Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Vaccine developers can’t keep up with COVID’s mutations

In April, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) both updated their recommendations for COVID vaccines, providing more flexibility for higher-risk individuals who want additional protection from the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Most crucially, people who are immunocompromised or over the age of 65 are now allowed to get a second bivalent booster shot. For everyone else, the FDA and CDC have deemed them unnecessary at this time.

“This allows more flexibility for healthcare providers to administer additional doses to immunocompromised patients as needed,” the CDC said in a statement.

It’s important to note that COVID vaccines still do their job: overall, they protect against severe illness and death. What they don’t do as well anymore is prevent infection.

This is encouraging news, but the question remains: Will anyone actually get the extra shot? While the first generation of COVID vaccines were warmly received by most people, the bivalent boosters have been far less popular. That’s not entirely attributable to lack of public awareness: researchers say that vaccines haven’t kept up with COVID’s mutations, and the goalpost has shifted as to what we can actually expect vaccines to do.

There’s a good reason why uptake was so strong for the first COVID vaccines. They worked extremely well at preventing hospitalization and death. Now that it’s been a few years since they were made available to the public, a good amount of research demonstrates that they saved many lives, even in spite of inequity in the pandemic.

Which is a why it’s a little strange that less than 17 percent of Americans have gotten the updated bivalent vaccine. That percentage represents a mere 55.7 million people, according to CDC data. In contrast, 69.4 percent of people, more than 230 million Americans, got the first COVID vaccine. Looking closer at the data, people over the age of 65 are far more likely to have gotten the updated booster: nearly 43 percent, or 23.3 million people. It remains unclear if many people will get a second bivalent booster, but at least the population who actually seems to want it has it available.

Related

The COVID virus has mutated so much since 2019 that some experts say it should be renamed SARS-CoV-3

The bivalent vaccines were first issued last October and are slightly different from the original mRNA vaccines that were first released in late 2020. The first line of vaccines, which were licensed and developed by the biotech corporations Moderna and BioNTech and Pfizer, were designed to generate the spike protein that encircles the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Because this artificial spike protein that the mRNA vaccine generates is not attached to a virus, it cannot infect cells, but it can train our immune systems to fight when it encounters a real COVID virus.

The FDA and the CDC no longer recommend the older class of these vaccines, and instead have only authorized use of the updated bivalent versions — so-called because they contain two different mRNA-based spike proteins: one is the original vaccine, which mimics the first strain of SARS-CoV-2 that was circulating in 2019 and 2020. The second spike protein is more closely related to two different strains, BA.4 and BA.5, which are children of the omicron variant. Omicron first hit our radar in November 2021 and caused one of the biggest surges of infections in the pandemic thus far.

While infections from BA.4 and BA.5 made up the majority of cases for most of 2022, the landscape of COVID strains has changed dramatically. First there was something of a “variant soup” through most of the fall and winter, with a recombinant variant nicknamed Kraken (XBB.1.5) that has been responsible for most cases in 2023.

All these jumbled up letters and numbers represent specific changes in the virus DNA that can give it advantages against some (but not all) of our immune defenses. Monoclonal antibodies, for example, no longer work against Kraken, but Paxlovid does. Because none of the variants that are currently spreading are reflective of the vaccines, it begs the question: will they even work?

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

A study published April 25 on the preprint server MedRxiv by a group of Austrian virologists analyzed blood samples and found that the newer vaccines do work against most strains of the virus — though they provided only only modest protection against BA.5, and did extremely poorly against XBB.1.5. Even people with acquired immunity from Kraken were unable to mount an effective immune response. The study did use a small sample size and has not been peer-reviewed, meaning outside researchers haven’t studied this data, but it’s still pretty alarming given that other data has pointed in this direction.

Another MedRxiv preprint, this one done by doctors at the Cleveland Clinic, reported “Effectiveness was not demonstrated when the XBB lineages were dominant.” In fact, among more than 4,400 healthcare employees who were infected with COVID, vaccines were only 4 percent effective against infectious XBB variants.

It’s important to note that COVID vaccines still do their job: overall, they protect against severe illness and death. What they don’t do is prevent infection, as these recent studies suggest. In this study, the immunized still got sick, but they didn’t die or go to the hospital. However, none of the people in the sample were immunocompromised and few were elderly.

The bivalent vaccines may not stand up very well against these new strains, which are evolving so fast that some experts even argue that we should rename the virus SARS-CoV-3 to emphasize its distant genetic drift from the original pathogen.

“Regardless of this one study, the evidence is mounting that we are utterly failing in our race against the virus’ mutation,” Blake Murdoch, a legal scholar and bioethicist at the University of Alberta Health Law Institute, wrote on Twitter. “And we have to pray that immune experience will play a massive role in saving people while we work on second generation scientific solutions.”

Yet another study, this one published in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases on April 10, reported data from a randomized clinical trial; ominously, the study authors emphasized an “ongoing concern that the breadth of antibody response from current updated vaccines is not optimal for the pace of virus evolution.”

According to the most recent stats from the CDC, Kraken infections made up an estimated 68.8 percent of cases during the week ending April 29. It is slowly but steadily being replaced by its offspring, strains like Arcturus (XBB.1.16) which made up 11.7 percent of cases and Hyperion (XBB.1.9) at 9 percent.

In other words, the bivalent vaccines may not stand up very well against these new strains, which are evolving so fast (as viruses normally do) that some experts even argue that we should rename the virus SARS-CoV-3 to emphasize its distant genetic drift from the original pathogen.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Salon in an email that these new omicron subvariants are increasing in prevalence because of increased transmissibility, evasion of antibodies or both.

“Even if subvariants have more mutations in their spike protein and are more adept at evading antibodies, as demonstrated for XBB.1.16, our immune system is fortunately ‘redundant‘ and doesn’t just rely on antibodies to protect us from infection,” Gandhi said. “At this point, although XBB.1.16 does seem to evade antibodies from the bivalent vaccine per the data, we should feel comfortable that the bivalent vaccine is likely to stimulate our B cell response and protect the elderly [and] immuncompromised from severe disease.”

But while the bivalent vaccines may be unlikely to prevent infection against the currently circulating strains in North America, it’s worth repeating that they will still stop severe illness and death. For someone elderly or immunocompromised, even a small amount of protection can make a big difference.

Instead, what this growing body of data underscores is that we’re not keeping up with the mutations the virus is developing, which could spell bigger problems down the road. As former White House COVID response coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx warned in an interview with Fortune last month, SARS-CoV-2 will keep evolving and could make other treatments useless as well.

“If we lose Paxlovid, we could easily double the number of deaths,” Birx said. “I’ve been really upset that the federal government has not prioritized next-generation vaccines that are more durable, next-generation monoclonals, and long-acting monoclonals.”

While we’re currently dealing with the XBB lineage, that could easily change, especially since the virus is now endemic. It could spread from animals to humans again, or a newly evolved version of SARS-CoV-2 could start wreaking havoc. As the federal public health emergency sunsets on May 11, it’s clear that we need to do more than put outdated vaccines into arms or we could be buried by yet another COVID surge.

“Trying to paint COVID as endemic flu will have serious consequences in the long run. We will feel workforce issues soon and long COVID might hurt our healthcare system country-wide. That could really be the next big impact of the pandemic,” Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Arkansas, told Salon in an email. “We don’t have to feel pressured to move on from a real public health threat. We have a collective responsibility to protect our seniors and immunocompromised. Letting the virus spread unchecked is never a viable option.”

Read more

about COVID

“It’s 2015 all over again”: CNN slammed for making “compelling pitch” to Trump for ratings

Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to headline a May 10 CNN town hall at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.

The network announced on Monday that anchor Kaitlan Collins will moderate the town hall which will “feature the former president taking questions from New Hampshire Republicans and undeclared voters who plan to vote in the 2024 GOP presidential primary.” The event will mark Trump’s first appearance on the network since 2016.

“CNN executives made a compelling pitch,” a Trump advisor told Semafor, adding that Trump “is running to be president for all Americans.” 

“Going outside the traditional Republican ‘comfort zone’ was a key to President Trump’s success in 2016,” the advisor said. “Some other candidates are too afraid to take this step in their quest to defeat Joe Biden, and are afraid to do anything other than Fox News.”

The advisor added Trump’s participation in the town hall is part of an effort “to jumpstart the relationship” between CNN and Trump’s team.

Guardian reporter Hugo Lowell tweeted that people close to Trump “say he’s taking part in understanding that campaign could get more surrogates on air,” adding that “CNN denies such an arrangement.”

Related

“Get him out of here”: Leaked audio reveals Trump lashing out at reporter and throwing his phones

The news of Trump’s attending the town hall received mixed reviews, with many accusing CNN of adding the ex-president to the fray to boost ratings.

“It’s 2015 all over again,” tweeted pundit Cheri Jacobus.

Political commentator and former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann called CNN’s decision to include Trump “journalistic suicide.” 

CNN CEO Chris Licht’s conversion of CNN “into a political and journalistic whorehouse is complete,” he added.

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

“First, CNN systematically purged anyone on the network who was deemed too anti-Trump,” argued journalist and attorney Judd Legum. “Now this.”

Political commentator David Rothkopf said it was “irresponsible” for CNN to host the town hall. 

“That said it’ll also be a litmus test as to whether CNN seeks to be taken seriously as a journalistic organization going forward,” he wrote. “Failing to address the coup attempt, his legal woes, his impeachments, his lies will be disqualifying.”

Former MSNBC host and journalist Touré alleged that CNN’s Trump-inclusion “is what choosing profits over news looks like in action.”

Read more

about Donald Trump

“Get him out of here”: Leaked audio reveals Trump lashing out at reporter and throwing his phones

Shortly after an appearance in Waco, Texas in March to kick off his 2024 campaign, former President Donald Trump got into an on-flight tiff with an NBC News reporter, according to Vanity Fair.

Trump was aboard his plane in the midst of a press gaggle when NBC News reporter Vaughn Hillyard began to fire off a series of questions that apparently irked the former president.

“Don’t ask me any more questions,” Trump said.

Hillyard, however, continued to press the ex-president on the subject of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s probe into Trump’s role in payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. An irate Trump grabbed Hillyard’s two phones and tossed them aside, a source familiar with the matter told Vanity Fair.

“Get him out of here,” Trump said to his aides.

Just a few days later, Trump was indicted in Bragg’s investigation and subsequently hit with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Related

“He’s capable of anything”: Arrest and humiliation won’t stop Trump, says niece Mary Trump

Vanity Fair reported that Hillyard’s questions were related to Trump’s frenetic tirades on Truth Social at the time, as Trump had warned of “potential death and destruction” if he was indicted. Hillyard asked Trump to clarify his “version of events” regarding Bragg’s investigation, to which the former president replied, “I don’t want to talk to you.”

When Hillyard continued, Trump said, “Do you hear me? You’re not a nice guy.”

Hillyard, undeterred, tried again to elicit a response from Trump, at which point Trump said, “Alright, let’s go, get him out of here. Outta here. Outta here.”

A voice ostensibly belonging to a Trump campaign aide can be heard in the recording saying, “Vaughn, we’re done.”

Trump at that point picked up a phone recording the discussion and said, “Whose is this?,” before picking up a second phone and repeating his question. When Hillyard said the phones were his, Trump flung the phones away toward the seat next to him. Vanity Fair reported that a thud from one of the phones landing somewhere can be heard on the recording. 

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

The Guardian previously reported that Trump began to unravel when Hillyard asked if he was frustrated.

“I’m not frustrated by it. It’s a fake investigation. We did nothing wrong – I told you that. This is fake news, and NBC is one of the worst. Don’t ask me any more questions,” Trump said. He added that he was in the dark in regards to Bragg’s proceedings, saying, “I have no idea what’s going to happen” – before deciding that he supposedly knew what would happen anyway and claiming, “They’ve already dropped the case, from what I understand.”

“If anything ever happened with the case, it’s a fake case. This is a fake case. They have absolutely nothing. They have it in reverse. They should indict Michael Cohen for all the lies that he told,” Trump said, speaking about his former personal attorney who wired $130,000 to Daniels. “They may not do that, but that’s what should be happening.”

As Vanity Fair noted, Trump’s tussle with Hillyard is illustrative of the former president’s resentment and outright hostility towards the press. His infamous branding of “fake news” helped stoke the flames of public distrust of the media, specifically more progressive publications. Vanity Fair also added that Trump’s campaign team has evidently “reduced mainstream press access” as a result of the Waco incident, with only two reporters from conservative outlets — The Daily Caller and OANN — aboard his plane en route to New Hampshire last week. 

“We extended invites to four other mainstream reporters/outlets and they all said they could not due to either [White House Correspondents’ Dinner] events that week or because their editors refused,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in an email about the New Hampshire trip. “But we’ve had a ton of media requests to ride on Trump Force One to the upcoming Iowa rally and we will do our due diligence on who to bring.”

Read more

about Trump’s indictment

“Repeatedly shut down by Judge Kaplan”: Experts say Trump lawyer’s cross-examination was a disaster

E. Jean Carroll on Monday concluded her testimony after three days on the stand in Manhattan federal court.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina during his cross-examination of Carroll tried to highlight what he suggested were discrepancies between her testimony and her statements in interviews, her book, depositions and social media posts.

Legal experts said Tacopina’s strategy may backfire with the jury.

Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner wrote at The Daily Beast that Trump’s attorney “gave an object lesson on how NOT to conduct a cross-examination in federal court.”

Tacopina before the third day of the trial filed a letter asking Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the rape and defamation trial, to declare a mistrial, arguing that the judge had made biased rulings against Trump. Kaplan quickly rejected the ruling on Monday morning.

Related

“Stable genius-level strategy”: Trump lawyer demands mistrial by calling judge “unfair”

“This motion never had a chance of success. At best, it was performative–designed to give Tacopina the chance to demonstrate to Trump that he was trying his best to get Judge Kaplan to reverse himself,” Epner wrote, noting it was one of several times that Tacopina was “repeatedly shut down by Judge Kaplan.”

“Judge Kaplan frequently treated Tacopina as a fool who did not know the basics of the rules of evidence,” Epner explained. “He sustained several objections to lines of questions, just as Tacopina thought he was about to score points.”

Tacopina pressed Carroll on social media posts in which she expressed that she was a fan of “The Apprentice” and joked about having sex with Trump for money, according to Politico. At another point, he questioned her about whether she had seen a 2012 “Law & Order: SVU” episode in which a character fantasizes about a rape in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, the store where Carroll alleged she was raped by Trump in the 1990s. Carroll denied that she had ever seen the episode.

During another exchange, Tacopina questioned why Carroll described her life as in shambles since she went public but tells people publicly that she is doing great.

“I always say my life is fabulous,” Carroll said.

“Except in this courtroom,” Tacopina shot back.

Carroll explained that in court, “I have to tell the truth.”

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

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman said Tacopina made “several textbook errors” during his questioning, citing the “Law & Order” and “fabulous” exchanges that suggested “she made it up” or the “assault didn’t damage her.”

“Tacopina really blew it,” Litman tweeted, adding that his cross-examination was particularly important to the former president’s defense because Trump himself won’t testify.

Epner wrote that Tacopina repeatedly “violated cardinal rules of cross-examination” by giving Carroll the opportunity to repeat her direct testimony and struggling to debunk her statements. During another exchange, “Tacopina lost control” by playing an entire 10-minute interview Carroll gave to CNN.

“Tacopina gave the jury the opportunity to see Carroll once again cogently describe being sexually assaulted by Trump,” he wrote. “While the video was playing, Tacopina was literally reduced to being an observer.”

Epner acknowledged that Tacopina had “about five minutes of strong cross-examination” but it was “hidden in about eight hours of ineffective questioning.”

Litman added that it is “all uphill for Tacopina from here” as Carroll’s legal team plans to question two witnesses who say Carroll told them about the attack and two witnesses who similarly accused Trump of sexual assault.

“The only way he can push back is through cross,” Litman tweeted, because “Trump can’t and won’t testify.”

Read more

about the trial

The power of radical forgiveness

Kyle, my husband of 12 years at the time, drove the same road to daycare each day. Every rut in the pavement, stop sign, and tree all memorized in the routine early morning hours. However, on July 7, 2014, on a sweltering hot day in Ridgefield, Connecticut, he experienced a momentary lapse of prospective memory. As the day unfolded, our only son, Benjamin, was gone. Instead of turning left at the end of our road, Kyle turned right that morning, as his habitual memory guided him to the coffee shop and then to work. A normal day ensued for Kyle while Ben lay in the back seat of his car all day, ultimately succumbing to hyperthermia.

I remember Kyle blowing raspberries on Ben’s stomach that morning, then bringing him on his hip into the bathroom where I stood looking into the mirror at what I thought to be the happiest family alive. I brushed back Ben’s blond hair, which was ruffled from a lazy night’s sleep. He pulled away in an independent boyish manner while I ran my hand down his chubby leg. Had I said, “I love you”? I will never be able to uncoil that memory from my brain. I thought we had so much time ahead of us. 

Kyle found Ben in the backseat of his car after realizing in horror, when attempting to pick him up from daycare, that he had not actually dropped him off that morning. As the police drove me to the hospital, I knew. Ben was gone. In the tiny room at the back of the hospital, my known world fell apart when they told me, “Ben didn’t make it.” As I entered Kyle’s room, I saw a vision of a soul torn asunder. I crawled onto his lap, prying his hands off his head, where I saw veins protruding. “I love you. I love you. I love you,” I relayed, in disbelief of the instantaneous words falling out of my mouth. My shoulder grew wet with his tears. My reaction was instinct. This was the man I loved on a level that went deeper than my words. Kyle had stood by me through moments I wasn’t sure I’d survive, and now the tables had turned. As much as I felt the need to save him, I also felt a repulsion for the reality that his actions had caused. Our son was dead. Everything I thought I knew about love or forgiveness was about to radically change.

In the tiny room at the back of the hospital, my known world fell apart when they told me, “Ben didn’t make it.”

In 2001, the two of us were an innocent pair. We were 21, living together in Raleigh, North Carolina, shedding our adolescence during our last days of college. I had met Kyle three years earlier through a friend of a friend when he’d carried my boxes into the college apartment. As I watched his chiseled face, strong arms and gentle demeanor, it was love at first sight. Then the Twin Towers crumbled and there was an immediate need to fall into one another, into the metaphysical beauty of human connection, to remind ourselves the world still existed. A few months later we found ourselves standing together in the county clerk’s office to be married. That night, as he touched me, I felt a faltering. A slight withholding of all of myself, as if I knew my own world would soon be overrun, testing the very fiber of our love. I watched the moonlight filter in through our window, waiting for the inevitable. 

Within a year the cracks began to form. Subtle at first, then with a fury unbeholden to reason. The early episodes of my manic depression exploded, intense and uncontrollable, leading to multiple hospitalizations in psychiatric wards as doctors struggled to find a diagnosis. On the worst days of agitation, in mixed states, I threw plates at the wall, yelling obscenities at Kyle as he stood helpless. He did not know on the first night we were together that he would be responsible for keeping me alive, fighting for “us,” and testing the boundaries of earthly love. One difficult night, as Kyle drove me to Duke University Hospital, manic and suicidal, I tried to jump out of his car, which was steamrolling down the interstate. He grabbed at my jeans trying to keep me inside while I battled, hit, kicked, and screamed at him to release me. He pulled over, taking out his cell phone to call 911, yelling, “I need help. I’m with my wife, and she’s sick. She’s manic depressive.” As I heard those words, I sank deeper into the seat, finally giving up. Only my sobs released into the night sky.

Related

The science of forgiveness: “When you don’t forgive you release all the chemicals of the stress response”

After a suicide attempt, more doctors shuffled through my hospital stays until they finally landed on lithium to quell my unquiet mind. On those many nights, I lay sobbing in Kyle’s arms as he held me. I uttered, “Please help me. Please don’t leave. Love all of me.” He rubbed his hands through my hair and said, “I do. Love all of you. Always and forever.” This was a phrase that would be tested beyond anything either of us could imagine in the years to come. 

After Ben’s death, I existed in survival mode, putting on my coat of armor to protect our family. The distance between me and Kyle gradually grew into an emotional separation that would last for years to come. I became bent on survival, while Kyle existed in a state of mourning, a mode of emotional nothingness. I could not even call it living. He compartmentalized quickly, rarely talking about Ben, moving on as fast as he could to a normal life with work and our daughters. I could not find true love or forgiveness during this time. The exuberant love of young adulthood had faded and I could not find what was left on the other end. My soul shut down; I needed to feel nothing. The constant zaps of pain and emotion in my body had to be numbed. 

I became bent on survival, while Kyle existed in a state of mourning, a mode of emotional nothingness. I could not even call it living.

On a separate path from Kyle, I fell into oblivion as soon as possible after work, first with benzodiazepines and mood stabilizers as strong as tranquilizers, then over the years moving on to alcohol with the sole purpose of blacking out in a stupor on the weekends, coupled with endless days at work in Big Law. The moments I missed with my children — walks on the beach at nighttime, not watching the sunrise because I was hungover — I can never get back. My state of addiction always came with anger, even at those I loved, yet I could not understand it was really anger toward my life and what it was not. Eventually, something had to change. I would either find love and learn to lean on forgiveness, leave, or remain in a constant state of numbness.

As I enter the final publishing phase of my memoir, which was actually written shortly after Ben’s passing, I’ve noticed myself pulling out of the depths of my addictions. Working on my story has helped me take a step back and see the purpose of my journey more clearly, guiding me to take a leap of faith to walk away from Big Law and become an author and mental health advocate. With all of my battle wounds, today I find myself contemplating the meaning of love again. I have come to understand that my soul is connected to Ben (who will always be with me) and also to Kyle. Since our early days of innocent and light-hearted love, my struggles with manic depression, and even after our tragedy, we have been soul partners. Our energy is bound together throughout time to support and love each other during and beyond the worst life can offer, teaching each other lessons we need to evolve and grow.

As Kyle and I sat on the patio one evening, tears formed as I told him that sometimes I wonder why God made me as I am, in ways that may cause him pain, and I was oftentimes sorry for being me. He grabbed my shoulders and said, “Lindsey, I love all of you, just as you are and always have. There is no regret. There is just life.” I believe soul partners encompass love in its various iterations, which are ever-changing. True love need not be wild and tempestuous, or light and effervescent. Sometimes it is quiet and gentle, but it is always unconditional. Our love is God’s grace to forgive and a commitment to see it through day in and day out, in the best and worst of times. Quite possibly, our commitment is to save each other over and over again, as many times as it takes, teaching each other the lessons that can only be found through unconditional love and radical forgiveness. We have shown each other that together we can survive the impossible.

 If you are in crisis, please call the 988 Suicide and Crisis  Lifeline by dialing 988, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741.

Read more

essays about losing a child

In the wake of historic storms, Māori leaders call for disaster relief and rights

This story is published as part of the Global Indigenous Affairs Desk, an Indigenous-led collaboration between Grist, High Country News, ICT, Mongabay, and Native News Online.

In February, Cyclone Gabrielle hit New Zealand, bringing devastating floods and powerful winds, destroying homes, displacing thousands, and killing at least eleven people. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins called it “the most significant weather event New Zealand has seen in this century.” Around 70 percent of destroyed homes were occupied by Indigenous Māori, but Māori leaders say that they have been left out of recovery services and funding. 

“Because climate events have gotten more and more intense, it’s at a point of our communities will either get wiped out through more storms or have to choose to leave their homelands,” Renee Raroa, a Ngati Porou Māori representative from Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti in eastern New Zealand, said. “We’re running out of options.”

With the frequency and severity of storms increasing, along with other climate impacts like rising sea levels, Māori peoples are facing increasingly dire climate crises and calling on the United Nations for help. At the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, or UNPFII, Māori representatives called on New Zealand to include Māori people in disaster recovery plans, provide support for Indigenous-led climate initiatives, and fully implement the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – a nonbinding resolution that affirms international Indigenous rights. Māori representatives also called on the U.N. to pressure New Zealand to support Indigenous land rights.

“Cyclone Gabrielle exposed the human rights dimensions of climate change disaster,” said Claire Charters, Māori Indigenous Rights Governance Partner at the New Zealand Human Rights Commission. “Māori rights must be part of all climate change and emergency policy and law.”

The Māori say neglect in the aftermath of the storm is just the latest violation of their human rights by the New Zealand government that could be solved by a national action plan to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2019, Indigenous leaders and the New Zealand Human Rights Commission began discussions to do just that, but talks were postponed last year, with the government saying that the general public needed more awareness of the plan and its purposes. 

But Māori leaders say that the plan fell victim to political maneuvering, with politicians unwilling to tackle a contentious issue ahead of elections. With limited room to work at home, they say bringing their concerns to the U.N. can get conversations moving again in the national system. “We can add pressure back home by being here and by having our public statement heard on the global stage,” Raroa said. 

“We must ensure that Māori are centered in the discussions on mitigation and adapting to climate change, and that Indigenous knowledge is more deliberately considered,” a representative from New Zealand’s government said in a statement delivered at the Forum. The representative also highlighted the importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but did not mention any steps to implement it. 

Hannah McGlade, an Indigenous Noongar member of the Permanent Forum from Australia, says that New Zealand’s reluctance to actually implement the declaration is common around the world. The U.S., Canada, and Australia have also been called out at UNPFII for their lack of action to implement the human rights standards. “We do see too great a gap between the declaration principles and the actions and conduct of countries globally,” McGlade said. “There has to be proactive commitments made through the plans.”

Meanwhile, as Māori continue to rebuild their own communities, they are also developing climate and environmental programs based on Indigenous traditions and practice, including reforestation and invasive species control. To fully realize these programs, the Māori say they need both more funding and more freedom to make land use decisions. 

“We’re going to make the right choices for our land, so just provide the resources to help us get better,” Raroa said. 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/global-indigenous-affairs-desk/in-the-wake-of-historic-storms-maori-leaders-call-for-disaster-relief-and-rights/.

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

Greg Abbott demonized the victims of the Texas shooting. It says a lot about why the GOP loves guns

The details of the mass shooting near Houston, Texas on Friday are harrowing. The suspect entered the home with an AR-15, allegedly intoxicated, intent on gunning down an entire family in revenge for them asking him to be quieter late at night. Two of the five dead were women who were found laying on top of living children, having died to shield them from harm. One of the dead was a child. The natural, human response is abject horror and sympathy for these innocent victims, who were just trying to live their lives and raise their children in peace. 

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, however, has erased his own humanity in his ongoing bid to be a prominent leader in MAGA America. So he responded to the shooting by demonizing the victims, calling them “illegal immigrants” in his tweet about the crime. This bit of casual cruelty came packaged with an expensive fig leaf: A $50,000 reward to anyone who shares information leading to the suspect’s capture. No doubt Abbott hoped propping that cash up would deflect attention from his racist pandering.

So far, thankfully, it’s not working.

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

Abbott’s ugly words are being contrasted in the press with the reaction of San Jacinto County Sheriff Greg Capers, who choked up as he told reporters, “My heart is with this 8-year-old little boy. I don’t care if he was here legally. I don’t care if he was here illegally. He was in my county. Five people died in my county, and that is where my heart is—in my county, protecting my people to the best of our ability.” An activist shared the permanent residence card of one of the victims, proving that “illegal immigrant” is just a racial slur that has no relationship to the actual immigration status of people who get tagged with it. 

In response to the outcry, Abbott’s office claimed he “regrets” the word choice. It was enough to score headlines claiming he “walks back” the statement, but actually reading the statement shows he did no such thing. Instead, his office said they “regret if the information was incorrect.” There was no apologizing for the clear racist intent of describing the victims as “illegal immigrants,” instead, say, “people,” or, if he was looking for specificity, “two men, two women and one child.” 

For decades, the two most reliable emotions Republicans can tap into in order to motivate their base are racism and fear.

Shocking but not surprising: It’s the phrase that’s become a cliché when describing Republican behavior in the Donald Trump era. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post noted, Abbott’s cruelty-based approach to immigration has become “a centerpiece of his political efforts.” One of his favorite stunts is shipping people like they’re cargo around the country, so he can be seen dumping immigrants like they are human trash. So implicitly blaming the victims and minimizing their deaths with racist language is sadly par for the course. 

Related

Trump wants Americans to think society is an apocalyptic wasteland: Mass shootings help him

Abbott’s response also tells us a lot about why most Republican leaders refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of unhinged people, even as most Americans support better regulations on guns. The grim reality is Republicans believe they benefit politically from mass shootings.

For decades, the two most reliable emotions Republicans can tap into in order to motivate their base are racism and fear. A country overrun with guns allows them to dial up the fear to the maximum. Watch Fox News any given night or listen to Trump’s speeches. It’s all about how America is supposedly a crime-ridden apocalyptic wasteland, and how only authoritarian leaders can save us from all the violence. Having a steady drumbeat of murder stories helps prop this narrative up.

But, of course, tied into that narrative is blatant racism. That’s why Abbott labeled these victims “illegal immigrants.” He’s selling a story where it’s not the guns that are the problem, but that some dark-skinned foreigners are somehow bringing the violence to this country. Dehumanizing the victims also helps convince white conservatives that they don’t have to care about these deaths. That the problem isn’t that a clearly disturbed person had access to a gun that can take out a whole family in the space of a few seconds. No, they can tell themselves that the real problem is racial diversity. 

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

Tucker Carlson may be fired from Fox News, but there’s no undoing what is likely his biggest, most evil accomplishment: Mainstreaming the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that was drawn directly from neo-Nazis and other white nationalist scum online. In neo-Nazi circles, the claim is that a Jewish cabal is conspiring to “replace” white Christian Americans with people of color, through a combination of immigration and manipulating white women into having fewer children. Carlson replaced the word “Jews” with euphemisms like “elites” and “globalists,” but otherwise, the conspiracy theory was transmitted intact. Even during his last major interview, with Telsa CEO/right-wing troll Elon Musk, they were alluding to the conspiracy theory by claiming “civilization’s going to crumble” because of birth control. 

He’s selling a story where it’s not the guns that are the problem, but some dark-skinned foreigners.

Carlson was pushing on an open door, but still, his campaign to mainstream this neo-Nazi idea in the GOP was a resounding success. Polling from the Southern Poverty Law Center last year showed 68% of Republican voters believe increasing racial diversity is “not a natural change but has been motivated by progressive and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters.” 

Republican voters have been trained to see people of color not as fellow human beings, but as an existential threat to themselves. That mentality, as history tells us, leads straight to genocidal thinking. Stories like this, where victims of a mass shooting are predominantly people of color, function on two levels for the Republican base. It stokes fear of chaos, justifying their desire for fascistic leadership. But it also satisfies their cruel desire to inflict pain on immigrants, or see them erased entirely. Why on earth would Republicans pass policies that save the lives of people they hate?

Related

Conservative America has far more gun deaths than liberal America, study finds

This line of thinking is always pulsing beneath the Republican discourse on guns, living in the subtext of their reactions to any murder story where the victims aren’t white. Sometimes, however, the subtext becomes the text, such as when the 2022 GOP nominee for Arizona’s senate seat, Blake Masters, said the reason we have a gun violence problem is “Black people, frankly.” Abbott layered a little more plausible deniability into his tweet, but he was pointing in the same direction: Using this horrible crime to imply a whiter country would be a less violent one. 

In truth, the research shows that the best predictor of gun deaths in an area is whether Republicans run it. As Colin Woodard of the Nationhood Lab explained in Politico, racism contributes directly, as well. For two centuries, gun violence was used first to enforce slavery and then segregation. The result is cultures that have a lot more gun violence overall. I’d argue that they also are the ones that resort to victim-blaming people of color for it, as well, which is just about creating an excuse to perpetuate these toxic norms. 

Abbott’s reaction to this crime is more of the same: Using it to prop up racist fears, while also engaging in victim-blaming that helps white conservatives avoid talking about real solutions that could actually work. Because, ultimately, they don’t want real solutions. Republicans want to keep their voters trapped in an incoherent but vivid emotional state of fear and racial loathing, all of which works to shut down rational faculties so that they keep voting Republican. And clearly, GOP leaders don’t care how many innocent people are killed in the process. 

Donald Trump’s campaign emails provide a clue into his dark plans

Donald Trump and his people keep sending me emails every day. They keep begging me for money to help the traitor ex-president “defend” America by winning back the White House. Often the emails are very suggestive and lurid, promising that if I give Trump and his friends my money that I will get invited to some type of secret meeting or private audience that is “exclusive” to special people like me. Other times the emails are hawking hats, mugs, glasses, beer “koozies” and fake mugshots of Trump being arrested for his obvious crimes against society – except Trump isn’t actually guilty, as the emails tell it, he is being “persecuted” like Jesus Christ or some other type of martyr. [As I write this essay, I literally just received an email from Trump’s people announcing that they are selling “MAGA MOM” t-shirts to honor Mother’s Day.]

Some of Trump’s emails are pathetic; he is too close to being a caricature of himself (if that is even possible given that the real “Donald Trump” does not exist and he is just a character and symbol, an empty signifier of sorts) as he begs for money to fight the “deep state” and “crooked” Joe Biden and the “evil” Democrats who supposedly want to turn the United States into Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia. In reality, Trump is lashing out like a spoiled child who is mad that the other kids are being “mean” to him.

Some of Trump and his people’s emails are actually very funny and entertaining in a dark way. Trump has natural comedic timing. Imagine all of the trouble, pain, and deaths of more than a million people in America from the COVID pandemic that we would have been spared if he had decided to host a late-night TV variety show instead of feeding his malignant narcissism unlimited fuel by becoming President of the United States and the leader of a fascist cult. 

In his fundraising emails, on Fox “News”, across the internet and on social media, Donald Trump is announcing, publicly, every day, what his evil plans are for American society.

Trump’s emails (and the larger MAGAverse and right-wing echo chamber and alternate reality of which they are a part) have a consistent series of characters and themes. Trump and his forces are part of a patriotic revolutionary struggle, under siege and losing their country, that will end in a “final battle” or some other apocalypse where the “enemy” will be vanquished or otherwise destroyed. MAGA is a force of destiny!

The specific enemy can change depending on the need of the moment but it is generally some type of Other such as Black and brown people, refugees and migrants from Latin and South America or some other place not sufficiently “White” and “Christian”, Muslims, gang members, Black Lives Matter, “Woke” and its “mind virus”, “Critical Race Theory”, “reverse racism”, liberals, progressives, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, “globalists” (which is just a thinly veiled antisemitic slur), the “liberal news media”, “big media”, feminists, “abortionists”, and any other individual or group who resists Donald Trump and the MAGAs.

Related

“After Trump comes others”: Author Jeff Sharlet explains why “neofascists are not going to stop”

As I read these daily emails, I find myself saying aloud why did I do this? I agreed to get all of these emails and other messages. What was I thinking? But when I am on the verge of deciding to unsubscribe, or mark them as spam, another email arrives. It is almost as though they are watching me and gauging my interest, and I almost always decide that I must keep reading.

But why?

It is not so much an act of masochism but a reasoned choice that all engaged and responsible citizens should stay vigilant during this time of democracy crisis and disaster.

In all, Donald Trump and his people have a deep knowledge of his target audience and its pain and pleasure points. He utilizes the principles of narrative psychology, where individuals process the world and their personal (and other) identities as being mediated through the stories, both fact and fiction, that they tell about themselves and others. The messaging and storytelling machine of the Democrats, liberals, and progressives (with a few noteworthy exceptions) is pitiful by comparison. To make matters even worse, many of the emails sent by President Biden and the Democrats even look like Trump’s fundraising emails in terms of the colors and layout. Politics is about branding; the Democrats with all of their big money consultants appear to not understand that fact (or are just willfully incompetent).

In so many ways, Donald Trump and his people’s emails and larger messaging are leveraging the storytelling conventions and rules of the horror genre.

Consider the following recent email which was sent with the subject line “The Great Rebirth of American Freedom.” For all intents and purposes, it is a screenplay that could have been written by Leni Riefenstahl or D.W Griffith:

Friend,

I had an incredible time at the NRA Convention on Friday, speaking to a room packed with patriots who want one very simple thing… to be FREE.

The Left wants to take away your guns while throwing open the jailhouse doors and releasing blood-thirsty criminals into your communities.

They want to abolish your borders and impoverish your families while spending your money on endless and very, very stupid foreign wars.

They want to demonize patriots and persecute Christians while pushing the transgender cult on your children.

But with your support, I promise to lead the great rebirth of American freedom.

We will build a future where we are free of violence, free of crime, and free of fear.

When I am back in the White House, rogue federal agencies and Soros-funded DAs will no longer be allowed to treat honest, law-abiding Americans as second-class citizens.

When I am back in the White House, you will remember the glory days when America was a FREE, SAFE, PROSPEROUS, and GREAT NATION!

Of the many other hateful and dangerous emails with their encouragements to stochastic terrorism and other violence, this email is one of the most vile. Notice the following language, which is an obvious lie: “They want to demonize patriots and persecute Christians while pushing the transgender cult on your children.”

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

What do you do to the monstrous Other who is trying to hurt your children? You hunt them down and expunge them from society – violence is almost always the means of “purification.” This is exactly what the Republican fascists and their forces are doing through means both “legal” and illegal (meaning violence and other threats and intimidation) through their moral panic against the gay community, generally, and transgender people in particular.

Transgender people are human beings who are not part of a cult. They are human beings who just want to be free to enjoy their universal human rights, human freedom, human liberty, happiness, agency, rights, and autonomy. Across the United States, Republicans are involved in a concerted campaign to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community. This is part of a larger anti-democracy and anti-human project.

I recently asked author and journalist Brynn Tannehill for her thoughts about the increasingly genocidal and eliminationist language and threats being made by the Republican fascists and their forces against the LGBTQ community. She emphasizes questions of human rights, the Constitution, and the inalienable right to self-defense:

There is a new GOP proposal on the horizon: ban transgender people from owning guns using red flag laws. It was recently proposed by Tucker Carlson, and echoed in the wake of the mass shooting in Nashville by conservative legislators like JD Vance and MTG. Some states, including Texas and Florida, have already been drawing up lists of trans people for unknown reasons.

Given how the courts, and most Republicans treat gun rights as the most fundamental of rights, and trans people have intermediate scrutiny, legally this is like announcing that that freedom of speech is being revoked for women, and that henceforth red state governments will be allowed to ban them from speaking or writing. Ever.

In reality, it’s a distraction: a means by which to strip a hated minority of their fundamental rights. Trans people are .6% of the population, and constitute only 3 of the 2800+ mass shooters since 2018 (.11%).  Statistically speaking, trans people are less likely to be shooters than the general public, but studies also show they’re four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. Republicans are always looking for a scapegoat for why mass shooting happen here so frequently: video games, absent fathers, lack of prayer in schools, lack of mandatory religious attendance, mental illness, etc… None of these are true, it’s merely a diversion, and one that they’re going to potentially make stick with trans people.

And it should scare the hell out of you.

Even as Republicans are declaring that “transgenderism must be eradicated” and passing hundreds of laws to do just that, they’re talking about disarming trans people, while making guns easier to obtain for everyone else. It follows the pattern seen in Germany, where Jews were disarmed in 1933 and Reich law was amended to make it easier for everyone else. Access to guns wouldn’t have prevented the Holocaust, the suggestion is asinine. However, the fact that GOP is moving on gun rights for trans people is a huge red flag that bad things are coming. It’s a dead canary in a coal mine.

Because they inhabit a self-created world, an inverted reality and state of malignant normality, the Trumpists, the MAGAites and other members of the American neofascist movement actually believe that they are the heroes when in fact they are the monsters and villains in the story. And in that role, like many of history’s greatest villains and evildoers, they also believe that they are the victims when in fact they are the victimizers.

In his fundraising emails, on Fox “News”, across the internet and on social media, Donald Trump is announcing, publicly, every day, what his evil plans are for American society. It is up to you, the Americans, to listen or delude yourself into believing that denial is safety or this is all just some type of trivial “culture war” distraction when history has shown us again and again that it is not.

Read more

about this Trump’s threats

The terrifying realities of North Dakota’s near-total abortion ban

Last week, the North Dakota GOP signed into law SB2150, a near-total abortion ban, with exceptions only for those who can prove their pregnancies are the result of rape or incest in the first six weeks of gestation, and to “prevent the death or a serious health risk” of a pregnant patient (to which the six-week limit does not apply). What lawmakers call “six weeks pregnant” is about one week after someone might first know they were pregnant, if they had very regular periods they were tracking religiously — uncommon, among the incredibly busy and stressed-out mothers who make up the majority of U.S. abortion patients. North Dakota Republicans are celebrating. The party’s enthusiastic celebration of this deadly ban has brought some particularly telling language forth from the mouths of its endorsers.

“We talk about rape and incest, and those are horrific circumstances,” said Republican State Sen. Janne Myrdal, of Edinburg, North Dakota, speaking in April in support of the bill on the state senate floor. “We certainly want to encourage any child, any woman, that experiences any of this, to immediately go to medical care and get these things taken care of before there’s fertilization.”

Related

A Texas man is suing those who helped his ex-wife get an abortion. What happens if he wins?

Whenever a new state-level abortion ban passes, I search for the quotes given to journalists or the official testimony shared by the anti-abortion lawmakers who voted for it. Who are these lawmakers claiming to privilege and protect, with this new authority they are granting themselves over our bodies and our families? They are usually explicit about this: “the unborn,” or other euphemisms for any fertilized eggs, embryos or fetuses which might exist inside the bodies of their pregnant constituents. And with whose lives, families and freedoms are they willing to pay for this new privileged class? That’s easy: They will always be willing to sacrifice the health, safety, freedom and wellbeing of these same constituents — no matter their individual wishes, their medical needs, their ages or their circumstances. 

I read Myrdal’s quote and was struck by both the transparency and the specificity of it. North Dakota’s Republican party “certainly” wants to “encourage” a child who has been raped, by a family member or otherwise, to “immediately go to medical care” and “get these things taken care of before there’s fertilization.” 

Perhaps this senator’s bizarre and frankly fantastical vision shouldn’t shock me. Destini Spaeth of Fargo, board director of the state’s only abortion fund, the ND WIN Fund, tells me Myrdal has long proclaimed her desire to pass an SB8 “copycat bill,” replicating Texas’ ban on almost all abortions where fetal cardiac activity is detected and its employment of a bounty hunter enforcement mechanism in which its residents can file civil suits against anyone suspected of “aiding and abetting” the termination of such a pregnancy.

In Spaeth’s tenure with the fund — which offsets or covers the costs of travel, birth control and abortion-related expenses for callers from North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and other states — she has spent countless hours, days and weeks supporting the thousands of very real children and women Myrdal references in her statement celebrating the law that will restrict their bodily autonomy.

Spaeth was struck by both the impossibility and the inhumanity of the state senator’s directive.

“Fully funding callers who need abortion care after experiencing an act of sexual violence is one small act of compassion that the ND WIN Fund can offer,” said Spaeth.

Related

Overturning Roe v. Wade increased mental health distress in women, study finds

Unlike in the inhumane dystopia that Myrdal and her colleagues have designed and created for their constituents, in the days following a rape, the fund does not demand that a North Dakotan, child or adult, earn care or resources or prove the extent of their suffering or injury. It’s a cruelty and a disconnect Spaeth can’t even imagine.

“We would never ask a caller to subject themselves to medical care … [especially care that they] could not access.”

Let’s walk through the fairy tale that Senator Myrdal spun for us in last Monday’s statement, laying out her grand plan for controlling North Dakotans’ reproductive lives and decisions, from their very first period to their last.

Entire families will suffer incalculable physical and emotional traumas, will feel the financial devastation for decades and generations to come. 

According to Senator Myrdal, in this statement, a child living in her state — maybe a neighbor of hers, a relative or member of her community, a child she sees at church every week or who has played with one of her own children — is raped by a parent or guardian, resulting in a pregnancy. 

In the immediate aftermath of this act of sexual and physical violence — which may very well just be one more day in a life of chronic abuse for them, the traumatized child is of a clear and calm enough mind, well-versed enough in reproductive biology, and sufficiently in touch with their small body, to consider that they may be pregnant. 

The child Myrdal imagines here somehow knows about the artificial and legally-imposed timeline in which they are allowed to “take care of these things,” and then, as Senator Myrdal directs them, they “go to medical care” within a week of a period they may not even know they have missed. Then this child, knowing exactly what abortion is, and possessing a wallet full of money and an understanding of the health care system — as all children do — then acquires official, documented proof of rape or incest in order to schedule an abortion for the very next day, because in 27 or 26 or 25 hours, this will no longer be legally possible.

Perhaps the parent who raped them drives this child, in Senator Myrdal’s imagination, to this place where doctors and practitioners are being threatened with felony prosecution for providing this care outside of the very narrow legally defined bounds the state now allows — if they can even “get these things taken care of” locally. It’s more likely they will have to drive over the border to Minnesota, as there is not a single abortion clinic left in the state. 

After this child — whose rapist not only supports and protects their safety and well-being but also has the gas money, childcare, time off work and other resources to make this incredibly burdensome “taking care of these things” (abortion) possible — is no longer pregnant, they return to school, unharmed by this bill designed specifically to harm them.

Or maybe Senator Myrdal, like all the others who passed this ban, and like the governor who signed it into law, knows that none of that will happen. 

Maybe they understand that children, teenagers, incest and rape survivors will be forced to continue pregnancies and give birth against their will, and patients experiencing life-threatening conditions will not get the timely care they need. These North Dakotans could have lived long and healthy lives and built thriving families or careers, if only they had access to the health care they needed and the bodily autonomy that rightfully belonged to them. Entire families will suffer incalculable physical and emotional traumas, will feel the financial devastation for decades and generations to come. 

Maybe they know that for many of these North Dakotans — some of whom are not born yet, themselves, but who will be born into unsurvivable conditions and circumstances, or will go on to someday experience one or more of the state’s thousands of annual unintended pregnancies — an abortion ban is a death sentence.

Maybe Senator Myrdal knows all of this. I find it likely she does, to be frank. Her “encouragement” of what is plainly impossible for most of her constituents, children and otherwise, implies she simply doesn’t care. 

Read more

about abortion bans

John Roberts’ wife made millions from elite law firms, major companies: Whistleblower docs

A whistleblower from the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa says Jane Sullivan Roberts, the wife of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, was paid $10.3 million in commissions over seven years from her job as a headhunter at the company, where she placed attorneys with law firms—including at least one that argued a case before the Supreme Court after the placement was made.

Sullivan Roberts was paid the money between 2007 and 2014, having taken a job with the company two years after her husband was confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a report out Friday from Business Insider.

The whistleblower, Kendal Price, said in a sworn affidavit in December that he believed “at least some of [Roberts’] remarkable success as a recruiter has come because of her spouse’s position.”

Price’s complaint was reported on earlier this year by Politico and The New York Times, and Insider published new documents regarding the case.

“When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong,” Price, who worked alongside Sullivan Roberts from 2011-2013 at Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Business Insider. “During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane’s clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It’s natural that they’d do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive.”

Insider noted that a spokesperson for the Supreme Court told The New York Times in a prior statement that all nine of the court justices are “attentive to ethical constraints” and obey federal financial disclosure laws.

However, Price’s whistleblower complaint was released weeks after ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas financially benefited for years from gifts from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, and sold property to him—none of which was previously disclosed to the government as is required by law.

Earlier this week, Politico revealed that days after his confirmation, Justice Neil Gorsuch sold his share of a property to the CEO of a major law firm—and disclosed the sale, but not the buyer.

Sullivan Roberts’ $10.3 million commission at her legal recruiting firm was listed as “salary” on Roberts’ financial disclosure forms.

“The balance of Roberts’ income did not come at a steady rate from a single employer, as ‘salary’ suggests,” reported Insider. “It was paid by the deal and based on a sizable cut of her clients’ salaries—a compensation model which varies from year to year depending on her ability to capitalize on her network. The ultimate sources of her income were the firms hiring Major, Lindsey & Africa-backed candidates. Their identities and the specific amounts that they paid Roberts for her services remain unknown.”

Price called the justice’s characterization of his wife’s commissions “misleading.”

“Characterizing Mrs. Roberts’ commissions as ‘salary’ is not merely factually incorrect; it is incorrect as a matter of law,” Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University, wrote in a memo supporting Price’s claims. “The legal distinction between these terms is clear, undisputed, and legally material. If the chief justice’s inaccurate financial disclosures were inadvertent, presumably he should file corrected and amended disclosures.”

Considering the recent reports on Gorsuch and Thomas, court observers suggested the latest news is more evidence that the Supreme Court is “suffering a massive, systemic ethics crisis.”

“What’s the public confidence in a system,” asked Joshua Dratel, an attorney for Price, “when the firms which are appearing before the court are making decisions that are to the financial benefit of the chief justice?”

“A death sentence”: Trans Texas teen plots his future as proposed ban on hormone therapy progresses

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

For mental health support for LGBTQ youth, call the Trevor Project’s 24/7 toll-free support line at 866-488-7386. For trans peer support, call the Trans Lifeline at 877-565-8860. You can also reach a trained crisis counselor through the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.

Randell and his family are bracing for the worst-case scenario.

Over the past few months, the 16-year-old North Texas boy has watched Senate Bill 14 — which would bar transgender youth like himself from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy — sail through the Senate and a House committee. The legislation would also ban transition-related surgeries, but they are rarely performed on kids. And on Tuesday, the bill could be up for a key vote in the lower chamber, where the legislation has more than enough support to pass.

“I am a really happy kid, and I have a really positive outlook on life,” said Randell, who is usually quick to laugh. “That would push me past my breaking point.”

That legislative progress means Texas, which has among the country’s biggest trans youth populations, is on the brink of joining over a dozen other states in banning transition-related care for minors — treatment medical groups and LGBTQ advocates say is vital for a portion of the youth population at high risk for depression and suicide.

“The last appointment we went to, the endocrinologist didn’t start with, ‘Hey, how’s your medicine going?'” said Kay, Randell’s mother. “They started with, ‘The government’s probably going to shut down the clinic. Where will you go for your next appointment?'”

At the moment, Randell hasn’t completely worked out what he’ll do next, though he is lining up options.

His doctor has connected him with an out-of-state clinic, and he still has enough supply of testosterone to last a few months. Though the family also worries about the possibility that they would have to uproot their lives so Randell could continue getting the hormone therapies he has been taking for years.

[What transition-related health care is available to transgender kids in Texas? Here’s what you should know.]

Kay is already planning to take on extra jobs this summer to save up for a potential relocation — something she said isn’t an option for all families. And she would have to move alone with Randell, leaving behind her husband so he could care for some of their older children with health needs. Kay and her husband have even considered divorcing, if that is what’s needed to make the plan work.

“It’s such garbage,” Kay said. “We’re both very angry about this. I think [my husband’s] almost convinced himself that none of this will happen, but I worry too much.”

Randell and Kay agreed to speak to The Texas Tribune if only their full names aren’t used because they fear being the targets of a child abuse investigation in the future.

Randell’s family is also hardly the only one in Texas — home to about 30,000 trans youth between the ages of 13 and 17 — grappling with these difficult decisions. With four weeks left to go in the lawmaking session, LGBTQ Texans could see their lives upended in any number of ways, depending on which bills make it to Gov. Greg Abbott‘s desk — and what shape they’ve taken once they get there.

Among the litany of bills restricting the rights and representation of trans Texans and the broader LGBTQ community, SB 14 has moved the furthest, already clearing the Senate and headed for the House floor. If the bill passes in its current version, it would require that trans Texans under the age of 18 already receiving transition-related care be “weaned off” of their treatments and eventually stop taking them.

[Texas Republicans have filed dozens of bills affecting LGBTQ people. Here’s what they’d do.]

Texas lawmakers pushing the prohibition have disputed the science and research behind transition-related care. They have also cast doctors who provide transition-related care as opportunists who put profit above children’s well-being and push life-altering treatments on kids who may regret taking them later in life.

“Our children need counseling and love, not blades and drugs,” said state Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, during a previous hearing on SB 14, which she authored.

Medical groups and several families with trans kids push back on that narrative. They say transition-related care involves a lot of thoughtful decisions made over an extended period of time. And, they say, it’s vital to improving the mental health of a highly stigmatized and vulnerable part of the population.

“If we resort to a medical model that doesn’t offer a treatment that alleviates and helps with mental health, you could just imagine the impact it’s going to have on children and families,” said Alfonso Mercado, a licensed psychologist and associate professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He’s also the immediate past president of the Texas Psychological Association, which has publicly opposed the legislation.

In addition, many other bills working through the Capitol go beyond restricting trans kids’ access to transition-related care. And the state’s GOP platform opposes “all efforts to validate transgender identity.”

Texas is hardly the only state pushing such legislation. Across the country, Republican-controlled legislatures are either considering or have already passed a number of bills that ban transition-related care for kids, restrict educators from discussing gender identity and prohibit trans athletes from joining the sports teams that align with their gender. Social conservative groups have said they are using trans rights as the new wedge issue to rally the Republican base.

At the same time, political experts like Joshua Blank said the topic is still a “very new issue” for many Texas voters, and that most Texans don’t personally know an openly trans person. And recently redrawn political maps have also strengthened the GOP‘s grip on the state government for the next decade.

“There’s no downside for most Republican elected officials to advance legislation that restricts the rights of transgender people,” said Blank, director of research for the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, about electoral politics.

But for Texans like Randell and his family, who are caught in the clash of changing social and political winds, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

“It’s just cruel,” Kay said.

Randell lays out the clothes, including a pair of binders, that he would take if he were forced to flee Texas, in his home in Fort Worth on April 27, 2023.

Randell lays out the clothes, including a pair of binders, that he would take if he decides to leave Texas. The last time he had to pack the duffle bag to potentially flee the state, he also included a photo of his six-year-old dog, Burr. Credit: Azul Sordo for The Texas Tribune

“A house full of boys”

For Randell, transitioning started slowly.

When he first came out at age 11, Kay and her husband didn’t rush into getting Randell transition-related care. The family hardly knew any trans people at the time and had thought that their child was possibly just going through a phase. But after doing research, meeting other parents of trans kids and talking about the issue in therapy, they started to change their mind.

Still, Kay said, they took small steps.

For the first few years, Randell was seeing a therapist as he transitioned socially by getting a new name at school, cutting his hair short and getting new clothes. It wasn’t until he turned 13 that he was able to change his name and gender marker on official documents — after which, he quickly bloomed. His mood lifted. His friend circle blossomed.

“Recognizing who he is, that was what made the difference,” Kay said. “He was such an angry kid before, and I don’t even know if he knew why he was so angry.”

Then, as Randell considered starting hormone therapies, there was a year’s worth of conversations and official interviews with social workers, doctors and psychologists. Randell and his parents also needed multiple health care providers to sign off on the treatments. He eventually started the testosterone injections at age 14, beginning with a “tiny” dosage and increasing it over time — a process that entails more doctor appointments and bloodwork. Since then, he said the treatments have only improved his quality of life. And the physical changes, starting from the shortest of chin hairs to growing a beard, thrill him.

“I have never once not liked the effects of testosterone,” he said.

For Kay, his transition has been bittersweet, even as she supports his plan. In the first year, she was heartbroken — not so much about losing her child, but about losing the future she thought was certain. But now, she sees Randell as no different than her four other sons who still live at home.

“I have a house full of boys, and they’re all very stinky,” Kay said. “If I talk about the kids at home, it’s only ever sons — the switch is absolutely 100% permanent, and I wouldn’t switch it back. I don’t see any scenario in the future that he would detransition. Simply because he wasn’t happy before and now he is.”

A short-lived exemption

But if SB 14’s current language is enacted, Randell would be forced to taper off his hormone therapies and eventually stop them altogether. This, he said, would amount to forcing him to detransition.

SB 14 originally banned transition-related care for anyone under age 18. But in a stunning move during the Senate debate, Campbell, the bill’s author, amended the legislation to allow kids currently receiving transition-related care to continue treatments. But she ultimately backtracked on the change after it came under fire from her party, though she attributed the reversal to questions raised by the short-lived exemption.

When the legislation came to the House Public Health Committee, it changed again. Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson of Cypress tweaked SB 14 and its companion House Bill 1686 so that doctors could wean patients off of hormone therapies in a “medically appropriate manner” rather than abruptly stop them.

In public testimony on the bills, the Texas Medical Association warned that a sudden end to treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapies could result in negative health effects for trans youth, and force physicians to choose between the law and their ethical obligations. Instead, the group advocates that those who are already getting this care be allowed to continue receiving treatments, similar to what was initially passed by the Senate but cut at the last minute. Oliverson previously expressed support for such an exemption as long as it doesn’t let trans kids “progress to additional escalating treatments.”

But the current version of the legislation hasn’t calmed the TMA’s worry, though the group is staying neutral on the bills.

“And while the amendment … appears to step in the direction of the grandfather provision we requested, it differs from our recommendation and our concern would be the potential effect on patients,” Brent Annear, a TMA spokesperson, said in a statement to the Tribune.

Louis Appel, who serves as president of the Texas Pediatric Society and who has testified against the proposals, echoed this sentiment.

“I think you can say from the side effects of stopping the hormones, a better approach is to taper off than to stop suddenly,” the Austin-based pediatrician told the Tribune. “I don’t know that you can say it’s medically safe because you still have the issue that someone has been forced off a medication that they were taking for their health.”

According to Appel, cutting off hormone therapies could lead to adverse effects. For instance, if a trans girl stops taking estrogen, she could get hot flashes, headaches, fatigue and mood swings. Meanwhile, a trans boy who has been getting testosterone could become lethargic and have mood instability without it. These symptoms could also vary based on how long the individual has been taking the hormones and how the person gets off of them.

Randell, who has been doing usually one testosterone shot every Saturday since he was 14, knows these effects firsthand after accidentally missing them for three weeks earlier this year.

“I felt so down and drained,” he recalled. “I found no motivation to do anything, and I’m usually a very motivated person. I volunteer, I go to work, I tutor people, so that was very unusual.”

These effects hurried the teen to return to the regular injection schedule. And after a few days, he said he was back to his normal self.

Still, these symptoms are not medical experts’ biggest concerns on this issue. Instead, they have raised the loudest alarms about the potential psychological distress of banning such care. Trans youth are also already more likely to be at risk of depression and suicide than their cisgender peers.

“For those who are already receiving hormones and are exhibiting improved mood and function in their life, removing access to an effective treatment is simply unethical,” said Karen Welch, an Austin-based family medicine doctor who has experience prescribing transition-related care for minors and adults. She also noted that removing puberty blockers could also translate to long-term dysphoria for some.

Oliverson’s and Campbell’s offices did not respond to requests for comment. Though Oliverson said in a Friday tweet that he was “looking forward to bringing SB14 to the House floor on Tuesday and ending these harmful practices.”

And Randell stressed that his previous forgetful mishap is vastly different from the prospect of being forced by the state to taper off and stop taking hormone therapy permanently, which could lead to the return of physical traits associated with his sex assigned at birth.

“That would make life insufferable,” he added. “That is a death sentence.”

A community mobilizes

This is also not the first time Randell has had to grapple with leaving the North Texas community and house he has lived in his entire life.

In February 2022, Abbott ordered the state’s child welfare agency to investigate parents who’ve provided their trans kids access to transition-related care for child abuse. At the time, the teenager had been receiving hormone therapies for about a year — and the directive sent his family into a tailspin.

In the initial whirlwind, Randell learned how to climb a ladder propped up against the fence in his backyard in case state officials came knocking on his childhood home’s front door. He memorized how to catch a ride to the airport and how to book an out-of-state flight to temporarily stay with his sister in Kansas. And, at all times, he had a ready-to-go duffle bag that was stuffed with enough clothes, toiletries and chest binders to last him a week. He also packed a photo of his 6-year-old dog Burr, who has been with the family since he was a puppy.

“It was a horrible, horrible time for all of us,” Randell said. “It was really scary having to pack that go bag and be like, ‘Well, I don’t know if I’m going to be OK. I don’t know if [Child Protective Services] is going to come get me just because I’m trans.'”

But after receiving advice from their attorneys, the family quickly scrapped that plan in favor of legally fighting the agency if officials show up. Abbott’s order would also soon face lawsuits from civil rights groups and families of trans kids — as well as resistance from CPS staff tasked with carrying out these investigations — before being blocked by the courts, at least for now.

Since then, Randell said his bag has sat, still packed, somewhere in the house. And so has Kay’s “big binder of proof” that she’s a good mother.

And these days, on top of preparing for the worst-case scenario, Randell has been wracking his brain to find a way to make lawmakers listen to him.

“I’m going to organize a march or something,” he said last week.

LGBTQ advocacy groups, which have held numerous rallies during this legislative session, are also now racing to figure out how to shut SB 14 down.

[The eyes of LGBTQ Texans are upon Dade Phelan and the House]

LGBTQ Texans and their allies will once again pack the Capitol Tuesday morning to sing and protest the bill ahead of its House debate. They will also mobilize community members to contact lawmakers while increasing their presence at committee hearings for other proposals that target LGBTQ Texans. For advocates like Andrea Segovia, senior field and policy adviser for the Transgender Education Network of Texas, it’s a battle worth fighting — even as the majority of House members already back SB 14.

“It’s heartbreaking,” she said. “But the thing that we keep reminding ourselves at TENT is that [trans people] have been in far worse situations. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s not a battle that they haven’t seen before and that they haven’t dealt with and come out stronger. That’s just what we keep reminding people and reminding youth especially.”

Ultimately, regardless of how SB 14 progresses, Randell said getting off testosterone and detransitioning is simply not an option for him. Kay agrees. Even if that means making regular trips to another state. Or separating the family and leaving the state with Randell.

“I will not allow anyone to take me off hormones. Over my …” the teen said before trailing off. “It’s not over my dead body because that would just be letting them win. I’m not going to be another statistic.”

William Melhado contributed to this story.

Disclosure: Texas Medical Association and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We can’t wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the day’s news — all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/01/transgender-texas-gender-affirming-care/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The 18 most outrageous, buzzworthy looks from the Met Gala 2023, “Karl Lagerfeld: A Line of Beauty”

At last, it’s Met Gala night, when celebrities grace the steps of New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art in haute couture for all to judge and admire.

This year’s exhibition theme, called “Karl Lagerfeld: A Line of Beauty,” honors the late fashion designer’s artistic vision and enduring legacy. It has also been at the center of controversy, as many questioned why the event chose to celebrate an individual — albeit a widely acclaimed individual — who made a string of islamophobic, misogynistic, racist and fatphobic remarks.

Last month, the High Fashion Met Gala’s Twitter account, which is not associated with the Met Costume Institute, tweeted that they would not be “celebrating this year’s met gala as our values don’t align with the selection of Karl Lagerfeld as the theme.” Actor Jameela Jamil also took to Instagram to question the theme, asking, “Why is THIS who we celebrate when there are so many AMAZING designers out there who aren’t bigoted white men? . . . You don’t get to stand for justice in these areas, and then attend the celebration of someone who reveled in his own public disdain for marginalized people.”

Related

The Met Gala: A look back at the 12 most outrageous looks from the grand event

Amid the backlash and praise, attendees stepped onto the ~ white ~ carpet (which greatly resembled the design of an old-school Dixie Cup) in looks dedicated to Lagerfeld’s most iconic designs, his own personal sleek style and, yes, even his blue-cream tortie Birman cat, Choupette Lagerfeld. A few looks paid homage to the camellia, Chanel’s signature flower, and bridal wear, which Lagerfeld was best known for designing and showcasing. There were also no shortages of monochromatic outfits, old Hollywood glam and black tie dress.

However, we’re here for the most daring, over-the-top and show-stopping looks at the Gala. From Doja Cat to Lil Nas X, here are the 18 most buzzworthy Met Gala outfits you need to see:

01
Michaela Coel: Cover your lady bits in gold!
Michaela Coel at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)

Coel, who co-hosted this year’s event alongside Penélope Cruz, Roger Federer and Dua Lipa, was quite literally “dripping in gold” in a bejeweled ensemble that cheekily highlighted her naughty bits. The sheer gown was also topped with an ornate collar that doubled as a gaudy choker.

 

In conversation with La La Anthony on the white carpet, Coel revealed that her dress featured 130,000 crystals, 26,000 mixed stones, and took over 3,800 hours to create. Talk about that attention to detail!

02
Ariana DeBose: She did (or did NOT do) the thing!
Ariana DeBose at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
The “West Side Story” star and voice of Disney’s new princess Asha donned a highlighter-yellow-colored gown with fur accents on the sleeves and frock, which (unfortunately) earned her a spot on the Daily Mail’s “worst dressed celebrities at the Met” list. Even if you weren’t a fan of DeBose’s getup, you have to admire her stunning chandelier earrings and two-toned updo.
03
Quinta Brunson: The eighth Wonder of the World
Quinta Brunson at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)
While Brunson’s dusty pink and mesh black look definitely turned heads on the carpet, it was her towering hair that wowed everyone all around. The “Abbott Elementary” creator and star, who also made her Met Gala debut, wore braids gathered into three rounded sections with pink feathers. As Allure’s Jesa Marie Calaor wrote, “There’s the Colosseum, the Eiffel Tower, the Burj Khalifa — and now Quinta Brunson’s hair at the Met Gala 2023.”
04
Brian Tyree Henry: Bourgeois-inspired high fashion
Brian Tyree Henry at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)

Let’s admit it, men’s fashion on the red carpet can oftentimes be a major snooze fest. But that wasn’t the case with Henry, who brought the heat with a bourgeois-inspired suit covered in black lace ruffles and strings of black-and-white pearls.

 

Netizens on Twitter were absolutely in awe of Henry’s look. “Brian Tyree Henry did not come to play with you amateurs out here in these fashion streets!!! #MetGala,” wrote one fan. In the same vein, another tweeted, “Let’s look at Brian Tyree Henry again. The opulence! The contrast in color and texture! The stance!”

05
Doja Cat: Choupette, is that you?
Doja Cat at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)
“SNL’s” Chloe Fineman may have brought a cat-shaped purse in honor of Choupette, but it was Doja Cat who took it a step further to actually dress up as the posh feline. The rapper donned a figure-fitting silver, jeweled gown with a fitted cap adorned with cat ears. Of course, the highlight of her fit was the cat-like facial prosthetics. We think Choupette definitely approved of Doja’s Met Gala debut!
06
Jared Leto: Choupette, is that you again?
Jared Leto at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)
We thought no one would be able to one-up Doja Cat and boy, were we wrong! Leto, the king of wacky Met Gala ensembles, danced onto the carpet in a full-body cat costume, giving Furries everywhere representation on the red carpet. Underneath his big cat head, Leto rocked a bold makeup look with black eyeliner and silver metallic-toned eyeshadow. 
07
David Byrne: An environmentally conscious king
David Byrne at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Mike Coppola/Getty Images)

Byrne, the acclaimed singer-songwriter, channeled his love for cycling on the white carpet by bringing his bicycle. Although his vehicle stole the show, Byrne’s all-white suit and yellow colored tennis shoes with blue laces also garnered applause online.

 

“David Byrne arrived it’s okay you can close the red carpet now,” wrote one fan on Twitter.

08
Lil Nas X: Nudity, but make it sparkle
Lil Nas X at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
The 24-year-old rapper took home the best dressed award with his nude silver look. Lil Nas X glistened on the carpet in silver sequins, pearls and an ornate face mask, complete with a pair of whiskers (yet another nod to Choupette!). The rapper also showed off a beautiful set of manicured nails, a bejeweled silver thong and matching colored boots.
09
Taika Waititi & Rita Ora: The real-life Morticia and Gomez
Taika Waititi & Rita Ora at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)

The couple’s coordinated look resembled a modern-day rendition of Morticia and Gomez Addams. Waititi wore a pair of white trousers and dress shoes with a silky gray toned blazer coat. Next to him was Ora, who wore a trailing black gown paired with silver jewels that dripped down from her manicured black nails. 

 

“WOW rita ora really ate this look up i am fully obsessed with it!!” wrote one fan on Twitter. Yup, so are we!

10
Florence Pugh: The eighth ninth Wonder of the World
Florence Pugh at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
The “Don’t Worry Darling” star went all out for her Met Gala look with a sky-high, feathered black headpiece and a black-and-white gown with a super long train. It’s also worth noting that Pugh shaved her head for the grand event — earlier that day, she was seen sporting a shoulder-length bob with bangs, which was all gone when she arrived at the carpet. 
11
Maya Hawke: The bridal coat
Maya Hawke at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
Bridal attire and long, sweeping trains were the two main stars at this year’s Met Gala. While most stars chose to wear one or the other, Hawke decided to wear both. The “Stranger Things” actor wore a feathery white mini dress with a matching coat fitted with a high collar and a long train.
12
Janelle Monae: An epic transformation
Janelle Monae at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)
Monae initially graced the carpet in an oversized, black-and-white coat alongside a towering updo and matching toned scarf. Within a few minutes, Monae’s large coat came off to reveal a cone-shaped mesh dress and blocky white heels. Underneath it all, Monae wore a black bra and matching underwear.
13
Cara Delevingne: Yes, leg warmers are still in fashion
Cara Delevingne at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
Leg warmers were the “it” accessory in the early 2000’s and they still continue to be an “it” accessory today. Take it from Delevingne, who donned an over-the-knee pair of warmers underneath a low V-neck white dress with big, swooping sleeves.
14
Anok Yai: A look from the future
Anok Yai at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Noam Galai/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images)
The 25-year-old model wore a figure-fitting gold dress adorned with sequins and mesh at the bottom and cascading jewels. The finishing touches were a pair of teardrop earrings and mesh visor sunglasses, which covered both her forehead and eyes – a high-fashion tribute to Lagerfeld’s penchant for wearing shades.
15
Yung Miami & Sean “Diddy” Combs: Chic cone of shame
Yung Miami and Sean “Diddy” Combs at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Theo Wargo/Getty Images for Karl Lagerfeld)
In addition to confirming their relationship status on the white carpet, Yung Miami and Diddy stepped out in a matching black outfits — Yung Miami wore a mesh black gown with strings of pearls and a furry high collar (cone of shame? more like cone of fame!) while Diddy wore an all-black suit, complete with a regal gown decorated in black flowers.
16
Alton Mason: Here comes the bride
Alton Mason at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images)
Taking bridal wear to a whole new level, Mason, who was the first Black model to walk a Chanel show, wore a lace corset bodysuit (nipples exposed) with lace tights, lace sleeves, a trailing lace veil and matching white lace boots. He also carried a bouquet of white flowers.
17
A$AP Rocky & Rihanna: The power couple reigns supreme
A$AP Rocky and Rihanna at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)
The annual stars of the Met Gala, who are also always fashionably late, wowed the crowd with their bridal and semi-casual looks. ASAP Rocky stood by Rihanna in a pair of jeans, worn underneath what looks like a kilt, a button down white shirt, tie and blazer. As for Rihanna, she wore a bridal dress that featured a trailing skirt and a boxy top covered in big, white flowers.
18
Jeremy Pope: A showstopping ode to Karl
tty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)Jeremy Pope at Met Gala 2023 in NYC (Kevin Mazur/MG23/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue)
You know you’ve won the Met Gala when five people need to carry your dress up the steps. That was the case for Pope, whose all-white suit included a lavish train with a massive photo of Lagerfeld printed across it. Accompanying Pope was designer Olivier Rousteing, who carried a tote adorned with the words “Karl Who?”

Read more

about the Met Gala:

Florida GOP send “egregious” voter suppression bill to Ron DeSantis

Voting rights defenders on Friday condemned the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature’s passage of a bill that critics said will make it harder to register Black and Latino voters while easing the way for Gov. Ron DeSantis to seek the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

The Florida House of Representatives passed S.B. 7050 by a 76-34 party-line vote after the state Senate approved the measure—which DeSantis is expected to sign into law—earlier this week.

S.B. 7050 would boost the power of Florida’s Office of Election Crimes and Security to review and conduct preliminary investigations into “any alleged election irregularity” and “make referrals for further legal action.”

Under the proposal, voter registration groups could be fined up to $250,000 per year—penalties are currently capped at $50,000— for failing to submit completed registration applications to officials within 10 days.

“We can’t disregard, given recent history, that the Legislature’s unspoken intent, once again, is to impose barriers and confuse voters,” the Miami Herald‘s editorial board wrote in response to the legislation.

An amendment to the bill allows Florida’s governor to run for federal office without having to resign, a measure largely seen as opening the door for DeSantis to run for president.

In a letter sent Tuesday to Florida legislative leaders, officials from dozens of civil and voting rights groups warned that S.B. 7050 would “make it harder for Floridians to register and vote, and undermine Florida’s election administration.”

Mary Kay Rosinski, co-president of the League of Women Voters Villages/Tri-County, noted that the bill would:

  • Create more barriers to conducting voter registration drives;
  • Establish steeper fines for volunteer, community-based registration groups;
  • Add more restrictions on mail-in ballots;
  • Give the Office of Election Crimes and Security expanded authority to investigate and prosecute alleged election violations; and
  • Remove the government’s liability for issuing voter registration cards to returning citizens whose voting rights have not been restored.

According to the progressive advocacy group Common Cause, one of the letter’s signers:

Provisions within the bill specifically target community-based voter registration groups with enormous fines and draconian new restrictions. These groups have made it possible for many Floridians to exercise their right to vote: One out of every 10 Black and Latino voters and one out of every 50 white voters in Florida have registered with the support of these organizations. These groups are especially important for Floridians who do not possess a Florida driver’s license or Florida state ID, making them unable to use the state’s online voter registration system.

In a particularly egregious restriction, this discriminatory legislation prohibits legal immigrants, Green Card holders, and people who are in the process of becoming U.S. citizens from helping register voters with community-based groups under threat of a $50,000 fine per person. These individuals make up a big part of the workforce to connect with eligible voters who face language barriers.

“This is the third year in a row Florida’s lawmakers have changed our voting rules, attacked community-based groups who support voters, and implemented unnecessary and confusing barriers for Floridians looking to participate in our democracy, while making no investment in voter education at all,” Common Cause Florida program director Amy Keith said in a statement.

“This makes clear their real aim: to suppress our voting rights and silence the voices of eligible Florida voters who want a more inclusive future for our state,” Keith added. “We need a democracy that works for everyone, and our Florida leaders should be targeting the wealthy special interests that dominate our politics, not everyday Floridians who deserve to exercise their right to vote without barriers.”

S.B. 7050’s passage by Florida lawmakers comes a day after a federal appeals court handed DeSantis a victory by overturning a lower judge’s ruling blocking provisionsof S.B. 90, a massive attack on voting rights signed by the governor in 2021. The law empowers partisan poll watchers, imposes strict voter ID requirements, criminalizes so-called “ballot harvesting,” limits ballot drop boxes, and bans advocacy groups from handing out food or water to voters waiting in long lines.

Progressives also condemned DeSantis’ February signing of S.B. 4, a so-called “election crimes” law described by the Brennan Center for Justice as “an unnecessary and wasteful expansion of state prosecutorial power that could intimidate eligible voters with past convictions from exercising their right to vote.”

“A Small Light” star Liev Schreiber on playing Anne Frank’s father: “He was defined by his race”

Everything that makes “A Small Light” lively, humorous, harrowing, and relatable hangs off the half-of-a-breath between Otto Frank asking what he admits if too much of his secretary Miep Gies (Bel Powley) and her saying, “Whatever you need.”

“What I am asking you to do is dangerous,” insists Otto, played by Liev Schreiber, before revealing the nature of his request – he’s taking his family into hiding and needs her to provide food and medicine so they can survive. “If you get caught, you could be arrested or even worse.”

Otto urges Miep to take time to think about it, insisting she needs to talk it over with her husband Jan (Joe Cole).

“No, I don’t. I don’t,” she insists. “What do I do?”

This exchange occurs midway into the eight-episode limited series’ premiere, and by then it’s easy to believe Miep’s instant commitment to this life-or-death burden. Otto Frank is Miep Gies’ boss, a man who gives her a job despite her lack of experience in 1933.

His request comes sometime around 1942, two years into Germany’s occupation of the Netherlands and well into a friendship developed over their shared identity as German-speaking immigrants. By then the Nazis were disappearing entire families and shooting shopkeepers in the streets.

Nevertheless, life in Amsterdam continued apace. Dutch people who weren’t Jewish lived their lives as their neighbors were rounded up at checkpoints or subjected to horrific public abuses.

A Small LightMiep Gies, played by Bel Powley, has coffee with her boss Otto Frank, played by Liev Schreiber in “A Small Light” (National Geographic for Disney/Dusan Martincek)

“One of the things that stood out about the story for me was that maybe Miep was naive and saying yes to Otto right away like she didn’t understand the full impact,” Schreiber shared in a recent interview with Salon. “Otto knew that she could be killed for doing it. And I think at that moment, she knew that she could be killed for doing it. But the reality was that for two years, she was going to do this. And it was a lot of work and a lot of stress.”

But that response without a second thought is part of what drew Schreiber to take part in “A Small Light,” he said. “It’s so instant and so human to say yes to each other. That kindness and compassion can be such a big part of our character, and it, I believe, intuitive and natural for us to care about each other.”

Related

With “The U.S. and the Holocaust,” Ken Burns makes a sobering addition to the American story

“A Small Light” illuminates a corner of the story of World War II and the Holocaust that isn’t often explored from a facet of a story that is relatively well-known. “The Diary of Anne Frank” remains a defining biographical text of what daily life for a member of a persecuted people living under constant fear of discovery and death; more specifically, it’s also the most durable account of what it was like to be a teenage girl in such precarious circumstances.

“Miep was an ordinary woman who stepped into history.”

When showrunners and executive producers Joan Rater and Tony Phelan embarked on developing “A Small Light” six years ago, they were compelled by Miep’s story – not only as the woman who kept Anne, her sister Margo, mother Edith, and Otto hid in the Secret Annex for two years, but by the fact of who she was.

If Americans have any familiarity with Miep Gies, that’s likely due to her presence in numerous documentaries about the Holocaust. They might also recall her silent appearance beside filmmaker Jon Blair in 1996 as he accepted the Academy Award for his documentary “Anne Frank Remembered.”

A Small LightMargot Frank, played by Ashley Brooke, and Miep Gies, played by Bel Powley in “A Small Light” (National Geographic for Disney/Dusan Martincek)

Gies, who died in 2010 at the age of 100, gave dozens of interviews during her lifetime, most of them in Dutch, which Rater and Phelan had to have translated. Gies kept the Franks, along with another family, the van Pels, and family acquaintance, Dr. Fritz Pfeffer, hidden for 25 months beginning in July 1942. She and co-worker found Anne’s journals before Nazi soldiers cleared out the Annex and kept them, hoping to return them to Anne when the war was over.

Tragically Anne perished at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, leading Gies to give Anne’s diaries to Otto, who eventually published them. “The Diary of Anne Frank” provided a young person’s view of the war while “A Small Light” allows us to see Anne (Billie Boulet) as a teenager with all of her passion and impatience.

“The Miep Gieses of the world . . . need us to participate.”

Similarly, Schreiber explained that this production’s access to documents and historical accounts most don’t see enabled him to view Otto Frank in more human terms. He didn’t want to publish parts of the diaries in which Anne spoke about the tension between him and Edith (played in the series by Amira Casar), for example. 

“The other thing that stuck out to me about Otto was that he wasn’t a religious person,” Schreiber said. “He was very proud of being a German and was someone who took it quite personally that all he was allowed to be was a Jew, because he didn’t feel that he necessarily was a Jew. But he was defined by his race. That was something that felt vivid to me.”

A Small LightOtto Frank, played by Liev Schreiber, and Edith Frank, played by Amira Casar in “A Small Light” (National Geographic for Disney/Dusan Martincek)

In this drama’s version of Gies’ life, in 1933 she was unemployed and on the verge of being forced to marry her adoptive brother, a closeted gay man. This led her to become Otto’s secretary and, for a time, the Frank family’s savior.

Rater was taken by the fact that Miep did all of this in her 20s, a time of life we consider to be carefree. “I’ve got a 20-something son who is on the one hand, brilliant, and in the next moment, a complete mess,” she pointed out. “. . . You hear about these heroic people, but they really are just normal, average, everyday people who stepped up at a moment they were needed. And Miep was an ordinary woman who stepped into history.”

The way Powley plays her, and Rater and Phelan write her, Miep is also irresistibly vivacious and comical.

As Rater and Phelan were developing “A Small Light,” democracy around the world plunged into decline, and countries around the world began to embrace authoritarianism in ways that are frighteningly reminiscent of the years leading up to World War II.

This knowledge inspired drama’s tone: Rater and Phelan intentionally wove levity through “A Small Light,” along with incorporating contemporary banter and other soft anachronisms for the express purpose of making this history relatable. Miep and Jan are flirtatious and romantic in the midst of dire times. She and Otto joke their way through serious moments in ways that other dramas about the Nazi occupation and the Holocaust would never dare to do.

A Small LightOtto Frank, played by Liev Schreiber, walks with Miep Gies, played by Bel Powley in “A Small Light” (National Geographic for Disney/Dusan Martincek)

“We had just gone through the pandemic, which was terrifying. And, you know, one of the coping mechanisms we use to get through it is dark humor and laughing. And we imagined that that would be true in all times,” Rater explained. “There you are, with your husband, after a day of getting food for the people who have been hiding. And you can’t tell anyone. There must be moments of laughing at the absurdity of all of it.”

She continued, “People still made jokes. People still had sex. Amsterdam still had beautiful tulips. It was still a hub of cultural activity. All of this was going on, while terrible atrocities were going on. Just like here.”

Schreiber admitted to being wary of this approach at first. “I was like, ‘Be careful. It’s period. We have to be respectful of dialect and period and all these things,'” he said but was eventually won over by the writing’s easy relatability.

“I think we all looked at it and went, this is very timely. How do you do it right?” Schreiber asked, then answered, “You luck into actors like Bel Powley and Joe Cole. And then you write their story with this very contemporary, engaging, youthful feel.”

For Schreiber, joining “A Small Light” was an extension of the work he’s doing with BlueCheck Ukraine, an organization he co-founded that directs funds toward vetted non-governmental and humanitarian aid organizations on the ground in that country. BlueCheck’s mission is to ensure donated funds assist those most in need at any given moment.

“I was . . . meeting these people who are ordinary people doing extraordinary things who were trying to help,” he explained. “I was meeting these people who are kind of like the heroes that I’m reading about in this script because they’re going through it right now. That was why I thought, ‘Oh, this is a good thing to do.'”

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

The “Ray Donovan” star added that he also wanted his children to be reminded of what they’re capable of doing, recalling the quote from Gies that inspired the series’ title: “Even a regular secretary, a housewife or a teenager can turn on a small light in a dark room,” she said.

Schreiber hopes “A Small Light” speaks to viewers at a time when civil rights protections for marginalized people are being rolled back at a furious rate. Miep’s simple willingness to say yes, he said, presents an example of what needs to be done when injustice threatens to swallow freedom for everyone.

“There are the lies that the Kremlin media wants the world to believe about why it’s there [in Ukraine], that they’re ridding Ukraine of Nazism,” he said. “Of course that isn’t true. Similar lies are happening and authoritarian regimes are popping up all over the world. And you know, people have to say, ‘No, it’s not true.'”

“We’re also so deep into our devices and our groups that we’re not really taking the world in,” he added. “And for the Miep Gieses of the world who say, ‘No, it’s worth my life to protect somebody,'” those values and those principles that made this country great — and that we fought for 80 years ago, and that still make our system the best one in the world, in my opinion — they need us to participate. They need us to be Mieps. And I love that about this story.”

“A Small Light”  premieres with two back-to-back episodes 9 p.m. Monday, May 1 on National Geographic, streaming the next day on Disney+ and Hulu.

Read more

about this topic

UN: Protecting Indigenous health also protects the environment

This story is published as part of the Global Indigenous Affairs Desk, an Indigenous-led collaboration between Grist, High Country News, ICT, Mongabay, and Native News Online.

This year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is focusing on human, territorial, and planetary health. The Permanent Forum is in its 22nd session. 

A recent report, “Indigenous Determinants of Health,” is a culmination of 20 years of work that the Permanent Forum has been doing. It was released this session. The Permanent Forum lasts two weeks and consists of interventions, which are essentially calls to action, and side events on various issues.  

Many Indigenous leaders have spoken about how planetary health and the health of Indigenous people and communities are intertwined, becoming ever more important as the world experiences irreversible damage caused by climate change. 

A report like this by the U.N. is the first of its kind. 

The study was meant to inform non-Indigenous policymakers about how to approach health and wellness for Indigenous communities and to fill the gap in U.N. literature that previously did not address the holistic, historical, and political aspects that encompass Indigenous health, in comparison to other minority groups.  

This report was in some sense a response to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a U.N. agenda that seeks to “end poverty and hunger, realize the human rights of all, achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, and ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources,” according to its website. The agenda has 17 concrete goals to achieve by 2030. 

“The past seven years, however, have shown the urgent need for guidance on — and a proper understanding of — Indigenous Peoples’ needs, separate from the general minority and diverse population approaches,” the report states. “The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the entrenched inequities faced by Indigenous Peoples in all 17 Goal areas and how the severe lack of cultural competence within the 17 Goals negatively impacts Indigenous Peoples’ health.”

The report uses the framework of the World Health Organization’s definition of social determinants of health, meaning the social, political, economical, and cultural factors that affect a person’s health. One specific example would be the lack of access to grocery stores on the Navajo Nation and how not having access to fresh foods impacts a person’s health.  

“We tend to look at measures like poverty or poor educational attainment or inadequate housing as determinants of bad health outcomes,” Dr. Donald Warne, one of the authors of the report and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Indigenous Health, told ICT. “But we also know that there are strengths as well, particularly with Indigenous cultures. We know that language preservation, cultural connectedness, participation in ceremony, are actually protective of health. We want to think of Indigenous determinants of health as not just the causes of health disparities, but the sources of strength to overcome some of those challenges.” 

The Indigenous determinants of health runs parallel to this definition by acknowledging the unique challenges, worldviews, and political status of Indigenous nations. More importantly this report is a call to action.       

“This study is intended to create tangible outcomes for Indigenous peoples at the local level. Everything we do here should be focused on improving the health and wellness of our local Indigenous peoples through these interlinked determinants of health, whether it be climate change, planetary and territorial health, mental health, maternal and child health, primary care, and more,” Geoff Roth, Standing Rock Sioux descendant and elected member of the Permanent Forum, said in his speech at the U.N. headquarters.

There are 37 other recommendations that could be immediately implemented on the collaboration between Indigenous nations and local health agencies. It ranges from reinforcing Indigenous identities to supporting and protecting the use of medicinal plants. 

“My role was mainly on the intergenerational holistic healing component and there’s 15 recommendations just within that one component,” Warne, who is Oglala Lakota, said. “A couple of things that I think are very important is to recognize that as a medical educators, we are not doing a good job in medical education and public health education, or really any health science, in understanding the impact of historical trauma, the impact of colonization, and the need for more trauma-informed care.”

Next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Brazil will present a resolution that acknowledges Indigenous peoples’ right to health care and to govern their own health care facilities. The World Health Assembly is composed of 194 member states that address global health emergencies. Brazil’s resolution will also call for the World Health Organization to create a plan that addresses Indigenous peoples’ health by next year. 

“We ask you to encourage your member states to support this resolution that will be offered by Brazil at the upcoming World Health Assembly in Geneva,” Roth said. 

Member states, meaning countries like the United States and Canada, are represented by an appointed delegate to the U.N. For example, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield represents the United States in the U.N. General Assembly, the policy making arm of the organization.   

Ultimately this report seeks to explain that Indigenous health encompasses more than just access to care. 

“Member states must recognize that there are unique determinants of health specific to Indigenous peoples, our cultures, histories, political status, spirituality, and our current experience,” Stacy Bohlen, executive director of the National Indian Health Board, said. “All Indigenous peoples’ interactions and connections to spirituality, social life, and environmental elements are substantively distinct from those of all other populations around the globe. Indigeneity as an overarching determiner of health is the foundation of our work.”

“One of the strongest suggestions that we make is that the [World Health Organization] and [Pan American Health Organization] incorporate the concept of Indigeneity as an overarching determinant of health in all of their work, policies, body of knowledge, and initiatives,” Roth said. “As such, Indigeneity would encompass all of the specific circumstances included in the Indigenous determinants of health study that we are presenting today.”

The Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, which represents youth from all seven regions of the U.N., has called on the Permanent Forum and General Assembly to create permanent intergenerational, Indigenous advisory groups for all bodies of the U.N., including the World Health Organization, make violence against Indigenous women a thematic mandate, meaning a specific issue of human rights, and encourage member states to support traditional health practices in accordance with the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights.

“Create binding resolutions in regards to climate actions,” Lahelo Mattos, a member of the youth caucus, said. “Climate change is indeed one of the largest threats to the peace and security of all nations and peoples.”

Lahelo Mattos, 23, was flanked by a handful of her peers from the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, one hand on her shoulder, as she addressed hundreds of people from around the world on Tuesday. 

“For Indigenous peoples, wellness is defined through the interconnectedness and balance of physical, mental, cultural, and spiritual health,” Mattos, a Native Hawaiian, said in her speech. “We urge the General Assembly to include the rights of Indigenous people as a social determinant of health as Indigeneity is a determinant of health. Returning lands and waters, lands and waters stewardship, and honoring the rights of Indigenous peoples improves human and planetary health and is a solution to the climate crisis.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/article/un-protecting-indigenous-health-also-protects-the-environment/.

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

“Polite Society” filmmaker on combining Bollywood, martial arts and “angry women being rageful”

Nida Manzoor’s (“We Are Lady Parts“) spiky feminist action comedy, “Polite Society,” has teenage Ria Khan (Priya Kansara), hoping to stop her sister Lena (Rita Arya) from marrying Salim (Akshay Khanna). Yes, he is a fit geneticist whose work involves saving babies, but Ria senses something is off with this whole arranged marriage thing, and she is determined to stop it. Decorum be damned. 

“I wanted to explore femininity and sisterhood within the action genre.”

Ria, whose ambition is to be a stuntwoman, like her hero Eunice Huthart, becomes “really extra” in trying to convince everyone that Salim and his mother, Raheela  (Nimra Bucha), have a nefarious purpose in mind. What makes “Polite Society” so entertaining is watching Ria embark on various missions — to steal Salim’s laptop or break into his house to get some dirt — but also engage in action combat with everyone from Kovacs (Shona Babayemi), her bullying classmate, to her sister Lena (when they argue), to even Raheela. Manzoor films these sequences with just the right mix of slow-motion “Khan-Fu” and comic verve.

“Polite Society” is an auspicious feature film debut for Manzoor who critiques arranged marriages and social classes along with the patriarchy with humor, dancing, and some fabulous needle drops. 

Related

“She has her own strength that was so empowering”: Priya Kansara talks “Polite Society” sisterhood

Manzoor chatted with Salon about her new film and her pop culture passions.

What are your observations about propriety and decorum? And in what ways are you rebellious?

I grew up feeling the pressure of being a “good girl” — being a good daughter, getting the right job, and marrying the right person. I felt these things quite acutely, and I felt them as a burden often. It was so cathartic to make this film and push against all of that. As women, anger is not something we are encouraged to feel or exhibit. I know I wanted to show a lot of angry women being rageful. It is an emotion I struggle with expressing, so I’m pushing against the norms and expectations that bind us and straight-jacket us that you don’t see. And I wanted to do it with action as well. I loved action movies growing up. There is a thrillingness to them, and I wanted to explore femininity and sisterhood within the action genre. Seeing those things juxtaposed was exciting to me.

The film has an interesting tone that shifts between action, comedy, feminism and social issues. Can you describe how you created the set pieces and combined all these elements into a high-energy action farce? The film has the same energy as your series “We Are Lady Parts.”

The most joy I get as a filmmaker is from tonal movement. I love mashing up tone and genres, and moving between comedy, light and dark. That to me is the most exciting thing. What can I bring in? I appreciate the structure of the action genre or a heist movie, [“Polite Society” features both] and in those structures, I want to be playful. So, as much as it is anarchic and wild, it is framed within tropes we understand. It is the structure of the hero’s journey we know, but I like to swing on the monkey bars of that structure. That comes from writing it with a comedy pass, an action pass and a sister pass, weaving and playing and having a good time. So much of that tone is found in edit and seeing where jokes landing. That’s where I get high levels of joy, in that tonal movement.

What can you say about shooting the film’s fight scenes which are wuxia homages and employ slow-motion and stuntwomen? 

“There is a real cruelty that can exist between sisters. You know exactly the things to say to hurt your sister.”

I love to wear my references on my sleeve. These are movies I love, and I want to tell everyone I love them. I wanted the Hong Kong Kung Fu wuxia and infused it with my love of Bollywood. Getting to see the thing I love and that formed my identity juxtaposed in one moment was joyful for me. But I can feel that it would be exciting for audiences too. The interplay of a culture that is very personal and a sister story that feels grounded are featured within this wild, wacky genre of escape. 

Speaking of stuntwomen, Ria worships Eunice Huthart. What can you say about hero worship? Ria looks up to her sister as well, but she also contends with a female antagonist. What can you say about the themes of sisterhood?

It’s so true to being a teenager. What teen doesn’t have XYZ hero on their wall but also in their life? I drew on my idolization of my sister who was the coolest, punkest person ever. I wanted to center on the sister relationship, which is different from romantic relationships, which we usually see, because there is a real cruelty that can exist between sisters. You know exactly the things to say to hurt your sister. You can be cruel, but you can have love beyond everything. It means a lot to me. With the [woman] villain character, it’s beautiful to see her express anger and have total agency as well, even if she’s working for the “dark side.” She is still in her power looking great. 

Polite SocietyDirector Nida Manzoor and actor Ritu Arya on set of “Polite Society” (Parisa Taghizadeh/Focus Features)

I like how you have tweaked the idea of arranged marriage and the pressures of baby making. What are your thoughts on these topics?

The pressure of arranged marriage is still very real. I did not want to go for the obvious forced marriage. Lena is struggling with her own self-doubts, and she’s thinking her family is not supporting her in following her dreams.

There is also the way women in the community adore their sons and they are held in high regard, and women are just there to provide more children. It is fun to push it to a heightened place because there is a kind of truth to it. And we should do what we want as women, have as many babies as we like and be stuntwomen and artists, too.

I’m also curious about themes of assimilation and how the characters keep one foot in the old world and one foot in the new world?

When I think about assimilation and that aspect of the story, it comes naturally. It is not me trying to portray it; it’s just my truth. Parents are at home and you’re in a hoodie one second, then you are in wedding regalia the next. I don’t consciously think about how I am going to portray the duality. I don’t see it. For me, where I feel I am assimilating stuff is where I assimilate my genre into reality. Can these things blend together? Can I mix action and comedy and Bollywood? That’s where I ask, “Can I exist in these spaces?”

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

The music is also a hybrid in the film, too, with needle drops of pop classics, rap and traditional songs. There is also an elaborate dance performance. Can you discuss that aspect of your film? It sets the tone.

Music is so important in helping set the tone. There are old Bollywood numbers, and a punk song, and it’s eclectic in a film that is eclectic. I worked with my brother, Shez Manzoor, on this, and the way he writes music, he has a punk sensibility that unifies it. But there is something a bit anarchic and playful that is working through. It was exciting to throw guitars on a Bollywood moment, and then throw back to an old Japanese song from the ’60s that I love. The film is a lot of pop culture, and so is the score. 

Do you see your career shifting to feature films or will you continue to work in TV as viable? 

I want to work in both spaces. The joy of television is that you have more time to go deeper into character. I’m excited to work more in film. Seeing this film on big screen made me so happy. It is everything I wanted. I’m interested in seeing how the world develops and where theaters remain in the landscape. I love working between TV and film. Both give me joy in different ways, and they have difficulties as well. I terms of the storytelling I like to do, I can exist is both spaces.

“Polite Society” is currently in theaters. 

Read more

about this topic

“No legal basis”: Experts explain Trump’s failed bid for mistrial in E. Jean Carroll lawsuit

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday denied Donald Trump’s attorney’s request for a mistrial in E. Jean Carroll’s civil case accusing the former president of rape and defamation.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina filed a letter in Manhattan federal court on Monday morning, arguing that a mistrial should be granted “based upon pervasive unfair and prejudicial rulings by the Court.”

Tacopina accused Kaplan of being biased against Trump.

“Here, despite the fact trial testimony has been underway for only two days, the proceedings are already replete with numerous examples of Defendant’s unfair treatment by the Court, most of which has been witnessed by the Jury,” the letter said.

Related

“Stable genius-level strategy”: Trump lawyer demands mistrial by calling judge “unfair”

Carroll, who sued the former president for battery and defamation, alleges that Trump damaged her reputation by calling her a liar and repeatedly denying her accusations that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in either 1995 or 1996.

“The judge has done nothing more than manage the trial, as all judges do,” former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told Salon. “Judges must decide whether to sustain or overrule objections and often tell lawyers to move along with repetitive questioning. This motion is necessary to preserve any issues for appeal.”

So far, Tacopina has questioned the validity of Carroll’s claims while cross-examining her and suggested that she only came forward decades after the alleged incident because of her strong dislike for Trump’s politics and her desire to promote her book. 

Tacopina said that Kaplan’s rulings “manifests a deeper leaning towards one party over another”, including in comments where the judge “openly expresses favoritism”.

“There is no legal basis to grant a mistrial merely because Trump disagrees with Judge Kaplan’s evidentiary rulings regarding admission of third party evidence or because Judge Kaplan sustained objections to a number of argumentative and hectoring questions by Trump’s lawyer,” former federal prosecutor Faith Gay told Salon. 

In the 18-page letter, Tacopina argued that the judge did not let him question Carroll about why she did not seek security camera footage of the alleged rape, and why she did not inform the police about the sexual assault. If a mistrial isn’t granted, the court should correct the record and give Trump’s team more leeway to cross-examine Carroll and other plaintiff witnesses, Tacopina argued in the letter.

“The immediate positive effect for Trump of his failed mistrial motion is to make Judge Kaplan even more careful to appear fair-minded during cross-examination of Ms. Carroll,” said Gay, the founding partner of Selendy Gay Elsberg. “To that end, Trump requested ‘alternative relief’ for ‘more leeway in cross-examination.’  Trump has – in effect – already received that relief this morning with Judge Kaplan directing Ms. Carroll to answer a line of questions to which she appeared to prefer not to answer.”

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

Carroll is suing Trump under a New York law that grants victims of sexual abuse a one-time opportunity to sue their attackers even if the assault occurred decades earlier.

During her cross-examination on Monday, Tacopina implied that Carroll was not emotionally affected by the alleged assault while questioning her and showed receipts indicating that Carroll spent more than $13,000 at the department store between 2001 and 2018.

Carroll testified that she continued to shop at Bergdorf Goodman and made it clear that  “Bergdorf’s is not a place that I’m afraid to enter.”

Tacopina also examined several columns written by Carroll, in which she advised her readers to report cases of sexual abuse and harassment to the police, CNN reported. 

Carroll acknowledged these recommendations but explained why she didn’t report the alleged assault to the police herself. 

“I would never call the police for something I was ashamed of,” Carroll said. “I was ashamed of what happen. I thought it was my fault, I would never, never, never go to the police ever.”

Read more

about the trial

How Kareem “Mr. Bake” Queeman serves up space for queer chefs of color

Kareem Queeman distinctly remembers the first time he baked a cake. The Maryland bakery owner and James Beard Award semifinalist was eight years old, living in Harlem’s historic Sugar Hill district. His close-knit extended family would gather monthly to check in, lend financial and other support when needed, and, most importantly, to eat. 

“The food was on point,” Queeman recalls, taking care to note his family’s Southern roots. Queeman, however, was mostly interested in the dessert table, heaped with a mix of homemade and store-bought delights, from coconut pineapple cake and pound cake to his aunt’s famous sweet potato pie. One time, Queeman’s favorite cake at the time — vanilla boxed cake with chocolate frosting — was noticeably absent. 

“I remember saying to my mother, I wanna make my own cake,” Queeman said. “So we went and got a Pillsbury cake mix — had to be butter or yellow — and canned chocolate frosting. I made it in my aunt’s pan, which I still have to this day. The pan was too long, the oven was janky, so the cake came out lopsided, but I ate the whole thing. Then I wanted to bake it again.” 

Related

Why an expert baker says the “toothpick trick” is actually ruining your cakes

Nowadays, Queeman — also known as Mr. Bake — is best known for his nostalgic, scratch-made cakes, cupcakes and banana pudding at Mr. Bake Sweets, his namesake dessert studio at Le Fantome Food Hall in Riverdale Park, Md. A regular on Food Network baking competition shows who also appeared on Netflix’s “Sugar Rush Christmas,” Queeman was named a Semifinalist for Outstanding Pastry Chef or Baker in the 2023 James Beard Awards. 

Resolve and relentless determination are intrinsic to Queeman, driving him since that first bake ignited a dream to open his own bakery in his neighborhood. His tenacity saw him through the early days of making banana pudding in his bedroom and selling custom cakes to fellow high school students and faculty, through culinary school and a series of unpaid internships that ultimately landed him enough paid bakery work to sustain him until striking out on his own in 2008. The word “intentionality” has become a focus of Queeman’s much more recently, over the past eight-odd years he’s built a presence on food media, which started him on the path of creating space for Black and brown chefs who are openly gay or queer. 

“As a kid there was not a lot of representation out there,” said Queeman, a Black gay man. “Now as an adult there still isn’t a lot.”

Cake by Kareem “Mr. Bake” Queeman (WoodD)Growing up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, navigating the streets of Harlem gave Queeman his first whiffs of what it meant to be Black long before he had identified and voiced his homosexuality. His single, chronically ill mother parented Queeman and his brother hard in the era of stop-and-frisk policing and the Central Park Five case (whose since-exonerated Black and brown teens were all from Harlem). 

“She never understood what it meant to be a baker or get into the food industry,” he said. “She wanted us to find ‘secure’ jobs, you know what I mean? Things to keep us out of trouble.”

Queeman’s grandmother gave him a safe space to bake in her home, and his neighbors offered baking advice and taste-tested his experiments. As he navigated another level of his voice via his sexuality, he found sanctuary in the Black queer ballroom community, where he first connected with trans folks and met mentors like his late friend Gary, a custodian of Black queer history in New York. He reveled in dance as a liberating form of expression.

“As people we have this box we like to live in, 85 to 90% of us moving in a robotic way. Maybe 5% of us make decisions because we’re dedicated to being courageous, feeling fear and moving through it.””

“I always had this ability — and knew I needed — to find safe spaces and navigate the world to really speak and find my voice,” Queeman said. “It’s about finding your voice and standing in your truth when you are going to shine brightest. As people we have this box we like to live in, 85 to 90% of us moving in a robotic way. Maybe 5% of us make decisions because we’re dedicated to being courageous, feeling fear and moving through it.”

He defied the warnings of his mom and skeptical friends who balked at the notion of a culinary career as financially viable, and enrolled in New York’s Monroe College. After graduating, he left for the D.C. area in 2010 and worked as a cake decorator at Fluffy Thoughts Cakes followed by Crumbs Bake Shop. Queeman settled in Prince George’s County in Maryland, and started Mr. Bake as a catering business, workshop and wholesale bakery. 

Shortly thereafter, he started a YouTube show called “Baking with Mr. Bake.” He decided to apply for a spot on Discovery Family’s “Bake it Like Buddy” in 2018, coming home with the win — and immortalized footage of the Cake Boss himself, Buddy Valastro, begging for the recipe for Queeman’s sweet potato cake. 

Growing up in the golden era of Food Network cooking shows, Queeman never saw his likeness  in its stars, despite seeing thriving Black-owned bakeries like Make My Cake in his own backyard. It was a microcosm for the tessellation Queeman saw in late ’90s Harlem even if it wasn’t painted with such nuance in national media at the time. Sure, there were gangs and corner drug deals to contend with on the way to and from school. But Queeman was also surrounded by Black small businesses, Black professionals who owned stately brownstones, and Black gay men who wore bright yellows and pinks in bold defiance of the hyper-masculinity that suffused his neighborhood. 

Even amid the influx of chefs of color and growing chorus of queer voices on multimedia platforms today, the diversity therein, as in many communities, remains vastly underrepresented. It’s a big reason why Queeman set his sights on growing his public-facing profile. In addition to booking more television appearances, he’s working on a children’s book and created The Family Table, a dinner series amplifying queer voices and fostering empathy and understanding, which he also edits and airs on his YouTube channel. The second will feature a conversation among parents with queer children of varying ages. 

Cupcakes by Kareem “Mr. Bake” Queeman (Scott Buchmann)“We talk about fostering a stronger sense of community within our own community,” he said. “Because there’s still segregation. For instance, because of their age, people might not understand the importance of people sharing their pronouns. It’s not for you to understand; it’s for you to accept.”

The engine powering this advocacy work remains what makes him happiest: baking. Mr. Bake Sweets’ custom occasion cakes and cupcakes continue to fly off the shelves, but Queemam is looking to stretch himself beyond the cakes that made him — introducing banana pudding, brownies and desserts featuring seasonal fruits and curds, and debuting his version of his Aunt Janet’s famous sweet potato pie. Without a written record of hers, he’s engineered it to be his own while still honoring its rich, fluffy and sweet nostalgia. 

Then again, Queeman will never really stand still, as he sees his calling as one higher than dispensing sweet treats to people during special moments in their lives. 

“Yes, I bake really well, and people enjoy it, but I really think I was pushed to do these things so I can liberate minds and unshackle us from our societal norms,” he said. 

More love and understanding, one dessert at a time. 

Read more

about this topic

Basic income could help create a more just and sustainable food system

Canada’s food system is experiencing ongoing stresses from supply chain disruptions, price inflation and extreme weather events. Canadians are feeling the effects of these stresses: In 2021, nearly 16% of provincial households experienced some degree of food insecurity.

Federal programs such as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the recent grocery store rebate point to the impact direct government income interventions can have on ensuring equity in times of emergency, including access to food.

Some have discussed the new grocery store rebate, which is to be delivered through the GST/HST tax credit system, as closely aligned with proposals for a basic income guarantee. But a basic income guarantee would involve regular payments, not just a one-time rebate.

A basic income guarantee could play a key role in reducing individual and household food insecurity among society’s most vulnerable and ensure everyone can meet their basic needs with dignity.

 

What the research says

There is general support among basic income advocates in Canada for implementing income-tested basic income, which would involve delivering cash transfers to individuals whose incomes fall below a certain threshold.

As sustainable food systems experts, we suggest that a basic income guarantee could not only be an important tool for addressing economic access to food, but also in supporting sustainability across the food system.

We draw on our research with Coalition Canada, a network of basic income advocacy groups. Our research brought interdisciplinary teams of scholars and practitioners together to develop a series of case studies examining basic income through the lens of different sectors. These sectors include the arts, finance, health, municipalities and the criminal justice system.

Our work focused on the agriculture and fisheries sectors and involved members of the National Farmers Union, Union Paysanne, EcoTrust Canada and the Native Fishing Alliance.

Overall, our research suggests that a basic income guarantee could have a significant impact on the economic uncertainties faced by farmers and fishing communities in Canada. It could also contribute to a more just sustainable transition in the food system.

 

Reducing economic uncertainty

One potential impact of a basic income guarantee would be reducing economic uncertainty for the most vulnerable agriculture and fisheries workers.

People employed in food and fish processing and as farm laborers are especially vulnerable to seasonal unemployment, low wages, uneven employee benefits and unsafe working conditions, including high rates of occupational injury and illness.

            A combine harvesting a wheat crop in a field.
A guaranteed basic income could have a significant impact on the economic uncertainties faced by those working in the agriculture and fishing industries in Canada. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

A basic income guarantee could offer individuals more financial security and control over their employment choices and thus address the racialized, classed and gendered disparities prominent in food systems labour.

 

Supporting new fishers and farmers

A second potential impact of a basic income guarantee could be supporting new entrants in agriculture and fisheries. Across Canada, the commercial fishing and farming workforces are aging.

Supporting new farmers and fishers, especially those using more socially and ecologically sustainable practices, is an essential part of building a more resilient food system.

New entrants face substantial barriers related to high entry costs, such as access to land and equipment or purchasing a boat and fishing license, combined with uncertain and fluctuating prices for their goods.

While a basic income guarantee alone can’t address these challenges, it could provide greater economic stability for new farmers and fishers when they invest in infrastructure and training.

 

Preparing for future stressors

A basic income guarantee could also be a step towards building resilience against ongoing stressors, like the climate crisis and extreme weather events, along with preparing for future emergencies.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that those with more stable incomes and flexible work arrangements are better able to adapt to unexpected shocks. For example, during the pandemic, boat-to-fork seafood businesses better weathered seafood chain disruptions because of their adaptable supply chain configurations and proximity to consumers.

At present, small-scale farmers and fishers tend to receive the least support, because most subsidies go to larger industrial enterprises. However, these small-scale producers play a crucial role in supplying food for regional and local markets, which can serve as important buffers during times of crisis and reduce the stress of long-distance supply chains.

Establishing a basic income guarantee would be a proactive step in supporting equitable livelihoods for small-scale farmers and fishers.

            People stand on the deck of a small fishing boat that is floating in the harbour of a body of water.
Indigenous fishermen leave the harbour in Saulnierville, N.S. in October 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan
 

Next steps for the food system

Although a basic income guarantee has the potential to bring about many positive impacts, it shouldn’t be a substitute for existing government-funded agricultural and fisheries programs such as grants, public research and training and skills development programs.

A basic income guarantee also shouldn’t replace contributory programs, like the Employment Insurance fishing benefits. A basic income guarantee would offer support to fishers whose earnings are too low to qualify for employment insurance or who are unable to go out on the water.

Further research and policy efforts will be crucial for gaining a fuller understanding of how a basic income guarantee might intersect with other financial supports like insurance, loans and climate funding.

Additional research will also be crucial for understanding how a basic income guarantee could support migrant workers brought in through the Temporary Foreign Worker program. Migrant workers are an essential part of fisheries processing and meat and horticulture production.

There is also a need to think systematically and holistically about the role of basic income across the food system. The only way to accomplish this is with further input from farming and fishing communities and Indigenous communities in collaboration with anti-poverty, food sovereignty and food justice organizations.

We believe a basic income guarantee is a promising tool for contributing to sustainability and justice across agriculture and fishing sectors, while encouraging the development of cross-sectoral networks, research and policy agendas.

The authors would like to acknowledge the author teams of Coalition Canada’s Case for Basic Income Series for their contributions to this article.

Kristen Lowitt, Assistant Professor, Environmental Studies, Queen’s University, Ontario and Charles Z. Levkoe, Canada Research Chair in Equitable and Sustainable Food Systems, Lakehead University

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

“I don’t want to be a slave”: Tucker caught trashing Fox News streaming service in leaked video

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson trashed the network’s Fox Nation streaming service prior to his firing, according to a leaked video obtained by Media Matters.

Carlson in the recording criticized Fox over its “failings” and called the Fox Nation streaming push “a betrayal of our efforts.” Carlson said that rather than post his interviews to the service, he would rather  “dump the whole thing on YouTube.”

Carlson in the video is seen talking on the phone on the set of his show, discussing preparations for an upcoming interview with Andrew Tate, a British-American misogynist and far-right media personality who Carlson had previously interviewed on his segment in August of 2022. Carlson said he would serve as “a representative of the American media now, speaking to an exile in Romania and welcoming him back into the brotherhood of journalists.” 

Related

“It’s a bloodbath”: Fox News loses more than half of audience after axing Tucker Carlson

Tate was arrested in December of 2022 by Romanian authorities under suspicion of human trafficking and forming an organized crime group.

Speaking to an unknown person, Carlson in the video says, “I don’t want to be a slave to Fox Nation, which I don’t think that people watch anyway.”

“Nobody watches Fox Nation because the site sucks,” he said. “So I’d really like to just put the — dump the whole thing on YouTube. But anyway, that’s just my view. OK. I’m just frustrated with it. It’s hard to use that site. I don’t know why they’re not fixing it. It’s driving me insane. And they’re like making, like, Lifetime movies. But they don’t, they don’t work on the infrastructure of the site. Like what? It’s crazy. And it drives me crazy because it’s like we’re doing all this extra work and no one can find it. It’s unbelievable, actually.”

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

“We’re like working like animals to produce all this content,” Carlson added, “and the people in charge of it, whoever that guy’s, whatever his name is, like, they’re ignoring the fact that the site doesn’t work. And I think it’s like a betrayal of our efforts. That’s how I feel. So I, of course, I resent it.”

Though the reason for Carlson’s split with the network remains unclear, Abby Grossberg, a former producer on his show, recently filed a lawsuit against Fox, alleging a culture of misogyny at the network.

Watch the video below via Media Matters:

Read more

about Tucker Carlson

Conservative America has far more gun deaths than liberal America, study finds

A horrific recent trend of mass shootings has severely polarized Americans on the topic of firearms. At the center of this heated controversy lies the policy question of gun control: Should the government impose restrictions on firearms and other dangerous weapons to protect the public?

Conservatives turn to the Second Amendment to argue that the Constitution’s right to bear arms is sacred; liberals will argue that conservatives are misinterpreting the Second Amendment and that gun control policies have been proven to save lives. The conservative rejoinder to gun control, of course, is that good people with guns can protect the public from bad people with guns.

Yet several recent studies have revealed the exact opposite: In regions dominated by pro-gun politicians, the number of gun deaths is far higher than in areas controlled by pro-gun control politicians.

The pattern of blue regions being safer than red regions held even when analyzing the two most common specific types of gun-related deaths, suicides and homicides.

Foremost among these studies is one produced by the Nationhood Lab at Salve Regina University’s Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, and first reported on in Politico. After analyzing gun violence statistics from America’s different cultural regions from 2010 to 2020, the authors found that the areas with the highest rates of gun deaths were consistently those run by Republican politicians. Compared to a national rate of 11.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people, the Deep South had 15.6, Greater Appalachia had 13.5, New France (including the heavily French areas of Louisiana) had 19.8 and the Spanish Caribbean (the heavily Latino areas of Florida) had 11.6. Similarly the First Nation (referring to the heavily indigenous areas of Alaska) had 27.6 (by far the largest of any region studied) and the Far West had 12.2.

Related

The Second Amendment is a ludicrous historical antique: Time for it to go

This is a stark contrast to those regions in the predominantly Democratic Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states: Yankeedom, consisting of New England, upstate New York and the northern parts of the Midwest, has a rate of 8.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people; the “New Netherlands,” which consists of New York City and its metropolitan area, has a rate of 3.8; the Left Coast has 9; Greater Polynesia, or Hawaii, has 3.5; El Norte, or the American Southwest, has 10; and both the Midlands and Tidewater regions, which include the Delaware River valley and Chesapeake Bay areas as well as parts of Virginia, then stretching through the Ohio River Valley and other parts of the Midwest, have rates of 10.9. (It is important to note that some of these regions are much more highly populated than others.) All of those gun death rates are lower than the national average of 11.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people.

“The Deep South is the most deadly of the large regions at 15.6 per 100,000 residents followed by Greater Appalachia at 13.5,” explained Colin Woodard, director of the Nationhood Lab, in his Politico article breaking down the significance of the results. “That’s triple and quadruple the rate of New Netherlands — the most densely populated part of the continent — which has a rate of 3.8, which is comparable to that of Switzerland. Yankeedom is the next safest at 8.6, which is about half that of Deep South, and Left Coast follows closely behind at 9.”

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

“Studying these laws are difficult compared to, say, studying the impact of a single law related to child booster seats, or bicycle helmets, or seat belt laws.”

The author also noted that the pattern of blue regions being safer than red regions held even when analyzing the two most common specific types of gun-related deaths, suicides and homicides. For gun-related suicides, the New Netherlands was the safest of the highly populated regions (1.4) while Greater Appalachia and the Far West were the deadliest (9.2 and 8.8, respectively); for gun-related homicides, the New Netherlands was the safest highly populated region (2.3) while the Deep South was the least safe highly populated region (6.8).

This is not the first study to suggest a correlation between political leadership that regulates guns and fewer gun-related deaths. In a study published by the journal JAMA Surgery, researchers analyzed two decades worth of gun-related deaths by county by dividing the counties they studied based on how rural or urban they were. They found that during the first decade of the 21st century, “the two most rural county types had statistically more firearm deaths per capita than any other county type, and by the 2010s, the most urban counties—cities—were the safest in terms of intentional firearm death risk.”

It is important to note that these statistics often refer to suicides and not homicides. Indeed, the JAMA Surgery study revealed that between 2001 and 2010, America’s most rural counties had 25 percent more overall firearm deaths than America’s most urban counties and a 54 percent higher rate of gun suicides, but a 50 percent lower rate of gun homicide deaths. They also pointed out that during the 1990s, researchers had not noticed any difference in total intentional firearm deaths between America’s most urban and rural counties. This divide only became apparent in the 21st century and appears to be increasing, “with rural counties bearing a great deal more of the burden.”

Over the last few decades there have been a number of gun control studies, and over time they have fleshed out a statistical consensus on the efficacy of gun control laws. Studies have established a correlation between lowered violent crime rates and laws like prohibiting firearms to those associated with domestic violence, mandatory waiting periods, forcing those banned from owning firearms to surrender them and imposing child-access prevention laws. Similarly, studies have repeatedly linked drops in suicide rates to child-access prevention laws, minimum age requirements and mandatory waiting periods. Increases in violent crime, tragically, were linked to concealed-carry laws and stand-your-ground laws.

The challenge in analyzing all of this data is that establishing correlation (that two variables are consistently connected to each other in statistics) is very different from establishing causation (that one variable’s results caused the other variable’s results).

“Studying these laws are difficult compared to say studying the impact of a single law related to child booster seats, or bicycle helmets, or seat belt laws,” Dr. Eric Fleegler, who has extensively written about firearms legislation and teaches pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, told Salon in January. “They’re using, ‘Hey, we had a change in something, a law, and we look to see if there’s a change in something, some outcome fatalities, and we say, ‘Yes, these things correlate with each other.’ The causation is a much more challenging thing.”

Read more

about gun control

What to do with your refrigerated or frozen food during a power outage

South Africa has been grappling with power cuts for 15 years, which have worsened in recent years. The persistent power outages have disrupted every facet of life, including food safety. The Conversation Africa’s Ina Skosana spoke to food safety expert Lise Korsten about the impact of persistent power cuts on the food in our homes and the best ways to protect ourselves.

 

How should we manage the food in our fridges?

The reality is that loadshedding for extended periods of time is causing temperature fluctuations in our fridges. Particularly if the fridge is regularly opened during loadshedding or if it has old rubber sealants. Temperature fluctuations can make food go bad.  

To start with, let’s consider “what’s in our fridges”, “do we really need to keep so much perishable food in our fridges” and “how safe is it, given current loadshedding schedules”.

Loadshedding is forcing us to think about food safety and spoilage, our general behavior in terms of food purchases, storage, managing our fridges, hygiene and the use of leftover food.  

We need to ask ourselves: “Are we buying more food than we should, and are we not wasting more food?”

Perhaps we should consider a more minimalist lifestyle if we are to survive the current economic downturn and manage the impact of loadshedding.

Keeping too much food in fridges increases the potential risk of food-borne illness given our current energy crises. In short, households need to better manage the food in fridges and keep as little of it as possible.  

 

What’s the best way to avoid illness?

Keep your fridge — and kitchen — clean. Doing so will reduce the potential of organisms that can proliferate in these environments and cause illnesses, such as food poisoning. There are a few basic ways to maintain hygiene:

  • regularly clean your fridge and keep a special eye on obvious potential contamination points such as areas where, for instance, the blood from raw meat dripped onto the bottom shelf  

  • defrost your freezer to remove any ice building up that can affect the performance of the freezer.

New fridges often maintain the temperature more effectively for longer periods of time due to new, well-fitting seals. If it’s an older fridge and the rubber seals are broken or the door doesn’t close properly, temperature fluctuations will more likely occur.

A good rule is also to keep your fridge closed during loadshedding and pack more higher risk items towards the back where less temperature fluctuations will occur. The door of the fridge is a higher risk area because of higher temperature fluctuations. This is important since we often keep milk in this compartment, thereby increasing the risk of it going off before the use-by date.    

So set your fridge or freezer temperature correctly and make sure it’s clean and fully functional. The key is keep the temperature consistent and manage the stocks in your fridge.  

 

Why does fridge temperature matter?

We don’t get sick from just one organism. We get sick from a certain number of tiny organisms. What is important to keep in mind is that some microorganisms can multiply rapidly — in fact some every 20 minutes, others even every 10 minutes.

Environmental conditions — such as fluctuating temperatures — will influence how many organisms are present at a certain point in time and can multiply. If the food is kept at temperatures that fluctuate it will encourage rapid growth of microorganism to levels high enough to cause illness by the time the food is consumed.

In general, microorganisms can multiply at temperatures between 4°C and 60°C. This temperature range is often called the “danger zone” in food safety. Some of these organisms prefer room temperature to rapidly multiply. Leaving food outside the fridge is, therefore, risky behavior since you do not know if food is contaminated with any pathogens or if general spoilage can occur. The strategy is, therefore, to prevent contamination or “slow down” the growth of organisms through effective cold chain management.

The amount of microorganisms in food that can cause illnesses varies. It can be as little as 10 or 100 colony forming units — the number of microbial cells in a sample that are able to multiply — per gram of food. Some organisms can make us sick very quickly, even if only a few cells were initially present. Others increase in number over time when temperatures fluctuate, making food temperature management important.

It’s also important to remember that not all microorganisms are enemies. Less than 1% actually make us sick. We need to understand the microbial balance in nature and manage the system to our benefit.

 

Is it safe to eat leftovers?

It’s interesting to mention a study where waste pickers were asked how they know when food is safe to eat. They explained reliance on basic skills and instinct, which in essence means sensory parameters: smelling if food is off, touch (that slimy feeling), that “look” (texture and offish) and memory — once you have been sick from a specific food item your body will instinctively react (almost like a shiver down the spine).

These instincts are important and are in a way a survival skill, so be stringent when keeping leftover food. If you do, try and consume it as soon as possible, preferably the next day. Also, if you heat something, do so properly. A golden rule is to avoid reheating food, especially not more than once. Keep in mind that microorganisms can survive high and low temperatures and can rapidly multiply during the cooling down periods. So your timeline for safety gets less the longer you keep your food and expose it to fluctuating temperatures.

If possible, make sure you only prepare enough food for a meal and try and keep fewer leftovers in your fridge. We should also start thinking about eating smaller portions and ask ourselves the question: Do our bodies really need that volume of food? It is better, for our mind and soul, to be more conscious of using food wisely and wasting less. This is important in a country where a very high percentage of people go to bed hungry every night.

 

So what to do?

We all have time constraints, with the majority of people getting home late at night and having to rapidly prepare a healthy, safe meal. So plan meal portions, preparation and serving times around loadshedding and manage the food in the fridge more wisely.

Lise Korsten, Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology and Co-Director at the Centre of Excellence in Food Security, University of Pretoria

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

Montana Republican suggests she would prefer daughter die by suicide than allow her to transition

A Montana lawmaker who sponsored the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth is facing fierce criticism over a comment she made on the House floor in March.

Republican state Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe suggested during a floor debate that she would rather her daughter die by suicide than allow her to transition. Though Seekins-Crowe did not identify her daughter as transgender, she said that she was “one of those parents who lived with a daughter who was suicidal for three years.”

“One of the big issues that we have heard today and we’ve talked about lately is that without surgery the risk of suicide goes way up. Well, I am one of those parents who lived with a daughter who was suicidal for three years,” Seekins-Crowe said. “Someone once asked me, ‘Wouldn’t I just do anything to help save her?’ And I really had to think and the answer was, ‘No.'”

“I was not going to give in to her emotional manipulation because she was incapable of making those decisions and I had to make those decisions for her,” she added.

Related

Republicans deny they want to erase trans people — Montana silencing Zooey Zephyr proves otherwise

Seekins-Crowe continued, “I was not going to let her tear apart my family and I was not going to let her tear apart me because I had to be strong for her, I had to have a vision for her life when she had none, was incapable of having none.”

Seekins-Crowe also said that she “spent hours on the floor in prayer because I didn’t know that when I woke up if my daughter was going to be alive or not. But I knew that I had to make those right decisions for her so that she would have a precious, successful adulthood at that time.”

A video of Seekins-Crowe’s comments went viral on Twitter after it was shared by an account called The Intellectualist. The clip has amassed nearly 15 million views since it was posted on April 27.

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

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., denounced Seekins-Crowe on Twitter, accusing her of  “shoving her private decision down other people’s throats.”

“I vehemently disagree with this speech by GOP state rep Kerri Seekins-Crowe,” he wrote. “But you know what she didn’t say? That it should be the government’s role to make personal decisions for families. Why is she now shoving her private decision down other people’s throats?”

Backlash over her remarks comes after Montana GOP Gov. Greg Gianforte signed legislation banning transgender care for minors. Montana House Republicans last week voted to censure Democratic Rep. Zoey Zephyr, the state’s first transgender lawmaker, for telling her GOP colleagues, there “will be blood on your hands,” if they passed the bill. Zephyr is suing the state, along with House Speaker Matt Regier and Sergeant at Arms for the Montana House of Representatives Bradley Murfitt, over the censure.

 

If you or someone you know is in crisis, call 988 to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. You can also call the network, previously known as the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, at 800-273-8255, text HOME to 741741 or visit SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for additional resources.

Read more

about the GOP’s anti-trans attacks

On “Succession,” why bother simply surviving when you can fake what it means to be living … plus?

Mothers love their sons and raise their daughters, the saying goes. Some argue instead that they love their children equally but differently. Precious few, I’d suspect, wonder why there aren’t equivalent aphorisms for fathers.

“Succession,” through the Roys, leads one to ponder another parenting style: What if a father despised all of his children equally, but hated each son differently while dismissing his daughter entirely? What type of adults would that approach create?

Every hour expands upon that answer a bit more, but the fourth season episodes following the demise of Logan Roy (Brian Cox) get a bit more psychologically surgical each week. With Logan gone, Shiv (Sarah Snook), Roman (Kieran Culkin), and Kendall (Jeremy Strong) have nobody to blame for their mistakes but themselves.

That’s the excruciating part of this four-season joke. Ken, Rome, and Shiv suspect that if they put their three half-wits together, they’d figure out how to keep Daddy’s multibillion-dollar conglomerate afloat.

Then Logan died, and the boys fell back on old habits ganging up on dumb Pinky. They’re convinced she wouldn’t know what to do with power if she had it. That may be true, but as “Living+” shows us, they are not exactly experts on the subject either.

Sarah Snook in “Succession” (Photograph by David Russell/HBO)

Living+ is a new Waystar Royco real estate “product”: master-planned communities with company content integrated into every experience. It’s the “Succession” version of Celebration, Florida.

“Too Much Birthday” co-writer Georgia Pritchett and fellow scribe Will Arbery open the hour with Kendall and the communications team in Los Angeles, watching raw footage of Logan’s video pitch in preparation for Investor Day.

“I’m convinced that the Living+ real estate brand can bring the cruise ship experience to dry land and provide a significant boost to the earnings of our parks division. I couldn’t be more excited,” Logan says in the video, not sounding excited at all.

A woman’s voice gently stops him and asks for a fresh take, one where he sounds excited as he says the word “excited.” But Logan, who hates being told what to do, especially not by a woman, will not comply. When she asks for the makeup tech to blot the shine from his face, Logan explodes. “Oh, could you please stop buzzing around me? . . . You’re as bad my f**king idiot kids!”

Hugo (Fisher Stevens) apologizes to Kendall, who smiles weakly and says, “That’s fine. That’s a Valentine’s card. Can we watch it again, actually?” Then he acknowledges the image of his scowling father with, “Good to see you, Dad.”

Related

The Roys never had a chance: “Succession” sells Alexander Skarsgård as TV’s finest Viking conqueror

Shiv’s also L.A.-bound, but first she and Lukas Matsson ( Alexander Skarsgård) flirt on the tarmac, making eyes at each other from the windows of their private jets. Matsson closes the distance and walks over to hers in his bare feet, the bad boy secure in the power he wields over a girl with daddy issues.

He flirtatiously tells Shiv he hates the whole concept of Living+, disparaging the concept as “land cruises.” He doesn’t do real estate and wants her to kill it, calling her someone on the inside “who really gets me,” he coos.  

She’s not having it.  

Then he mentions Roman and Kendall’s madness on the mountain, a move to tank the GoJo sale.

Shiv was not aware of this but rolls her eyes and yells to the pilot to start the engines. Matsson throws her a kiss on his way out and tells her to keep him in the loop. “My girl on the inside!”

Jeremy Strong in “Succession” (Photograph by David Russell/HBO)

On the Waystar Studios lot, the boys tell their version of Lukas’ story to senior management, painting him as the erratic one. The Village Elders are not shaken by this but resolve to keep an eye on the situation.  

Shiv quietly witnesses the exchange with a mixture of skepticism and disdain. When Gerri (J. Smith-Cameron), Frank (Peter Friedman), Karl (David Rasche), and Karolina (Dagmara Domińczyk) leave, Shiv lays into them. “You’re not good at this. ‘Hey, Dad? Shiv spilled chocolate milk in the Range Rover.’ Go on, lie to me. Lie to my face.”

What if a father despised all of his children equally, but hated each son differently while dismissing his daughter entirely?

So they do after admitting they’re not sure about Matsson. “Honestly, we were protecting you,” Kendall fibs. An apologetic Roman proposes they “do the huggy thing.” Over Roman’s shoulder, Shiv wears a look that says the huggy thing is meaningless.

Her assistant comes in to break up the huggy thing and leads her to an empty room for a 20-minute cry break. What’s the worst thing that can happen when a girl just wants to grieve alone? Tom (Matthew Macfadyen) and Greg (Nicholas Braun) that’s what. The Disgusting Brothers stumble in, assuming the room is empty.

Greg leaves, and Tom stays to take advantage of Shiv’s vulnerability. They make out.

When a father pits his children against each other in a game he’s set up for himself to win, there’s no path to victory for anyone but him. But when a father shows his sons that his daughter is worth less than they are, he risks creating a monster easily defeated by the slightest promise of love and affection.  

Shiv is one such delicate terror. She would be truly formidable if she’d made her own conquest plans instead of hitching her hopes to whichever man or men are pulling ahead on a given day.

On this day, as far as she can tell, Matsson is the titan to ally with. Who can tell how tomorrow will go? She’s shut out of Roman and Kendall’s plans.

The guys aren’t sold on the Living+ brand either. Then, after a whole lot of Wall Street babble Kendall sees a pitch for “personalized longevity programs” and gets a glint in his eye. Oh, dear.

While that sugar rush kicks in, Roman zips over to meet with Joy Palmer (Annabeth Gish), the head of Waystar Studios, and cuts straight to the point – the big dumb sleeping robot movie is a disaster. But he’s ready to throw a ton of money her way to make a hit.

Joy listens, then voices her concern on behalf of Hollywood’s creative community about the rightward lean of ATN and its attacks on “our democratic institutions,” citing the network’s backing of neo-Hitler Congressman and presidential frontrunner Jeryd Mencken. Roman brushes off Mencken as “IP, just like anything else.”

Then Roman says he doesn’t feel like she’s listening to him and, after more monetary braggadocio, suddenly blurts that he knows what Joy is thinking: What does he know about anything? He’s not his dad. He can’t do it.

“I’m sure you are where you are for a good reason,” she says in a serious tone. For that offense, Roman offers to fire her. She laughs, which he doesn’t think is funny. “I’m not saying I am. I’m just saying I could. Although maybe I should? Oh no . . . Oh no, I said it, and now I feel like I gotta commit.” He gets up from the table.

“This is a mistake,” Joy warns.

On another stage, Kendall has gone full nut-nut. He decides he wants to enter through a Living+ house, which is to be built overnight, with clouds overhead. This is impossible, but Kendall announces that his new rule is “no one can say no.”  

Ken and Rome, once they’re together again, toss around Ken’s wild idea to make analysts look at Living+ as a tech valuation instead of a real estate package. The “personalized longevity programs” will be the “killer app,” and the fact that Kendall uses that dusty term tells you he has no idea what he’s doing.

And the consumer pitch? “Live forever . . . Not forever . . . well, sure . . . if not forever, then more forever!” If they get it right, the price will blow beyond $192 per share and send Matsson fleeing. Roman, still silent and agonizing over Logan’s death, is in. “I think people will be very intrigued if there was another way through the whole situation,” he says.

“You mean. . . life?” asks Kendall. “Yeah,” says Roman, adding, “Death feels just very . . . one size fits all.”

Kieran Culkin in “Succession” (Photograph by David Russell/HBO)

Then Gerri pulls Roman aside and asks why she can’t reach Joy. Hearing that he fired Joy without engaging legal, HR and, you know, using his brain, sends her through the roof.

“I didn’t fire her,” Roman babbles. “I said that she was fired to her. That’s all.”

Gerri warns Roman that Joy is well-connected, while Roman is “a weak monarch in a dangerous interregnum.”

“Well, maybe I’ll fire you too,” he says.

Gerri reminds Roman that firing her will make Matsson very angry. “Roman, you cannot win against the money. The money is going to wash you away. Your dad knew. Tech is coming.”

When a father pits his children against each other in a game he’s set up for himself to win, there’s no path to victory for anyone but him.

But again, Roman said it, and now he feels like he’s gotta commit. Kendall is shocked at this turn, but gets on board, gaming out the press’ reaction.  “Some are saying these two young Turks might just have what it takes to turn things around!”

Elsewhere, Shiv and Tom flirt at reception, by recalling how they’ve hurt each other. Then they play a biting game, which leads them to bang out their differences. In the afterglow, Shiv confirms Tom is Team Matsson, admitting she has a connection with the Swede. This upsets Tom, who says, “I think I want you. I think I would like this back,” he says.

“Well then,” says Shiv, “you shouldn’t have betrayed me . . . phony.”

So Tom tries honesty for once, admitting he spent his life thinking a little bit about money, and knowing once he married Shiv that he would be caught between her and Logan. “And I really, really, really love my career and my money.” Shiv scoffs, and Tom continues. “Sure. I know. I like nice things. I do. And if you think that’s shallow, why don’t you throw out all your stuff for love? Throw out your necklaces and your jewels for a date at a three-star Italian. Come and live with me in a trailer park. Are you coming?”

“Well,” Shiv says sitting beside him, “I’d follow you anywhere for love, Tom Wambsgans.” They both laugh. Phony.

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

It’s show time.

Kendall gets an accountant to cook the numbers, Cousin Greg corners a film editor he derisively calls “Mr. Snippy-Snip” as he forces him to manipulate Logan’s video. Matsson video chats with Shiv and begs her to stop this madness.

Turns out that doesn’t take much to upend things. Roman sees the accountant’s fraudulent numbers and knows that the prop house on stage isn’t the only one about to fall over. Shiv only has to whisper in Roman’s ear that Kendall’s failure will be his if he gets onstage to make Roman back out.

That leaves Kendall to go it alone. Before walking onstage in a custom flight jacket – because it’s a launch, get it? – Karl gently reminds Ken that if whiffs it on purpose, he’ll be embarking on a tear of mutual destruction: “I’ll f**king squeal.”

So Kendall walks onstage to Public Enemy’s “Harder Than You Think.” Irony? Prophecy? We’ll see. As the music dies down, all he can say at first is, “Big shoes. Big, big shoes! Big, big shoes . . . Big, big shoes!”

Off-script, he tells the audience that he’s grateful for all the support. “It means a lot. Isn’t that right, Dad?” he says, turning to the screen behind him.

Then L to the O.G. walks into frame, playing the Tupac hologram to Kendall’s emcee. “Let’s get on with it, shall we?” Logan appears to tell his son. Everyone in the green room is mortified.

Kieran Culkin, Matthew Macfadyen, Fisher Stevens, Nicholas Braun, Sarah Snook, Dagmara Dominczyk in “Succession” (Photograph by David Russell/HBO)

Then Kendall introduces Living+ with a flavor Logan lacked: humanity. He sells it as a crime and hassle-free utopia where residents will enjoy exclusive access to Waystar news and entertainment. What could be better? How about preferred access to health and longevity care, leveraging the company’s tech and pharmaceutical holdings?

He’s a veritable Elizabeth Holmes, this guy. Sealing the deal is the doctored clip of Logan announcing: “I’m convinced that the Living+ real estate brand can bring the cruise ship experience to dry land and double the earnings of our parks division.” The investors applaud in approval.

The world eats it up . . . except for Matsson, who tweets “Doderick macht frei,” a tasteless Holocaust reference. This sends management into a tizzy. But Kendall smooths it over when an investor reads the tweet to him. He apologizes for any offense Matsson might have given, saying, “He’s very European . . . He’s smart, but we don’t always come across as we intend on social media,” adding that a benefit of Living+ is that it goes beyond social media by creating in-person community.

With that, he exits, ceding the stage to Tom, who whiffs it as usual.

Ken is hailed as the hero. Matsson, at Shiv’s urging, deletes the tweet. An envious Rome quietly excuses himself to his car, where he plays another faked version of Logan’s video.

“I want to make what I think is a fairly historic announcement,” Logan says. “I’m convinced that Roman Roy has a micro-dick and always gets it wrong.” Roman smiles, then plays it on a loop, hooked by the soothing sound of his father’s emasculation.

In another limo, Shiv tells Tom that she wants to keep what they’re doing to “party and strategy.” “Strictly. Entirely. Uh-huh,” he says. “I can’t help it if I find strategy sexy, though. I do. I do!” She’s smitten.

Kendall walks along on the beach, then takes off his shirt and throws himself into the ocean. This time he floats face up, staring at the crowds, knowing this time he did not drown.  

Read more

about “Succession”