Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Of course it’s racially motivated”: The View hosts push back on police over Ralph Yarl shooting

The hosts of The View on Tuesday alleged a double standard in the handling of the shooting of Kansas City teen Ralph Yarl.

Yarl, who is Black, mistakenly approached the home of Andrew Lester, an 84-year-old white man, while attempting to pick up his two younger brothers, according to police. Upon seeing Yarl at his front door, Lester shot him twice — once in the head and once in the arm after the teen had fallen to the ground. 

Yarl, who survived the shooting, was discharged from a hospital on Sunday evening after undergoing surgery over the weekend. A White House official stated that President Joe Biden spoke with Yarl and his family on Monday as he begins his road to recovery. 

Lester, originally released by police per a “24-hold” Missouri law, was subsequently charged in connection to the shooting. 

“Now, the alleged shooter was released within 24 hours of being held, which authorities claim is standard protocol. I would like to know if that’s so, because I think, had it been reversed he would have still been in jail. That’s just the way it is. That’s the way things play out,” host Whoopi Goldberg said.

“I mean, the gentleman said he was afraid,” Goldberg continued. “My question is, well, why didn’t you say, who is it, so that the kid could have said, I’m here to pick up my brothers, and the man could have said, your brothers are not here. You answered the door. You opened the door. You had to see who was there, and you shot him. Then you shot him again. Why?”

“What he said was, he said he was scared for his life, because he saw that he was 6-feet tall, which means he saw the kid,” co-host Ana Navarro said. “The part that he didn’t say, he was a 6-foot-tall Black kid. That’s the part he didn’t say out loud.”


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


“I was shocked yesterday when I heard the police chief say the information we have now, it does not say that it is racially motivated, but there is a racial component, is what they’re calling it,” Navarro added. “Of course it’s racially motivated. Of course it’s racially motivated. He saw through the door that it was a Black teenager, and that’s why he shot.”

“It was his fear of the kid being Black,” added co-host Sunny Hostin.

How to be smart when it comes to ordering, cooking and eating raw fish

From sushi and sashimi (Japan) to poke bowls (Hawaii) and ceviche (Peru), consumption of raw or undercooked fish and other seafood is becoming increasingly popular. Appealing as such dishes can be, they can also increase the risk of exposure to fish-borne parasites.

It’s not a matter to take lightly. Every year, almost one in ten people fall ill from eating contaminated food. The World Health Organization estimates that some 56 million cases of parasitic infections associated with the consumption of fish products occur annually.

 

Tiny but troublesome stowaways

Among the fish-borne parasites that can affect humans, there are three major groups of parasitic worms, also known as helminths: flatworms, spiny-headed worms (acanthocephalans) and ciliated worms (nematodes).

Diagnoses of infection with Opisthorchis, a family of flatworms, are the most common, but they occur mainly in East and Southeast Asia. Of more global concern are those caused by some nematodes of the family Anisakidae, particularly species of the genera Anisakis, Pseudoterranova and Contracaecum. As a consequence, they’re the focus of much of the world’s medical and economic concern.

The parasitic disease anisakiasis, caused by nematode larvae belonging to the genus Anisakis, is considered the main threat to human health. Every year and on all continents, countless cases are diagnosed in humans, in part because the rise in consumption of foods such as sushi and sashimi. In Japan alone, where it is traditional to eat raw fish and seafood dishes, more than 7,000 cases of anisakiasis occur annually.

 

From marine mammals to human stomachs

Today, anisakiasis is not only an emerging global human health problem, but it is also an economic concern, due to the potential negative effects on consumer confidence and trade associated with infected fish products.

So how can this troublesome disease be avoided? The answer lies in understanding the parasites’ life cycle.

The genus Anisakis comprises nine species, three of which (Anisakis simplex, Anisakis pegreffii and Anisakis physeteris) have been confirmed as zoonotic pathogens. These nematodes infect a wide range of marine organisms; fish and cephalopods serve as intermediate hosts, while dolphins, whales, seals and other marine mammals are the final hosts.

Adult worms are found in the mucous membrane that lines the stomachs of marine mammals. The parasite’s eggs are expelled along with the animal’s feces and hatch in seawater. There, krill — small crustaceans that form the basis of the ocean food chain — eat them and become infected with larval stages of the nematodes. When the krill are in turn eaten by fish or squid, another stage of larvae infects the predators’ guts and become embedded on the surface of their organs and eventually in their muscles.

And that’s where we humans come in. When we consume fish, squid, octopus or other seafood containing third-stage Anisakis larvae that’s raw or undercooked, we can become accidental hosts to Anisakis larvae. Once ingested, they settle in our stomach and sometimes the small intestine.

 

Stomach pain and worse

While the parasite cannot reproduce in humans, it can survive for a short period of time and cause anisakiasis, which can range from mild to severe depending on the person infected. The most typical symptoms of gastric anisakiasis include abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting within hours of ingesting the larvae. Other symptoms can include allergic reactions and even anaphylactic shock. Infection of the small intestine is less common, but when it occurs it can result in an inflammatory mass and symptoms similar to Crohn’s disease, which develops one to two weeks later.

Some workers in the fishing industry as well as cooks and other professionals who regularly deal with fish may suffer from occupational allergic anisakiasis. Here, ingestion of the parasite’s larvae is not necessary for the disease to occur — those affected become sensitive to Anisakis proteins that come into contact with the skin or respiratory tract.

Thankfully, the overall prognosis for anisakiasis is generally positive. Most infections are self-limiting and usually resolve spontaneously after several weeks. Person-to-person transmission is effectively impossible.

 

Ceviche, sashimi and even pickled anchovies

More than 90% of anisakiasis cases worldwide are reported in Japan and most of the remaining 10% in countries such as Spain, Italy, the United States (Hawaii), the Netherlands and Germany. These are regions where we traditionally eat raw or undercooked fish dishes such as sushi and sashimi, ceviche and carpaccio, pickled or pickled anchovies, Hawaiian-style salmon lomi-lomi and salted herring. The species that are most frequently parasitised include salmon, tuna, squid, cod, hake, mackerel, mackerel, horse mackerel, blue whiting, sardines and anchovies.

How can anisakiasis be prevented? Preventive measures are essential to control and minimise the disease. While the worms can resist pickling and smoking, semi-preserves such as anchovies and traditionally salted dried fish such as cod or mojamas involve processes that kill the parasite. The best approach is to use a traditional cooking technique such as cooking, frying, baking or grilling. The Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition reports that when the cooking temperature of a seafood reaches or exceeds 60°C (140 Fahrenheit) for at least one minute, the parasite is killed.

While such methods aren’t an option for fans of sushi, sashimi and ceviche, freezing is. When seafood is subjected to -20°C for seven days or -35°C for more than 15 hours, the larvae are destroyed. If you’re not sure that your freezer can go that low, it’s prudent to buy frozen fish. Indeed, to increase consumer food safety, in some countries, commercially prepared sushi is frozen before being sold.

 

           

Left: A coiled anisakid worm (Pseudoterranova decipiens) in a fillet of cod. Center: The head end of Pseudoterranova decipiens. Right: A Pseudoterranova decipiens recovered from a human patient. DPDx/CDC, CC BY
           

European legislation requires that seafood not be offered for sale with visible parasites. To avoid anisakiasis, it’s advisable to buy clean and gutted fish and to visually inspect them — even fish fillets merit examination.

There are a few exceptions from the freezing requirement. Oysters, mussels, clams and other mollusks; fish from inland waters (rivers, lakes, marshes . . . ) and freshwater fish farms (trout and carp, for example). Farm-raised fish may also be safe, providing that they were reared from embryos obtained in captivity, fed with feed without zoonotic parasites and kept in a parasite-free environment.

While there’s much to be aware of, it’s better than suffering the consequences of inattention or inaction. With the correct steps and a measure of precaution, it’s possible to enjoy seafood in a safe and responsible way.

Raúl Rivas González, Miembro de la Sociedad Española de Microbiología. Catedrático de Microbiología, Universidad de Salamanca

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

Legal expert: Fox facing “uphill” climb at trial after judge hands Dominion big early victory

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman predicted a difficult road for Fox News’ attorneys at their defamation trial after the judge overseeing the case ruled that the statements at the heart of the lawsuit were false.

The trial in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the network kicked off on Tuesday. Jurors will only have to decide whether the network acted with “actual malice” after Judge Eric Davis ruled that the statements the voting machine company cited in its lawsuit were false.

“They’re going to be instructed all these claims were false, 20 really vivid claims tracking the ‘big lie,’ and they’re going to be instructed these are false,” Litman said during an appearance on MSNBC on Tuesday. “That already makes it seem very plausible that they knew it, but the email traffic that we have already learned about really exposed Fox as having known about it. I think the odds here, you know, it is really a downhill path for Dominion and uphill one for Fox.”


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


The trial was delayed on Monday amid reports that the judge asked both sides to attempt to settle the case before the trial begins.

“I think once this last-minute momentum for settlement builds, and it did, because they went to the judge and said, ‘Give us another day,’ they must have said, ‘We’re getting there,’ but then they likely returned yesterday, said they’re not there yet, and the judge said, ‘I’m not going to hold — we chose 12 jurors, we have to keep going,'” Litman explained. “‘You have to go on two tracks to try the case in the day and continuing settlement negotiations at night.’ I don’t think settlement, by any means, is off the table.”

“There was clearly no threat”: 20-year-old woman shot and killed after turning into wrong driveway

A young woman was shot and killed Saturday after she and a group of friends accidentally pulled into the wrong driveway while searching for a friend’s home in upstate New York. 

Washington County Sheriff Jeffrey Murphy said during a Monday press conference that the suspect, 65-year-old Kevin Monahan, fired off two shots from the front porch of his Hebron, N.Y. home, one of which struck the vehicle Kaylin Gillis was in. 

The group drove away in search of cell service, eventually placing a 911 call. Gillis was pronounced dead at the scene when first responders arrived in Salem, around 5 miles from where the shooting took place.

“It’s a very rural area with dirt roads. It’s easy to get lost. They drove up this driveway for a very short time, realized their mistake and were leaving, when Mr. Monahan came out and fired two shots,” Murphy said. The killing, the sheriff added, was “very sad,” describing Gillis as a woman who “comes from a good family” whom he knew. 

“She was an innocent young girl who was out with friends looking for another friend’s house,” he continued. “Unfortunately, they drove up this driveway.”

Murphy also stated that Monahan was uncooperative in surrendering to authorities, and “refused to exit his residence to speak with police.”

A press release from the Washington County Sheriff indicated that Monahan was eventually taken into custody with assistance from the New York State Special Operations Police Response Team. 

“There was clearly no threat from anyone in the vehicle. There was no reason for Mr. Monahan to feel threatened,” Murphy added.

He said that no one is believed to have exited the car before shots were fired, nor was there any suspected interaction between Monahan and the group. 


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


Gillis’ killing bears some semblance to a shooting that took place in Kansas City, Missouri last week, in which 84-year-old Andrew D. Lester, a white man, shot 16-year-old Black teen, Ralph Yarl, after Yarl mistakenly knocked on the wrong door. 

Lester reportedly shot Yarl in the head and arm after the boy rang his doorbell at 115th Street, meaning to pick up his two younger brothers from a home on 115th Terrace. 

The Guardian reported that Yarl, who sustained “life-threatening injuries,” was able to reach a nearby neighbor for help, before being taken to the hospital. The New York Times reported that Yarl was released from the hospital on Sunday evening, after undergoing surgery. He is expected to make a full recovery. 

Lester was initially released after a “24-hour hold,” and walked free without charge, a decision that led to an eruption of protests in Kansas City over the weekend.

On Monday, Lester was charged in the shooting, with prosecutor Zachary Thompson stating that there “was a racial component to the case.”

Kevin McCarthy to Wall Street: GOP will hold economy hostage to cut aid programs

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told the New York Stock Exchange on Monday that his caucus will not pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes steep federal spending cuts and work requirements for key aid programs, a position that Democratic lawmakers slammed as dangerous and foolish hostage-taking.

“There never has been and never will be anything fiscally responsible about refusing to pay America’s bills, risking millions of jobs, or threatening economic ruin,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “Republicans have apparently learned nothing from their past failures, so I’ll make it clear: The best thing they can do for the American people is to let the hostage go, stop the chaos, and end this reckless brinksmanship with a vote for a clean raise of the debt ceiling.”

The Wall Street audience, though, applauded McCarthy’s, R-Calif. speech, in which he attempted to blame President Joe Biden for a looming debt default that would have catastrophic impacts on the U.S. and global economies. McCarthy also pledged to oppose any new tax increases, a message that appeared to go over well on Wall Street.

“Speaker McCarthy went to Wall Street to spread Republicans’ message to billionaires and corporate executives: They want hardworking families to pay the cost of keeping the government up and running, while corporations get away with paying as little as possible in taxes—and they’re willing to hold our entire economy hostage to get it done,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a statement.

“House Republicans’ proposed budget cuts threaten economic disaster and American jobs, all to protect billionaires and giant corporations,” Warren continued. “Independent analysis from Moody’s shows congressional Republicans’ budget cuts could throw 720,000 to over 2.5 million Americans out of work. That’s a nonstarter. President Biden must hold firm on behalf of working families, and insist Republicans raise the debt limit swiftly and cleanly as they did time and time again under President Trump.”

Biden has repeatedly called for legislation that raises the debt ceiling without any accompanying conditions, but the House Republican majority has insisted on reverting federal spending to fiscal year 2022 levels—which would force painful spending cuts across a range of programs, from housing to education to healthcare.

McCarthy repeated that demand Monday, telling the NYSE that the House will vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would raise the debt ceiling for a year, cap federal spending at FY 2022 levels, and limit spending growth over the next decade to 1% annually.

“If you agree, join us,” McCarthy told the Wall Street audience. “Join us in demanding a reasonable negotiation and responsible debt ceiling agreement that brings spending under control.”

The Republican leader said the GOP measure will also include new work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance and Medicaid—mandates that experts say could deprive millions of families of food aid and health coverage. (Most SNAP and Medicaid recipients who are able to work already do so.)

McCarthy accused the Biden administration of weakening work requirements, an apparent reference to the administration’s 2021 decision to rescind Trump-era guidance that gave states a green light to attach work requirements to Medicaid benefits.

But as Joan Alker of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families pointed out in response to McCarthy’s remarks, “There were no Medicaid work requirements in effect when Biden took office.”

“In 2018, Arkansas briefly implemented Medicaid work requirement, which was a disaster, didn’t promote work, but did create lots of red tape, and caused 18,000 to lose their health coverage,” Alker wrote on Twitter. “A federal court stopped it. Appeals court upheld the ruling and no other state implemented [work requirements for Medicaid].”

McCarthy insisted that “trillions” of dollars in federal spending would be cut under the GOP’s plan and demanded that the president meet with him to negotiate, but the Republican leader offered few specific details in his Monday speech.

“The speaker doubled down on the MAGA majority’s threats to hold the economy hostage and keep the nation from paying its bills, but couldn’t even articulate the ransom demands,” said Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US’ Economic Security and Corporate Power program. “McCarthy offered nothing by vague promises of a plan with unspecified spending cuts, a guarantee big corporations won’t pay a penny more in taxes, and no assurances he even has enough votes to pass it in the House.”

“While MAGA extremists in Congress can’t seem to agree on the degree to which to punish seniors, workers, and low-income Americans with cuts to crucial safety nets,” Zelnick added, “they’re in complete alignment that no billionaire or profiteering corporation should pay their fair share.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. will default on its debt for the first time ever this summer if Congress doesn’t raise the limit, a looming disaster that top economists have said is “frightening.”

In 2011, when Biden was vice president, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded after the GOP obstructed efforts to lift the debt ceiling. Republicans ultimately secured a deal with the Obama administration to impose federal spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase, an agreement that undermined the U.S. economy’s recovery from the Great Recession.

“House Republicans instigated the first-ever downgrade in America’s credit rating, spiking costs for working families and bringing the United States to the brink of a devastating recession,” Boyle said Monday. “Almost 12 years later, Speaker McCarthy and extreme MAGA Republicans are dragging our nation down the same treacherous path.”

“The speaker’s blatant attempt to dodge responsibility and shift blame,” Boyle added, “only underscores that the greatest threat to our nation’s economy, the well-being of American families, and our record-breaking recovery is Speaker McCarthy and his MAGA allies.”

The ghost of Tulare Lake returns, flooding California’s Central Valley

When American settlers arrived in California 150 years ago, the sprawling Central Valley was home to the largest body of freshwater west of the Mississippi River. Tulare Lake expanded each spring as rain and melting snow filled the valley, growing so large that fisherfolk could sail across its surface to catch terrapin for San Francisco restaurants. But the land barons who took over the region soon drained the lake and covered it in crops, helping make it one of the nation’s most productive agricultural hubs.

Now, as California closes out a historically wet winter, Tulare Lake has reappeared for the first time since 1997. As runoff from several rivers drains into the valley, the homes and streets and fields that sit on the lake bed, which covers 1,000 square miles, are being inundated once again. The flooding will only increase over the next few months as the state’s record snowpack melts, dousing the area with the equivalent of 60 inches of rain.

Tulare Lake has always emerged during especially wet years, but the flooding will be worse this time: the region’s powerful agriculture industry has compounded flood risk around the lake by pumping enormous amounts of subterranean groundwater, turning the region into a giant bowl. Farmers overdraw the basin’s aquifer by around 820,000 acre-feet per year, far more water than Los Angeles consumes over the same period, and this pumping has caused the southern Central Valley to sink faster than almost any other place in the world.

Subsidence is occurring throughout California, but the problem is at its worst in the area around Tulare Lake, which is about 200 miles north of L.A. Some cities near the lake bed have sunk by as much as 11 feet over the past half-century. That rapid decline makes homes and crops in the basin much more vulnerable to flooding than when the lake last appeared 35 years ago. What’s more, the levees and channels that control flooding are getting less effective as the land around them subsides.

“Tulare Lake is playing Russian Roulette with flooding, and they just lost,” said Deirdre Des Jardins, an independent researcher and consultant who has studied flood risk in the Central Valley. “Water is flowing differently because of the subsidence, and they don’t have any kind of flood management.”

Even as flood risk has grown due to subsidence, local leaders have rejected the state’s attempts to finance new flood defenses. When California began to draft a statewide flood protection plan after Hurricane Katrina, many counties and flood control districts in the agriculture-dominated Tulare Lake basin declined to participate, denying themselves state funding for new levees and bypass systems.

“The local interests who were there at those meetings were pretty adamant that they did not want to be part of a state level plan,” said Julie Rentner, president of the California-based environmental organization River Partners, who participated in the drafting of the plan. “They felt like they had it under control. Especially in some of the more conservative parts of California, there’s a real concern and real suspicion that the state intervening in the way water is managed will have deleterious impacts on local communities or local economy.” 

In other cities, like Sacramento, the state spent billions to improve a network of levees and channels that helps manage runoff, but the Tulare Lake basin has no centralized flood infrastructure at all. Tulare County last updated its flood control master plan in 1972, when land in the area was several feet higher. The only levees in the lake bed are those owned and maintained by local flood control districts, which often lack the capital to make significant improvements. Those structure seem all but certain to fail as the lake reappears over the coming weeks, and some already have. 

The officials charged with managing groundwater around Tulare Lake have also resisted the state’s attempts to control the pace of subsidence. Earlier this month, state officials chastised a group of local groundwater control agencies for failing to set “minimum thresholds and measurable objectives” for countering subsidence as required by state law. The agencies had said they wanted to limit the region’s subsidence to between 1 and 2 feet over 20 years, a number so high state officials thought it was a typo.

(Groundwater agencies and flood control districts that represent the Tulare Lake area didn’t immediately respond to interview requests.)

Much of the land on the lake bed is owned by J.G. Boswell, an agricultural company founded by the famous land baron of the same name. Boswell is one of the titans of the Central Valley, and has long been among the largest private farming operations in the world — it grows cotton, tomatoes, wheat, and a variety of other staples on fertile land that used to be underwater. The company maintains pumps and flood cells to protect its crop from inundation, but many of its fields will likely flood later this spring.

But it’s not just farmland that stands to flood. The Tulare Lake basin is home to half a dozen small towns, including Allensworth, the oldest town in California founded by Black people, and Corcoran, which houses a large state prison and a large population of agricultural laborers. Due to the pace of subsidence, these towns grow more vulnerable to flooding with every passing year, and some have already taken on several feet of water this year. Earlier in March, someone sliced a hole in a barrier along a local creek, flooding most of Allensworth.

Few people in these towns have flood insurance. Corcoran, one of the largest cities on the lake bed, has a population of around 22,000, but only five of its households participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency hasn’t updated federal flood maps to account for the past decade of subsidence, so many residents in flood zones may not even be aware of the risk they face. 

The worst is yet to come. Snowpack in the southern Sierra Nevada is almost triple the size of an average year’s, and warming weather will send the equivalent of 60 inches of rain toward Tulare Lake. That water will stick around for months or even years; as the lake grows, flooding could expand north toward the city of Fresno more than 40 miles away, putting thousands of homes and farms at risk. The lake bed also contains facilities like a sewage sludge composting plant that could leak or rupture as the area fills with water.

The result is a brutal irony. Draining Tulare Lake made it possible for the agricultural industry to thrive in the southern Central Valley, but that same industry has made the region more vulnerable than ever as the lake returns.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/extreme-weather/tulare-lake-flooding-california-central-valley-subsidence-agriculture/.

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

The abortion pill is safe for now — but that could change by the end of this week

Last week, mifepristone — one of the two drugs used in the most common medication abortion regimen — was on the verge of being banned nationwide due to the actions of a federal judge. Such a ban would effectively halt legal access to medication abortions — which make up more than half of all abortions overall performed in the United States according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Then on Friday, U.S. Supreme Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary order that blocked the impending restrictions from taking effect. Reproductive rights advocates cheered the order, which put the extreme ruling on hold and ensured access to the drug for now. Yet celebrating Alito’s order as a victory for reproductive rights would be premature, as Justice Alito merely put the restrictions on hold until April 19 at midnight.

Does this mean that medication abortion access remains threatened, and that a mifepristone ban could be enacted in a few short days? 

Salon spoke to a legal expert who said that such a situation is possible, but “not likely.”

I don’t think the plaintiffs are going to ask for reinstatement of Judge Kacsmaryk’s opinion, but I don’t know for sure,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline’s School of Law, told Salon. “We’ll see what they say.”

Back on April 7, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas imposed a nationwide injunction revoking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory approval of mifepristone. The highly anticipated decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed last November by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an anti-abortion group which claims that the longstanding approval of mifepristone should be revoked because the FDA initial approval was allegedly based on incomplete data. The anti-abortion organization Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine claims that the FDA failed to protect women when it approved the drug over 20 years ago. Clinical trials, researchers and doctors all concur that the drug is safe, and legal experts have questioned whether the court even has the right to question the regulatory decisions of an independent agency like the FDA. 

As experts have pointed out, Kacsmaryk’s brief was littered with both pseudoscience and untruths regarding abortion. Kacsmaryk’s ruling was set to go into effect in seven days after it was decreed, which allowed time to appeal the decision.

As expected, a few days later the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overturned Kacsmaryk’s decision — meaning that it concluded the plaintiffs’ challenge to the FDA’s process in 2000 was unconstitutional. However, Kacsmaryk’s ruling didn’t touch on the part of the ruling that struck down the FDA’s 2016 update to the drug’s usage, which included that it was safe to use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The ruling was then blocked by an appeals court on April 13. Danco Laboratories, the maker of Mifeprex — which is a brand version of mifepristone — filed a similar appeal. A day later, the Biden administration filed an emergency application requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, which is what led up to Alito’s statement.

Cohen told Salon that it is unclear what the conservative-majority justices will do now, but he sees the case play out in one of a few different ways.

“We’re waiting to see what the Supreme Court does,” he said. He explained a few scenarios: Cohen said they could “lift the stay and let the Fifth Circuit decision take effect,” adding that, in this case, mifepristone would still be approved but could be subjected to all the restrictions that were in place in 2016. “With the complication being with the states that signed on to the Washington lawsuit, and we don’t know if the Supreme Court is going to say anything about that because it technically doesn’t have that case before it.”


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


As Cohen alluded to, a lawsuit in Washington state filed by 18 Democratic attorneys general against the Food and Drug Administration challenged the agency’s authority to regulate mifepristone — which could protect access to the drug in those states in the event that the FDA approval is taken away.

“Then you’ve got the other side where the Supreme Court could say, ‘we are going to keep the stay in place while the Fifth Circuit appeal plays out,'” Cohen said. “They could say, ‘we’re going to keep the stay in place for the entire litigation and let the case go back to the district court, to go to the full trial.'”

The Supreme Court could also not take the case, Cohen said. One concern is that access to mifepristone could be curtailed as this plays out, which was also noted in the Danco Laboratories filing.

“Even the Fifth Circuit’s decision could result in mifepristone being off the market for several months because you have to spend the time relabeling it and that takes time,” Cohen said. “It’s not a ban on mifepristone, but it could have that effect and be unavailable.”

Seema Mohapatra, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, told Salon she expects before Wednesday the country will get more clarification from the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has been notorious for making decisions without releasing any kind of an opinion, and hopefully that’s not what would happen,” Mohapatra said. “Until Wednesday night, the status quo is maintained.”

“Transfer this hearing to Ohio”: Dems confront Jordan as his NYC crime “stunt” goes off the rails

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, traveled to Manhattan Monday to hold a hearing focused on violent crime in an apparent retaliatory move after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged former President Donald Trump over his role in a 2016 hush-money scheme.  

The hearing, dubbed a “political stunt” by Bragg’s office, was meant to tackle Bragg’s alleged inability to prosecute crime in New York. 

“Don’t be fooled, this is not a serious exercise, this is a political stunt,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, said as the hearing was about to begin. “Jim Jordan and his Republican accomplices are acting as an extension of the Trump defense team trying to intimidate a duly elected district attorney of Manhattan.”

Jordan and his Republican allies faulted Bragg for what they described as high violent crime rates and his focus on the former president.

“Here in Manhattan, the scales of justice are weighed down by politics,” Jordan asserted in his opening statement. “Rather than enforcing the law, the DA is using his office to do the bidding of left-wing campaign funders.” 

Yet, as acknowledged in a statement from Bragg’s office ahead of Jordan’s hearing, crime in Manhattan is in steady decline since last year: murders are down 14%, shootings are down 17%, burglaries are down 21% and robberies are down 8%. 

“In D.A. Bragg’s first year in office, New York City had one of the lowest murder rates of major cities in the United States – nearly three times lower than Columbus, Ohio,” Bragg’s office said in a statement. “If Chairman Jordan truly cared about public safety, he could take a short drive to Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Akron, or Toledo in his home state, instead of using taxpayer dollars to travel hundreds of miles out of his way.”

Democratic legislators echoed that sentiment during Monday’s hearing.

“In light of the testimony we just heard, what is the mechanism for the committee to transfer this hearing to Ohio, where the crime rate is significantly greater?” Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., asked Jordan.


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


Per an analysis published Monday by The New York Daily News, Ohio’s homicide rate (8.7 deaths for every 100,000 residents) is 73% higher than Manhattan’s (5.0 deaths per 100,000 residents.)

“I’m asking how do we move the venue so we can have a hearing in a city or state that has a serious crime problem? The state of Ohio?” Cicilline pressed, with Jordan ultimately saying that his time had expired and that the ruling could not be appealed.

Protests could be heard from a somewhat small but impassioned crowd that had congregated outside the courtroom.

Though Jordan never directly addressed the obvious connection between the hearing and Trump’s recent charges, Nadler made it a point to mention the former Trump repeatedly.

Accusing Jordan of “playing tourist in New York” while  “doing nothing, nothing, to stop the gun violence that terrorizes our nation,” Nadler argued that the hearing was directly linked to Trump.

“Let me be very clear,” he said. “We are here in lower Manhattan for one reason, and one reason only. The chairman is doing the bidding of Donald Trump.”

Trump lawyer tries to bypass judge’s anonymous jury ruling — and get access to juror identities

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina sought to gain access to the jury room after the judge overseeing E. Jean Carroll’s civil rape and defamation trial against former President Donald Trump ruled that the jury would be anonymous over the risk of harassment and retaliation.

Tacopina on Friday spoke out against U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan’s decision to keep juror identities anonymous over concerns about the risk to their privacy and safety.

Kaplan last month “said the need for juror anonymity reflected the ‘unprecedented circumstances in which this trial will take place, including the extensive pretrial publicity and a very strong risk that jurors will fear harassment, unwanted invasions of their privacy, and retaliation,'” according to Reuters.

Tacopina previously sought the judge’s permission to access juror identities in a letter to Kaplan last week. “Team Trump is also asking Judge Kaplan to use a juror questionnaire and reconsider his ruling that not even the attorneys can know the names of potential jurors,” wrote MSNBC analyst Lisa Rubin.

On Monday, Tacopina sent another letter to Kaplan urging him to reconsider the ruling and pushing to be “involved at all stages of the jury selection process.”

“While [we] understand that the Court has discretion over how to conduct jury selection in a civil case, we submit that counsel should be involved at all stages of the jury selection process (even in the Jury Assembly Room),” the letter says. “We also submit that counsel should have input into the Court’s description of the case as well as into the questions asked of potential jurors in the Jury Assembly Room. Rule 47 makes it clear that the parties and their counsel have that right, and further, a more robust jury selection process in this case will serve the interests of justice. We would note that, in this regard, we already have submitted to the Court proposed voir dire questions to be asked, which have yet to be ruled upon. However, for present purposes we do wish to inquire further as to the Court’s planned process.”


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


Rubin called Tacopina the “Chumbawumba of New York lawyers,” in an apparent reference to the band’s song “Tubthumping.”

 “He gets knocked down, and he gets up again,” she wrote in a Monday tweet. “He just filed a letter asking for clarification on the jury selection process in the Carroll trial–& insisting on his right to be in the rooms where it happens.”

Tacopina has seen a flurry of media attention in recent months related to Trump’s legal troubles. In a separate letter, he and fellow Trump attorney Alina Habba requested last week that Judge Kaplan delay the rape trial proceedings for four weeks, citing the “deluge of prejudicial media coverage concerning his unprecedented criminal indictment and arraignment in Manhattan.” Kaplan rejected the request on Monday, partly faulting Trump for the media frenzy around his arrest.

Last month, ahead of Trump’s formal charging of 34 felony counts related to the falsification of business records, Tacopina drew criticism when he lunged to snatch documents from MSNBC host Ari Melber during a heated interview. 

Tacopina has also been at the center of reported infighting among Trump’s legal team, with other MAGA lawyers reportedly calling him “dumb,” “a loudmouth,” and “such a frickin’ idiot.”

Susan Collins helps sink hopes of replacing Dianne Feinstein on Judiciary Committee

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Monday that she will not support an effort to temporarily replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee, effectively sinking Democratic hopes of breaking a tie on the panel that has helped Republicans blockade President Joe Biden’s federal judge nominees.

Collins, R-Maine, a self-styled moderate who has played a decisive role in the far-right takeover of the nation’s federal court system, called the push to replace Feinstein, D-Calif., as she recovers from shingles—something the senator herself requested last week—part of a “concerted campaign to force her off the Judiciary Committee.”

“I will have no part in it,” Collins added.

Collins was the latest Republican senator to express opposition to temporarily replacing Feinstein, a move Democrats were expected to attempt this week via the unanimous consent process—which was always a longshot given that any single senator could sink the effort.

Now it also appears highly unlikely that Democrats will be able to get the necessary 60 yes votes for a potential Feinstein replacement, with Collins joining Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and others in opposition.

While Collins framed her objection to replacing Feinstein as a show of respect for the longtime senator—even though the obstruction goes against Feinstein’s stated wishes—other Republicans made clear that they simply want to keep stonewalling Biden’s judicial nominees.

“I will not go along with [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s plan to replace Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee and pack the court with activist judges,” Blackburn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote in a social media post earlier Monday. “Joe Biden wants the Senate to rubber stamp his unqualified and controversial judges to radically transform America.” (Blackburn had no problem voting to confirm unqualified and highly “controversial” judges nominated by former President Donald Trump.)

Along with Feinstein’s indefinite absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee—which has left the panel deadlocked at 10-10—the Democratic leadership’s continued adherence to the antiquated “blue slip” tradition of giving senators veto power over nominees for federal court seats in their home states has ground the judge confirmation process to a halt.

Earlier this month, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., announced she would not return a blue slip for Scott Colom, a Biden U.S. district court nominee who had bipartisan support. Under current norms upheld by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Hyde-Smith’s opposition is enough to sink Colom’s nomination.

“If you want an example of how one side plays to win and the other does not, look at how Durbin refuses to get rid of blue slips—handing Republicans a unilateral veto of Biden’s judicial picks—while Republicans won’t so much as let an ailing Feinstein be replaced temporarily,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice.

There are currently 58 vacancies on U.S. district courts and six on circuit courts, according to Demand Justice chief counsel Christopher Kang. The American Constitution Society noted earlier this month that “the Senate has made limited progress on judicial nominations in recent weeks, with only three confirmations since March 16.”

“As of April 6,” the group observed, “there are still 18 Article III nominees pending on the Senate floor, waiting for cloture and confirmation votes.”

A dozen Biden judges are awaiting a vote from the evenly split Senate Judiciary Committee, in which a tie means a nominee does not advance.

The consequences of failing to fill vacant lifetime federal court seats could be disastrous, given the Republican Party’s willingness to abandon Senate norms to ram through extreme judges whenever they get the opportunity. During Trump’s four years in office, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed more than 230 federal judges—a recent record that appears safe given the slowing pace of Biden judicial confirmations.

With the Feinstein replacement effort all but dead, the path forward for Democrats is unclear.

Feinstein is facing growing calls to resign from the Senate entirely, which would allow California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom to appoint a replacement who would serve through 2024. That replacement would still have to win Senate approval to sit on the judiciary panel.

“Whatever deal Democrats negotiate—if any—they should make no promises about keeping the ‘blue slip’ tradition that gives individual senators what amounts to a veto over prospective judicial nominees from their home states,” columnist Jill Lawrence wrote for The Bulwark on Monday. “It’s not a law. It’s not in the Constitution. Biden, when he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, used blue slips to assure consultation but considered them advisory, not binding.”

Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of the Take Back the Court Action Fund, told Lawrence that Democrats “have a responsibility to do everything they can to rebalance the judiciary and dilute control” of Trump judges, who have worked to gut abortion rights, weaken gun regulations, and protect polluters.

“There are few things more urgent for the Senate to do than fill these open seats,” said Lipton-Lubet.

Why Americans can’t keep nice things

Across the United States, the Republican fascists and the larger white right are imposing Orwellian thought crime laws restricting free speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association and other fundamental civil and human rights. In practice, this means censoring books written by Black and brown people, women, members of the LGBTQ community, and other marginalized groups. Books and other knowledge that are deemed “un-patriotic” or “divisive” i.e., that tell the complex truth about American society in ways that challenge the powerful, are being removed. Teachers, librarians, and other educators who refuse to comply will be surveilled, harassed, threatened with violence, and fired from their jobs.

The right’s thought crime regime is not a “culture war,” as too many in the mainstream media and political class uncritically continue to describe it. In reality, the “culture war” is part of a much larger fascist revolutionary strategy to end multiracial pluralistic democracy by taking away the fundamental human and civil rights of those individuals and groups targeted as some type of enemy.

Thought crimes are an attempt to take away people’s capacity to correctly understand how power negatively impacts them and their future. Thought crimes also attempt to rob people of the capacity to resist and to even conceive of other possibilities for a better and more humane and just American democracy and society.

The Republican assault on public libraries, schools, and other such spaces is an attempt to destroy the very idea of “the commons,” meaning spaces, resources, and opportunities for participation, community and relationship-building that should be available to all people regardless of their ability to pay. This is part of a much longer campaign by the neoliberal gangster capitalists and the right-wing and conservative movement to financialize and profit-maximize all areas of private and public life to the detriment of human well-being, happiness, and survival. The right has targeted public libraries and other places of learning because they know that those spaces are critical for a healthy democracy.

Social theorist and author Henry Girioux, makes this intervention in a recent essay at TruthOut:

It’s clear that the far right GOP has deemed education to be the most powerful tool for creating a public that is neither informed nor willing to struggle to keep a democracy alive. This is particularly evident in the right-wing war on education, which aims at replacing public education with charter schools, fashioning public and higher education into centers of far right indoctrination, and destroying higher education as a democratic public good. Central to such an attack is a war on critical thinking, troubling knowledge, historical memory and any form of education that address social problems. Extremists in the GOP fully embrace both white nationalism and white supremacy while simultaneously supporting a culture and society in which the distinction between lies and the truth disappear. What they would also like to see disappear in their reign of domestic terrorism are the educators, institutions, and other public spaces that resist this ongoing tsunami of authoritarian ideas, acts of repression, and war on critical intellectuals, dissidents and educators.

Also at TruthOut, historian Barbara Ransby focuses on the example of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis:

In this way, DeSantis and his allies uphold the kind of indoctrination he claims to oppose. He stands in the tradition of the Nazis who burned books for fear that their antisemitic lies would be challenged in print. He stands in the tradition of the 1976-1983 Argentinian dictatorship that jailed and exiled dissident professors and killed their students. He stands in the tradition of Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has purged, jailed or exiled over 100,000 educators and intellectuals because they wrote and taught ideas he saw as a political threat. DeSantis’s dangerous actions are textbook proto-fascist measures. His militant opposition to any teaching of the Black freedom struggle is also reminiscent of the South African apartheid regime’s book banning and curricular and speaker censorship, which limited the circulation of ideas that could undermine the legitimacy of an unjust system.

In failing democracies and other societies in crisis, intellectual violence and physical violence work in tandem. It is not a coincidence that the Age of Trump is typified by fascist violence including a coup attempt, mass shootings that have targeted gays and lesbians and transgendered people, and white supremacist terrorist attacks on Black and brown people in places such as Buffalo and El Paso.

As the German poet Heinrich Heine so prophetically and tragically warned, “Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too.”

Thought crimes are an attempt to take away people’s capacity to correctly understand how power negatively impacts them and their future.

The Republican fascists and the larger white right and “conservative” movement know that their ideas and policies are unpopular with the American people as a whole. Because they cannot win in “the marketplace of ideas,” their new solution is mass censorship by defunding and shutting down public libraries and other spaces of learning. This is the raw application of naked political power to achieve one’s goals.

To that point, last week Republicans in the Missouri House of Representatives voted to defund all that state’s public libraries as a way of imposing thought crime laws that ban books on topics they deem to be “obscene” or some other Orwellian thought crime euphemism.

PBS NewsHour reports on the real world impacts of Republicans’ move: 

Beyond internet, libraries have historically provided analog services that existed long before fiber optics, such as passport services, free concerts and assistance with voter registration. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, some branches expanded their offerings to include distribution of masks and test kits, and vaccine clinics.

Jon Karlen, a resident of St. Charles County, whose more than 400,000 residents are represented by Republican legislators, told the NewsHour that book bans and library funding cuts in the state feels like an effort to control distribution of information, which, he said, would hurt the state’s most vulnerable residents in the end….

Otter Bowman, president of the Missouri Library Association ,said beyond basic services, “the physical buildings become either a cool space or a warm space for our unhoused population, depending on the weather.”…

Gentry County, located 90 miles north of Kansas City, is home to a little over 6,000 people, many of whom, like residents in other rural parts of the state, rely heavily on their libraries for internet access, Garrett said.

In Missouri, 20 percent of the population – more than 1.26 million people — do not have high-speed internet access. Nearly 34 percent of Missouri’s population live in rural parts of the state, where this kind of access can be harder to come by. Libraries provide a lifeline to this service, among others.

One of the most important roles of libraries in a time of democratic crisis is how they provide fuel for thinking beyond mere survival by presenting alternative and better possibilities for one’s future, life, relationships, and community. As Tamara King, who lives in St. Charles County Missouri, told PBS NewsHour, “You start by taking away small things, right? And then you do that, you gain your support and then you go for the jugular, right? So that’s what they did. They took away everything. Now, where are these kids supposed to go and learn and have those activities that involve books?”

“Books create imagination.”


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


The attempts by the Republican fascists and their forces to take away access to public services and public goods and other public resources and opportunities as a way of undermining and ending real democracy is not new. It is part of a much older pattern of antisocial and antidemocracy behavior in America where White Americans have historically (and to the present) opposed public programs that they thought would benefit Black and brown people and other “undeserving” groups – even if those programs also benefitted White Americans, often disproportionately.

Specifically, during the Jim and Jane Crow white terror regime in the South and across America, white communities would close public pools, public schools, and public libraries in order to prevent Black and brown people from using them. Many of those same policies would continue in the decades afterward under the justification of “law and order” and “austerity” and ending “big government” and “wasteful spending.”

In failing democracies and other societies in crisis, intellectual violence and physical violence work in tandem.

Beyond Jim and Jane Crow, white supremacy in its many contemporary forms (including colorblind racism and white racial resentment) has played an outsized role in why the United States does not have publicly funded healthcare, robust unemployment insurance, affordable housing programs, and a strong social safety net and social democracy more broadly.  

The COVID pandemic and the economic and human disaster it caused highlighted, once again, the extreme levels of wealth and income inequality in America and how tens of millions of Americans are literally one paycheck away from homelessness. Many white Americans would learn that accessing basic humanitarian aid such as food stamps, housing assistance, and affordable healthcare was very difficult if not impossible. Why? Because those same public services had, for decades, been systematically gutted by white elites (with the support of white voters) out of a fear that “lazy” Black and brown people and “illegal immigrants” and other “takers not makers” would use them.

In the end, the American people cannot have nice things because the same right-wing forces that are trying to censor books, close libraries, and harass teachers and other educators for being “unpatriotic” and “divisive” also want to keep the American public in a collective state of economic immiseration and precarity, fear, loneliness, and rage at the wrong people.

Judge blasts Trump’s last-minute attempt to delay rape trial — and suggests more legal woes ahead

A federal judge on Monday rejected former President Donald Trump’s bid to delay the civil rape and defamation trial against him.

Trump’s attorney last week asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan to postpone the trial in a lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll, a longtime magazine columnist who accused Trump of raping her at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, which the former president denied.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina argued in a letter to Kaplan that there should be a “cooling off” period after the former president’s criminal indictment in Manhattan, citing a media frenzy.

Kaplan in a 10-page opinion on Monday rejected the effort and said the media circus was of Trump’s own making.

“There is no justification for an adjournment,” Kaplan wrote.

“This case is entirely unrelated to the state prosecution,” the judge explained. “The suggestion that the recent media coverage of the New York indictment — coverage significantly (though certainly not entirely) invited or provoked by Mr. Trump’s own actions — would preclude selection of a fair and impartial jury on April 25 is pure speculation. So too is his suggestion that a month’s delay of the start of this trial would ‘cool off’ anything, even if any ‘cooling off’ were necessary.”

Kaplan added that “at least some portion” of the media coverage around Trump’s indictment was “of his own doing.”

“It does not sit well for Mr. Trump to promote pretrial publicity and then to claim that coverage that he promoted was prejudicial to him and should be taken into account as supporting a further delay,” Kaplan wrote, adding that Trump had “failed to show” any justification for a postponement and suggested there is a “possibility that this latest eve-of-trial request for a postponement is a delay tactic” by Trump.

Kaplan noted that Carroll is 79 years old and has had her case pending for three years. She “is entitled to her day in court just as both parties are entitled to a fair trial,” the judge wrote.


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


Kaplan added that it is “quite important to remember [also] that postponements in circumstances such as this are not necessarily unmixed blessings from the standpoint of a defendant who is hoping for the dissipation of what he regards, or says he regards, as negative publicity. Events happen during postponements. Sometimes they can make matters worse,” an apparent suggestion that Trump could face more legal woes in the weeks to come.

The former president also faces special counsel Jack Smith’s probes into the Mar-a-Lago documents case and Jan. 6, as well as a Fulton County, Ga., investigation into his efforts to overturn his 2020 loss in the state. He also faces a $250 million civil lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James over an alleged yearslong fraud scheme by his companies.

The trial in Carroll’s case is set to begin on April 25.

“Judges all over the place are finally coming down on Trump with iron fists,” tweeted reporter Jose Pagliery, who covers Trump’s legal issues for The Daily Beast. “The theme is usually the same: You caused your own hell, Mr. Trump.”

It’s been a place of worship for centuries. Now a copper mine threatens its future

For nearly a decade, tribal leaders in Arizona have fought to save Oak Flat – a sacred site central to the religious practices of the San Carlos Apache and other Indigenous nations connected to the area. Now, the site’s fate rests with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who is weighing whether mining copper in the area, and effectively destroying the site, violates the religious rights of local Indigenous peoples. 

Religious groups including: Seventh-day Adventists, the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Christian Legal Society, Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and the Sikh Coalition, have banded together to support the Apache and filed briefs as part of their advocacy.

Located about 40 miles from Phoenix, Oak Flat sits atop the third-largest deposit of copper ore in the world. In 2014, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake authored legislation to transfer Oak Flat from Tonto National Forest to Resolution Copper, a British-Australian company owned by Rio Tinto and BHP. For nearly a decade, tribal leaders have fought to keep the ceremonial grounds free from mining projects and other disturbances.

The company, which is known to mine iron ore, copper, lithium, aluminum and other materials, has previously been accused of desecrating Indigenous lands. In 2020, the mining company destroyed Juukan Gorge, a 46,000 year-old Aboriginal heritage site in Australia. Rio Tinto’s mining of copper and gold in the Oyu Tolgoi mine in Mongolia have also raised concerns with local herdsmen. The company says the copper at Oak Flat will be used for electric vehicles, smartphones and MRI scanners.

Oak Flat has been used as a religious site to connect Indigenous peoples to their Creator, faith, families and natural world since before colonization and European contact, said Wendsler Nosie, the former chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the head of Apache Stronghold to the Arizona Republic.

“While we cherish different religious convictions, we are united in our commitment to defend religious freedom. This case holds implications beyond its effect on Native American Worship,” one brief contained.

According to the Arizona Republic, Rio Tinto says mining at Oak Flat would bring 3,700 jobs and $1 billion annually to Arizona’s economy.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/indigenous/its-been-a-place-of-worship-for-centuries-now-a-copper-mine-threatens-its-future/.

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

Let’s all stop pretending anyone but Trump will be the GOP presidential nominee

It appears nothing will derail the mainstream media fantasy that the 2024 Republican presidential primary contest is going to be competitive — and that Donald Trump may even lose to one of his younger challengers.

“DeSantis super PAC strafes Trump in first TV ad,” triumphed a headline at Axios over an article that promised “a vicious fight between” Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis and Trump.

“Trump or DeSantis? Democrats aren’t sure who they’d rather see Biden face in 2024,” reads a headline at NBC News, which misleadingly implies that Democrats have any say in a contest solely decided by Republican voters.

“Trump’s flat fundraising and Haley’s big donors,” declared an NBC News headline, suggesting former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley’s campaign could give Trump a run for his money.

“Tim Scott Goes Positive and Hopes His Party Will Come Along,” read The New York Times’ glowing profile of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott

The last one is an especially perfect example of how misleading this coverage is. Not only is it wrong to suggest Scott has a snowball’s chance in the hell that is the GOP primary, but it’s also flat-out untrue that there’s anything “positive” about his campaign. Scott’s speeches are the same bleak right-wing lies you’ll hear from any Republican politician, accusing Democrats of wishing to “replace law and order with fear and chaos” and “getting communities hooked on the drug of victimhood.” But the mainstream media is just that desperate to believe that Republicans are ready to leave behind Trump and his apocalyptic and hateful style of politics. Journalists who really should know better are trying to will a fresh and less depressing GOP into existence. 


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


Well, it’s not going to work. Not only are all these “new” Republicans molding themselves into the MAGA image of angry culture warriors, but they are all also going to fail miserably to unseat Trump. All this talk about new blood is interesting to the mainstream press and their mostly non-Republican audiences, but it fails to understand what motivates most Republican voters, especially those who vote in primaries. They don’t want fresh faces, or anything resembling change. The whole point of being MAGA is bitterly clinging to an imaginary past, and rejecting any reminder that time is marching on past the stale reactionary politics of people, like Trump, who haven’t updated their worldviews since the 80s. 

The mainstream media is just that desperate to believe that Republicans are ready to leave behind Trump and his apocalyptic and hateful style of politics.

It’s silly to imagine any of these younger candidates can give Trump a run for his money in the GOP primary.

Haley got some good press by bragging about raising $11 million in 6 weeks. Turns out the real number was closer to $8 million. Scott can’t get much attention at all, except when he’s bumbling an answer about abortion. And the more people see DeSantis, the less they like him, as his plummeting poll numbers and increasingly dry fundraising apparatus show. Realistically, the polls are where they have been for a couple of years: Trump is the frontrunner in the GOP primary race and no one else is close. That isn’t going to change. 

The press struggles to understand this, for a sympathetic reason: It continues to be hard to understand why Republican voters prefer Trump.  For one thing, Trump is a criminal and his legal situation is likely to get worse, making him even more poisonous to those general election voters that Republicans supposedly want to win over. But also, Trump’s clownish behavior has only grown worse since he left office in disgrace. He rambles incoherently on a good day, telling bizarre stories that he obviously made up, such as all the municipal workers supposedly weeping uncontrollably at his arraignment. Even when you can figure out what the hell he’s talking about, he’s invariably whining. He also just seems tired and cranky all the time, like he needs a nap more than he needs another campaign event. 

Journalists who really should know better are trying to will a fresh and less depressing GOP into existence. 

Perhaps, however, it’s not that voters are overlooking how Trump is a miserable grump, it is exactly his appeal. The MAGA community is a bunch of people who are consumed with an obsessive anger that the world just keeps on changing without their permission. That’s why all the focus is on banning books and harassing drag shows. It’s a bunch of angry, mostly elderly people who cannot believe that time is allowed to keep marching on. So they want to punish the youth for the crime of being young.


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


Cranky, tired, whiny Trump is a perfect avatar for MAGA. It’s not a movement that wants to turn a page or move into the future. They are people who want to join Trump in spending the rest of their days yelling at the kids to get off their lawn. Even DeSantis, who is willing to channel that vengeful old man energy, will invariably fall short. He has prematurely aged himself, but he’s still in his 40s. There’s always an outside chance he once enjoyed a hip-hop tune. Why take that risk? They can have Trump, who is authentically angry that architectural styles weren’t frozen at the time of his birth in 1946

Thankfully, Trump’s grumpy old man act is a liability in a general election. It’s also clear that most of his voters don’t care that he’s unpopular. On the contrary, that’s also part of his appeal. They hate the rest of us, and inflicting Trump on us is seen as an act of revenge. 

Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall got frustrated with the press over the weekend for continuing to bamboozle folks about the real nature of the GOP presidential nomination contest.

Perhaps this seems like an overreaction. You may wonder what the harm is, if the press overhypes the chance of a competitive GOP primary. You may even tell yourself it’s no different than when sports journalists embellish the possibility of an underdog victory to drum up excitement about a game people might not otherwise watch. 

Politics is not sports, in that the stakes are far higher, even when discussing a presidential primary. When the press hypes the idea of a non-Trump challenger pulling ahead, they are misleading the public about the nature of the GOP. They’re concealing how rigid, reactionary, and hateful MAGA Americans are. Defeating this nasty and fascist movement depends on seeing them for who they are: Sour people who love Trump because he reflects their ugliness back to them. Republicans have always intended to keep Trump as the head of their party because he’s how they will punish the rest of us for wanting to move on past their narrow-minded bigotry. 

First Amendment history hurts Fox News: How precedent helps Dominion’s lawsuit

If no settlement can be reached in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, the ensuing trial will prove to be one of the most important in the history of First Amendment law. On Sunday, the start of the trial was delayed by 24 hours, and reports of a possible settlement spread. 

Defamation cases are notoriously difficult to win against media outlets because the plaintiffs must prove both that a claim was false and that it was made with “actual malice” — that is, either “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” In this case, a number of factors favor Dominion. First, because Fox News’ claims that Dominion had rigged the 2020 election against then-President Donald Trump were false, as with the other tenets of the Big Lie, Davis ruled that Dominion only needs to prove that Fox News acted with “actual malice.” Second, there is a wealth of evidence that the key figures at Fox News knew that their public accusations against Dominion were false, yet made them despite that knowledge to please their audience. Finally, Fox News has already been scolded by the judge for withholding important information about the title of board member Rupert Murdoch.

It is easy, amidst the high drama of a landmark free speech case, to lose sight of how we got where we are. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” So what does it mean to “abridg[e] the freedom of… the press”? How can courts and policymakers remain faithful to the Constitution while protecting those who may be wronged by a dishonest or corrupt media outlet?

In this case, a number of factors favor Dominion.

Below are some key cases from American history that either have helped shape how that question is answered — or which help illustrate the nuances of First Amendment law.

01
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

When Salon reached out to Leonard M. Niehoff, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who specializes in the First Amendment, he replied that “it’s tempting to answer your question not by citing three cases but by suggesting reading Sullivan three times. The decision casts a lot of light on the Dominion case.”

 

Niehoff is alluding to New York Times Co. v. Sullivana landmark Supreme Court decision that simultaneously protected America’s free press and stopped white supremacists from using frivolous litigation to silence their critics. The case’s roots can be traced back to 1960 when The New York Times ran a full-page piece by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s supporters that criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama for engaging in racist violence against civil rights protesters. White supremacists often responded to critical newspaper coverage by filing frivolous defamation lawsuits, usually by nitpicking an article’s factual errors and suing to intimidate publishers into not running pro-civil rights content.

 

On this occasion, however, the wealthy right-wingers who lined up to back Montgomery police commissioner L. B. Sullivan’s intimidatory litigation found their money was wasted. Despite winning early trials due to pro-Southern audiences that were openly hostile to civil rights — first in an Alabama jury trial, then with the Supreme Court of Alabama — the segregationists were shocked when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against them in 1964. It found that in order to sustain a defamatory accusation, the plaintiffs must prove that the claim was false and that the individual(s) making it did so with either “actual malice” or recklessly.


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


“Consider: Sullivan seeks to create room for the media to make good faith mistakes when telling important stories,” Niehoff explained. “Is this a case of good faith mistakes? Were these journalists trying to get the story right but getting it wrong for understandable reasons? Or is this a different kind of case altogether?”

 

Niehoff also noted that, as with Sullivanthe Dominion case is also a microcosm of where America is at this point in its history. “Sullivan had its origins in the civil rights movement and recognized the threat that southern officials would weaponize libel cases to resist it,” Niehoff wrote to Salon. “Sullivan is a case about a great social struggle and the role of the media in advancing it. The Dominion case has its origins in a lie about an election outcome. It is a case about a great fraud, where the plaintiff claims the media helped perpetuate it. One can appropriately wonder what the Dominion case says about where we’ve strayed to as a society.”

02
Ginzburg v. Goldwater (1970)
This is a situation where, although a court case did not directly set a legal precedent, it set a chill through an entire industry as effectively as if the court had ordered it.
 
Ginzburg v. Goldwater began when 1964 Republican presidential nominee sued Fact magazine for running an article surveying psychiatrists and concluding that he was mentally unfit for the presidency. A jury ultimately agreed with Goldwater that Fact had defamed him by claiming that it had proved he was psychologically incapable of being president, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) went one step further: It issued the so-called “Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from publicly diagnosing public officials unless they have also personally treated them. Some experts argue this was unjust both to psychiatrists and to the American public that needs their insights.
 
“A psychiatrically-impaired POTUS is capable of doing so much harm,” Dr. David Reiss, a psychiatrist and expert in mental fitness evaluations who along with Lee contributed to the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” told Salon. “In my opinion, it is irresponsible for mental health professionals not to inform the public and initiate discussion regarding concerns based upon objective facts (not speculation).”

 

03
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
When former US military analyst Daniel Ellsberg published The Pentagon Papers in 1971, he blew the lid off of the American government’s longstanding policy of dissimulating with the public about the Vietnam War. Yet the act of publishing a classified government report that revealed American errors in warmaking also, not surprisingly, upset the United States government. In this Supreme Court case, the bench had to rule whether freedom of the press included the ability to publish information that the government insisted must be kept secret.
 
In his concurring opinion, Justice Hugo Black laid out the reasons why the courts must err on the side of allowing the press to criticize the state:
 
“The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government,” Black explained. “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

 

04
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc (1974)

“The decision is a bit of a libel buffet, offering up lots of principles that are somewhat disconnected from each other,” Niehoff told Salon about the Gertz decision. “But it seems to me possible that the case’s approach to damages and other issues could prove important [to Dominion].”

 

The story behind Gertz begins in 1968, when a lawyer named Elmer Gertz decided to represent the family of Ronald Nelson, who had been gunned down by Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio. Because Nuccio was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder, Nelson’s family was suing him for damages. The John Birch Society opposed Gertz’s advocacy, however, and falsely published that he was actually working for Communist front organizations as part of a conspiracy to destroy America’s police force. They also falsely claimed that Gertz had rigged the trial to get Nuccio’s conviction and that he himself had a criminal record. Gertz sued American Opinion (the publication which advanced these Bircher ideas) and, although he won a jury verdict and $50,000 award, lost his libel suit because a judge found he had not proved “actual malice.” The Supreme Court later affirmed the lower court’s ruling. As a result, America does not apply the standard of “strict liability” (holding someone accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of their intentions) in defamation cases.

 

05
Harte-Hanks Communs. v. Connaughton (1989)

As the Gertz case helps illustrate, one of the key variables in determining whether defamation occurred is ascertaining the presence or absence of “actual malice.” While the courts found that Gertz did not meet that standard, the same was not true for Daniel Connaughton, a candidate for Hamilton, Ohio Municipal Judge in 1983. When it looked like Connaughton was going to win the election because the incumbent’s Director of Court Services was arrested on bribery charges, a local newspaper owned by Harte-Hanks Communications that supported the incumbent decided to change that. Soon they ran a front-page story that falsely accused Connaughton of orchestrating the arrest through “dirty tricks.” Among other things, it dishonestly stated that Connaughton had offered a member of the grand jury bribes in exchange for her assistance with the investigation. Connaughton sued Harte-Hanks and won both in a district court and in a Court of Appeals, as the evidence proved Harte-Hanks had intentionally published something false in order to harm Connaughton’s reputation — a clear example of “actual malice.”

 

When Niehoff was asked to list important First Amendment cases, he made a point of singling Connaughton.

 

“There, the Supreme Court clarified the kinds of evidence that can show the presence of actual malice,” Niehoff told Salon. “It turns out that the evidence looks a fair amount like the same sort of evidence a plaintiff would use in a simple negligence case. The actual malice standard provides important protection, but, once you get to trial, it’s probably less protection than is generally understood. The case also clarifies how appellate courts should review adverse jury verdicts, which may ultimately be a factor here.”

 

06
Aequitron Medical, Inc. v. CBS, INC. (1997)
When CBS News ran a segment in 1989 about infant heart rate and respiration monitors, they probably didn’t imagine that they’d be discussing that news story in court eight years later. Yet the company Aequitron was not happy about the segment, accusing CBS News of making a number of false statements about their company and the tests CBS News had used to determine that they were faulty. As in the Sullivan case, the underlying issue here was whether a number of smaller alleged factual errors in the original CBS News story added up to defamatory. Citing precedent – and, in particular, the need for Aequitron to prove actual malice — the United States Southern District Court of New York ultimately dismissed the case. More than anything else, the decision was based on the fact that many of the story’s claims were substantially true and that Aequitron was a public figure open to criticism.
 
“In the present case, it is undisputed that Aequitron is a corporate plaintiff and that CBS is a media defendant,” the judge ruled. “The defamatory material is a matter of legitimate public interest, as it affects the health and well-being of babies and is subject to federal regulation. Thus, the actual malice standard applies.”
 

 

07
Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey (1998)
In another case that involved public health questions, Oprah Winfrey was sued by four ranching families and their cattle companies for a 1996 story about mad cow disease. In particular, the families were upset that Winfrey had declared that she would never eat another hamburger, with the companies arguing that beef prices plummeted as a result of her declaration. Yet her program never mentioned Texas or the Amarillo plaintiffs; it instead reported how nearly 10 people in Britain had died from the dangerous virus. Instead the lawsuit was brought to court as a test of a so-called “veggie libel” law in Texas. Starting in the 1990s, nearly a dozen states passed laws rendering it illegal to publicly make false statements about the safety of food, with Texas joining the parade in 1995. According to then-agriculture commissioner Rick Perry at the time, “The economic livelihood of our beef producers is at stake, and I trust agriculture can count on the attorney general’s office to enforce the laws of the state of Texas.”
 
At the last second, however, the judge presiding over the case decided that the “veggie libel” law could not be applied in this case, forcing the plaintiffs to instead prove defamation under normal criteria instead of merely needing to prove financial losses. This was all that Oprah needed to prevail.

 

Corporate landlords reap big profits as rents in many U.S. cities soar by double digits

Three months after the Biden administration unveiled a non-binding “Blueprint for Renters Bill of Rights” that was applauded by corporate landlords for doing little to rein in unfair rent increases and evictions, a new report by the government watchdog group Accountable.US showed on Monday that those same property owners reaped enormous profits in 2022 as they demanded more of their tenants’ incomes in rent and excessive fees.

The group found that the six biggest property management companies in the U.S. — Starwood Property Trust, Mid-America Apartment Communities (MAA), Invitation Homes, AvalonBay Communities Inc., AMH and Tricon Residential — brought in $4.3 billion in net income last year, an increase of more than $1.3 billion from 2021.

That financial windfall came as the companies were raising rents and engaging in what Accountable.US called “abusive tactics” to evict people, in some cases after they had applied for rental assistance.

Starwood Property Trust increased rent by 30% or more at some of its thousands of properties in 2022 and saw its net income skyrocket by 115% to more than $1 billion, $591 million of which it spent on dividend payments to shareholders.

AMH and Tricon Residential credited their “pricing power” and “strong rent growth” for helping them secure $310 million and nearly $780 million in net income last year, respectively. The former company recorded a 47% increase while the latter’s income grew by 70%.

MAA also reported that “higher fee income” and “continued growth in average rent per unit” were behind the ballooning of its net income, which grew by nearly 19% to more than $654 million.

“This is egregious,” said tenants’ rights organizer René Christian Moya of the report’s findings.

Four of the companies included in the Accountable.US report are members of the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), which celebrated the omission of national rent control measures in the renter protections that President Biden proposed in January, while also claiming that the proposal’s recommended regulations would be too “onerous” on landlords and would “discourage much-needed investments in housing supply.”

Part of the companies’ financial windfall was driven not by rent increases but by fees the landlords have piled on top of rent, including late fees and extra charges for “smart locks,” pets and using online systems to pay rent.

“Corporate landlords ‘squeeze more revenues from portfolios’ by charging a range of ‘ancillary’ fees, resulting in ‘fee revenue vastly outpacing rental growth,'” said Accountable.US.


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


Invitation Homes is one landlord that’s been accused in the past of “fee-stacking” by tenants who filed a class-action lawsuit in 2018 — all while providing tenants with homes where they face “leaky pipes, vermin, toxic mold, nonfunctioning appliances and months-long waits for repairs,” according to the report.

The record profits, dividend spending and poor service of the six companies, said Accountable.US — in addition to shelter costs rising by a “striking” 8.6% overall in the consumer price index last month — demonstrate that “aggressive interest rate hikes” imposed by the Federal Reserve “have done little to deter profiteering from corporate landlords.”

The group called on Congress to work with the Biden administration to “stabilize runaway housing costs,” for example by passing legislation proposed by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Grace Meng, D-N.Y., last month which would invest $200 billion in affordable housing, or a bill introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., to end rent-gouging by corporate landlords.

“The nation’s largest landlords have shown their burdensome rent hikes are based on greed, not need, after reporting billions of dollars in higher profits over the last year,” said Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US’ Economic Security and Corporate Power program. “These companies fueling the housing affordability crisis are among many corporations across industries that have shamelessly profiteered, undeterred by the Fed’s repeated interest rate hikes.”

“Higher interest rates have not curbed inflation sufficiently and have done nothing to combat corporate greed,” Zelnick added, “and instead are causing severe economic consequences for everyday Americans, from lower wages to lost jobs.”

Spurring an endless arms race: The Pentagon girds for mid-century wars

Why is the Pentagon budget so high?

On March 13th, the Biden administration unveiled its $842 billion military budget request for 2024, the largest ask (in today’s dollars) since the peaks of the Afghan and Iraq wars. And mind you, that’s before the hawks in Congress get their hands on it. Last year, they added $35 billion to the administration’s request and, this year, their add-on is likely to prove at least that big. Given that American forces aren’t even officially at war right now (if you don’t count those engaged in counter-terror operations in Africa and elsewhere), what explains so much military spending?

The answer offered by senior Pentagon officials and echoed in mainstream Washington media coverage is that this country faces a growing risk of war with Russia or China (or both of them at once) and that the lesson of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is the need to stockpile vast numbers of bombs, missiles, and other munitions. “Pentagon, Juggling Russia, China, Seeks Billions for Long-Range Weapons” was a typical headline in the Washington Post about that 2024 budget request. Military leaders are overwhelmingly focused on a potential future conflict with either or both of those powers and are convinced that a lot more money should be spent now to prepare for such an outcome, which means buying extra tanks, ships, and planes, along with all the bombs, shells, and missiles they carry.

Even a quick look at the briefing materials for that future budget confirms such an assessment. Many of the billions of dollars being tacked onto it are intended to procure exactly the items you would expect to use in a war with those powers in the late 2020s or 2030s. Aside from personnel costs and operating expenses, the largest share of the proposed budget — $170 billion or 20% — is allocated for purchasing just such hardware.

But while preparations for such wars in the near future drive a significant part of that increase, a surprising share of it — $145 billion, or 17% — is aimed at possible conflicts in the 2040s and 2050s. Believing that our “strategic competition” with China is likely to persist for decades to come and that a conflict with that country could erupt at any moment along that future trajectory, the Pentagon is requesting its largest allocation ever for what’s called “research, development, test, and evaluation” (RDT&E), or the process of converting the latest scientific discoveries into weapons of war.

To put this in perspective, that $145 billion is more than any other country except what China spends on defense in toto and constitutes approximately half of China’s full military budget. So what’s that staggering sum of money, itself only a modest part of this country’s military budget, intended for?

Some of it, especially the “T&E” part, is designed for futuristic upgrades of existing weapons systems. For example, the B-52 bomber — at 70, the oldest model still flying — is being retrofitted to carry experimental AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapons (ARRWs), or advanced hypersonic missiles. But much of that sum, especially the “R&D” part, is aimed at developing weapons that may not see battlefield use until decades in the future, if ever. Spending on such systems is still only in the millions or low billions, but it will certainly balloon into the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in the years to come, ensuring that future Pentagon budgets soar into the trillions.

Weaponizing Emerging Technologies

Driving the Pentagon’s increased focus on future weapons development is the assumption that China and Russia will remain major adversaries for decades to come and that future wars with those, or other major powers, could largely be decided by the mastery of artificial intelligence (AI) along with other emerging technologies. Those would include robotics, hypersonics (projectiles that fly at more than five times the speed of sound), and quantum computing. As the Pentagon’s 2024 budget request put it:

“An increasing array of fast-evolving technologies and innovative applications of existing technology complicates the [Defense] Department’s ability to maintain an edge in combat credibility and deterrence. Newer capabilities such as counterspace weapons, hypersonic weapons, new and emerging payload and delivery systems… all create a heightened potential… for shifts in perceived deterrence of U.S. military power.”

To ensure that this country can overpower Chinese and/or Russian forces in any conceivable encounter, top officials insist, Washington must focus on investing in a major way in the advanced technologies likely to dominate future battlefields. Accordingly, $17.8 billion of that $145 billion RDT&E budget will be directly dedicated to military-related science and technology development. Those funds, the Pentagon explains, will be used to accelerate the weaponization of artificial intelligence and speed the growth of other emerging technologies, especially robotics, autonomous (or “unmanned”) weapons systems, and hypersonic missiles.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is of particular interest to the Department of Defense, given its wide range of potential military uses, including target identification and assessment, enhanced weapons navigation and targeting systems, and computer-assisted battlefield decision-making. Although there’s no total figure for AI research and development offered in the unclassified version of the 2024 budget, certain individual programs are highlighted. One of these is the Joint All-Domain Command-and-Control system (JADC2), an AI-enabled matrix of sensors, computers, and communications devices intended to collect and process data on enemy movements and convey that information at lightning speed to combat forces in every “domain” (air, sea, ground, and space). At $1.3 billion, JADC2 may not be “the biggest number in the budget,” said Under Secretary of Defense Michael J. McCord, but it constitutes “a very central organizing concept of how we’re trying to link information together.”

AI is also essential for the development of — and yes, nothing seems to lack an acronym in Pentagon documents — autonomous weapons systems, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), and unmanned surface vessels (USVs). Such devices — far more bluntly called “killer robots” by their critics — typically combine a mobile platform of some sort (plane, tank, or ship), an onboard “kill mechanism” (gun or missile), and an ability to identify and attack targets with minimal human oversight. Believing that the future battlefield will become ever more lethal, Pentagon officials aim to replace as many of its crewed platforms as possible — think ships, planes, and artillery — with advanced UAVs, UGVs, and USVs.

The 2024 budget request doesn’t include a total dollar figure for research on future unmanned weapons systems but count on one thing: it will come to many billions of dollars. The budget does indicate that $2.2 billion is being sought for the early procurement of MQ-4 and MQ-25 unmanned aerial vehicles, and such figures are guaranteed to swell as experimental robotic systems move into large-scale production. Another $200 million was requested to design a large USV, essentially a crewless frigate or destroyer. Once prototype vessels of this type have been built and tested, the Navy plans to order dozens, perhaps hundreds of them, instantly creating a $100 billion-plus market for a naval force lacking the usual human crew.

Another area receiving extensive Pentagon attention is hypersonics, because such projectiles will fly so fast and maneuver with such skill (while skimming atop the atmosphere’s outer layer) that they should be essentially impossible to track and intercept. Both China and Russia already possess rudimentary weapons of this type, with Russia reportedly firing some of its hypersonic Kinzhal missiles into Ukraine in recent months.

As the Pentagon put it in its budget request:

“Hypersonic systems expand our ability to hold distant targets at risk, dramatically shorten the timeline to strike a target, and their maneuverability increases survivability and unpredictability. The Department will accelerate fielding of transformational capability enabled by air, land, and sea-based hypersonic strike weapon systems to overcome the challenges to our future battlefield domain dominance.”

Another 14% of the RDT&E request, or about $2.5 billion, is earmarked for research in even more experimental fields like quantum computing and advanced microelectronics. “The Department’s science and technology investments are underpinned by early-stage basic research,” the Pentagon explains. “Payoff for this research may not be evident for years, but it is critical to ensuring our enduring technological advantage in the decades ahead.” As in the case of AI, autonomous weapons, and hypersonics, these relatively small amounts (by Pentagon standards) will balloon in the years ahead as initial discoveries are applied to functioning weapons systems and procured in ever larger quantities.

Harnessing American Tech Talent for Long-Term War Planning

There’s one consequence of such an investment in RDT&E that’s almost too obvious to mention. If you think the Pentagon budget is sky high now, just wait! Future spending, as today’s laboratory concepts are converted into actual combat systems, is likely to stagger the imagination. And that’s just one of the significant consequences of such a path to permanent military superiority. To ensure that the United States continues to dominate research in the emerging technologies most applicable to future weaponry, the Pentagon will seek to harness an ever-increasing share of this country’s scientific and technological resources for military-oriented work.

This, in turn, will mean capturing an ever-larger part of the government’s net R&D budget at the expense of other national priorities. In 2022, for example, federal funding for non-military R&D (including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) represented only about 33% of R&D spending. If the 2024 military budget goes through at the level requested (or higher), that figure for non-military spending will drop to 31%, a trend only likely to strengthen in the future as more and more resources are devoted to war preparation, leaving an ever-diminishing share of taxpayer funding for research on vital concerns like cancer prevention and treatment, pandemic response, and climate change adaptation.

No less worrisome, ever more scientists and engineers will undoubtedly be encouraged — not to say, prodded — to devote their careers to military research rather than work in more peaceable fields. While many scientists struggle for grants to support their work, the Department of Defense (DoD) offers bundles of money to those who choose to study military-related topics. Typically enough, the 2024 request includes $347 million for what the military is now calling the University Research Initiative, most of which will be used to finance the formation of “teams of researchers across disciplines and across geographic boundaries to focus on DoD-specific hard science problems.” Another $200 million is being allocated to the Joint University Microelectronics Program by the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, the Pentagon’s R&D outfit, while $100 million is being provided to the University Consortium for Applied Hypersonics by the Pentagon’s Joint Hypersonics Transition Office. With so much money flowing into such programs and the share devoted to other fields of study shrinking, it’s hardly surprising that scientists and graduate students at major universities are being drawn into the Pentagon’s research networks.

In fact, it’s also seeking to expand its talent pool by providing additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In January, for example, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced that Howard University in Washington, D.C., had been chosen as the first such school to serve as a university-affiliated research center by the Department of Defense, in which capacity it will soon be involved in work on autonomous weapons systems. This will, of course, provide badly needed money to scientists and engineers at that school and other HBCUs that may have been starved of such funding in the past. But it also begs the question: Why shouldn’t Howard receive similar amounts to study problems of greater relevance to the Black community like sickle-cell anemia and endemic poverty?

Endless Arms Races vs. Genuine Security

In devoting all those billions of dollars to research on next-generation weaponry, the Pentagon’s rationale is straightforward: spend now to ensure U.S. military superiority in the 2040s, 2050s, and beyond. But however persuasive this conceit may seem — even with all those mammoth sums of money pouring in — things rarely work out so neatly. Any major investment of this sort by one country is bound to trigger countermoves from its rivals, ensuring that any early technological advantage will soon be overcome in some fashion, even as the planet is turned into ever more of an armed camp.

The Pentagon’s development of precision-guided munitions, for example, provided American forces with an enormous military advantage during the Persian Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, but also prompted China, Iran, Russia, and other countries to begin developing similar weaponry, quickly diminishing that advantage. Likewise, China and Russia were the first to deploy combat-ready hypersonic weapons, but in response, the U.S. will be fielding a far greater array of them in a few years’ time.

Chinese and Russian advances in deploying hypersonics also led the U.S. to invest in developing — yes, you guessed it! — anti-hypersonic hypersonics, launching yet one more arms race on planet Earth, while boosting the Pentagon budget by additional billions. Given all this, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that the 2024 Pentagon budget request includes $209 million for the development of a hypersonic interceptor, only the first installment in costly development and procurement programs in the years to come in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow.

If you want to bet on anything, then here’s a surefire way to go: the Pentagon’s drive to achieve dominance in the development and deployment of advanced weaponry will lead not to supremacy but to another endless cycle of high-tech arms races that, in turn, will consume an ever-increasing share of this country’s wealth and scientific talent, while providing negligible improvements in national security. Rather than spending so much on future weaponry, we should all be thinking about enhanced arms control measures, global climate cooperation, and greater investment in non-military R&D.

If only…

Unions leveling Rutgers wealth pyramid from the bottom up

According to the tentative four-year deal brokered by Gov. Phil Murphy between Rutgers University and the unions on strike since Monday, adjunct professors will see a 43 percent pay increase and graduate worker a 33 percent bump in salary, that will be retroactive to July 2022 to when their last contract lapsed.

Citing an email sent out to students by Rutgers President, Jonathan Holloway, graduate students “would see their 10-month salaries increase to $40,000 over the course of the contract” with the minimum salary for postdoctoral fellows and associates rising by 27.9 percent, the New York Times reported.

The suspension of the strike for now, is great news for the 67,000 students at the Newark, New Brunswick and Camden campuses who were just weeks away from the end of spring semester.

While it’s always good news when collective action by workers moves the needle in their direction, it’s important to keep in mind that the dramatic double-digit gains where the result of years of abject neglect of this workforce that’s been exploited because they love what they do and care about humanity.

The Rutgers strike can’t be seen in isolation but as part of a massive national movement looking to counter the corporate takeover of higher education that’s helped to accelerate wealth inequality to historic levels. As was been demonstrated in last year’s six week long strike at the University of California, and several others around the country, the higher ed workers represent a new militancy informed by COVID.

For decades now, starting with President Ronald Reagan’s busting of PATCO, the air traffic controller union, American higher education has been morphing into a multi-billion pyramid scheme that’s shackled a generation in debt while paying out obscene salaries to coaches and administrators. It’s nominally tax-exempt, but deeply anchored in the “greed is good” philosophy of Milton Friedman.

THE PRECARIAT

Last year, in a study of faculty employment trends over a 20-year arc, the American Association of University Professors that over 53 percent of colleges had replaced tenure track positions with so called contingent, or adjunct slots, up dramatically from 17.2 percent of colleges surveyed in 2004.

In upbeat statements, the striking unions were generous in their praise of the role played by Governor Murphy and Rutgers University President Holloway for fleshing out the “framework” of the deal which remains conceptual and very much a work in progress.

Significant details need to be resolved like sick time/maternity leave policy as well as tenure protections for 1,300 members of Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences (AAUP-BHSNJ)

“What’s distinctive about these contract talks is that higher-paid tenured professors are refusing to go home with a deal that just serves their needs and say they will dig in their heels until part-time professors and graduate workers’ demands are met in a reasonable way,” observed Mary Ann Koruth in her comprehensive analysis for NorthJersey.com.

For several months, after their contract expired the Rutgers unions found they were spinning their wheels in talks with Holloway who had threatened to go to court to get an injunction to head off a strike, something Murphy wisely dissuaded him from doing.

“We are extremely pleased that we reached what we believe is the basis for a transformative contract for part-time faculty at Rutgers,” said Amy Higher, President, Adjunct Faculty Union (PTLFC), in a statement. “We deeply appreciate the Governor and his staff’s efforts to help us win gains for which we have been fighting for a long time: multi-semester appointments for hundreds of us, and significantly higher pay for all of us.”

“This framework sets a new standard. Our members have struck to transform higher education in the State of New Jersey and across this country,” said President of Rutgers AAUP-AFT Becky Givan. “The framework we have agreed to today sets in place unprecedented gains for contingent workers, graduate students, and our communities.”

The suspension of the strike is not just a big relief to the backpack set, but for Gov. Murphy. If the work stoppage had gone any longer national media outlets would have had reason to have started scratching below the “blue state” veneer.

THE PYRAMID

The awful truth is that thousands of Rutgers education workers struggled to make ends meet through the pandemic while Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway was offered a total compensation package well in excess of $1 million, which included an annual six figure bonus.

Of course, Holloway has all the other Master of the Universe perks like his 14,000 square foot presidential home as well as a chauffeured car for when he’s on Rutgers business. There’s also the opportunity for him to serve on a for-profit corporate board of directors and one that’s non-profit.

And yet, Holloway’s sweet deal pales in significance to what Rutgers is paying football coach Greg Schiano, who NJAdvance Media reported enjoys an eight year $32 million contract.

Last year, Rep. William Pascrell (D-Dist. 9) wrote Holloway to inquire “how the university’s lucrative athletics program is furthering the educational purposes for which Rutgers receives tax exemption.”

“Specifically, Rutgers reportedly agreed to pay its head football coach more than $32 million in basic compensation over eight years, while still owing its former coach $7.5 million through the 2022 season,” Pascrell wrote. “In addition to being the highest-paid state employee in New Jersey history, the head coach also receives a car stipend, a clothing budget, a country club membership, a private box at all home games plus 20 premium-level tickets, personal use of private planes for recruiting purposes, and other perks.”

Pascrell continued. “It is unclear how such lucrative compensation contracts further the overall educational mission of Rutgers and benefit your student body as a whole. These contracts also present a stark contrast to the benefits received by the university’s student-athletes, whose grants-in-aid each semester pale in comparison to their coaches’ compensation.”

According to NJAdvance Media’s Johnathan Salant and James Kratch, “Schiano took a 10 percent pay cut in 2020 amid the pandemic while “Rutgers athletics reported a record $73.3 million deficit and spent $118.4 million to fund the athletics department in the most recent fiscal year, according to a ledger filed with the NCAA.”

“University officials said there was a net loss of $26 million from their projected budget due to COVID-19 testing and safety expenditures, as well as a steep decline in arena and stadium revenues because fans could not attend events during most of the 2020-21 academic year,” according to the newspaper.

HALF A BILLION

NJ Advance reported that a comprehensive review of the program’s books since 2003-04 “showed the athletics department’s deficit to be $556.9 million.”

Meanwhile, over at the Rutgers University’s endowment, that’s supposed to help defray the costs of university’s operations, they were doubling down on relying on high-risk, high-fee hedge funds.

In an article headlined “Rutgers Puts Wall Street Before Teachers” , The Lever’s Matthew Cunningham-Cook reported that  Rutgers “pumped more than $246 million, or 12.6 percent, of its $1.9 billion endowment investments into high-risk, high-fee hedge funds in just the past two years. The amount that the university has invested in hedge funds has more than doubled since 2020, from $213 million to $459 million.”

“Rutgers’ increase in hedge fund investments comes as other major investors, including the New Jersey state pension fund and the California Public Employees Retirement System have pulled away from the sector, due to concerns about fees and performance. Hedge fund performance has overall suffered relative to the broader market,” the Lever reported.

Cunningham-Cook cited a report from Markov Process International, a research firm that found Rutgers portfolio’s performance had “massively trailed its peers…. In fiscal year 2022, the Rutgers endowment returned [a loss] -9.7 percent, as opposed to an average of [a loss] -4.5 percent for its peers. Had Rutgers’ endowment performed at the same rate as the average endowment over just that one year, it would have about $96 million more in its coffers, according to a Lever analysis.”

“Compounding matters, hedge funds charge investors high fees — whether they perform well or not,” the Lever reported. “Hedge funds typically charge a 2 percent commission on assets, plus a 20 percent commission on fund performance. Index funds, by comparison, typically charge a 0.1 to 0.4 percent commission for pension funds.”

It’s going to take more than one decent contract to flip the pyramid that Rutgers has become but it’s unions have started the process and we should all be grateful.

“When will you protect our health?”: Black Californians most at risk from oil and gas drilling

Decades before movie moguls produced celluloid heroes, oil claimed the spotlight in Los Angeles. California’s oil industry took off in the mid-1870s just 30 miles north of what would later become Hollywood Boulevard.

By the 1920s, the Los Angeles Basin had become the state’s leading oil-producing region as prospectors frenetically developed one oil-rich deposit after another. The rush to drill triggered explosions, fires and gushers that unleashed torrents of oil, rocks and debris in the fastest-growing metropolitan region in the country.

Kern County long ago eclipsed Los Angeles as the center of California oil production. Yet today, more than 60% of the million-plus Californians exposed to an actively producing oil or gas well live in Los Angeles County, a team of public health researchers reports in the peer-reviewed journal GeoHealth. And more than 90% of the people who live near California’s 110,000-plus new, active or retired wells are concentrated in just three counties: Los Angeles, Kern and Orange.

Most of the people who live near these wells, which emit a steady stream of carcinogens and other highly toxic chemicals, are Black, Latino or low-income, the team found. And the researchers discovered that Black people were far more likely to live near the highest-producing wells.

The study examined the demographic profiles of people who lived within 3,280 feet (1 kilometer, or more than half a mile) of oil and gas production. That’s farther than the health and safety oil drilling setback mandated by a recently enacted California law. The law banned new wells within the setback and tightened restrictions on existing operations. But state regulators stopped enforcing it after the oil industry spent millions to undo the protections by sponsoring a referendum that will go before voters in 2024.

Other studies have shown that Black and Latino people are more likely to live near oil and gas operations. This one went a step further by investigating not just who is exposed to all the hazards of these operations, including emissions, odors, noise and light pollution, but also the intensity and persistence of that exposure. 

“We saw that Black and Latino and low-income people were more likely to be living near oil and gas wells persistently for years,” said David González, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who led the research.

Some studies have found an association between higher well density and production and greater pollution and harm, he said. “And we found that the widest disparities were for Black people living in neighborhoods with the most intensive production.”

While Black people make up just 5.5% of California’s population, González found, they account for roughly 12% of the Angelenos who live near the heaviest oil and gas production.

Roots of Environmental Racism

This study’s sobering findings reflect a long history of discriminatory practices. Wells and their hazards did not proliferate randomly in the City of Angels during the 1920s oil boom, when the police chief and sheriff belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and property values were inextricably tied to race.

A combination of “regulation, discrimination, structural inequality and violence” corralled nonwhite populations into L.A.’s worst housing, the urban geographer Andrea Gibbons wrote in her 2018 book “City of Segregation.” Whites moved to the suburban edges, free to settle wherever they could afford to buy a home, while Black Angelenos became increasingly isolated in the city.

Racist “redlining” policies — in which early federal home loan agencies and banks marked areas with higher proportions of Black and other nonwhite residents in red to indicate high risk — relegated low-income residents and people of color to marginalized, resource-starved neighborhoods.

Federal law banned redlining decades ago, yet communities of color continue to suffer the consequences. In a study published last year, González found that racially discriminatory housing and lending policies over the past century led to an outsize number and density of oil and gas wells in marginalized neighborhoods with predominantly nonwhite or foreign-born residents in Los Angeles and other oil-producing cities across the country.

Los Angeles is among the top 10 most segregated metropolitan regions in the nation, UC Berkeley researchers reported in 2021. That may help explain one of González’s most troubling findings: While California oil and gas production declined over the past 15 years, it did so at a much slower rate near communities of color, and Black people consistently lived alongside the highest-producing wells, with all the noise, odors, stress and chemical hazards that come with them.

Even González was surprised at how stark the differences were for Los Angeles’ Black residents.

Cassandra Clark, an environmental epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow at the Yale Cancer Center who was not involved in the research, described it as “a really thoughtfully designed study” that scrutinized indicators of vulnerability in far more detail than in the past, documenting inequality on a structural scale. “It’s pretty striking,” she said.

While oil and gas wells are more likely to operate in lower-income communities, Clark said, studies show that operations in wealthier communities are more likely to spur complaints and investigations.

Shining a Light on Society’s Margins

Beyond the racial and income disparities, González and his colleagues showed that socially and economically marginalized people — people who don’t vote, own their home or speak English — are more likely to live near oil and gas operations. Many of those residents are likely to speak Spanish, the second most common language in California.

“We went as far back as we could with the data we had available to us,” González said. “And we see pretty persistently over the course of really the last 20 years, that there’s a higher proportion of people of color and low-income people and linguistically isolated people living in areas of oil and gas development.”

Oil and gas operations pose serious risks to surrounding communities by releasing toxic gases known as volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, along with a noxious brew of other air contaminants and methane, a potent climate pollutant. Wells, storage tanks and other equipment release a mix of particularly hazardous petroleum-based gases known as BTEX, for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. Benzene is a known carcinogen and has been linked to increased risk of leukemia and other blood cell cancers.

Energy companies rely on hundreds of chemicals to extract fossil fuels and maintain well sites, including many that disrupt hormones, cause reproductive and developmental harm and lead to cancer. These chemicals can enter groundwater and pose risks to drinking water supplies when companies spill or improperly dispose of wastewater laced with chemical additives and harmful substances like arsenic and radioactive material that return to the surface with extracted fuels.

Researchers have now tied these hazardous operations and their emissions to a growing list of health problems. 

People living near wells suffer higher rates of asthma and other respiratory ailments like wheezing, along with nosebleeds, headaches, fatigue, sore throats and watery eyes. Chronic exposure to a drilling site is as harmful to lungs as breathing freeway exhaust or secondhand smoke, researchers found in a recent study of a densely populated Black and Latino neighborhood near a Los Angeles oilfield. Studies have also linked living near wells to childhood cancercardiovascular diseasebirth defectspreterm births and early death.

In a study on childhood leukemia in Pennsylvania published last year by Clark, the Yale postdoctoral fellow, children who were born or grew up within two kilometers of an unconventional oil and gas well (used for fracking) were up to three times more likely to develop acute lymphoblastic leukemia than children who didn’t. Two kilometers is more than 6,500 feet — twice the distance of California’s stalled buffer-zone law.

Community members are well aware of the risks associated with oil and gas operations, González said. “But now, scientifically, we’re getting a much better sense of the specific ways in which neighborhood oil and gas production is harmful to health.”

Kyle Ferrar, Western program coordinator for the nonprofit FracTracker Alliance, has documented toxic emissions from drilling sites for years, responding to community members’ complaints. Ferrar uses high-tech imaging equipment that videotapes gases the naked eye can’t see. 

Last summer, he documented uncontrolled emissions from wells and equipment around homes, schools and other neighborhood sites in Los Angeles and two other oil-producing regions. He filed more than 40 complaints with the air district that regulates Los Angeles. 

As gentrification sharpens divisions along racial lines, it also sharpens divisions around wealth, which limits a person’s access to certain neighborhoods, Ferrar said. “And in Los Angeles, exposure to oil and gas is really determined by what neighborhood you live in.”

The glaring new evidence that people of color are disproportionately exposed to these harmful industrial operations may help explain the prevalence of ethnic and racial health disparities. 

Black Californians have the shortest life expectancy and experience the highest death rates from breast, cervical, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer among all racial and ethnic groups in the state, a recent study from the California Health Care Foundation found. They also have the highest rates of prenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms, preterm births, low-birthweight births, infant mortality and maternal mortality. 

Overall, a larger proportion of white people in California reported being in excellent or very good health, the study found, in contrast to Black and Latino residents, who were most likely to report being in fair or poor health.

Still Waiting for Protections 

That’s a major reason why public health and environmental justice advocates rejoiced when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the landmark health and safety setback law last September. But the oil industry wasted no time filing the referendum to overturn the law and dispatching canvassers who told voters that signing the petition to get it on the ballot would stop neighborhood drilling when, in fact, it would do the opposite.

Newsom vowed in February to hold “Big Oil” accountable for trying to “squeeze out profits as they pollute our communities.” Environmental justice advocates took the move as a sign that the governor would stop issuing permits within the 3,200-foot buffer zone, to protect frontline communities.

Instead, he called for a price-gouging bill to keep oil companies from charging record gas prices. The California Legislature approved Newsom’s push to increase transparency in gas pricing last Monday, and the governor signed it into law the next day. “We proved we could actually beat Big Oil,” the governor said at the signing ceremony.

Community advocates applaud Newsom for his efforts to protect consumers’ wallets at the pump, said Kobi Naseck, coalition coordinator for Voices in Solidarity Against Oil in Neighborhoods, or VISION. “But we still ask the same question we’ve had since the beginning of Newsom’s first term. When will you protect our health, too?”

California’s setback rule prohibits operators from reworking and repairing wells in addition to banning new wells within the safety zone. But oil and gas regulators have authorized more than 600 permits to redrill since the first of the year, Naseck said. More than two-thirds of the permits are within the buffer zone that was supposed to go into effect this year, he said, adding, “Climate leaders don’t do that.”

The striking increase in permits to rework and repair wells within the health safety zone puts neighborhoods, especially Latino, Black and low-income communities, “at elevated risk of exposure to all the pollutants we see released from leaking wells,” said Ferrar of FracTracker.

Unwilling to risk waiting for the state to enforce its own laws, some local governments have enacted their own restrictions against polluting oil operations. 

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance in January to ban new oil and gas wells and phase out existing operations throughout most of the county, which has the largest urban oilfield in the nation. A month earlier, the city of Los Angeles passed a similar measure.

Local community groups organized for years to get these protections on the books. Their efforts echo early campaigns by residents frustrated by unchecked development during the 1920s oil boom, when wells routinely shot streams of oil into the sky and a leaking pipeline in Signal Hill, at the county’s southern edge, ignited a conflagration that engulfed a city block before firefighters could extinguish it.

Los Angeles’ long history of oil production has left aging wells and equipment littering the landscape. “Our work looking for leaks at existing oil and gas infrastructure has shown us that the age of these facilities is a good indicator of whether or not they’re leaking and how many leaks occur,” Ferrar said.

A lot of the aging oil and gas infrastructure is concentrated in Signal Hill and in the Wilmington Oilfield, Ferrar said, while the newer oilfields are mainly out in the suburbs. “These urban, older oilfields are much more likely to be sources of uncontrolled emissions and leaks,” he said. “And Black and Latino and renting communities are located closest to the oldest and most decrepit oil and gas fields in Los Angeles.”

Many of these wells have been abandoned by operators because they’re no longer profitable, Ferrar said. 

González estimated that 1 in 5 Californians, or 9 million people, live within a half-mile of abandoned or retired wells. “As we transition away from primary fossil fuel production, we need to know where these abandoned wells are, especially if they’re leaking methane or BTEX,” he said.

The new study makes a vital contribution to a growing body of evidence that communities on society’s margins have been shouldering the burden of environmental pollution for decades, along with the health consequences, Clark notes. “And the way the scientific community can help is by doing studies like this, documenting it.”

Then, maybe, Clark said, policymakers and political leaders will finally take action to reverse a century of injustice.

“American Manhunt”: The 6 most shocking revelations from Netflix’s Boston Marathon bombing doc

April 15 marked the 10th anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing that left three people killed and hundreds injured. The horrific attack — orchestrated by two brothers who set off pressure cooker bombs near the finish line — left the nation in a great state of shock.

In anticipation of this year’s race on Monday, Netflix released the docuseries “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing,” which examines the 2013 bombing, its aftermath and the manhunt for brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the main suspects behind the attack. The three-part-series is a harrowing watch that narrates the atrocities through extensive first-person footage. There are also interviews with law enforcement, including Boston Police Department superintendent Billy Evans, who finished the marathon a few hours before the bombs went off, along with the runners who were injured, their loved ones and a young student who knew one of the bombers.

Here are the six most shocking revelations from the series:

01
The gruesome scene of the attack
Ed Davis from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

Around 2:49 p.m., nearly three hours after the first runner crossed the finish line, two bombs detonated about 210 yards apart at the marathon’s finish line. Following the first explosion, a second bomb exploded 12 seconds later in front of a nearby restaurant. 

 

Law enforcement and EMTs who were at the scene of the attack recounted the bloodshed and the great terror amongst runners and spectators who were heard crying out in pain.

 

“I stepped out of the car, and as soon as my foot hit the ground, I could feel shrapnel under my feet,” said Boston Police Department police commissioner Ed Davis. “And then I saw the damage across the street. The volume of blood and body parts on the ground was just something I had never seen before.”

 

“To see the young bodies lying on the street, it’s something I’ll never get out of my head to this day,” recalled Boston Police Department superintendent Billy Evans.

02
Islamophobia peaked during investigations
Youssef Eddafali from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

The Sept.11 attacks spurred a new era of Islamophobia and hate towards the Muslim community nationwide. And following the Boston Marathon bombings, many feared the attack would be associated with Islam, which would fuel more fear and prejudice.

 

“You couldn’t help that sinking feeling inside you to think that maybe this is committed by somebody who is a Muslim,” said Ismail Fenni, acting imam of Islamic Society of Boston.

 

“When the bombing happened, I was in college,” said Youssef Eddafali, a friend of Dzhokhar. “I remember thinking, ‘Please don’t let it have anything to do with Islam.’ Islamophobia was just starting to go away. I immediately knew that they were going to pin it on Islam.”

 

One of the first suspects who was detained in connection to the bombing was an unnamed Saudi man whom police said was seen wearing tattered clothes and exhibited questionable behavior. It was later revealed that the man was not involved in the attack — officials said he “was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

 

The subsequent manhunt further encouraged sleuths and conspiracy theorists to voice their anti-Muslim sentiments online. One tweet shown in the documentary reads, “Boston Massacre is a BIG DEAL! Bombing of marathon by evil Muslim terrorist.” Others read, “This definitely is those Arabs fault” (accompanied with the man wearing a turban emoji) and “I definitely blame the Arabs.”

 

It didn’t help that conservatives, even news outlets were also echoing similar hateful rhetoric. “Even after he was cleared, the media was hounding the Saudi Arabian national and even his roommate,” said investigative reporter Phillip Martin.

03
Debate over when to release the suspects’ photos
Rick Deslauriers from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

After spending hours examining lengthy video footage of the bombing, officials identified the Tsarnaev brothers as the primary attackers. At the time, their identities were still a mystery, so they were given the code names “white hat” and “black hat” based on the colors of the baseball caps they were both wearing.

 

The photos, albeit blurry, were a heated topic amongst officials, who struggled to decide if they should be released to the public or kept in private until more information was found. Only police commissioner Davis agreed to do the former. He said he was met with complete silence.

 

“If you release the photo of the bombers, you let them know that you know who they are,” explained Rick DesLauriers, special agent in charge for the FBI. “And you may cause them to flee.”

 

Four days into the investigation, however, officials learned that the photos had been leaked and were going to be released by a Boston media station.

 

“We made the decision that the best thing to do was to release the video evidence to the American public before the media did,” said DesLauriers. Davis added that he did not leak the photos.

 

Following the photo’s release, the suspects murdered an MIT policeman. An urgent manhunt ensued.

04
Danny Meng’s kidnapping by the Tsarnaev brothers
Danny Meng from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

Meng, a tech entrepreneur who had come to the United States from China in 2009 to get a master’s degree, was kidnapped by the brothers while driving in Cambridge. One of the brothers, Dzhokhar, entered Meng’s Mercedes, held a gun to his face and demanded he drive. Tamerlan later entered the car, took control of the driver’s side and told Meng to sit in the backseat. While driving, the brothers confessed to Meng that they were the Boston bombers and had also killed an MIT policeman.

 

The trio eventually stopped at a gas station, where Meng said he made “the most important decision of my life.” Meng managed to escape and run to a nearby gas station to call 911. He also helped police track the runaway bombers.

 

What followed was a brutal shootout between the Tsarnaev brothers and officers from the Watertown Police Department, Cambridge Police Department, Boston Police Department, Massachusetts State Police (MSP), Boston University Police Department and MBTA Transit Police Department. The brothers also threw five “crude grenades” and detonated at least one pressure cooker bomb. Eventually, Tamerlan was shot several times. He died after his brother ran him over while escaping from police in the stolen car.

05
Law enforcement worked over 100 hours
Carmen Ortiz from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

The lengthy manhunt finally came to an end when a Watertown resident found a badly injured Dzhokhar hiding under the tarp on his parked boat. Dzhokhar and police exchanged fire for approximately an hour before Dzhokhar was arrested with gunshot wounds to his head, neck, legs and hand. 

 

“There were people clapping and cheering,” recalled assistant FBI special agent in charge John Foley. “It was like a parade.”

 

“There were all these people lining up the street,” said Carmen Ortiz, the former United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. “I felt so patriotic. I felt so part of this country and part of what makes it good.”

 

Other officials recalled that people filled the streets, holding flags and screaming “USA! USA! USA!” and singing victory tunes. A tribute for all the officers was also held at Fenway Park.

 

Despite the arrest, the investigation into the bombing was only getting started. Law enforcement found that Dzhokhar had written a jihadi manifesto inside the boat he was hiding in. His computer had editions of Inspire magazine, an online publication published by Al-Qaeda, and directions on how to make a bomb in your home kitchen. Dzhokhar’s roommates also worked to get rid of “explosive” evidence, which was later recovered.

 

Tamerlan was also a suspect in the triple homicide that took place in Waltham, Massachusetts, on the evening of Sept. 11, 2011. The victims, Brendan Mess (who Tamerlan had previously described as his “best friend”), Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken were found dead in Mess’s apartment with their throats slit from ear to ear.

06
In the end, “there’s no justice here”
Billy Evans from “American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing” (Netflix)

Evans continued, “We witnessed four tragic deaths. People lost limbs and they’ll never get back the innocence of their life. So, to say that it’s over, it will never be over.”

 

“It’s been 10 years now. You look back at the footage, and you see civilians and marathon workers and police officers and first responders just jumping in to save and do what they can,” said Foley.  

 

Dzhokhar’s death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 2022 after being overturned by appeal, the documentary revealed. He is currently being held in supermax federal prison while awaiting execution.

American Manhunt: The Boston Marathon Bombing is currently available for streaming on Netflix. Watch the trailer for it below, via YouTube:

“Love Is Blind” promised a live reunion, only to stand us up. So, what did we learn?

You assembled your snacks. You poured your favorite beverage, maybe into an opaque golden goblet so nobody can tell what you were drinking or how much. You snuggled into your coziest throw. All Netflix had to do was show up at 5 p.m. PST/ 8 p.m. EST on Sunday, as promised, with its live stream of the “Love Is Blind” reunion.

Instead, Netflix appeared to be napping, reminiscent of Season 4 favorite Tiffany Pennywell nodding off during a date with her future husband Brett Brown. Only Netflix’s move had none of that instant’s adorableness. Tiffany and Brett’s date was already in progress when she blinked out to Sleepytown, whereas our “Love Is Blind” in-the-moment reunion hookup never materialized.

The failure of Netflix’s second live event may hold a few lessons for the service and possibly the industry at large.

Instead, upon the appointed hour, viewers were left staring at a spinning wheel to nowhere and fielding empty promises. “It’s almost time! The live event will start soon,” fibbed a card keeping eager viewers on hold. “Love is . . . late,” the streamer’s official Twitter account posted at 8:02 p.m. ET in a tweet that has since been deleted, probably because of the next line: “#LoveIsBlindLIVE will be on in 15 minutes!”

That was a lie. A lie! A full one hour and 30 minutes after it was supposed to begin, Netflix tweeted its apology to the untold millions it stood up.

“To everyone who stayed up late, woke up early, gave up their Sunday afternoon . . . we are incredibly sorry that the Love is Blind Live Reunion did not turn out as we had planned,” the official account posted. “We’re filming it now and we’ll have it on Netflix as soon as humanly possible. Again, thank you and sorry.”

That’s nice. Know what’s always on time though? Salty live tweeters, Tik Tokkers and the angry Instagram hive.

Social media put a fork in any hopes of watching live that night long before Netflix let us know it’s not us, it’s them. It only took 20 minutes for the service to be thoroughly seasoned and roasted through an assortment of memes and from every angle.

In many respects, the Twitter nonsense exceeded any entertainment value the live experience could have served. Clever usage of screen captures from Season 4 abounded, including stills of Brett fuming “This should not happen. This is avoidable”:

“Queer Eye” host Karamo Brown commiserated with the jilted, as did Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.-NY) when she chimed in with, “Someone call Lucia the seamstress to fix this. I believe in her,” referring to the woman who fixed the fit Brett’s trousers 90 minutes before he was scheduled to walk down the aisle.

Social media accounts from rivals Peacock and Hulu rolled with sugary schadenfreude, with the latter simply tweeting a still of “Little Fires Everywhere ” star Kerry Washington smirking with a, “Hmm.”

Paramount+ adopted a more conciliatory approach, although it could have been wishing Netflix well in the Gwyneth Paltrow sense. “Love may be blind but we SEE you, @netflix social team,” it posted. “Pouring one out for your mentions tonight.”

Perhaps best of all came from the tag team of America’s dearest departed video rental company and a DVD rental chain. “Remember renting vhs’ from us. You could start it on time no problem . . . This is what we get,” tweeted the “official” Blockbuster account, to which Redbox responded, “solidarity, bro.”

HBO Max’s official account was silent, choosing instead to rest on the BDE that is “Succession” and “Barry,” the shows folks clicked on when it was clear Netflix wasn’t going to get it up in time to deliver the Sunday satisfaction we crave.

Love is BlindNick Lachey, Vanessa Lachey at Sunset Bronson Studios for the Love is Blind season 4 reunion. (Adam Rose/Netflix)

The failure of Netflix’s second live event after its highly promoted debut of “Chris Rock: Selective Outrage” on March 4 may hold a few lessons for the service and possibly the industry at large.

The greatest may be the moral of the story that the company learned in real time, and in front of legions of unhappy subscribers: pulling off a live event broadcast is harder than it looks. (Hopefully they’ll figure out in time for next year’s Screen Actors Guild Awards ceremony which, if Netflix pulls it off, will make it the the first streamer to host a major awards show.)

Broadcasting executives who watched Netflix faceplant called that out with no shortage of glee on social media since every sort of glitch that can happen in live telecasts has happened to one of them. 

Netflix assumes a more challenging task by entering the live streaming space, in that broadcast airwaves can handle tens of millions of people tuning into awards shows, sportscasts and other live specials without a problem. Internet-based streamers, on the other hand, must account for bandwidth.

The viewership for “Love Is Blind,” hosted by husband-and-wife team Nick and Vanessa Lachey, doesn’t come close to that of the Oscars or the Super Bowl, but it is significant. According to data from Nielsen, it was the eighth most popular original streaming series in 2022 with 13.1 billion minutes streamed that year. (“The Crown” came in 10th place.)

Even if the series did manage to “break the Internet” as Vanessa Lachey joked in an Instagram video that has since disappeared, we don’t have official confirmation that a lack of adequate bandwidth is the culprit. Salon reached out to Netflix asking for clarification as to the nature of the technical issues that prevented the reunion from streaming live. As of the time of this article’s publication, we have not received a response.

So the bandwidth theory, for the time being, remains just that.

Love is BlindBrandie, Bliss, Irina, Kacia, Micah in season 4 of “Love is Blind.” (Monty Brinton/Netflix)

That said, another way this may prove to be a teachable experience is that its lack of transparency isn’t helping or earning the company much grace or trust from its subscribers. The taped special finally dropped shortly after noon PT on Monday. We still don’t know why it took so long to appear. (Some were able to watch on Sunday, but only if they camped out on the stream’s limbo until the engineers got it together.)

It could also be the case that the service didn’t account for the disparate circumstances of Rock’s special and this reunion special. The audiences are unalike, for one. Then there’s the sense of urgency and unpredictability linked to the “Love Is Blind” reunion that would not be there for a comedy special.

The news value of Rock’s special is limited since most people knew how he felt about being slapped by Will Smith on live TV, leaving the sole allure in how he decided to express those feelings. In contrast, social media has spoiled “Love Is Blind” outcomes as the series became more popular.

Consider the third season’s culmination of Sikiru “SK” Alagbada choosing not to marry Raven Ross, only for the pair to announce they were dating in that season’s reunion, which dropped the same day we witnessed SK announce, “I . . . do not.” Not long after that debuted the news broke that SK had cheated on Raven, entirely spoiling their arc on the “After the Altar” postscript episodes that arrived months later.


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


Somewhat perversely, the good-natured frenzy surrounding this epic fail can be viewed as evidence of its romance reality flagship’s success. The fourth edition of “Love Is Blind” was a fortunate courtship of perfect circumstances. It gave us charismatic participants, including viral villains in the show’s “mean girl” duo Micah Lussier and Irina Solomonova.

It saw previously unknown success with its “experiment,” with more couples saying “I do” and staying together than in any other season. Viewers also witnessed King of the Nice Guys Marshall Glaze get kicked to the curb by his fiancé-for-a-hot-minute Jackelina Bonds, who chose Marshall’s aggro rival Josh Demas instead.

Love is BlindMicah, Irina in episode 404 of “Love is Blind.” (Courtesy of Netflix)

In another unprecedented turn, one participant, Zack Goytowski, broke off his engagement with Irina to court the woman he didn’t initially choose, Bliss Poureetezadi. And this produced a tension that hadn’t been experienced in past seasons, in that many viewers (and a few contestants) felt that Bliss had dodged a bullet when Zack broke things off with him in the hallowed “pods.”

This brings us to the final points in the favor of the fourth “Love Is Blind.” It features more Black men in relationships that made it through to the end of the season or close enough, than in the first three.

It has one couple everyone is rooting for in Tiffany and Brent that’s also the show’s first pair of Black folks brought to the altar by the show. And it features a duo many rooted against in Zack and Bliss – popular opinion is that Bliss can do much better than Zack. (To his credit, he seems to know it.)

Of course, most of us aren’t into “Love Is Blind” because we believe that the title’s proposal is true. We come for the mess. Just not this kind of mess.

All episodes of “Love Is Blind,” including the Season 4 reunion, are streaming on Netflix.

 

Staffer alleged in complaint that far-right married Texas Republican had sex with Capitol intern

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


A Capitol staffer alleged in an internal complaint that state Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, had “sexual relations” with an intern two weeks ago.

The new details of the allegation come from the complaint filed by a legislative staffer to the House General Investigating Committee. Earlier this week, The Texas Tribune reviewed excerpts of the complaint, which alleged that Slaton, 45, was having an “inappropriate relationship” with an intern who is under the age of 21. The complaint said Slaton called her after 10 p.m. on March 31 and invited her to his Austin apartment.

A full version of the complaint, first posted on The Quorum Report, states the intern disclosed that she had sexual relations with Slaton that night.

Another person with direct knowledge of the situation who works in the Capitol corroborated the complaint and said that Slaton and the intern drank alcohol together. Slaton, one of the most far-right social conservatives of the Legislature, has been married to his wife since 2017.

[Two GOP Texas House members call for Rep. Bryan Slaton to resign]

The complaint alleges that sometime after the night at his condo, Slaton brought the intern into an office and flirted with her again. The same day, Slaton allegedly showed the intern emails from his personal account that accused him of having sex with a staffer, according to the complaint. The staffer believed Slaton wrote the emails as a test to see if she would report him. Slaton told her and her friends to keep quiet, according to the report.

Slaton and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday evening. Earlier this week, Slaton’s attorney issued a statement calling allegations against his client “outrageous” and “false.”

Julie Springer, an attorney for the intern, also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Texas Tribune is not identifying the intern.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, declined to comment. Rep. Andrew Murr, the Junction Republican who chairs the House General Investigating Committee, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The House General Investigating Committee, which has the power to conduct inquiries into state agencies, departments and officials and has the ability to draft articles of impeachment against lawmakers, is investigating Slaton’s case. On Friday, the panel met and issued four subpoenas but would not disclose the investigations or people involved.

At least two House Republicans have called for Slaton to resign this week: Briscoe Cain of Deer Park and Steve Toth of The Woodlands. Both Cain and Toth are staunch conservatives who typically align with Slaton ideologically.

At least one House Democrat, Ana-Maria Ramos of Richardson, has also called for Slaton to resign. This week, Sen. Drew Springer, R-Muenster, drafted bill language that would target members of the Legislature who engage in grooming behavior with victims under the age of 21. He tweeted Thursday that he is looking for ways to hold lawmakers accountable for inappropriate behavior.


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/2023/04/14/bryan-slaton-texas-legislature-intern-investigation/.

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

Farewell to “The Phantom of the Opera,” which welcomed outcasts

To be a musical theater kid in the days before “The Phantom of the Opera” was a dark time. 

No one was wearing black, off-the-shoulder sweatshirts with artful logos on them. No one was humming Rodgers and Hammerstein in the school hallways or quoting lines from Stephen Sondheim at each other or saving yellow-framed playbills, at least that they admitted to. My school in rural Ohio certainly didn’t have the budget — or ticket-buying audience interest — to stage musicals

The first rule of loving music theater was that you didn’t talk about loving musical theater.

My own love and experience in musical theater started young. I played Amaryllis in “The Music Man” when I was 9 years old, but that was a community theater performance, completely separate from my ordinary life as a kid: my friends, my school. The first rule of loving music theater was that you didn’t talk about loving musical theater, not to people who didn’t also live, breathe and sleep it. And that was most people. That is, until the Angel of Music rose from the depths of the sewer beneath the Paris Opéra House. 

“Phantom” has taken its last Broadway bow. After 35 years and 13,981 performances, the Andrew Lloyd Webber-composed show closed Sunday at the Majestic Theater. It was the longest run for a show in Broadway history. It also marks the end of an era that began in 1986, when it suddenly became socially acceptable, even celebrated, to love the thing you love  — and to be over-the-top, dramatic and earnestly you. 

“Phantom” premiered in 1986 at Her Majesty’s Theatre in London, racking up “every major British theatre award,” according to the Broadway League. Its New York premiere opened two years later with an advance of $18 million, a record at the time. The show would go on to win seven Tony Awards, including Best Musical. 

With lyrics by Charles Hart and a libretto by Lloyd Webber and Richard Stilgoe, “Phantom” is adapted from French writer Gaston Leroux’s 1910 novel. It tells the story of Christine, a young soprano and the obsession of the masked, musical genius who lives secretly beneath the Paris Opéra House. Christine is an orphan and a mere chorus girl when the show starts but when she takes over a lead role in a performance at the last minute, the Opéra’s new patron, Raoul, falls for her. Christine later reveals she has been secretly instructed in music, thanks to an “Angel of Music” mentor who has appeared to her in her dressing room. What could be wrong with that?

Like a soprano Alice, Christine is later lured by her Angel/the Phantom through the mirror and he leads her via gondola to his shadowy sewer kingdom. Christine realizes she’s been kidnapped. Raoul saves the day. A chandelier falls down. And that’s just the end of the first act!

Broadway musicals in the 1980s and early ’90s often seemed to have one of these high-budget spectacle moments: the helicopter in “Miss Saigon,” the boat in “Big River.” Perhaps this was the way to draw the casual musical theater-goer in: something big that would go boom. 

“Phantom” showed us a different world, the one inside the mirror, the one inside ourselves.

But with only one very heavy lighting device, and a whole lot of memorable songs and characters – the backbones of any story – “Phantom” managed to become both mainstream and beloved. The themes were universal: love, ambition, acceptance or lack of. The Phantom, a complex figure, was the everyman outcast. Talented, misguided and rejected, he hid his scarred face beneath a mask. Many of us did that, on some level, especially those of us who felt different due to what or who we loved or the way we were. And “Phantom” showed us a different world, the one inside the mirror, the one inside ourselves. People rooted for the terribly mistreated, subterranean-dwelling Phantom, despite his villainous deeds. Nobody was rooting for Raoul.

“Phantom” brought musical theater to the masses. “Cats” had come several years before, but let’s be honest, “Cats” is weird and always has been, long before the off-putting CGI movie version with regrettable roles featuring Taylor Swift and Judi Dench. A stray cat that ascends in a kind of feline heaven spaceship may be too far for an audience member who will attend a theatrical performance once a year, if that. So might be “Starlight Express,” which had the distinction of being the world’s only musical performed entirely on roller skates (musical theater nerd Misty describes the show in “Yellowjackets” as “Cinderella, except every character’s a train.”). Will it play in Peoria? Perhaps not to a full house.

You can be brave at “The Phantom of the Opera.” You can also be yourself.

“Phantom” was different. Its outrageous campiness was socially acceptable. Of course, the music was dark, rich and mysterious – it’s an organ performed at an opera house! Of course, the Phantom was dramatic, confusing and volatile – they made him live in the sewers! Of course, everyone parades on stage in outrageous costumes at the start of the second act — they’re having a masquerade! The Phantom shows up in a resplendent Red Death costume, very Edgar Allan Poe, and as the New York Times reported in their coverage of the final performance, so did one audience member. You can be brave at “The Phantom of the Opera.” You can also be yourself.


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


It’s OK to cry at “Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again.” Everyone does. And it’s OK to want, as Christine does, both an artistic career and romance, both to be free of the Phantom but not to harm him. It’s OK to want, as the Phantom does, true love and to be true to himself, despite how the world above has hurt him. For more than three decades, Broadway treated him — and by extension, us, the misfits who have always loved and been drawn to the romance, spectacle and heart of musical theater — as stars. 

Bud Light boycott gets even weirder as Marjorie Taylor Greene posts doctored image of Lindsey Graham

The conservatives’ one-sided culture war against Bud Light and its parent company, Anheuser-Busch, has bubbled over into a new week after Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted a picture of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham holding a can of the beer in question. However, this wasn’t your average can of Bud Light. It was one that was branded with the face of trans activist and actress Dylan Mulvaney. 

This, of course, is controversial because prominent right-wing public figures, from Travis Tritt to Rep. Dan Crenshaw, are currently engaged in a bad-faith boycott against the beer brand because of its short partnership with Mulvaney. The boycott itself is buoyed by transphobic rhetoric, which is apparent in how many conservatives are talking about the brand. 

“Who the hell at [Bud Light] thought it was a good idea to make a grown man who dresses like little girls their new spokesperson?” wrote commentator John Cardillo, while Townhall columnist Derek Hunter deemed it the “groomer of beers.” 

However, after Greene shared the photograph on Sunday night, commenters on Twitter quickly pointed out that it was Photoshopped. When Bud Light worked with Mulvaney in advance of March Madness, the company had sent her a beer can featuring her face in celebration of Day 365 of her viral “Days of Girlhood” TikTok, but both the company and Mulvaney have clarified that was a one-off design

Therefore, it’s not possible for Graham to have had that particular can. Then, as Forbes reporter Matt Novak observed, the original photograph of Graham actually came from an event in 2015, long before Kid Rock tearfully shot cases of Bud Light off a folding table. So what exactly is Greene going for here? 


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


“While Greene and Graham are both Republicans, they’re currently sparring in public over the recent leak of classified documents, allegedly by 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard who reportedly worked as an IT tech,” Novak said. “Teixeira allegedly posted hundreds of highly sensitive military documents on a private Discord server called Thug Shaker Central to impress his online friends, most of whom were high school kids.”

Greene has stated she believes Teixeira was serving as a whistleblower to keep Americans abreast of the war in Ukraine (though she apparently doesn’t know his first name). Graham, however, publicly pushed back on that characterization of Teixeira’s actions. 

“It’s one of the most irresponsible statements she could make,” Graham said during an interview on Sunday with ABC’s This Week

He continued: “If you’re a member of the military intelligence community and you disagree with American policy and you think you’re going to be okay when it comes to leaking classified information, you’re going to go to jail.”

When Greene shared the photo of Graham on Twitter several hours later, it seemed as if she was hoping to channel some of the GOP’s ire towards Bud Light towards the senator. Even if that plan had worked, though, Graham needn’t have worried too much as the right’s boycotts of “woke culture” are notoriously impotent and short-lived. Remember Donald Trump’s Coca-Cola boycott? That’s okay — neither does he