get to the results of the long-awaited election on “Succession,” where we find out what “America Decides” concerning charismatic fascist Jeryd Mencken (Justin Kirk), we need to talk about Cousin Greg (Nicholas Braun).

As a reminder, he is not a Roy. He’s a Hirsch. This is a crucial distinction. Forget that his name popped up in a document Logan Roy wrote that expressed his final wishes – a piece of paper that, as Waystar’s legal counsel says, means nothing.

A halfway cunning nobody can use their invisibility and perceived lack of value to destroy everything around them.

Previous seasons present Greg as the hapless dolt who acts as the idiot’s edition of a Greek chorus. His name got him into the family mansion, then into the company, and on the lowest rung of each social ecosystem. But that’s it. Everything else he has he’s carved for himself out of the skins of others.

His surname holds no weight at ATN, where he’s joined at the hip with head of news Tom Wambsgans (Matthew Macfadyen). It barely gets him in the same room with his cousins Kendall (Jeremy Strong), Roman (Kieran Culkin) and Shiv (Sarah Snook) when they’re in a good mood.  There’s rarely a time that they don’t remind him in some way that he’s worthless, a nobody.

But a halfway cunning nobody can use their invisibility and perceived lack of value to destroy everything around them. They pick up things their so-called betters carelessly drop, which is why Tom makes Greg do so much of his dirty work. Tom doesn’t earn much respect either, but since he’s married to Shiv, the boys recognize that he has a working brain.

Greg, on the other hand, is a tool – frequently a whipping boy, sometimes a human shield, lately a corporate guillotine.

So, for instance, if you have to redirect a loopy, erratic billionaire away from the people you’re trying to impress, you send in Greg. That became his assignment in “Tailgate Party,” which left him with GoJo chief Lukas Matsson (Alexander Skarsgård) and his right hand Oskar (Jóhannes Haukur Jóhannesson). Oskar loudly insults Greg as a hanger-on, which he is, but Greg soon ingratiates himself to him and Matsson by  joining them in taunting the lone woman in their group, Ebba (Eili Harboe).

Greg knows nothing about Ebba or her strange and painful relationship with Matsson. All he needs to know is that Matsson is a grotesquely wealthy man who has the power to possibly throw some gold his way. So he joins the boys in offering to fire Ebba – who Matsson has harassed by sending bricks of his blood – for them. Right in front of her. And for fun.

Greg is a shallower thinker than most, including Tom, so insults roll off him like water off the back of a lobotomized duck. That’s why Logan let the boy into the family circle in the first place; as the simpleton more idiotic than his idiot children, what’s the worst damage he could do?

Our mistake in viewing Greg as an adorable dullard eager to play “boar on the floor” is in neglecting to see that he’s been grasping for money and power all this time.

SuccessionNicholas Braun in “Succession” (Macall B. Polay/HBO)

“Succession” is many things, but a prime motif is the seesaw of overestimation and underestimation of various parties. Dumb, dopey Greg tends to benefit most from this, in that he overestimates his value while others doubt or dismiss his capabilities. Somehow he squirms his way to the safest harbor while everyone else scrambles.

But our mistake in viewing Greg as an adorable dullard eager to play “boar on the floor” is in neglecting to see that he’s been grasping for money and power all this time. It used to be cute, though, to hear him compensate for his lack of polish and couth by using ridiculously florid language when a one-syllable response would do. (“If it is to be said, so it be – so it is,” he blurts when a U.S. senator asks him to confirm his name.)

But he was also willing to give up his share of a multimillion-dollar inheritance for a shot at more money and power by sticking with Logan. After he sold his soul to Tom and Logan in the third season finale – “What am I going to do with a soul anyways? Souls are boring. Boo souls!” – he fully morphed into an imp that escaped from the Ninth Circle of Hell.

Jesse Armstrong writes Greg in such a way that he becomes a concept as well as a character, an inanimate noun and a verb. Tom refers to the duties that are beneath him as “gregging.” That used to earn Greg sympathy, making one hope he’d see the error of desperately trying to earn the love of hateful people. In this fourth season, his gregging has only made him better at fitting in with them.

While watching Kerry, Logan’s last mistress, humiliated by Marcia, he chooses to play her mean girl’s back-up singer: “Oh she’s coming over. It’s so distasteful,” Greg whispers. “Don’t look, Marcia. It’s too unpleasant,” later reveling in Kerry’s pain with, “Oh God, here come the waterworks.”

Hanging with Matsson brings out the next level. While everyone else was sleeping off their tailgate cocktails or, in Tom and Shiv’s case, restlessly regretting words they can’t take back, Greg was being dragged to what he describes as “pretty unseemly venues.” (Matsson later refers to Greg as a “normalist,” a polite version of “peon.”)

“I danced with an old man. He didn’t want to dance, but they made us dance,” Greg laments to Tom. “He was so confused. I drank . . . things that . . . aren’t normally drinks. And I got the impression  – Do you know about Matsson, Shiv and their sort of . . . their business alliance agreement?”

SuccessionNicholas Braun and Matthew Macfadyen in “Succession” (Macall B. Polay/HBO)

Oh dear. The thing is, yes – Tom knows. Tom is also heartbroken, which means he’s not going to sell out Shiv just yet. “Information, Greg, is like a bottle of fine wine,” Tom says. “You store it, you hoard it. You save it for a special occasion. Then you smash someone’s f**king face in with it.”

But with Greg, you really have to be specific about what that special occasion is.

“America Decides” is a replay of the 2020 election from an alternate universe, down to the implications of calling a state for a candidate incorrectly.

This is the first election with Kendall, Rome and Shiv in charge, Tom at the helm and no one in control on the floor. Kendall, reacting to his daughter Sophie’s fear of what could be unleashed with a racist autocrat in charge of the country, assures her that exit polls have Mencken’s Democratic rival Daniel Jimenez (Elliot Villar) ahead: “I won’t let the world push you. OK, sweetie?”

The early exit polls actually place them in a dead heat. Roman is in the tank for Mencken, and Shiv is secretly working for Matsson, who wants Jimenez, because he doesn’t seem insane.

Shiv calls Nate Sofrelli (Ashley Zukerman), who is cautiously confident while also hearing news about unrest in Milwaukee. Kendall also makes a sweaty phone call, conveying early congratulations in the hopes of getting on the good side of a man who could regulate ATN into oblivion.

Roman, in an act of gregging, ventures to Mencken’s hotel war room, where the fascist candidate demands assurances that ATN will deliver him the presidency – if not that night, then next time.

Rome signals they have a deal: “Even if you’re not going to be the president you’re going to be our president,” sealing the bargain with, “Over the road and into the bar.”

Kendall, back at the office, sits on his hands, supposedly following his father’s example of letting the chips fall where they may. Until they start leaking from the bag.

First, Greg plies Tom with cocaine. Then the touchscreen map malfunctions. Then news of street harassment from Mencken supporters in different cities escalates into reports that a Milwaukee ballot processing center has been set on fire.

Social media has that update. ATN does not.

Tom is wary of reporting it because Tom is incapable of making major decisions without Logan steering him. “Yes. Mm-hmm. Yes. We just need to respect our viewership,” he prevaricates.

SuccessionMatthew Macfadyen and Nicholas Braun in “Succession” (David M. Russell/HBO)

Roman wants the desk to run with it but to blame “antifa” instead of Mencken’s extremist thugs, the real culprits. So, under the guise of going to the bathroom, he heads to the newsroom floor and gives the ATN version of Tucker Carlson talking points that launch him on a paranoid rant.

A seething Shiv stalks down afterward and demands Tom stop what’s going on, only to be blocked by Greg’s gregging. So Shiv pulls Tom aside and apologizes for the terrible things she said the night before. Tom is unmoved, and responds to Shiv’s request for a little grace, given her father has died, by telling her she killed him – “Sort of. Sort of.”

Then, tears in her eyes, she goes all in, revealing that she’s pregnant with his child.  He’s thrown off by this for a second then asks, “Is that even true? . . . Or, is that a new position, or a tactic, or what?”

It is gutting. Somehow, though, Tom’s reaction isn’t as terrible as attempting to wash wasabi out of someone’s eyes with carbonated lemon water.

This is how Greg incapacitates the decision desk editor right when they decide Wisconsin is too close to call. That Milwaukee fire turned 100,000 votes in a Democratic stronghold into ash, in a state where the margin of victory is thin enough for them to matter. Based on other states’ results, calling Wisconsin for Mencken would effectively make him president.

Roman, who handpicked Mencken for Logan in the first place, wants his guy to win. Shiv is deeply fearful of what he’ll do to the country and urges them to hold off on making that call. The deciding vote in the room becomes Kendall, who has become increasingly ineffectual, unable to choose a direction and impressionable. A Greg with no puppetmaster.

On several occasions Braun has spoken about the canine energy he intentionally infuses into Greg. Jesse Armstrong introduces the character by stuffing him inside a Doderick suit, the Waystar answer to Disney’s Goofy, and having small children overwhelm him to the point that he vomits out of the costume’s eyes.

Dogs may be faithful to a fault, but they’re incapable of gaming out the long-term effects of their actions.

So when Shiv comes at Greg, putting him in his place for trying to wrangle her away from the newscast set, he responds with, “Got it. Sorry. I guess my only question would be if anything did come to pass in terms of you and he,” – referring to Matsson – “You know, silence is golden. Like, how golden? Is there any offer?”

Shiv offers to refrain from pulling his innards out of his backside. “Go on, you’re lumber. Keep your snout out.”

But Shiv is kind of a dumb puppy too. Placed opposite Roman in a stand-off and with Kendall between them, she thinks that reminding Ken that giving Mencken the presidency will be disastrous for democracy will be enough to appeal to his morality. You know, that thing that occasionally incapacitates him with guilt.

Roman counters that Mencken has guaranteed to help them stop the GoJo deal. Ken asks Shiv to secure that guarantee from Jimenez, and she pretends to call Nate, returning to Ken with the lie that Nate is open to the idea. She doesn’t predict that Ken, who called Jimenez earlier, would follow up.

She watches nervously as Ken walks out of the room on his phone, paces in the hall, glares at her through the glass, then walks over to Greg the Motherf**king Egg. The nobody who hears everything.


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


You know that gag in movies where a group talks through an elaborate strategy to get past a trap, only to have some fool accidentally trigger it? An innocent throat-clearing causes a cave-in.  A clumsy hiker kicks a pebble that starts an avalanche. They never mean to do it. Disaster just, you know, happens.

Viewed this way, Greg’s inability to let his damning information age like fine wine is the reason “Succession”‘s America falls into darkness. An angry Kendall confronts Shiv about her betrayal and sides with Roman out of spite. Tom refuses to stand in their way, and Shiv angrily calls him Pontius Pilate. ATN calls Wisconsin, and eventually the election, for Mencken. Jimenez’s folks are livid.

SuccessionKieran Culkin and Jeremy Strong on “Succession” (David Russell/HBO)

ATN runs Mencken’s premature victory speech, where he promises a version of democracy that isn’t transactional – ha – or unsullied by compromise with “welfare kings and queens.” “Something clean and true and refreshing. Something proud and pure,” he says.

“He’s a guy we can do business with,” Kendall mutters through a hollow, dispirited expression.

“We just made a night of good TV,” Roman blithely says. “That’s what we’ve done. Nothing happens.”

But things do happen, as Shiv points out. Manipulating the outcome has essentially turned Roman and ATN by extension into Mencken’s Greg, doing his dirty work. Greg feigns shock at having to “push the button,” but then shrugs out, since nothing much will change if he doesn’t do that – or for him personally. But is that true? Roman and Kendall won’t take the public blowback for the call. Tom does. “DNC Accuses ATN Head Tom Wambsgans Of Undermining Democracy,” the PGN banner below Tom’s mugshot reads.

Shiv stalks out of the building, gets on the phone with Matsson, and pledges to join him in going to war against her brothers. Greg, predictably, is left holding the phone Tom refuses to answer as it blows up with angry calls. And at the end of the night, after being denied a chance to see his children, a numb Kendall mutters to himself and his driver, “Some people just can’t cut a deal, Fikret.” 

Legal expert: Jim Jordan’s demand for Manhattan prosecutor to testify just backfired on him

Former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz hit back at House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, after he was subpoenaed by Republicans in their probe of the criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Pomerantz, who previously worked on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s probe into Trump’s business and alleged hush-money payments, appeared on Friday before a Judiciary subcommittee but refused to answer many questions about Trump’s 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. The charges are related to the ex-president’s role in hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign. 

Pomerantz declined to answer questions by citing the confidentiality of the ongoing case and invoking the Fifth Amendment right of self-incrimination, The New York Times reported. The former prosecutor stated that he had appeared before the subcommittee simply because he respects the rule of law. 

“What I do not respect is the use of the committee’s subpoena power to compel me to participate in an act of political theater,” Pomerantz said. “We are gathered here because Donald Trump’s supporters would like to use these proceedings to attempt to obstruct and undermine the criminal case pending against him, and to harass, intimidate and discredit anyone who investigates or charges him.”

“While I am certain I broke no laws, I am not required to answer questions if my answers might be used against me in a criminal prosecution,” he said, adding: “It gives me no joy to invoke my legal rights, but I am glad that the law allows me not to cooperate with this performance of political theater.”

Last month, Jordan traveled to Manhattan to hold a hearing on violent crime, an ostensibly retaliatory move after Bragg charged Trump in connection to the hush money scheme. 

Bragg’s office called the hearing a “political stunt,” arguing that if “Jordan truly cared about public safety, he could take a short drive to Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Akron, or Toledo in his home state, instead of using taxpayer dollars to travel hundreds of miles out of his way.”

Jordan also demanded that Bragg appear for the deposition. Bragg refused, citing pending litigation. A representative from Bragg’s office did, however, appear in court alongside Pomerantz, per the Times.

“The district attorney’s office is participating in today’s deposition and asserting our rights to oppose disclosure of confidential information protected by law,” the representative said in a statement.

Many Republicans saw Pomerantz’s appearance before the subcommittee as a partisan win but former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner argued that the hearing blew up in Jordan’s face.


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


Kirschner, an MSNBC legal analyst, called out Jordan’s past refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas, as well as self-imposed hurdles the MAGA ally has created for himself in a video posted to YouTube.

“[Pomerantz] called out Jim Jordan for unlawfully defying a congressional subpoena, blowing off a congressional subpoena,” Kirschner said. “To be clear, that constitutes the crime of contempt of Congress. Yet now, the criminal is issuing subpoenas to others, expecting them to comply. I think that qualifies as irony, at a minimum.”

The former prosecutor noted that since Trump is under indictment, Pomerantz’s conduct is governed by a different set of rules than when he made public comments about the case. If Jordan actually wanted to get information from Pomerantz, Kirschner argued, he could go to court and pursue the claim that he does not have a right to plead the Fifth.

“Here’s the problem: Jim Jordan has been yelling, and screaming, and yammering about how this whole prosecution in New York against Donald Trump is a witch hunt, political retribution. Donald Trump committed no crimes. He doesn’t deserve to be prosecuted,” he continued. But rather than effectively making the case that prosecutors committed crimes by bringing charges against Trump, Kirschner added, Jordan has rendered himself unable to persuade the D.A.’s office staff in court to push back on Fifth Amendment pleas. 

“Defense attorney’s nightmare”: Trump’s “incriminating statements” are a “gift” to prosecutors

Former President Donald Trump’s repeated statements about his mounting legal woes could compound his problems, legal experts say.

Former federal prosecutor Kristy Greenberg told MSNBC that Trump is a “prosecutor’s dream and a defense attorney’s nightmare.”

“Any good defense attorney is going to tell a target of a criminal investigation to stop talking; anything you say and will be used against you,” Greenberg said, responding to the former president’s CNN town hall last week. “Donald Trump seems incapable of doing that.”

“He made numerous incriminating statements in a number of criminal investigations that are pending at the CNN town hall,” she added. “If that town hall is any indication, Donald Trump on the campaign trail is going to be the gift that keeps on giving for prosecutors.”

Former federal prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner argued on his YouTube channel a number of ways the ex-president complicated his legal woes, calling the town hall a “terrible idea” and criticizing CNN for handing “a microphone and a platform to the man who tried to end American democracy.”

Moderator Kaitlan Collins during the event pressed Trump on whether he had shown any documents to anyone else.

“Not really,” Trump responded. “I would have the right to, but not that I can think of.'”

Kirschner argued that Trump “dug his legal grave deeper” with the statement.

“I predict those incriminating statements will be introduced into evidence at the future trial of the United States of America versus Donald Trump,” he said. 

Kirschner added that Trump had also “incriminated himself” in connection with the Fulton County district attorney probe into his efforts to overturn the election.

Trump during the town hall defended his call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss, falsely claiming that the election was “rigged” and that the election official “owed” him votes.


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


Trump also attacked and mocked longtime columnist E. Jean Carroll just one day after a jury awarded her $5 million in damages after finding Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

“Trump will not be deterred by a jury’s verdict or punitive damages. Donald Trump will not be deterred by a judge’s admonitions that he shouldn’t say things like this. Donald Trump will not be deterred by a judge’s protective order or gag order. You know what will deter Donald Trump? A jail cell,” Kirschner said.

“Yes, it’s taken too long. Yes, we’re frustrated. Yes, we’re impatient,” he added. “Yes, Donald Trump should not be given a microphone and a platform to spew his lies, even if a byproduct of having that microphone, having that platform is he digs his own legal grave deeper because he continues to incriminate himself. That byproduct isn’t worth his ability to use that microphone and that platform to continue to spew his lies to our nation’s most gullible and most vulnerable. And in some instances most hateful. It is time to deter Donald Trump. Because justice matters.”

James Comer mocked after claiming informant his “entire charade was built on” is “missing”

House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., claimed on Sunday that the panel cannot track down a key informant in the Republicans’ probe into the Biden family’s business dealings.

Republicans have repeatedly pushed corruption allegations against the Bidens that have frustrated even Fox News hosts. “You don’t have any facts,” host Steve Doocy told Comer last week.

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo pressed Comer on the evidence on Sunday.

“You also spoke with an informant who gave you all of this information,” she said. “Where is that informant today? Where are these whistleblowers?”

“Well, unfortunately, we can’t track down the informant,” Comer replied. “We’re hopeful that the informant is still there. The whistleblower knows the informant. The whistleblower is very credible.”

Comer added that “no president has ever been accused of the things that the Biden family’s been accused of.”

“Hold on a second, Congressman. Did you just say that the whistleblower or the informant is now missing?” Bartiromo interjected.

“Well, we’re hopeful that we can find the informant,” Comer said. “Remember, these informants are kind of in the spy business, so they don’t make a habit of being seen a lot or being high profile or anything like that.”

Comer added that nine of the 10 informants “that we’ve identified that have very good knowledge with respect to the Bidens, they’re one of three things. They’re either currently in court, they’re currently in jail, or they’re currently missing.”

Bartiromo called the congressman’s claim “absolutely extraordinary.”

“It is stunning that some people are missing, that you need to the prove this,” she said. “Just stunning. A stunning breaking news story this morning that some of these people now may be missing,” she later added as she wrapped up the interview.

Democrats mocked Comer’s claim.

“The dog ate my homework,” tweeted Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., who served as lead Democratic counsel during Trump’s second impeachment.

Attorney Mark Zaid noted on Twitter that he has represented intelligence community whistleblowers for more than 25 years.

“Strange, I’ve never lost one,” he wrote.


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


MSNBC host Joe Scarborough laughed at the Republican’s claim on Monday’s edition of “Morning Joe.”

“I mean, come on,” he said. “You lost an informant? You lost the informant! The guy you claimed gave you all this information, that you built this entire charade on?”

Conservative panelist Charlie Sykes sarcastically added that it is “never a good thing when you lose your informant.”

“James Comer has been making one big promise after another,” he said. “He’s been saying we’re going to have this big bombshell — what’s obvious is he doesn’t have the bombshell, he doesn’t have the smoking gun, he doesn’t have evidence, and he’s lost his informant. This is beyond embarrassing.”

Fellow panelist Mara Gay, a New York Times columnist, called Comer’s claim a “one of the rare moments of lucidity” when you “see the emperor has no clothes and this is all bunk.”

“This is based on absolutely no real evidence whatsoever,” she said. “Because, of course, we know that whistleblowers just don’t go missing suddenly, so it is absurd.”

Ron DeSantis goes to Iowa — and the press goes wild

It was supposed to be the first time the two main rivals for the Republican nomination faced off on GOP territory at the same time and the media couldn’t have been more excited. Despite still being undeclared, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was making a foray into Iowa, the first Republican primary state, on the same day as former president Donald Trump. What was going to happen when these two manly pugilists finally entered the arena?

Well, the big confrontation didn’t happen as planned. DeSantis threw on a crisp blue shirt with a button down collar and a pair of skinny jeans and hit the trail — but Trump bowed out at the last minute.

The New York Times declared it a big win for the Florida governor, describing DeSantis’ intrepid trek to the area where Trump had been scheduled to speak as a “clear rebuke” to the man who has been “tormenting him” — a brave move meant to ensure that he doesn’t suffer the same result as all the other Republicans Trump has destroyed:

For the first time in months, Gov. Ron DeSantis on Saturday showed the aggressive political instincts that his allies have long insisted he would demonstrate in a contest against former President Donald J. Trump. After headlining two successful political events in Iowa, Mr. DeSantis made an unscheduled stop in Des Moines — a move aimed at highlighting the fact that Mr. Trump had abruptly postponed a planned Saturday evening rally in the area because of reports of possible severe weather…

Mr. DeSantis — who has avoided direct conflict with Mr. Trump — essentially kicked sand in the former president’s face by coming to an area that Mr. Trump claimed to have been told was too dangerous for him to visit.

He’s back, folks!

Someday DeSantis might even say Trump’s name aloud. 

Ron DeSantis, nee Ron DeSanctimonious or “Rob” DeSanctus as Trump has taken to calling him, demonstrated his legendary machismo by making an unscheduled stop near the place Trump would have been speaking if he had shown up as planned. Like the fighter pilot he pretended to be in one of his ads, DeSantis swooped down on that location, stood on a table and delivered a version of his allegedly fiery speech:

Trump must be reeling from such a blow. When DeSantis finally throws down the gauntlet and confronts him with his knock-out punch about the need to end the “culture of losing,” he really won’t know what hit him. Someday DeSantis might even say Trump’s name aloud. 

The leaders of the Iowa legislature are likewise enthralled with the Florida governor, taking to the opinion page of the Des Moines Register in anticipation of his visit to declare:

Why we, leaders of the Iowa Legislature, are endorsing Ron DeSantis for president. In our view, no one comes close to DeSantis’ record and resolve. He has won the biggest fights in Florida, and he’s brought all Floridians along while doing it.

DeSantis couldn’t have said it better himself. In fact, he did say it himself over and over again. He makes it very clear that Florida is a superior state under his leadership and he wants to bring that success story to all of America. Feel the magic.

All DeSantis did was show up in Iowa in a pair of jeans and give a couple of speeches but it was reported as if he was greeted like he was Bruce Springsteen.

The Times points out that DeSantis has collected a lot of money and reports that he is “beginning to show political strength” by lining up all those local Iowa endorsements noting that local politicians tend to pay less attention to national politics than members of Congress who aren’t rushing to endorse DeSantis. (In fact, members of Congress, where he served for several years, mostly can’t stand him.)

All in all, it was reported as a very successful first campaign-style foray into the exotic wilds of Iowa for DeSantis. After several months of disastrous press about his prickly personality and reports at home and abroad about him not being ready for prime time, he seems to be finally getting a welcome look from the mainstream media.


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


Of course he is. What kind of a horse race would it be if he scratched before the race even started?

It couldn’t happen at a more propitious time for him. Last week Donald Trump had one of the most widely panned events of his political career and that’s saying something. The frontrunner appeared on CNN for a very friendly town hall and reminded everyone just what an unfit reprobate he is, causing the media to spend hours revisiting everything the majority of the country hates about him. Incidentally, he was also found liable for sexual abuse and defamation to the tune of 5 million dollars. Now he is the subject of derision for failing to show up for his Iowa event on account of a tornado that never appeared.

In lieu of the Iowa rally Trump called in to a meeting of right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists at his Doral resort for a ReAwaken America Tour event. These gatherings are run by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and are often joined by Eric Trump and other Trump family members. (A couple of Nazis were scheduled to appear too but after Rachel Maddow publicized it they were discretely removed from the line-up.)

Trump told the ecstatic crowd that he would be bringing the delusional Flynn back into the White House when he wins back the presidency:

There’s a method to Trump’s madness. According to a recent Public Religion Research Institute-Brookings Institution poll “nearly two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants qualify as either Christian nationalism sympathizers (35%) or adherents (29%)” and Flynn’s ReAwaken America is one of the largest Christian Nationalist groups in the country. He was doing base maintenance.

This weekend’s stories are typical media primary horse race coverage. There is no way they’re going to let Trump just run away with the nomination as long as they can keep DeSantis viable. So we can expect to see him rise and fall more than once, usually in relation to whatever Trump is doing. This Iowa DeSantis coverage is a good example of how these storylines are concocted from the most banal circumstances. All DeSantis did was show up in Iowa in a pair of jeans and give a couple of speeches but it was reported as if he was greeted like he was Bruce Springsteen.

It’s possible that DeSantis will win the Iowa primary. It’s a very eccentric caucus state with very mixed results for predicting the winner so anything can happen. His poll numbers look good and they seem to like him. But the idea that this weekend’s events were a show of strength and he put Trump in his place is downright absurd. And it signals that we are in for some very silly coverage of this primary. 

“What was gained from this?”: Trump’s CNN town hall was a failure

Donald Trump remains a juggernaut. He came, he saw, and he conquered during his appearance on CNN last week as he spouted the Big Lie and many other smaller ones about the 2020 Election and other subjects, praised the Jan. 6 coup attempt and his terrorist foot soldiers who attacked and overran the Capitol, spouted white supremacist and misogynistic invective, and continued his assault on reality and common decency. 

That Trump would be so victorious during his CNN town hall was predictable – and by design. CNN rigged the outcome in his favor by filling the audience with Republicans, right-leaning independents, and other Trump voters. The audience was told not to boo or otherwise show disapproval or “disrespect” for the former president. Kaitlan Collins, the host, was utterly unprepared for his lies and thus no match for Trump.

When CEO Chris Licht took over CNN last year, he promised to pivot the network in a more “balanced” direction that was more “mainstream.” Hosts and other voices who were consistently critical of Trump would be silenced (or fired). CNN’s new regime also committed itself to false balance and false equivalency where the Republican and MAGA movement who are trying to end multiracial democracy are presented as a reasonable alternative to the Democrats within the broad mainstream of American politics instead of as an existential threat to the future of the country and its democracy.

Of course, CNN’s decision to neuter criticism of Trump and his movement – and to host the traitor president’s fake town hall is motivated by ratings, money and profits. (CNN’s Trump town hall was viewed by at least 3 million people). As the truism goes, “If it bleeds it leads.” To that point, during the 2016 presidential campaign and through to his squatting in the White House, Trump has made the American news media billions of dollars in ad revenue. So despite the obvious dangers to the public good and the overall safety and well-being of the American people, the American news media continues to normalize Trump and the Republican fascists and the larger MAGA movement. The Trumpocene nightmare endures not despite the American news media but in many ways because of it.

In an attempt to make better sense of what the Trump CNN town hall spectacle really means, what it reflects (or not) about the American news media, and where we are in the Trumpocene and the larger democracy crisis as the 2024 presidential season is gaining focus, I asked a range of experts for their insights and predictions.

Wajahat Ali is the author of “Go Back To Where You Came From.” He is also a columnist for The Daily Beast, Medium, MSNBC Daily, and co-host of the Democracy-Ish Podcast.

The Trump CNN Town Hall exemplified everything wrong and broken about our incestuous corporate media institutions that value ratings, money, and access to power above all else, including the truth, accountability, and democracy. Apparently, a face-eating leopard eats faces. Who would’ve thought? That analogy describes CNN leadership’s reckless and shameful decision to give Trump 70 minutes in front of a fawning, cultish audience to spew his hateful lies and retconning of reality. It should be a lesson for all other outlets, but no one will learn, even after our democracy was attacked on January 6th and Trump himself refers to the media as the “enemy of the people.” Everyone at the network should be embarrassed.

My expectations were very low and somehow the bar was lowered to the point you had to slither underneath. It was a ghoulish, dangerous spectacle that traded journalistic integrity, CNN’s reputation, and the security of our democracy for ratings, access to power and money. And it even failed in that respect. The clown circus only got 3 million viewers, but Trump got a free 70-minute Festivus to air his grievances and conspiracy theories that will further radicalize and weaponized his cult. What was gained from this? Nothing. 

Mainstream, corporate media reminds us that its north star remains ratings, access to power and money above all else. Licht was allegedly ecstatic after the dumpster fire town hall. He said their job was to “make news.” No, CNN, your job is to report the news, but Licht and (Warner Bros. Discover CEO David) Zaslav have decided that every voice, especially MAGA voices, deserve a platform, but those who are critical of the town hall, such as their own reporter Oliver Darcy, must be reprimanded. Historically, those in power have always paved the road toward fascism. They are complicit through their feigned neutrality. After all, it’s just business, right? Freedom and democracy. be damned. Corporate media has failed us for the 8 years and they will continue to fail us moving forward. 

John Whitehouse is news director for Media Matters for America, a nonprofit watchdog group. 

I expected the journalistic side of CNN to do their best with the shit sandwich handed to them by CNN and WBD executives who were clearly invested in welcoming Trump. And that’s exactly how it played out, and how it will play out on CNN going forward. The rank-and-file workers will, in general, try their best, but there’s only so much they can do given the dynamics imposed upon them.

The event is a reminder of both the power and importance of media and telecom executives writ large. Media consolidation has given the likes of John Malone and David Zaslav enormous power, and they will wield that as suits their own needs – not the needs of the public.

We should not get too fixated on the likes of Kaitlan Collins. She had some good moments and some less-than good moments, but she was not the problem on Wednesday night. And as we’ve seen very recently on cable news, hosts are very replaceable. People higher up the food chain are the bigger problem and I’d encourage people to focus there.

Rachel Bitecofer is a political analyst and election forecaster.  

Because American news media outlets must turn profits, it is a ratings driven-business. And what media show is driven in large part by what American consumers watch and because of low civic literacy and our weak political culture, ratings have proven over and over again that Americans will not watch dry, hard news. The reason our media relies on sensationalism and controversy so much, is that is what it takes to get Americans to engage. This is why analyses have found that fake news vastly outperforms real news on social. The fake news taps right into the American psyche. I cover this extensively in my forthcoming book “Hit Em’ Where It Hurts: How to Save Democracy by Beating Republicans at Their Own Game.”

Coverage of Trump is geared around the principle that people want to gawk at car wrecks, in other words, it is a reflection of the people it serves.

Norm Ornstein is emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and contributing editor for The Atlantic. He is also co-author of the bestselling books “One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet Deported.”

I thought from the get-go that this was a catastrophic move by CNN.

First, the general principle: you don’t give the legitimacy that comes with a showcase on a major cable network to an inciter of violent insurrection who is under criminal indictment and on trial for sexual abuse and defamation of character. The rationale — that he is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination —does not overcome the fact that he will exploit the showcase. Second, the town hall format is a formula for allowing deception and evasion. It does not allow a moderator or other interlocutors to dig in, ask multiple questions and follow-ups. Rarely does a question from an audience member strike home. Third, the CNN decision to make the audience one filled with Trump fans was a recipe for utter disaster.

It proved to be even worse than I thought. Kaitlin Collins could not address every one of Trump’s lies, and let some, like Trump despicably saying Democrats were for ripping nine-month babies from wombs and killing them, go completely unrefuted. She was played by Trump, over and over, with the audience laughing at her rather than responding to her facts. That the audience gave him a standing ovation at the beginning, and laughed and applauded when he slimed E. Jean Carroll (again), and approved his claim that if reelected he would pardon most of the insurrectionists, was an embarrassment to CNN and the country.


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


Sadly, as I read that two of the most respected journalists of their generation, Ted Koppel and Bob Schieffer, were all in on the CNN town hall, it underscored for me two stark realities.

First, Trump remains a ratings lure, and he will get more and more exposure, not just from CNN. Second, the repetition of lies —CNN followed its town hall by showcasing, in its panels, another election denier, Byron Daniels, and followed the next day by having a third election denier, Brian Mast, get away unchallenged with his lies — is still core to mainstream media coverage of Republicans. The desire to normalize the abnormal, to show that you are fair and balanced, gives more traction and legitimacy to authoritarian scoundrels. We have even rockier times ahead.

Cheri Jacobus is a former media spokesperson at the Republican National Committee and founder and president of the political consulting and PR firm Capitol Strategies PR.

Sadly, the CNN Trump town hall was exactly as anyone not in a coma for the past 8 years expected. By hosting the event, CNN reminded all of us of the supreme role they played in creating Trump as the 2016 GOP nominee and President. “Keep the cameras on him [Trump] till the eyeballs leave” is what then-CNN chief Jeff Zucker ordered staff at a meeting where they expressed concerns over the damage CNN was causing by the extreme amount of coverage they were handing Trump, while all but ignoring the other GOP presidential primary candidates.

That CNN’s Chris Licht is now sending out previously-respected, trusted news personalities such as Anderson Cooper to scold us for not embracing their largesse in providing America a view into what a second Trump presidency would look like, they insult us even further, since we were all here for the 1st Trump presidency. A presidency that likely would never have taken place without the complicity of CNN (among others). Many of us are struggling with the question of just how are we in this place again — or still.

CNN sent out a cub reporter (“rising star” who got her start working for Tucker Carlson and now is reportedly getting her own prime time show) for this herculean job that would have been an uphill battle for even the most seasoned of political reporters. CNN did this to placate Trump, to help manifest the sick circus that unfolded, just as they wanted. Journalism is in trouble. Serious, serious trouble. And when journalism is in trouble, democracy is in trouble.

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

Until the last minute, my general expectations of the CNN Trump town hall were that CNN might cancel it, especially after Trump had been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation just the previous day. In fact, I hoped it would be canceled.

The reasons were many. First, findings from my extensive psychoanalytic study of Trump in my book “Trump on the Couch” are that he is unable to moderate, let alone change his abusive and evasive behavior. Given that the jury verdict was fresh in his disordered mind, Trump was certain to be at his most enraged and unhinged. Second was that CNN, once considered a respected news organization, would surely avoid seeming to endorse Trump’s paranoia, lying, and general destructiveness. A live, televised town hall would only serve to legitimize and normalize his sexual predations and orchestration of the January 6, 2021, coup attempt.

In choosing to air this debacle, CNN revealed its own Trumpian greed and disregard for democracy.  Like the Republican Party, Warner Bros. Discovery (the corporate owners of CNN) are willing to have their once prestige brand smeared with Proud Boy feces in hopes of attracting more rubes and revenue. It was as if CNN and Trump were marching along together, holding hands as they rubbed our collective noses in six years of political stench. Though I maintain that Trump should never receive this kind of airtime, I’ve often considered how I would conduct an interview with the disgraced former president –preferably in a locked ward with the subject in a straitjacket.

As someone who is deeply concerned with political life and the future of America, I’m first and foremost a psychoanalyst who knows that America’s future depends in large part on the emotional health of our elected leaders. The first questions I would ask Trump are, “Did Biden’s victory break your heart? Is that why you kept, and still keep, insisting that Biden didn’t win, that the election was rigged? Were you that certain that you would win the 2020 election?”

I’d assist my patient in his reflection by pointing out that I think it was easier for him to claim the election was rigged than to face the humiliation of losing and the knowledge that his defeat was public. I’d follow up by asking if he initiated the January 6 coup to feed his denial and help him feel less alone by turning his grief into their outrage.

I’ve long wanted to ask Trump what it’s like to be such a successful con man. I hope someone will have the opportunity to do just that once he is brought to justice for the acts of treason he committed and the irreparable collateral damage which divided our civil society. Perhaps a few minutes of attention and a hamburger will finally persuade him to face the truth. Though it will never set him free, it might set us free.

Trump’s dogwhistle to the Christian right is a permission slip to openly hate women

During his CNN “town hall” last week, Donald Trump offered a lip service denial that he had sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll in the 90s when asked about the recent court verdict affirming he did it. He soon shifted, however, to the message he really wanted to send: A winking admission that he did it.

“What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes you’re playing hanky panky in a dressing room?” he said, blaming Carroll for the assault as the audience laughed approvingly. He ranted about how she has a cat named “Vagina,” implying that she’s a slut who deserved to be raped. 

When host Kaitlin Collins asked if it is good or bad if powerful men can sexually assault without consequence, Trump replied, “Fortunately,” adding cheekily, “Or unfortunately for her.”

The MAGA audience ate it up, making it clear that they agree with Trump that rape is a hilarious punishment to inflict on women for “crimes” like being independent or sexual.


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


Sadly, however, this reaction will likely not make a dent in the Beltway wisdom that Christian conservatives dislike Trump’s violent misogyny, and are merely overlooking it out of political expedience. Most of the people squealing in laughter at Trump’s victim-blaming likely consider themselves “Christians.” Sounds an awful lot like those “Christians” are just fine with sexual violence. Trump declared that Carroll deserved to be raped and bragged that he was entitled to do it. And they clapped.

Trump declared that Carroll deserved to be raped and bragged that he was entitled to do it. And they clapped.

No doubt, Christian conservatives have long claimed they are motivated not by misogyny, but by other, more noble concerns. They claim to oppose abortion rights because of “life” or, in more recent years, they have feigned interest in “protecting” women from the supposed “abortion industry.” Similar efforts to stigmatize premarital sex or restrict access to contraception were marketed as “pro-woman,” on the assumption that women are asexual creatures who must be shielded from the perverted ways of men. Feminists have long argued these religious right claims are lies, mere pretexts propped up to conceal the right’s true interest, which is in preserving male dominance over women.

These days, it’s not just Trump reclaiming his pride in the “grab ’em by the pussy remarks.” Recently, the Christian right has been letting the “pro-woman” mask slip, sometimes all the way off, revealing the truth too many in the mainstream press would rather ignore: The Christian right is about misogyny. It was always about misogyny. 

Last week, Democrats in Louisiana introduced a bill to add rape and incest exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. Republicans didn’t just kill the bill, they went out of their way to broadcast their contempt for the rape survivors who showed up to testify in favor of it. Audrey Wascome, who survived incest and rape in her childhood and adolescence, spoke to Jezebel about her experience as a witness:  

Wascome told me in an interview after the hearing that it felt like an “openly hostile” environment. A man was standing near the witness table with a rosary, reciting Bible verses. Some Republican committee members got up and left in the middle of witness testimony. Other GOP legislators who did stay in the room “were just pretending that the witnesses weren’t there,” she said. “It was super disrespectful.”

As Wascome detailed years of sexual abuse at the hands of her grandparents, she says one Republican was rolling their eyes at her. 

In Texas, the lawyer who wrote the state’s “bounty hunter” abortion ban, Republican activist and former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, has rolled out the first major test case of the law. What is remarkable is that the plaintiff is such a mustache-twirling villain, that you would almost think he was a fictional character. Marcus Silva is clearly angry that his ex-wife thought she had a right to leave him. To get his revenge, he is suing her two good friends because they helped her abort a pregnancy. Silva claims to believe he “lost” a child, but the countersuit filed by her friends tells a different story.

Instead, they allege, after Silva found the pills in his ex-wife’s purse, he carefully returned them so that she would have the abortion. His reason? According to text messages submitted into evidence, he wanted blackmail material. They allege that he told her that if she didn’t submit in “mind, body, and soul” to him, he would turn her over to the police. This fits a larger reported pattern, according to Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern of Slate

According to people who knew the couple, Brittni’s husband, Marcus Silva, was mean and manipulative: When Brittni was at work (Silva was unemployed), he would accuse her of staying out for too long, of having an affair. When she was home, he would berate her, following her from room to room. He demanded to look through her phone, and when she refused, he would do so anyway. According to women who were there, in April 2022 Silva got extremely drunk at a work party for Brittni. In front of her co-workers, the witnesses say, he called her a slut, a whore, and an unfit mother. He told her she was worthless.


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


By taking up this suit, Mitchell is revealing the real purpose of the Texas abortion ban. It’s not about “life” or “protecting women.” It’s about cementing male control over women, even when such men are horrible and abusive. 

The distinctions between the Christian right and the more overtly caveman-style of sexism have collapsed completely.

Silva sounds a lot like the right-wing pundit Steven Crowder, who recorded a show lamenting the existence of no-fault divorce laws after a video of him emotionally abusing his ex-wife was leaked to the press. Most in the mainstream press know Crowder as a “shock jock,” leading them to miss how he has also always explicitly been a Christian conservative broadcaster, as well. His show features “light-hearted” Bible reading segments, in an attempt to make religion seem cool. His early fame owed a lot to his claims to have been a virgin on his wedding night, holding out the “success” of his marriage as evidence that this is the only “right way” to marry. (Oops!) 

Crowder is just part of a larger Trump-era shift, where the distinctions between the Christian right and the more overtly caveman-style of sexism have collapsed completely. The whole tapdance about chivalry and “respect” for women has given way to the Trumpian style — but with a couple of Bible verses attached. 

Lila Rose was perhaps the epitome of the pre-Trump era of the anti-abortion movement. The founder of the anti-choice group Live Action has always held herself out as a model of chastity and feminine virtue. She claimed to oppose abortion because it supposedly “harms” women. Her pseudo-feminism was always an inch deep, but that was enough to fool some centrist pundits and to allow Republicans to preen about how they’re the “real” advocates for women. She frequently tweeted sanctimonious stuff like this:

Last week, however, Rose went on a gleefully misogynistic and porn-y podcast called “Whatever,” which exists for the sole purpose of portraying women as sexually objectified bimbos.

Here’s the artwork that was used to advertise the episode she appeared on:


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


Here’s how Vice journalist Magdalene Taylor described “Whatever”: “But as the Whatever podcast demonstrates, all you really need for a hit show is a carefully curated selection of 30-second clips where you frame women as hopelessly dumb creatures and blast them off without context on Twitter.” Host Brian Atlas has made a career out of being a jerk to women, and justifying it by implying they’re all dumb bitches who have it coming anyway, Taylor explains. 

The distinction between “men’s rights” and the Christian right’s anti-abortion movement is collapsing. 

“Whatever” has its DNA in the so-called “men’s rights” movement, which used to be a secular anti-feminist movement that focused on male outrage over rape laws, women’s right to divorce, and other social changes that make it much harder to abuse women and get away with it. Notably, “men’s rights” activists mostly ignored abortion, outside of complaining that they didn’t have a right to “paper abortions,” their term for cutting off child support to punish a woman for leaving them. But, as these examples show, the distinction between “men’s rights” and the Christian right’s anti-abortion movement is collapsing. 

For example, a recent article at Fox News is titled “‘Disenfranchised grief’: The quiet pain of men who experience abortion.” Which, as one can guess, is mostly about putting a sympathetic gloss on a deeply ugly desire of men to claim women’s bodies as property. 

“I had no say in either decision,” Greg Mayo, who runs a men’s task force for the group Support After Abortion, complained to Fox. The article goes on to note, “In the study, nearly half of men, or 45 percent, said they did not have a voice or choice in their partner’s abortion decision and almost three out of five men, 57 percent, said they did not make the decision.” The clear implication is that it’s a travesty that the person with the uterus decided what was done with it. Clearly, the authors feel the man who impregnated her should have the final word over her body. 

This is, of course, what has always been at the heart of the anti-abortion movement: A belief that women are men’s property. But that is widely viewed as a deplorable opinion. For one thing, if you believe men are entitled to force childbirth on women, then it’s not much of a leap to argue that they also have a right to lock women up in the house, block them from having jobs, hit them, or hit them, or rape them. So the anti-choice movement has played games for decades, pretending their motive is anything but the misogyny it is. But when the leader of the GOP uses the word “fortunately” to describe a man’s privilege to rape, that sends a signal to his followers. The Christian right base is listening and is done pretending they don’t also hate women.

Climate change is making crabs lose their sense of smell — and seafood may never be the same

Why are crab fisheries at risk for collapse? Just follow your nose — or rather, theirs. 

Crabs use their sense of smell like humans use their eyes and intuition. When young crabs are seeking shelter from predators, they use their sense of smell to eke out a good hiding place. A crab’s sense of smell is vital for its ability to find food. Once that crab reaches a mature age and is ready to mate, it will use its sense of smell to find attractive partners. Should its sense of smell ever be diminished, the crab’s ability to survive will deteriorate accordingly.

“The west coast Dungeness crab fishery is worth about 250 million dollars annually.”

Unfortunately that is the plight being inflicted upon crabs due to climate change, according to a recent study published in the scientific journal Global Change Biology. Salon spoke with corresponding author Cosima Porteus, an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto Scarborough. As Porteus explained via email, their study proves for the first time that as the ocean becomes more acidic due to climate change, crabs lose part of their sense of smell because the neurons responsible for sensing odors shrink and they have fewer receptors in their version of a nose (an organ called their antennules). Perhaps because their smelling organs are weaker, they do not flick them as often and their neurons are not as responsive to food.

The scientists learned this about crabs by picking up 35 healthy specimens (“healthy” here meaning “active, no missing limbs, no damage to carapace”) at their local grocery store, Nations Experience. Since the crabs in that store had been picked up in the wild (to be specific, off the coast of British Columbia), scientists could keep them in conditions necessary to best assess various aspects of their bodies. Various experiments were conducted on these crabs to learn about their anatomies in a world where the oceans have become more acidic.

Through these experiments, they showed “that their sense of smell is getting worse (by about half) by simply being in seawater with higher than normal carbon dioxide for 10 days,” Porteus concluded. “We have more work to do on why this is happening but it’s an important first step.”

Even those who don’t consume crab (or feel compassion for them) should be concerned about the implications. Human beings who love seafood are already suffering as a result of poor environmental regulation; this discovery about crabs’ sense of smell has ominous implications for our dinner tables, and also for the larger economy.


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


“Ocean acidification is another stressful thing they have to deal with on top of other ones such as higher temperatures, pollution, noise or lower oxygen.”

“The west coast Dungeness crab fishery is worth about 250 million dollars annually — therefore they are a source of income for many people and a source of food for others,” Porteus explained. “We know from crashing salmon fisheries how devastating this can be for people to lose their livelihoods.”

In addition, crabs’ sense of smell is so similar to that of other aquatic animals that there are obvious broader implications.

“Our findings can be a warning that this can or is already happening to other economically important crab species (e.g. the Alaskan red king crab or Bering sea snow crab),” Porteus pointed out. “These species have seen huge loses due to a marine heat wave with their fisheries being closed for the last 2 years. Ocean acidification might slow down their population recovery, partly due to the effects on their sense of smell.”

As for the Dungeness crabs, their declining sense of smell is just one more problem on top of a larger, unending pile.

“Ocean acidification is another stressful thing they have to deal with on top of other ones such as higher temperatures, pollution, noise or lower oxygen,” Porteus wrote. “The worst case scenario is that Dungeness crabs will have energy for producing offspring (so fewer or lower quality eggs) which ultimately leads to their population numbers going down.”

There are many recent examples of how poor environmental practices are hitting seafood consumers where it hurts. A study released in January revealed that eating just a single serving of freshwater fish is like drinking a month’s worth of water laced with PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) at unhealthily high levels. Plastic pollution is entering the food that humans acquire from the ocean and, from there, our bodies. On a macroeconomic level, fish fraud — or the substitution of the ostensible fish sold to a customer with an unknown alternative — is so prevalent that “seafood fraud can happen anywhere both geographically and in the supply chain,” Beth Lowell, deputy vice president for US campaigns for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit ocean conservation group Oceana, told Salon by email in 2021. She later added, “Oceana found that nearly one out of every three fish tested in the United States — in grocery stores and restaurants alike — were mislabeled.”

“Madness”: Federal judge rules 18-to-20-year-olds can’t be barred from gun purchases

A federal judge’s ruling in Virginia on Thursday once again made clear the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the right-wing majority ruled that laws and regulations pertaining to firearms must fall within the United States’ so-called “historical tradition.”

The ruling on Thursday was handed down by U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne, a George H.W. Bush appointee, in the case of a 20-year-old who was turned away when he attempted to buy a Glock 19x handgun from a federally licensed dealer.

Under regulations put in place by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) and the Gun Control Act of 1968, federally licensed sellers have been prohibited from selling guns to 18-to-20-year-olds, who have had to make such purchases in private sales.

Payne ruled that “the statutes and regulations in question are not consistent with our nation’s history and tradition,” and that “therefore, they cannot stand.”

The judge made clear in his decision that the ruling was underpinned by Bruen, in which Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that “constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.”

According to Payne, the fact that 18-year-olds were permitted to join militias at the time of the nation’s founding suggests that buyers should not have to reach age 21 before purchasing handguns from licensed sellers.

“The Second Amendment’s protections apply to 18-to-20-year-olds. By adopting the Second Amendment, the people constrained both the hands of Congress and the courts to infringe upon this right by denying ordinary law-abiding citizens of this age the full enjoyment of the right to keep and bear arms unless the restriction is supported by the nation’s history,” said Payne. “That is what Bruen tells us.”

Princeton University professor Eddie S. Glaude Jr. denounced the ruling as “madness,” while New York University law professor Chris Sprigman said the decision is the latest result of “America’s extremist form of constitutionalism.”

Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at gun control advocacy group Everytown Law, pointed to research that shows that “18- to 20-year-olds commit gun homicides at triple the rate of adults 21 years and older.”


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


“The federal law prohibiting federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21 is not just an essential tool for preventing gun violence, it is also entirely constitutional,” Carter told The Washington Post. “The court’s ruling will undoubtedly put lives at risk. It must be reversed.”

Attorneys on both sides of the case said they expected the Biden administration to appeal the ruling.

Numerous polls have shown that the majority of Americans favor stricter gun control measures, and a survey of gun owners taken last year by NPR/Ipsos found that 67% of respondents favored raising the age for any gun purchase from 18 to 21.

“At a moment when Americans are growing more unified and in favor of gun control,” said historian Brian Rosenwald, “Clarence Thomas’ grotesque, inane opinion in Bruen is going to make all of them illegal.”

Amid GOP assault on trans people, Kansas City declares itself an LGBTQ sanctuary

In a near-unanimous vote on Thursday, local Missouri officials approved a resolution declaring Kansas City a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ people after Republican state lawmakers passed legislation that would ban gender-affirming care for minors and some adults — part of a nationwide GOP assault on trans rights.

The resolution, approved in an 11-1 vote, states that “city personnel shall not criminally prosecute or impose administrative penalties on an individual or organization for providing, seeking, receiving, or assisting another individual who is seeking or receiving gender-affirming healthcare.”

“In the event any law or regulation is passed in the state of Missouri which imposes criminal punishment, civil liability, administrative penalties, or professional sanctions on an individual or organization for providing, seeking, receiving, or assisting another individual who is seeking or receiving gender-affirming healthcare,” the resolution continues, “city personnel shall make enforcement of said law or regulation their lowest priority.”

Kansas City Councilmember Heather Hall cast the only no vote against the measure, the passage of which local trans rights advocates celebrated as “an important first step.”

“I look forward to trans leaders and Kansas City working together to address the health disparities in our communities and ways we can have sustainable funding and programming reaching all trans people,” Merrique Jenson, the founder of Transformations KC, said following Thursday’s vote.

As The Kansas City Beacon reported Thursday, trans Missourians and their families “have been shuttling back and forth to the capitol in Jefferson City to testify against legislation aimed at banning gender-affirming healthcare.”

“But for the first time on Wednesday, trans Kansas Citians flocked to City Hall to support a measure that could protect these treatments from statewide bans,” the outlet added. “The LGBTQ Commission brought the resolution to the City Council in April as a way to formally preserve access to gender-affirming care before the state passes restrictions on healthcare, instead of reacting afterward.”

In the coming days, Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Parson is expected to sign into law the newly passed legislation banning gender-affirming care for minors, making the state one of more than a dozen that have approved laws or policies prohibiting lifesaving healthcare.

The Associated Press noted Thursday that the Kansas City sanctuary resolution passed as a judge is considering “a proposed emergency rule from Republican state Attorney General Andrew Bailey that would require adults and children to undergo more than a year of therapy—and fulfill other requirements before they could receive gender-affirming treatment.”

After state Republicans passed a pair of anti-trans bills earlier this week, the ACLU of Missouri pledged to “explore all options to fight these bans and to expand the rights of trans Missourians.”

“Both bans attempt to erase transness from Missouri,” the group warned, referring to the state GOP’s attempt to ban gender-affirming care and prevent trans girls and women from playing on female sports teams.

“Every person in the state should be alarmed by this weaponization of the government to intimidate people through the denial of basic healthcare and exclusion from extracurricular activities,” the group said.

“Pretty troubling”: Progressives raise concerns over White House comments on spending cuts

After meeting with congressional leaders earlier this week as the U.S. barrels toward a catastrophic debt default, President Joe Biden said that “we should be cutting spending,” a remark that fueled concerns among progressives that the White House is preparing to cede to at least some Republican demands in exchange for a deal to lift the debt ceiling.

President Joe Biden has said repeatedly that he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling, and that the arguably unconstitutional limit must be raised without any preconditions.

But the president has also expressed openness to budget negotiations with House Republicans, who are using the threat of default as leverage to push for steep cuts to federal nutrition assistance, Medicaid, and other key government programs.

Biden insists the debt limit and budget talks are separate, but as Vox’s Andrew Prokop noted Wednesday, the president is “negotiating before the GOP has released” the debt ceiling hostage.

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday after meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Biden said that he “made clear… that default is not an option.”

But the president added that he also “made it clear that we can cut spending and cut the deficit.”

Biden offered several examples of what he would prefer to cut, such as “tax subsidies for Big Oil companies” and prescription drug costs in Medicare—budget reforms that progressives support.

House Republicans, though, are pushing for far steeper and broader cuts to government spending, specifically demanding a cap on federal spending at fiscal year 2022 levels. Such a cap would entail steep cuts to critical government agencies and programs, particularly if the Pentagon budget is shielded.

While Biden has publicly rejected that GOP demand, Reuters reported Thursday that “White House officials acknowledge that they must accept some spending cuts or strict caps on future spending if they are to strike a deal.”

Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, wrote Thursday that Biden’s remarks this week and growing talk of a deal on spending caps are “pretty troubling.”

Owens suggested the current negotiations are beginning to look like “2011-light,” a reference to the last time the GOP used the debt ceiling as leverage to enact painful spending cuts. Biden, who was then serving as vice president, was the White House’s chief negotiator during that standoff, which culminated in austerity legislation that badly hampered the U.S. recovery from the Great Recession.

In a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday, Owens said that Biden “should not give in to hostage-taking.”

Instead, Owens added, he should “follow the lead of the majority of Americans who vastly prefer bringing in revenue through tax increases on the rich rather than making harmful spending cuts.”

The president was previously scheduled to sit down with congressional leaders again on Friday, but the meeting was postponed until early next week as staffers for the White House and lawmakers continue to exchange proposals to avoid a default, which would wipe out millions of jobs and potentially spark a global economic crisis.

The Treasury Department recently warned that the debt ceiling could be breached as soon as June 1.

It’s far from clear whether Biden’s recent comments and signals emerging from the White House indicate a substantive concession to the House GOP’s crusade for spending cuts.

But as talks continue with little public evidence of progress, observers are increasingly voicing alarm over the possibility of a deal that includes victories for House Republicans who are eager to boot millions of people off of safety net programs.

“It increasingly seems like the White House has decided to cave and is trying to slowly acclimate people to it, so there’s no abrupt blink followed by shock and outrage,” Brian Beutler, editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, warned Thursday, pointing to the Reuters reporting. “Just slowly increasing resignation. Pretty pathetic.”

Slate’s Alex Sammon similarly called the White House’s seeming hints at spending concessions to Republicans “a horrific development,” particularly “after Republicans routinely raised the debt ceiling under Trump” and “after Democrats had a trifecta for two years and could’ve raised it any time.”

Long ago, younger viewers wanted their MTV News. Can we learn from what it did right in its prime?

On Tuesday MTV News became the latest outlet to shut down after 36 years, prompting a bouquet of eulogies posted across social media, which abetted its demise.

Remembrances arose in the immediate wake of its termination by Paramount, its parent company, with erstwhile regular viewers pausing to acknowledge the roles Sway Calloway, Kurt Loder, Tabitha Soren and others once played in their youths.

Lengthier lamentations ruminated on the newsroom’s role in cultural touchstones the network either made possible or contributed to, shaping the conversation to suit their audience. The odes took on a greatest hits feel – the way they held their viewers’ hands through 9/11, the terrible moment Loder, the former Rolling Stone editor turned MTV anchor, broke it to Generation X that Kurt Cobain was dead. Years later it would be Tupac, then Biggie Smalls

Longing has driven the coverage’s direction, which is proper, but also a symptom of why it closed down in the first place – one doesn’t generally yearn for something they regularly patronize.

MTV News deserves praise for placing hip-hop on equal footing with rock and pop in its recording from its opening broadcasts, proof that the newsroom’s producer Dave Sirulnick would not repeat the mistake the network made when it launched and excluded Black musicians.

Presidential hopeful U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and MTV news correspondent Sway Calloway speaks to veterans of the Iraq warPresidential hopeful U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and MTV news correspondent Sway Calloway speaks to veterans of the Iraq war during MTV’s “Choose Or Lose” taping at Whistle Pub on March 17, 2008 in Scranton, Pennsylvania. (Scott Gries/Getty Images)

It also became the first major TV news organization to actively engage young people with politics instead of assuming they grow into their understanding of civic duty with Choose or Lose in 1992, credited as a key factor driving the largest turnout among young voters in 20 years.

Can MTV News’ be upcycled to inform an audience that is increasingly avoidant of headlines?

The 1972 election swept Nixon into office in the middle of the war in Vietnam. The 1992 election was preceded by a campaign trail on which MTV became a crucial stop for candidates, and Bill Clinton revealed he was a briefs man.

Remembering the departed’s highlights is kind and certainly nicer than pointing to the hard and harrowing fact that MTV News’ closure joins a list of shutdowns that includes BuzzFeed’s chopping of its news division and the cancellation of “Vice News Tonight,” two outlets that owe a substantial debt to the music channel’s reporters for creating the architecture they would build upon.

BuzzFeed earned an international reporting Pulitzer in 2021. “Vice News Tonight” won a news coverage Peabody Award in 2017 for its coverage of the Unite the Right rally. Choose or Lose netted MTV News recognition from the Peabody Board as well. Journalists were still doing great work with and for these organizations.

MTV Host Carson Daly, and MTV News correspondent Gideon Yago, speaking at the MTV StudiosMTV Host Carson Daly, and MTV News correspondent Gideon Yago, speaking at the MTV Studios in New York City during an MTV Town Hall forum with young people to discuss how the events of September 11th affect them. (Todd Plitt/ImageDirect)

Awards and acclaim are no matter for the economic headwinds battering the media industry with brute force. Chris McCarthy, the head of Paramount Media Networks, MTV and Showtime, invoked that term in his memo announcing the 25% reduction of his company’s U.S. workforce along with axing MTV News.

Vox Media, NBC News, NPR, The Washington Post and CNN are among other new organizations that have laid off staff in recent months as well. Apart from Vox, legacy news organizations don’t naturally or specifically cater to the under-35 demographic that was MTV News’ bread and butter in its heyday.  

Can its strengths and those of outlets like it be upcycled to inform an audience that is increasingly avoidant of headlines? That’s work examining more fully once the memorializing fades out.

There have been many referring to the newsroom’s shuttering as the end of an. era, but that era ended long ago

Part of this requires an entire overhaul of the way cable, broadcast, and online newsroom process politics. If CNN’s attempt to rein in Donald Trump at its disastrous town hall indicates how that’s going, that’s not happening anytime soon.

But MTV News and personalities such as Soren, Gideon Yago, and SuChin Pak were doing something singularly effective in the way they connected teenage and 20-something viewers to current events, politics and politicians without coming off as pandering. I haven’t seen anyone pinpoint what that was, other than remembering their more freewheeling presentation and the staff’s favoring of streetwear over suits and ties.

MTV News Correspondent Suchin PakMTV News Correspondent Suchin Pak on MTV TRL in the MTV Studio in New York City, 2/15/02. (Frank Micelotta/ImageDirect)

It’s simpler to remember these reporters and VJs with wistful remembrance of what used to be, since they were the first of a kind and filled a niche that didn’t previously exist. But the history is recent enough to trace what happened once the cable landscape expanded and the Internet became a common tool. In the ’90s and aughts E! seized the celebrity feature and awards red carpet racket, loosening MTV’s exclusive claim to celebrity access.

YouTube further dwindled the network’s prominence and its newsroom’s urgency; Twitch, Tik Tok, Twitter, Telegram and their like slowly bled MTV of its power as a pop culture conduit. With videos accessible by Google search and influencers covering the genres, artists, and issues they value above all others, and with celebrities able to serve information about tour dates and record releases on their own social media feeds and on their own timeline, MTV News as we used to know it was no longer essential.


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


A thornier obstacle, though, is that Gen Z is demonstrably less loyal to any single information resource than its predecessors.

Nevertheless, this cohort also recognizes that the news social media serves to them isn’t necessarily trustworthy.  This is particularly the case when it comes to understanding politics and government, two areas the MTV News staff figured out how to translate for people who view network nightly newscast as TV for old people. How to pierce the social media veil of misinformation and obfuscation is an industry-wide frustration.

2021 report on how young people consume news commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and Oxford University contains some promising signals. The topmost of the findings is the wake-up call that young audiences don’t subscribe to the traditional “what you should know” model of news but respond more keenly to news that useful to know, that is interesting to know and that is fun to know.

The study further found that people under 35 are drawn to so-called “softer” news topics including entertainment and celebrity news, culture and arts news, and education news – all topics well within MTV News’ wheelhouse at the peak of its influence.

The MTV News anchor’s time has long since passed; most acknowledge that. There have been many referring to the newsroom’s shuttering as the end of an era, but that era ended long ago. Once we’ve sufficiently appreciated what was, hopefully people will respectfully brush aside the cobwebs of nostalgia and conduct a respectful autopsy for the sake of the next generation  – one that may be long past wanting their MTV but still clamors to be informed.

How autistic comedian Fern Brady made it in the comedy world

Autistic people don’t get listened to — least of all when they’re talking about their own autism.

“Loads of people saying to me that they thought I could be [autistic]. And then the second you get diagnosed, it’s like a switch flips and people start telling you, ‘you don’t look autistic.'”

Fern Brady gets it. In her new book “Strong Female Character” (which comes out June 6), the Scottish comedian uses her incisive, sardonic wit to recall her own painful path to being diagnosed. Autism is chronically under-diagnosed in women, and Brady’s memoir is practically a play-by-play in exactly how institutions keep failing them. She encounters sexism from the medical establishment, ignorance from her supposed support network and intolerance on countless other occasions.

Yet “Strong Female Character” is not preachy, and certainly it’s tone is not self-pitying or tragic. Instead Brady shrewdly inverts the traditional narrative of helpless autistic people being buffeted about in a world of neurotypical cruelty: This time an autistic women is holding up the window through which she views the world and inviting the public to gaze into it with her. 

“Strong Female Character” follows Brady as her autistic traits — her struggles picking up social cues, her sensory problems, her meltdowns — are used to criticize her as a woman, even as her femininity makes it near-impossible to get diagnosed. Like so many autistic children, Brady is bullied, befriends an inanimate object (in her case, a tree) and is direly misunderstood by her working-class Catholic parents and school system. All of this culminates in Brady being sent to a psychiatric facility by her frustrated parents. Ultimately it was Brady herself who took charge of her mental health needs; Brady was finally officially diagnosed at the age of 34.

By that time, Brady had already lived an incredible life. She has been a stripper, a prisoner, an aspiring comedian and finally the breakout star of the British comedy panel TV show “Taskmaster.” In her interview with Salon she talks the intersection of womanhood and neurodiversity, dealing with intolerant neurotypicals, her admiration for Courtney Love and obsession with “Edward Scissorhands.”


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


This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

What is your advice for people who are neurodivergent and face skepticism from their loved ones? In your case, you talk about your family, but loved ones can mean friends, employers, anyone. What would your advice be based on your experiences?

I dunno if I can give advice. One of the reasons I wrote the book was because from very early on I learned it’s not really safe to talk to most neurotypical people about autism. I knew I wasn’t gonna hear what I wanted to hear, basically. I’d say the best thing to do when you get diagnosed is seek out other autistic people and seek out podcasts by autistic people or autism-informed therapists. More and more people I know seek out therapists who are autistic themselves, which I think is great. I think all the progress and change that’s happening is gonna come from autistic people themselves. A lot of the useful information I got on how to deal with sensory issues and meltdowns, it came from other autistic people. So I would say, if you’re newly diagnosed, don’t look to your family and friends to be the people who are going to tell you comforting things because in my case, it didn’t happen. Like I couldn’t even talk to my best friend about it. Not that she says anything horrible, but she didn’t say anything new because she’s really neurotypical. Obviously most of my friends are comedians, so when I got diagnosed, he texts me: “So I hear you’re mental now.”

I feel there is an important difference between good-faith comedy and lack of understanding as an autistic person. When other people make jokes about me being autistic, I can laugh as long as the comedy comes from an informed place, if what they’re doing is poking fun at the realities of who I am. That is okay. It is when you use comedy to invalidate my experience that I object to it, that is my own feeling. How do you feel though on that subject, on the use of comedy? 

I’d need a context to try and think of an answer there. 

That’s fine. I appreciate your candor. I don’t mean to ask super-abstract questions, it’s just the way my mind works. I don’t know if you have trouble with that as well.

Absolutely!

That is my life. I’m always thinking in abstractions, and then everyone says, give a tangible example. And it’s like, “no!”

Oh my God, it’s so good hearing someone articulate that! Because when I had the meeting with the publishing people and the marketing people, they were like, “What are your hopes for this book in the States?” And it was such an open-ended question that I was like, “I hope Reese Weatherspoon reads it and realizes she’s autistic. I hope Oprah realizes she’s autistic.” Like, what? It’s hard to know what to say when it’s a big open question. So I tend to just answer with something ludicrous or shut down.

“So often with neurotypical people, they don’t look at the content of what you’re saying, they look at the style in which you say it, whereas for autistic people we tend to look at what the person is actually saying.”

I think what I was trying to ask you with that question is: You’re a comedian, so your profession is understanding comedy by definition. And yet one of the debates within the world of comedy is, when do jokes help and when do jokes hurt? And so I was observing in terms of my own life that I have friends who will poke fun at me for doing things that are autistic. For instance, part of my autism, I have prosopagnosia, which makes it difficult for me to recognize individual faces. A manifestation of that is that I can’t recognize cars. So whenever my best friend Brian Davis has to pick me up for a ride, I never recognize their car. I’m always wandering around the parking lot aimlessly and Brian will joke about that. But I know that he does it affectionately, similar to your comedian friend. Does that distinction make sense? And if so, what do you think on the subject of comedy, helping versus hurting as I’ve articulated it? 

The example you gave there is good because if my friends who know me well and know autistic things that I do make fun, it comes from a place of knowing me. I’ll give you an example where I feel weird. Another reason I wrote the book was because I didn’t want to do a full standup show talking about my autism because I would have to talk about it in a way for an audience that largely is gonna be neurotypical, I have to frame my autism in a way that they understand. So talking about social awkwardness, right? And talking about stereotypes about autism. So I tend to do my stand up from an autistic perspective — like you were saying, as a comedian part of my job is understanding comedy — and a lot of my job is trying to understand why people are the way they are, and then pointing out the inconsistencies in what they do. I have a really hard time with the gap between what people say they’re like, and then how they actually are, and hypocrisy and things like that. Even though I don’t talk about autism a lot in my standup, I do stand up artistically, if that makes sense.

In your book you discuss doctors dismissing the possibility that you’re on the autism spectrum because you don’t fit the stereotypes. And I think that’s an important theme in your book. There’s one sentence: “The public perception of autistics is so heavily based on the stereotype of men who love trains or science that many women miss out on a diagnosis and are thought of as studious instead.”

There is another part where you say, “I didn’t fit the criteria because I was making eye contact and anyway, I was a top student who’d just been accepted to Edinburgh University to study Arabic and Persian. So what exactly was the problem?”

Then the third example is, “He thought that all autistic people are unattractive sea monsters with no interest in forming meaningful relationships. Or he mistakenly assumed that the men I dated were capable of picking up on my autism rather than seeing it through a manic pixie dream girl lens.” In terms of those three examples, what is the broader theme in terms of how stereotypes of autism have interfered with your life, as somebody who is autistic but doesn’t fit all the stereotypes?

The main thrust of the book was to be about how much people project stuff. This happens to women generally, people project ideas of what they’re like onto them, depending on your accent, or how fat or thin you are, or how pretty or ugly you are. Not just women, but also to a lot of people. There are a lot of stories of women being the brunt of medical misogyny because doctors don’t take their physical pain seriously. There have been lots of scandals with various contraceptives over the years; it’s not just autistic women that suffer from doctors projecting ideas onto them.

I think there’s also a thing where if a woman is good-looking or young, she’s not seen to be sick. And there have been women with physical illnesses that have been overlooked because they’re “cute.” A thing that gets repeated all the time now is that for autistic women, their autism doesn’t get picked up on Because they’re so good at masking and there’s such great chameleons. But I mean, to me, I’ve seen myself on screen now. I seem autistic. I think there’s something about the way I move and speak that is just off, just slightly off-kilter, enough that people pick up on it. Every environment I’ve ever been in, every work environment, every study environment, people pick up that there’s something weird about me. And no doubt you’ve had the same thing. There’s something about us people just pick up on.

Sometimes the reaction is hostile, which is another major theme of your book. It is dealing with people who dislike you for reasons that they can’t put their finger on… but it’s definitely autism. How do you deal with that?

I’ll go back to the first question and then go to the second. So people keep saying, women don’t get diagnosed because they’re so good at covering up their autism. Evidently we’re not. Right? Because then people are on up telling me to get diagnosed. I remember my agent saying, if you’re not autistic, what are you? Or something like that. Loads of people saying to me that they thought I could be. I thought that I could be. And then the second you get diagnosed, it’s like a switch flips and people start telling you, you don’t look autistic. What made you think that you’re autistic? Then the second thing you said about people being hostile. So I’ll tell you this is most autistic people’s experience: In jobs or in in group settings, they’ll say their own thing and they don’t know why everyone’s offended at what they’ve said. Or they get excluded in social situations. Often autistic kids are like the one person in their class to not be invited to a birthday party, and then people wonder why the suicide rate for autistic people is so sky high.

“I tend to do my stand up from an autistic perspective… and a lot of my job is trying to understand why people are the way they are, and then pointing out the inconsistencies in what they do.”

There was a program I was on last year that I really enjoyed doing, but I always used to think something about me is wrong. I need to get plastic surgery on my face, or I need to lose weight, something is just wrong. It was my very autistic-ness. That is the thing that you end up hating yourself so much because you can just see that thing where you move slightly differently. And other autistic people were picking up on it too, when they were watching this programmer was on, they were tweeting saying, “It’s such a relief to finally see someone who moves and speaks the same way as me. It’s such an indefinable thing, but I know it when I see it. Because I see it, and so do other people who haven’t been diagnosed yet.

I do the same thing. I would argue that it’s even minor characters. For instance, there is a movie called “Trick ‘r Treat.” It’s a horror film from 2007. It’s an anthology. And one of the stories has a little girl we’re introduced to her because she was invited to a jack o’ lantern carving party, but she carved too many because she got too into it. I think when you’re autistic you seek out people in pop culture who are like you and when you find them. Do you have the same experience?

A lot of the quotes that I put in the book, they’re there for a reason. It’s because I suspect those people were autistic, but I couldn’t really get away with saying that. I’ve got a quote from Courtney Love in it because she says that she was diagnosed autistic. She seems autistic to me, because even when she’s not on drugs, she has an off-kilter way of speaking. 

I suspect she is maligned so heavily in part because she is autistic. I do not doubt that misogyny also plays a major role, as does body shaming at one point including from how you quote her in the book. But in addition, I think Courtney Love is so clearly intelligent and so clearly awkward that it just reads autistic. Even though people don’t say to her, “We hate you because you’re autistic,” it’s in the subtext. What is your sense?

Exactly, exactly! I’m obsessed with this because so often with neurotypical people, they don’t look at the content of what you’re saying, they look at the style in which you say it, whereas for autistic people we tend to look at what the person is actually saying. And I think autistic people are great at seeing when someone’s bad and when someone’s a fake person, we can pick it out a lot faster. That’s why I mentioned Courtney Love. And then also I think I quoted “Frankenstein” because there have been some people who have speculated that the novel “Frankenstein” has quite an autistic story. When I was little I used to watch “Edward Scissorhands” again and again and again, and I’ve since found out that’s a story about autism and you’re like, “Oh, of course.” Because you can’t hug people.

Can you go back to “Frankenstein “and explain why you think the novel is autistic? I also think Mary Shelley might have been autistic. She wrote it when she was 19.

People have speculated Mary Shelley is autistic.

“A lot of the useful information I got on how to deal with sensory issues and meltdowns, it came from other autistic people.”

But why do you think the novel is about autism?

I haven’t read it since university, but it’s really similar to the “Edward Scissorhands” story. It’s about someone who looks like a human but isn’t, or doesn’t quite feel like one, and is looking at humans with alien eyes and trying to copy with the way they talk because socializing isn’t intuitive to them. Humanity finds them monstrous. Although hopefully we’ve progressed a bit since then.

The best thing that’s happened since getting diagnosed is finding other autistic people. There was also a study which found when you put autistic people with neurotypicals, there are always gonna be crossed wires because we communicate differently. We have to think really hard to work to get to try and imitate their way of communicating.

I don’t know if you know that in Britain class is a huge thing. I know that Americans are sometimes baffled by the British class system. So for example, I’m working class — or I was working class — and if I met a really posh person, normally it would be difficult to integrate into their social group. But I have posh autistic friends and when I’m with them, it’s just much easier because they, I don’t know, there is less regard for hierarchies or something. 

I feel like neurotypicals are obsessed with hierarchies. Neurotypicals want everything to have a structure with a pyramid. “These are the people on the top; and then it’s these people; and these people; and these people…”

In our country that just spent billions on a coordination program against homeless people everywhere. You don’t have to tell me!

So what the hell is it with neurotypicals? As an autistic comedian, what is it with neurotypicals wanting everything to be a hierarchy?

They’re just very driven by communities and things like that. But then also neurotypicals also blur hierarchies. And I find that frustrating. So I talked about this in the book. There is a thing in TV with TV execs called studied informality which is where TV bosses will just wear jeans and trainers and then they’ll say things like, “Hey, I’m not the boss.” Like, even though they’re the boss of a TV channel and they’ll act like they’re just your friend. And that’s very confusing if you’re an autistic person because you then take that literally, even though there is still a hierarchy in place. So I found that very difficult when I was moving up in comedy. Do you know what I mean? I found it very difficult to network and know what to expect.

I think it’s because for neurotypicals they expect everyone to intuitively understand the rules. And if you’re a fellow neurotypical, you can intuitively understand the rules. But if you’re autistic, all you see are the inconsistencies because we don’t have the capacity to read behind those layers. So all that appears to us is that surface. And if the surface isn’t logically consistent, we become confused. What do you think?

Oh yeah, I get that all the time. I get that when I get given a fake reason for not getting a job and I’m like, “Please just tell me the real reason so I can improve my system and move on!” Because I think autistic people work in terms of creating systems and improving systems. All comedy is, you establish a thing to see, then if it doesn’t work, you go back, rework it and you’re trying to make your system better all the time. I find it weird when people are surprised that autistic people go into comedy because there’s a lot of those. There are a lot of autistic people in comedy.

I would love to see a whole bit just roasting neurotypical people. Because really they need to be roasted. Everyone else gets roasted. Everyone else gets made fun of. Why are neurotypicals given a pass?

There are people, going back to what we were saying earlier, there are people out there making autistic coded art. So there’s a film director called Todd Solondz. He’s never said he’s autistic. There is nothing online to say he’s autistic, but to me his films have an autistic sense of humor. He did a film called “Happiness,” and just the humor in it is so bleak and dark and trustful.

I would say Courtney Love’s music has an autistic subtext. 

Yeah, a lot of Courtney Love’s stuff is about being frustrated with this artifice that you have to put on to be a successful woman, and another thing that screamed autism to me was when she got asked about her nose job on a TV show and she said it was the best decision I ever made. My whole life changed. Everyone started being nicer to me. Whereas most actresses, if they got asked about their nose job, they would say, I never had plastic surgery, or if they admit to it, they would say, “I had a deviated septum and it was just to fix my breathing” — because you have to say the thing that appeals to people rather than tell the truth.


Fern Brady’s new book, “Strong Female Character,” is being released on June 6, 2023 in the United States, and is available for pre-order now.