Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The sacrifice needed to survive in other America shines in “A Thousand and One”

The trailer to “A Thousand and One” will lead you to believe that the film is about a mother fighting to hold on to her son. That is partially true, but the actual project is about so much more. 

At the film’s beginning, we meet Inez, brilliantly portrayed by Teyana Taylor. She’s a hairdresser finishing a prison stint at Rikers Island for boosting and newly released back into her Brooklyn community with a hunger to reestablish herself as a beautician and stay on the right track. Her plans derail when she bumps into her 6-year-old son Terry as he wanders the street. (Terry is played at ages 6, 13 and 17 by actors Aaron Kingsley Adetola, Aven Courtney, and Josiah Cross.)

“A Thousand and One” is not a drug-slanging, shoot-’em-up bang-bang tale. It’s about love, sacrifice and then more love.

Terry is in foster care, and we quickly learn that Inez grew up in the same system – which means she knows about the abuse, the pain and how many foster parents are only in it for the monthly check. Inez, who has missed parts of Terry’s life from time to time because of her troubles with the law, promises to never leave him again. Terry is initially reluctant but gains confidence as his mom appears to be keeping her word. The dynamic of their relationship changes when Terry falls out of a window, busts his head and is admitted to the hospital. This is where we will see the two slightly estranged relatives connect. 

Inez visits her son daily, and we notice that the foster parents, the ones who were responsible for him sustaining the injury, never show up. Terry, who’s semi-standoffish at first, fully opens up to his mom, saying he wants to stay with her forever. Inez has made so many mistakes in her life, and abandoning her son when he needed her the most wasn’t going to be one of them. Viewers who don’t have any understanding of Inez’s reality get a rare chance to connect with her at this moment as she only has two options: send her son back to the neglectful, abusive household that allowed him to bust his head wide open while spending a decade trying to get him back by following the legal route or grab your child and escape because the consequence of leaving him in foster care is death. Inez chooses the latter, which can easily land her back in the big house. 

With a fake Social Security card and birth certificate, Inez moves to Harlem and builds a new life with her son. As she settles into her new life in Harlem, viewers watch their family grow; Terry ages, and Inez reunites with and marries an old love named Lucky, played by William Catlett. Lucky is not Terry’s father; however, he serves as the young man’s only father figure, a reality that remains present in many poor and oppressed communities. Lucky had no plans on raising a son with Inez upon their reunion, but we do what we have to do. 

A Thousand And OneAaron Kingsley Adetola stars as six-year-old “Terry” and Will Catlett stars as “Lucky” in writer/director A.V. Rockwell’s “A Thousand And One” (Courtesy of Aaron Ricketts/Focus Features)

The system is incredibly broken, and filmmaker A.V. Rockwell does an excellent job exposing its holes directly and indirectly.

The happiness displayed amongst the three is a thing of beauty that is too often skipped over in films dealing with poverty. “A Thousand and One” is not a drug-slanging, shoot-’em-up bang-bang tale. It’s about love, sacrifice and then more love. Sacrifice is the critical ingredient in survival for those of us who grew up Black and poor, and this film knocks that fact out of the park, so well that the act of sacrifice becomes kind of a character. Every player in the film specializes in sacrifice. 

Viewers with a more privileged life experience may need clarification on law enforcement’s inability to track down Terry but need not. The system is incredibly broken, and filmmaker A.V. Rockwell does an excellent job exposing its holes directly and indirectly. The direct version of our flawed system comes through in the way Inez lives as a young woman who was a product of the system and reenters society with little to no opportunity in a world where everything costs, which is the primary reason most people end up back in prison. Inez is also the victim of gentrification and a rip-off landlord who purposely destroyed her home so that he can move her out, renovate and hopefully bring in another tenant that can afford to pay more for the unit.

The indirect part is defined through policy. When we meet Inez, Rudy Giuliani begins his tenure as mayor. Giuliani, who would go on to be known nationally because of his racism, was the architect for the law-and-order race-based stop-and-frisk policies that would lead to a young Terry being constantly harassed, which would not only have an impact on him and Lucky but Inez as well. Who wants to see their children constantly harassed? Things don’t change under Mayor Bloomberg, who promises a different New York but fails to protect citizens like Inez from policies that aid predatory gentrifiers, similar to the guy who took over her apartment. Giuliani and Bloomberg unite when considering the flaws inside the foster care system throughout the film. The two mayors fail Terry, as the system failed Inez.  


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


The biggest flaw in the foster care system is that it is extremely easy for a parent like Inez to lose custody of her son; however, it is extremely hard for children to be stripped away from foster parents, even if they allow babies to fall out of windows. Cocktail that with the idea their foster parents get aid and support to take care of children on top of a stipend, while biological parents don’t get the same help. Multiple administrations have been familiar with this reality, yet nothing has changed. 

Inez does her best to raise Terry, finds out he is brilliant and forces him into a competitive high school. Terry excels and now has the option of choosing from the top colleges in the country. While looking for a job to scrape up some extra cash as he ponders schools, his fake documents are exposed, throwing their family into a whirlwind. To makes matters worse, all of this happens while Lucky slowly dies from cancer. 

The biggest payoff in “A Thousand and One” is that Inez isn’t Terry’s biological mother. Terry was a child born into foster care, and Inez knows it’s so messed up that she sacrifices her life to give him better.   

“A Thousand and One” is currently in theaters.

 

“Pro-starvation agenda”: Kevin McCarthy called out as GOP plots food aid cuts

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is reportedly set to unveil a proposal Monday morning that would slash federal food aid for millions of people as part of Republicans’ broader plan to avert a debt ceiling crisis of their own making.

But Democratic lawmakers were quick to reject the idea of food assistance cuts, denouncing the Republican leader’s proposal as immoral and unacceptable.

“My family and I depended on food stamps. So do over 65,000 men, women, and children in the community I serve,” Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., said in a statement Sunday after Politico reported that McCarthy’s, R-Calif., proposal includes an expansion of work requirements for certain Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients and a call to limit states’ ability to waive work mandates—a power that has been used to ensure consistent aid access during times of economic turmoil.

The outlines of McCarthy’s proposal resemble legislation introduced last month by Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.,, who suggested expanding SNAP work requirements for adults deemed able-bodied and without dependents. Specifically, Johnson’s bill would impose the stringent requirements on such adults between the ages of 18 and 65, up from the current age ceiling of 49.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes, the existing SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults limit benefits “to just three months in any 36-month period when they are not employed or participating in a work or training program for at least 20 hours a week.”

In a recent analysis, CBPP estimated that Johnson’s bill would put 10 million people at risk of losing benefits. The think tank stressed that around 4 million children live in households that the legislation would impact.

In her statement on Sunday, Lee said Congress “cannot allow Republicans’ threats to crash our economy if we don’t bend to their pro-starvation agenda.”

“Stop playing politics with people’s lives,” Lee added.

Lee’s fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman, also voiced opposition to the Republican speaker’s planned attack on food aid:

McCarthy’s plan will come weeks after millions of people across the U.S. saw their federal food aid cut—in some cases by hundreds of dollars per month—as emergency allotments for the Covid-19 pandemic were terminated, forcing many to turn to food banks for support amid elevated prices.

The GOP plan’s prospects are uncertain given Democratic control of the Senate and the White House’s stated opposition to attaching more punitive work requirements or other attacks on aid programs to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling. The U.S. is expected to default on its debt this summer if Congress doesn’t act.

Senate Republicans have expressed doubts that McCarthy’s food aid proposal would be able to pass while still praising “the intent behind the House GOP efforts to expand work requirements for SNAP,” as Politico reported.

“I mean, Godspeed. Get what you can,” an unnamed Republican Senate aide told Politico. “We’re going to live in reality over here.”

According to Punchbowl, the broader debt ceiling plan that House Republicans are considering would raise the limit until May 2024—setting up another dangerous standoff in the near future—in exchange for “either a cap on non-defense discretionary spending or a cap on overall discretionary spending after reducing it to FY 2022 levels.”

Such caps would require significant cuts to key federal education, healthcare, and housing programs. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development warned last month that the GOP’s proposed spending cuts could affect rental assistance for 640,000 families and make it “impossible to stave off mass evictions.”

Claire Guzdar, a spokesperson for the ProsperUS coalition, said in a statement that “the House Republican majority’s latest proposal is a complete nonstarter.”

“We have already lived through the economic devastation of deep cuts like those proposed here,” said Guzdar. “Enough is enough. Congress must raise the debt limit without conditions or risk economic catastrophe.”

How climate change is making it easier to hit home runs

Even America’s favorite pastime is not immune from climate change. A new study from researchers at Dartmouth College says that a warming atmosphere could be causing more home runs in professional baseball.

The research, published last week in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, looked at 100,000 Major League Baseball games and found that at least 500 home runs since 2010 can be attributed to climate change. 

As the planet warms, the authors predict that climate change could be responsible for nearly 10 percent of all home runs by 2100, with each degree of warming associated with 95 more home runs per season. Eventually, the report concludes, several hundred additional home runs per season could be due to climate change. 

The paper was born out of Callahan’s interest in baseball as a Chicago Cubs fan as well as his background in climate science. 

“I was very much raised on baseball, and it’s something I still follow pretty closely and care about,” said Callahan. “I also think about climate change from my day job. And so I inevitably started thinking about those two things together.” 

Baseball isn’t the only sport that will be impacted by climate change. Tennis also might be a casualty of a warming world, as well as soccer, both mostly outdoor sports played in heat centers such as the Australian Open in Melbourne or last year’s World Cup in Qatar.

But those sports, so far, lack the data. The Dartmouth study relied on baseball’s tradition of obsessively recording every statistic.

“Baseball has this kind of abundance of data, so you can make these really great analyses,” said Callahan. “And other sports might not have that.” 

The fundamental science at the heart of the study is the relationship between temperature and air density, which affects how fast a ball can travel through the air. When the air is cooler, the air particles are much closer together, which can slow down a fast-moving ball. When the air gets warmer, the air particles are much farther apart, enabling a ball to travel through the air much faster. These basic principles extend far beyond baseball, but the study clarified the relationship between climate and home runs. 

Baseball professionals have speculated in the past that climate change could increase home runs, most notably when professional commentator and former player Tim McCarver made the connection in 2012. At the time, he was ridiculed by sports journalists for making that observation, but the study adds more weight to his theory. 

The authors controlled for other factors that might have contributed to the overall rise in home runs, including performance-enhancing drugs, player training, and the actual construction of the baseball itself. 

“I was pretty surprised, just in the sense that the relationship was so robust,” said Callahan. “Any way you selected any version of the data to use, any time period you look at, you get the same result.”

But an important caveat of the study is that it is difficult to attribute any single home run to climate change, much like climate scientists are wary of saying that a single event is related to climate change. 

“I think that the science at the moment does not allow us to tie any particular home run to climate change,” said Callahan. 

Nathaniel Dominy, professor of anthropology at Dartmouth College and a co-author, said that more than anything, this study showed climate change’s far-reaching consequences. 

Studies about climate change usually focus on the larger groups that will be affected, like people living near the coastline, or the economy. But studies like these ones are important, according to Dominy, because they help demonstrate how climate change will affect every aspect of daily life. 

“There are aspects of our daily lives, things that we hold dear, that will be affected by climate change that are beyond the typical talking points,” said Dominy. 


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/culture/more-home-runs-baseball-because-climate-change/.

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

Legal expert: Fox settlement talks may mean “they realize the weakness in their own case”

The start of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation trial against Fox News was delayed Monday amid reports of settlement talks between the two sides.

Judge Eric Davis on Sunday announced that he would delay the beginning of the trial, including jury selection, until Tuesday. Two people familiar with the case told The Washington Post that both sides are instead scheduled to meet Monday to determine if a last-minute deal could be reached to avoid trial. 

One of the Post’s sources told the outlet that Davis asked the two sides to “make a final effort to settle the issue before proceeding with a trial.”

If the case proceeds to trial, a jury would be responsible for deciding how much to award Dominion in damages.

“Settlement talks will delay the trial but how long depends on how far apart the sides are on the money,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told Salon.

He added that Fox wants to avoid time in court to stop “negative headlines and limit the precedent this might set in the future as other news organizations are challenged on false assertions.”

Davis on Wednesday sanctioned Fox News after Dominion accused the company’s lawyers of withholding information in the discovery process, which Fox denied. 

The evidence includes recordings of former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell admitting they had no evidence to support their Dominion election fraud lies, which are at the heart of the lawsuit.

Davis also said he is considering tapping an outside investigator to look into Fox’s legal team for not being “straightforward” with him after the network failed to disclose the scope of Rupert Murdoch’s officer role at Fox News. Whether Murdoch made decisions as a corporate officer of Fox News or not is a key detail in Dominion’s case. The voting technology company has tried to show that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corporation, were involved in making decisions about what Fox broadcast as part of its coverage of the 2020 election. A spokesperson for Fox said the network complied with all of its discovery obligations.

The trial is one of the most closely-watched defamation cases in a decade. First Amendment experts believe that it could have a major impact on the public’s trust in the media and the future of defamation law.

“Sometimes as the parties get closer to trial and they dig into the details of witness testimony and exhibits, they realize the weakness in their own case, and become more interested in a settlement,” said former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and MSNBC contributor.

She added that while it is “very common for cases to settle”, it doesn’t happen this close to trial after a lot of legal fees have been incurred in preparing for the trial. 

“The delay would likely not impact the trial unless the case gets resolved altogether,” McQuade said.


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


Dominion has accused Fox of tarnishing its reputation by airing baseless conspiracy theories. But Fox has continued to defend itself, saying they were reporting on notable allegations protected by the First Amendment.

Davis last month ruled that the statements aired by Fox were false, meaning a jury only has to decide whether the statements were aired with “actual malice.” First Amendment experts have argued that Fox can no longer rely on the First Amendment as a defense since the evidence offered in the case has satisfied the “actual malice” standard, which is necessary to prove defamation. 

Another potential risk to Fox is a lawsuit from Smartmatic, which is demanding $2.7 billion over the network’s coverage of TrumpWorld’s false claims about the 2020 election. The case is working its way through New York state court.

How to make dinner while drowning: Tips for staying fed when everything feels hard

Outside of its most literal sense, when people talk about “drowning,” it can mean a lot of things. When one of my closest friends from college texted me that she was drowning last summer, she felt strangled by the increasingly blurred lines between remote work and personal time. When a creative writing student of mine emailed me last fall that they were drowning, it was because they had found out their partner — whom they were bringing home to meet their family for the holidays — had a secret wife and child.

And when I wrote in my journal this winter that I felt a bit like I was drowning, I chided myself for being a dramatic because, moreso, I felt like I was just awash in a sea of seasonal blues that would occasionally manifest as random spikes of my body’s “fight or flight” response; my stomach would sink and a random, visceral heat would spread from my cheeks down to my neck, before dispersing to my limbs. It was like my body was preparing to fight a burglar or run Scooby-Doo-style from a ghost, but in reality, I was just trying to make a morning cup of coffee

Soon, the “flight or fight” periods began to stretch beyond just a few random moments, sometimes extending for an hour or two at a time. It impacted my sleep and made it tough to eat. “Have you ever tried to make dinner while your body feels like it’s folding in on itself?” I asked a friend. 

“I have a book you should read,” she responded, sending a link to “How To Keep House While Drowning” by KC Davis, a licensed professional therapist, author, speaker, and the creator behind the mental health platform Struggle Care.

“What if a new philosophy to cleaning could teach us a new approach to mental health,” Davis said in a viral TED Talk from 2022. She goes on to describe on stage, as she does in the book, how she had pretty serious postpartum anxiety with her first child and, as she was expecting her second, she decided that it would be best to put together a meticulous postpartum plan. It involved family members swapping out tasks for the first 60 days, a cleaning service for which she had budgeted would come once a month and a new mom’s group with which she was involved would drop off dinners

“I was so proud of this plan,” she said. “And it ended before it even began.” 

This was in February 2020. After COVID lockdowns began, all the support Davis had secured disappeared overnight. She soon began to feel the heavy weight of postpartum depression, loneliness and all the chores that continued to pile up. At night, in bed when she should have been sleeping, she would tell herself she was a failure or that she was lazy. 

“You see, for some of you, all of the steps and skills that go into care tasks run on autopilot,” she said. “But for millions of people, the autopilot is broken. And what’s worse, what if you had to do that while your mom just died, or your job just fired you, or you’re using ounce of strength you have to just not kill yourself today.” 

I went into both Davis’ book and TED Talk, again, feeling a bit like an imposter. My situation wasn’t that bad; I had and have access to therapy and medical care, and we’re in the process of figuring out the Venn diagram of hormones, blood sugar and emotional stress that has obviously thrown my body for a loop. But she makes it clear that her philosophy — which centers on the idea that things like cooking, cleaning and laundry are morally neutral — is for anyone who feels like the weight of those everyday care tasks has, for whatever reason, left you feeling like you are drowning. 

“The truth is, it’s not about morality, it’s about functionality. Does your home work for you? Not some hypothetical house guest that is coming to inspect your closet.”

“Now, I know that if you’ve been watching Martha Stewart for decades and scrolling the perfect Pinterest aesthetic everyday, that it can feel like struggling with these tasks is a moral failure,” she said. “Like it’s because we are lazy or irresponsible or we’re immature. But having an organized closet doesn’t make you a success.”

She said: “The truth is, it’s not about morality, it’s about functionality. Does your home work for you? Not some hypothetical house guest that is coming to inspect your closet.” 

When things get really tough, Davis said, that’s when you can ask yourself a simple question: What do I need to function tomorrow morning? Because if you can figure that out, getting through the rest of the day is a little easier. 

Working in an industry that is often centered on aesthetics and aspirational content, Davis’ message appealed to me — and obviously to a lot of other people, too. It was an NPR Best Book of 2022 and was a USA Today bestseller; additionally, across platforms, David  has garnered over 1.5 million followers.

There are a lot of fantastic bits of wisdom in “How to Keep House While Drowning,” and I would recommend picking up the book to take them all in (it’s a short, punchy 160 pages). But I did want to share the tip that I found the most applicable to cooking and keeping oneself fed during tough times. Davis refers to it as “closing duties.” 

What are “closing duties”? 

If you’ve ever worked in a restaurant or bar, you know exactly what closing duties are: sweeping, mopping, cleaning tables and chairs, slicing lemons, disinfecting the soda machines, rolling silverware. It’s stuff that makes the next shift not only easier, but possible without any major headaches. 

“I’ve already talked about how, when you have the opportunity to do a task and struggle with the motivation to start, it might be helpful to think you are doing a kindness to ‘future you,'” Davis writes. “What does future you need to function tomorrow? On a good day, I like to unload and reload my dishwasher, pick up some toys, pack kid lunches for the morning, throw away whatever trash is lying around, take my medication, and make cold-brew coffee for the morning.” 

As she writes, it takes about 30 minutes each evening, but she knows that carving out that time will make things easier for future her. 

How to apply it to cooking 

Here are some suggestions I’ve found for applying Davis’ work to day-to-day cooking:

Make a list of static kitchen closing duties: Think about a few tasks that consistently need to get done to make cooking or feeding yourself easier. For me, that includes: loading and unloading the dishwasher; hand-washing any finicky pots or pans that I plan on using the next day; preparing coffee for the morning and preparing some “snack plate” elements for lunch (more on that in a second). 

Make a list of rotating kitchen closing duties: What’s on your menu this week? Let’s say you know that tomorrow, you’re planning on having chicken curry with cauliflower rice for dinner. The night before, it might make sense to do a few things like put frozen chicken thighs in the refrigerator to defrost, blitz a head of cauliflower in the blender or even just gather your ingredients within eyesight in your refrigerator so you don’t have to go digging for them when you get home from work and are tired. 

Be realistic about what you put on your list: Honestly, there are some prep tasks that I know are helpful, but I’m just not going to do them the night before (peeling potatoes, making salad dressings, whipping cream). If it’s not something that I’m going to realistically do, I don’t put it on the list. Also, I know that my “limit” for prep work is about a half hour, but for you it might be ten minutes. Either way, this is not about overloading yourself with another to-do list; it’s meant to ease stress, not cause it. 

Meal-planning and prep when it feels hard: Sometimes there are going to be weeks where the idea of even figuring out what to make feels overwhelming — let alone the idea of trying to get elements of it ready in advance. It doesn’t help that when a lot of people talk about meal prep, they talk about it in terms of taking hours over the weekend to cook, portion and freeze meal items. If you already feel like you are struggling to keep up, that probably doesn’t sound super sustainable. 

Store-bought is actually fine, I swear. Fed is best for babies and the same is often true for adults.

One thing you can do when you have the “spoons” — to borrow from writer Christine Miserandino’s 2003 essay “The Spoon Theory” — is to sit down with a journal or a notepad and physically write down meal ideas that are based off convenience or quick-fix items, like instant rice or jarred pasta sauce. Store-bought is actually fine, I swear. Fed is best for babies and the same is often true for adults. Sometimes it’s helpful to follow a simple checklist, like ensuring that you have at least a protein, a vegetable and a grain on your plate. 

Here are some ideas to get you started. 

  • Quick-cooking, instant or frozen rice topped with rotisserie chicken, Japanese BBQ sauce and sliced cucumber
  • Eggs scrambled with jarred salsa and canned black beans, served with tortillas (and avocado, if I’m feeling fancy)
  • Jarred sauce, frozen meatballs and pasta, served with bagged salad
  • Pre-marinated and sliced tofu, cold rice noodles, snap peas and bottled peanut sauce 
  • Jarred tikka masala, canned chickpeas, frozen peas and instant rice. 
  • The TikTok-famous kewpie salmon bowl, made with instant rice and canned salmon

For lunches, as mentioned above, I sometimes find it helpful to prepare some items for a snack plate as part of my “closing duties.” This week, that included turkey lunch meat, cucumber slices, a Babybel cheese, fancy rosemary and sea salt crackers, roasted peanuts and golden raisins. I like having food to pick over the course of an afternoon and having it already made makes sure that I do actually do eat

If, like me, your body is not always ready for traditional American breakfast foods, like eggs and bacon, first thing in the morning, pre-packaged protein shakes and smoothies are a nice option, too. There are even some coffee-flavored options that are pretty stellar.

Having lists of easy-to-make options can make other tasks, from grocery shopping to deciding what to make, much easier for future you. 

Give yourself some (a lot of) grace: 

There are going to be days — and perhaps stretches of days — that your planned closing duties just don’t get done. Maybe you’re sick, maybe you’re grieving, maybe you’re just plain burned out. Those are the days where it’s nice to have a stockpile of good, easy frozen meals. Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods both have great options that just require you to peel back some packaging and flick on the microwave. 

These are the days where it’s also nice to keep a pack of paper plates or disposable cutlery on-hand. Are they the most environmentally-friendly choice? Eh, probably not. But if the thought of having to wade through a sink of dirty dishes is preventing you from eating, then, please, grab the paper plate. As Davis said, your space should work for you (not the imaginary houseguest who is going to lecture you about your choices). 

Speaking of, don’t underestimate the sanity-saving value of a good delivery pizza. The leftovers are good for future you, too.

Italy is set to ban lab-grown meat — here’s why that might be a mistake

Scientists recently created a meatball with the flesh of the long-extinct woolly mammoth. The meatball was the product of one of this century’s most promising technological advancements — cellular agriculture.

Sometimes called “lab-grown meat”, the process involves growing animal products from animal cells in a controlled laboratory environment. The process eliminates many of the environmental, animal welfare and human health concerns that are associated with industrial livestock systems today.

But laboratory-grown animal products are yet to really take off. Singapore and the US are so far the only two countries in which lab-grown food products can be sold legally to consumers. The European Food Safety Authority is still assessing the potential risks associated with cultured animal products.

And on March 28, Italy’s minister of agriculture, Francesco Lollobrigida, announced that the country would become the first to ban lab-grown foods. The reason for the proposed ban is mainly to protect Italian farmers. But the government has also voiced concerns about the quality of synthetic foods and their threat to Italy’s proud culinary heritage.

However, lab-grown meat has the potential to offer a much more sustainable food source than traditional animal farming that could also help reduce the spread of disease.

 

How are meat products grown?

Scientists can grow muscle tissue synthetically by reproducing the process of cellular regeneration that occurs naturally in an animal’s muscles. This task is carried out by stem cells, which are specialized in cellular division. Stem cells are collected by obtaining a tissue sample from a living animal before being isolated and cultivated in conditions that resemble the animal’s body.

It currently takes around four weeks to produce a burger. A range of other animal products can be cultivated in a lab, including seafood and milk.

           

How is meat produced in a laboratory?

Fewer resources

There are growing concerns around the climate impact of meat production.

At present, livestock production alone consumes 70% of the world’s arable land and uses vast amounts of water. This may increase further in the future. Meat consumption is expected to double by 2050 as the middle class grows in China, Brazil, India and across Africa.

But, if scaled up, lab-grown meat would use substantially less land and water. Research finds that around 99% less land is required to produce 1kg of lab-grown meat than would have to be used by European farms to produce the same amount.

Producing 1kg of meat in a laboratory would also use between 82% and 96% less water than a traditional livestock farm, depending on which product is compared.

 

Lower health risk

Cultivating meat from cells can also reduce the risk of disease development and prevent unnecessary animal suffering.

There are obvious welfare issues associated with crowding animals together on farms. But these cramped conditions also make diseases like avian flu, mad cow disease and the African swine fever virus more likely to develop and spread.

In the year 2018–2019, around 225 million pigs in China either died or were culled due to the outbreak of African swine fever. This is equivalent to around one quarter of the global pig population.

Animal farmers use antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease. But their overuse is contributing to a rise of antibiotic resistance. The United Nations estimates that, by 2050, antibiotic resistance will lead to more deaths than cancer worldwide.

Lab-grown meat is also safer to eat when it comes to bacteria. The cells used in cultivated meat production are carefully screened to make sure they are not contaminated with infectious pathogens.

Meat products that are grown from cells are also free from contamination by faecal bacteria like E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria. These bacteria live inside an animals’ gut and can contaminate the meat when the animal is slaughtered.

 

An environmentally friendly alternative?

Industrial livestock systems — particularly cattle farms — are responsible for the emission of huge quantities of greenhouse gases like CO₂ and methane. But growing meat from cells can have a similar — and sometimes even worse — environmental footprint.

Cellular food technologies generate more CO₂ (up to 22.1kg of CO₂ per kg of meat) than conventional cattle farms at present (which produce up to 5.4kg CO₂). This is largely because maintaining the right conditions for cell growth in a laboratory consumes a lot of energy.

Lab-grown meat does, however, produce substantially less methane than  conventional cattle farming. This will vary depending on the method of culturing and farming used, but on average, 1kg of meat grown in a lab produces up to 0.082kg of methane. In comparison, a kilogram of meat produced on a conventional farm can generate up to 1.2kg of methane.

Methane has a 25-times greater global warming potential than CO₂. But it remains in the atmosphere for much less time — around 20 years compared with centuries for CO₂. This means that the CO₂ that accumulates in the environment will fuel global warming for a long time after its emission. So upscaling cellular food technology to a mass-market production system before energy systems are decarbonized is risky.

Lab-grown meat has the potential to make our food system more sustainable. As energy systems are decarbonized, this new form of food will only become more attractive.

But upscaling the technology will require a lot of political will. And, as shown by Italy’s prospective ban, political will is in short supply.


 Imagine weekly climate newsletter
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


Silvia Malagoli, Postdoctoral Researcher in Fisheries Science, University of Strathclyde

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

A mysterious, banned industrial chemical is cracking a new hole in the ozone layer

The hole in Earth’s ozone layer — which made headlines in the 1970s and 1980s but which has been slowly healing since an international treaty banned the chemicals creating it — is growing bigger again. The culprit is an increase in the release of banned chlorofluorocarbon gases, which break up the molecules of ozone that protect Earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. 

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a class of synthetic chemicals used in a number of industrial applications, including refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosols. First developed in the 1920s, they saw widespread use in industrial applications and consumer goods due to their stability, low toxicity, and non-flammability. However, in the 1970s, scientists discovered that CFCs were contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer. When CFCs are released into the atmosphere, they rise up to the stratosphere and are broken down by UV radiation, releasing chlorine atoms. These chlorine atoms then break up the fragile bonds between the three oxygen atoms that form the compound ozone, thus depleting the ozone layer that protects life from harmful, high-energy sunlight.

These chemicals can last in the stratosphere for hundreds of years – which can not only affect the ozone layer but also the climate.

Since the discovery of their detrimental effects on the ozone layer, their production and use have been phased out. In the late 1980s, the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole led to global concern and action to limit the production and use of CFCs. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, is an international treaty aimed at phasing out the production and consumption of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. The success of the Montreal Protocol is evident in the significant reduction of CFC levels in the atmosphere and the gradual restoration of the ozone layer.

Despite this, recent studies have shown that CFC levels are on the rise, posing a threat to the recovery of the ozone layer. A new study published in Nature Geoscience shows that five types of CFCs have been rising rapidly in the past decade. While the Montreal Protocol allows – but doesn’t encourage – use of CFCs as an intermediate product in the production of less-damaging hydrofluorocarbons, the rising emission may counteract the positive effects of the Montreal Protocol. 

“This shouldn’t be happening,” Martin Vollmer, an atmospheric chemist at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology in Dübendorf who helped to analyze data from an international network of CFC monitors, said to Nature Magazine. “We expect the opposite trend, we expect them to slowly go down.”

At the moment, the current levels are not threatening the closure of the ozone layer’s gap. However, these chemicals can last in the stratosphere for hundreds of years – which can not only affect the ozone layer but also the climate. As potent greenhouse gases, these gases will only contribute to the overall warming of the atmosphere. 

Pinpointing the exact origin of these chemicals is difficult since there are no known reactions that would produce CFC-13 as a byproduct.

The researchers focused on only five CFCs in the stratosphere, and they were able to determine the three CFCs, CFC-113a, CFC-114a, and CFC-115, had increased emissions due to their usage in HFCs. The producers of the two other CFCs that are increasing in atmospheric concentration, CFC-13, and CFC-112a, are still a mystery. 

The most likely source of the production of these banned compounds is factories in regions with poor regulatory structures. Ian Rae from the University of Melbourne’s School of Chemistry told ABC Science that “not all countries are as strict in regulating their industries.”

“There’s a tendency if you’ve got an impurity to just let it go,” Rae said. “In poorly regulated countries that’s what happens — you put it down the drain if you don’t want it.”


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


While CFC-112a’s appearance is assumed to result from the byproduct of a different industrial reaction, scientists can only speculate as to where CFC-13 is originating from. Pinpointing the exact origin of these chemicals is difficult since there are no known reactions that would produce CFC-13 as a byproduct. 

For decades, researchers have consistently observed atmospheric levels of CFCs. Typically, the global monitoring system has worked well for stopping polluters, at least in past years when similar issues arose. 

Indeed, in 2019, researchers detected unusually high levels of CFC-11 in the atmosphere, which they tracked back to eastern China. Using readings from stations across Eastern Asia in countries such as South Korea and Japan, they were able to pinpoint the source of increased CFC-11 emissions in eastern mainland China, a violation of the Montreal Protocol. Since then, illegal CFC emissions like that began to steadily decrease.

In this new study, researchers say that the release of industrial byproducts like CFC-112a may need to be addressed in a revised version of the Montreal Protocol.

In East Kentucky, timely weather forecasts are a matter of life and death

Terry Thies wasn’t worried about the rain that pounded on her roof last July. 

She had received no flood warnings before going to sleep that night. Besides, her part of rural Perry County in Eastern Kentucky often gets heavy rain.

So early the next morning when her foot hit the water lapping the bottom of her wooden bed frame, Thies’ first thought was that the toilet had overflowed. But as she scanned her bedroom for the water’s source, she realized this was something else entirely. 

“I came into the kitchen and opened the door and water was flowing down the lane,” Thies said. “Water was in my yard and rushing down. And I was like, well, I guess I’ve been flooded.” 

In the days leading up to the storm, the National Weather Service predicted heavy rain and a moderate risk of flooding across a wide swath of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. What happened instead was a record-breaking four-day flood event in eastern Kentucky that killed a confirmed 43 people and destroyed thousands of homes. 

And though the National Weather Service issued repeated alerts, many people received no warning.

“Not a soul, not one emergency outlet texted me or alerted me via phone,” Thies said. 

“Nobody woke me up.” 

Thies’ experience in the July floods reveals troubling truths about Kentucky’s severe weather emergency alert systems. Imprecise weather forecasting and spotty emergency alerts due to limited cellular and internet access in rural Kentucky meant that Thies and many others were wholly unprepared for the historic flood. 

Efforts to improve these systems are underway, but state officials say expansions to broadband infrastructure will take at least four years to be completed in Kentucky’s most rural counties. In a state where flooding is common, these improvements could be the difference between life and death for rural Kentuckians. 

But there’s no guarantee they’ll come before the next climate change-fueled disaster. 

The first system that failed eastern Kentuckians in July was the weather forecasting system, which did not accurately predict the severity of the storm. A built-in urban bias in weather forecasting is partially to blame. 

“Did we forecast [the storm] being that extreme? No, we didn’t,” said Pete Gogerian, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service station in Jackson, Kentucky, which serves the 13 eastern Kentucky counties affected by the July floods. 

For the days preceding the storm, the Jackson station warned of a ‘moderate risk’ of flooding across much of their service area. Observers with the benefit of hindsight might argue that a designation of ‘high risk’ would have been more appropriate. But Jane Marie Wix, a meteorologist at the Jackson station, wrote in an email to the Daily Yonder that the high-risk label is rarely issued, and simply didn’t match what the model was predicting for the July storms. 

“When we have an event of this magnitude, we’ll go back and look at, are there any indicators? Did we miss something? Was there really any model predicting this kind of event?” Gogerian said. “But when you looked at [the flooding in] eastern Kentucky, it just wasn’t there.”

“I don’t think anyone could have predicted just how bad it was going to end up being,” Wix wrote.  

Wix says the moderate risk warning was enough to warn people that the storm could have severe impacts in many locations. But the model’s inaccuracy demonstrates a flaw in the National Weather Service forecasting model system that was used at the time of the flood. 

Extreme weather is hard to predict in any setting, but rural regions like eastern Kentucky are at an additional disadvantage due to an urban bias baked into national weather forecasting systems, according to Vijay Tallapragada, the senior scientist at the National Weather Service’s Environmental Modeling Center. 

Forecasting models depend on observational data — information about past and present weather conditions —to predict what will come next. But there’s more data available for urban areas than for rural areas, according to Tallapragada. 

“Urban areas are observed more than rural areas … and that can have some, I would say, unintended influence on how the models perceive a situation,” he said.

Although spaceborn satellites and remote sensing systems provide a steady supply of rural data, other methods of observation, like aircraft and weather balloons, are usually concentrated in more densely populated areas.

“Historically, many weather observations were developed around aviation, so a lot of weather radars are located at major airports in highly populated cities,” said Jerry Brotzge, Kentucky state climatologist and director of the Kentucky Climate Center. “That leaves a lot of rural areas with less data.” 

Weather prediction models are based on past events, so the lack of historical weather data in rural areas poses a serious challenge for future predictions, according to Brotzge. “For large areas of Appalachia, we just don’t know the climatology there as well as, say, Louisville or some of the major cities,” he said.

This lack of current and historical weather observation can leave rural areas vulnerable to poor weather forecasting, which can have catastrophic results in the case of extreme weather events. 

A new forecasting model, however, could close the gap in rural severe weather prediction. 

The new Unified Forecast System is being developed by the National Weather Service and a group of academic and community partners. The modeling system is set to launch in 2024, but the results so far are promising, according to Tallapragada.

“In the next couple years, we will see a revolutionary change in how we are going to predict short-range weather and the extremes associated with it,” he said.

The problem with the current system, said Tallapragada, is that it depends on one model to do all the work.

A new application called the Rapid Refresh Forecast System is set to replace that single model with an ensemble of 10 models. Using multiple models allows meteorologists to introduce more statistical uncertainty into their calculations, which produces a broader, and more accurate, range of results, according to Tallapragada. He said that although the new system is not yet finished, it has already proven to be on par with, or better than, the current model. 

 

The Rapid Refresh Forecasting System will mitigate the disparity between urban and rural forecasting because it depends more on statistical probabilities and less on current and historical observational data, which is where the biggest gap in rural data currently lies, according to Tallapragada.

The system could also mean improved accuracy when it comes to predicting severe weather, like Kentucky’s July flood event.

“The range of solutions provided by the new system will capture the extremes much better, independent of whether you are observing better or poorly,” Tallapragada said. “That’s the future of all weather prediction.”

As extreme weather events become more common due to climate change, this advancement in weather forecasting has the potential to transform local and regional responses to severe weather. But without massive investments in broadband, life-saving severe weather alerts could remain out of reach for rural communities.

Over a year before the July 2022 floods devastated eastern Kentucky, some counties in the same region were hit by floods that, while not as deadly, still upended lives.

“There were no warnings for that flood,” said Tiffany Clair, an Owsley County resident, in a Daily Yonder interview. “It was fast.” 

Clair received no warning when extreme rains hit her home in March of 2021, which severely damaged nearby towns like Booneville and Beattyville. “I did not think that those [towns] would recover,” Clair said.

Businesses and homes were impaired for months after the flood, affecting not only the people in those communities but those from neighboring communities as well.

“We live in a region where we travel from township to township for different things, and [the March 2021 floods] were a blow to the region and to the communities, because we’re kind of interlocked around here,” Clair said. “It’s part of being an eastern Kentuckian.”

A little over a year later, Clair faced more flooding, this time enough to displace her and her children. They now live with Clair’s mother. 

This time around, Clair did receive an emergency warning, but questioned the method through which these warnings were sent. “[The warnings] did go all night, the last time, in July,” Clair said. “But if you don’t have a signal or if your phone’s dead, how are you getting those?”

During severe weather events, people are alerted of risk through a handful of ways. Weather information reported from regional National Weather Service offices is disseminated through local TV and radio stations, specialized weather radios, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s wireless emergency alert system, which requires cell service to deliver. 

 

But in rural eastern Kentucky in July, the most common way people learned about the flooding was by seeing the water rise firsthand, according to a report from the Kentucky Department of Public Health. 

The agency surveyed people from over 400 households in Breathitt, Clay, Floyd, Knott, Letcher, Owsley and Perry counties, as well as displaced residents living in three shelter sites. The goal of the study was to understand how the floods affected Kentuckians and determine ways to better prepare for the next emergency. 

Nearly 14 percent of households in Letcher, Knott, Owsley and Perry counties and 28 percent of households in Breathitt, Clay, Floyd and Pike counties reported difficulty accessing internet, television, radio, and cell service for emergency communications during the floods. Cell phone service and internet access were the top two communication methods residents reported the most difficulty accessing.  

The floods killed a confirmed 43 people: 19 from Knott County, 10 from Breathitt, seven from Perry, four from Letcher, two from Clay, and one from Pike County. Several more people died after the floods due to related health complications. 

In Knott and Breathitt County, where death counts were the highest, approximately 32 percent of residents do not have broadband access, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. And in 10 of the 13 counties flooded in July, more than a quarter of residents lack broadband access. 

Rural areas across the country are underserved when it comes to broadband, but eastern Kentucky is a special trouble spot, where high costs to serve rural customers have stopped internet companies from setting up broadband in rural areas. In 2017, Kentucky ranked 47th in the nation for broadband access, according to the Kentucky Communications Network Authority

“There’s a lot of frustration because a lot of these internet service providers are profit-based companies,” said Meghan Sandfoss, executive director of the state’s newly created Office of Broadband Development. “So it’s hard for them sometimes to make a business case for the more remote and low density locations.”

The state’s effort to expand broadband has sputtered for years due to missteps by government officials, according to Propublica reporting. An internet connectivity project, KentuckyWired, was launched in 2013 with the goal to construct 3,000 miles of high-speed fiber optic cable in every Kentucky county by 2018. The project didn’t reach its final steps until fall of 2022, according to a KentuckyWired construction map.

Getting the cable laid down is only one part of the process: for individual households and businesses to actually access the internet, third-party providers need to connect their own fiber systems to the network, according to the Kentucky Communications Network Authority. This “last-mile” infrastructure is critical to broadband expansion, but progress has been slow. 

“That might be another 10 years or 20 years while all that last-mile stuff gets built,” said Doug Dawson, a telecommunications consultant, in a ProPublica interview from 2020. 

To speed up this process, both the state and federal governments have recently directed funds toward improved internet connectivity and last-mile infrastructure. 

In June of 2022, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear announced a $203 million investment in last-mile infrastructure funded through the American Rescue Plan Act. Another $20 million of grants was opened in September for broadband providers to replace utility poles that provide connectivity in underserved areas. And early this year, another $182 million in federal funding was awarded to fund Kentucky’s “Better Internet” grant program. 

This grant program is focused on making it more commercially feasible for private internet providers to reach rural areas, said Sandfoss from the Office of Broadband Development. The priority is to build broadband infrastructure in unserved locations where there is no internet, versus under-served locations with limited internet access.

“A frustration we hear frequently is that all these new locations are being connected and everybody else has to wait,” Sandfoss said. “But that’s just the federal funding priority, and that’s the way we’ve got to do it.” 

Construction on the state’s broadband infrastructure expansions is expected to occur over the next four years.

As extreme weather continues to batter rural Kentucky – floods in February killed one person in rural Marion County – some locals aren’t waiting for governmental changes to better protect themselves in the face of disaster. 

Terry Thies, whose childhood home was flooded in July, has decided to sell her house.

 

“Now that it has flooded, it will probably flood again,” Thies said. She plans to move up the mountain, away from the creek that damaged her home. “I just don’t wanna go through it again.”

But for Kentuckians who don’t have the financial means to move away from higher-risk flood areas, they may be stuck in place. Eastern Kentucky is in the middle of a major housing crisis: affordable housing is sparse, buildable land outside flood zones is limited, and construction costs for new homes can be prohibitively expensive. 

“[The flood] was horrible, but we were very, very lucky,” said Tiffany Clair, whose home was destroyed in the July flood. Clair and her children were able to move in with her mother when they lost housing. “But the next time I don’t think we’ll be that lucky.”

Clair believes that rural Kentucky’s ability to withstand the next natural disaster hinges on the actions taken by local and state leaders. 

“We can’t do anything to prepare for it. It is going to take our leaders, it is going to take our politicians,” she said. “They’re the ones that have to prepare for it because we can’t.”


Additional reporting by Caroline Carlson and Xandr Brown.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/equity/kentucky-flood-extreme-weather-forecast-alert-broadband-internet/.

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

“Nakedly unconstitutional”: Missouri AG limits trans health care for all ages

In a move on Thursday that appears to be the first of its kind, conservative Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued a sweeping set of regulations on gender-affirming care for both children and adults, implementing restrictions that trans advocates say will almost certainly lead to the death of trans people across the state.

The emergency rule, chock-full of disinformation about trans health care, will essentially make obtaining gender-affirming care impossible, many trans advocates say.

The rule prohibits people from being able to access gender-affirming care without jumping through hoops, and deems it “an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice” for a provider to give care to a person before they have met a series of burdensome conditions, despite the fact that gender-affirming care can often be lifesaving.

Under the rule, trans people will be forced to document feelings of gender dysphoria for at least three years and go through a mandatory 18 months of therapy before receiving treatment — even though gender dysphoria is not a universal experience of trans people, and medical experts have long advocated against forcing trans people to obtain the diagnosis.

The rule will also force providers to give people seeking gender-affirming care documents warning against receiving the treatment. And, playing into dangerous misconceptions about trans people, the rule makes health care providers screen trans patients for social media addiction and autism to determine if they have been influenced by “social contagion” — heinously suggesting that trans people are merely hopping on a trend, rather than seeking to affirm their identities and, for many, bring an end to psychological torment.

The rule is slated to go into effect on April 27 and will be effective until next February. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Missouri and Lambda Legal have pledged to sue to block the regulation.

“The Attorney General’s so-called emergency rule is based on distorted, misleading, and debunked claims and ignores the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care as well as the medical experts and doctors who work with transgender people every day,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “This rule is a shocking attempt to exploit Missouri’s consumer protection laws in order to play politics with life-saving medical care.”

According to The Associated Press, the regulation appears to be the most extreme in the country in restricting care not just for children, but for all ages.

Trans advocates have said that the move represents an escalation in the right’s all-out war on trans people.

In attempting to justify the restrictions, “Bailey’s rule cites debunked studies on social contagion, fearmongers about autism without attempting to justify the concern, and makes it effectively impossible for adults to transition,” said Ari Drennen, LGBTQ program director for Media Matters for America. “Everyone should worry about this nakedly unconstitutional escalation.”

Trans activist and journalist Erin Reed pointed out that prominent anti-trans figures were already criticizing the rule for not going far enough. “In response to Missouri AG’s move to ban gender affirming care for trans adults, Matt Walsh states, ‘You shouldn’t be allowed to change your gender at all,'” Reed wrote. “They have moved into the next step on transgender elimination. This is a new phase in their war against trans people.”

On the same day as Bailey’s rule, Republicans in the Missouri House voted to ban access to gender-affirming care for minors. The bill, unlike the Republican-controlled Senate’s version of the bill, provides no exceptions for children already undergoing gender-affirming treatment.

Regulators may finally be responding to growing alarm over PFAS contamination

Every new study on PFAS contamination points to a frightening reality: The chemicals aren’t just in household products, they’re everywhere in our environment. Recent analyses have found PFAS — also known as “forever chemicals” — in 83% of sampled surface waters, 60% of sampled public groundwater wells and in the bodies of animals up and down the food chain. Freshwater fish from nearly every state have such elevated PFAS levels that eating them even infrequently can significantly increase exposure to the chemicals.

Meanwhile, the body of research that links PFAS exposure to adverse health outcomes — like endocrine disruption and cancer — and environmental degradation continues to grow, highlighting the urgency to stop producing the chemicals immediately. But even as regulators like the EPA are finally developing guidelines for how to handle PFAS contamination, slow responses from industry and unsettled science over how to remediate contamination mean that we’ll be dealing with the fallout from forever chemicals for quite some time.

Where Does PFAS Contamination Come From?

PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of chemicals that impart non-stick, greaseproof and flame retardant properties to materials. This makes them appealing additives to a huge range of goods, from non-stick cookware to greaseproof food packaging to clothing to firefighting foams. When these products are manufactured or thrown away, they leach PFAS into soil and waterways. And because of their unique chemical structure, PFAS don’t degrade in the environment like most other substances, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.”

Some of the biggest early discoveries of PFAS contamination occurred near airbases and other locations where firefighting foams were frequently deployed or stored. In these cases, the Department of Defense has spent billions on bottled water and water treatment systems to avoid excess exposures for its personnel. But as PFAS became more and more common additives to everyday goods, sources of contamination have also increased. Soil and water around manufacturing and disposal sites are all likely to have elevated PFAS levels and farmland can get contaminated via pesticides, where the chemicals are used in packaging or as surfactants that help distribute other chemicals evenly.

On an individual level, PFAS exposure can come from anything that’s been treated with the chemicals, like cookware, textiles, furniture and carpets. Contact with food packaging, especially greaseproof materials, contributes to higher blood PFAS levels. They also settle in dust, where they pose a particular risk to children that might come into contact with it. Food itself can also be a source of PFAS when crops or animals were raised or caught in environments with high PFAS levels.

But it’s the downstream accumulation of household and human PFAS exposure — treated wastewater and its byproducts — that have come under recent scrutiny. Processed solid material from sewage treatment, called biosolids, have been a widely used fertilizer for decades. Never uncontroversial, biosolids have long raised concerns about pathogen spread and pharmaceutical disposal, but the EPA has generally signed off on their use. In recent years, however, mounting awareness of PFAS in water supplies led to the realization that wastewater and biosolids were laden with PFAS, meaning that farmland fertilized with biosolids could also be contaminated.

So far, studies have shown that soil with a history of biosolid application can be contaminated with PFAS to depths of at least 9 meters, with PFAS present in deeper groundwater, too. In Maine, analysis of contaminated soils and groundwater led officials to start testing milk and other products. They discovered many were well beyond safe thresholds for PFAS consumption. As testing has expanded, many farms across the states have essentially stopped operating. With biosolid application in common practice around the country, it’s nearly certain that other states have similar problems, but Maine’s ballooning contamination crisis has led many farmers to be wary of testing their own land.

Why is Environmental PFAS Contamination Risky?

Because of their unique chemical structure, PFAS were originally marketed as functionally inert. Today, scientists have shown that’s far from the case: PFAS exposure damages immune systems, lowers vaccine effectiveness, causes liver damage, disrupts thyroid function and increases the risk of certain cancers. Emerging research documents that these harms are especially acute for children, because disruptions to metabolism and endocrine pathways can cause growth delays and abnormalities. These impacts are especially pronounced when people are exposed to multiple PFAS varieties, a near certainty given the ever expanding list of PFAS that show up in environmental monitoring.

From an environmental perspective, the chemicals are just as risky. They cause many of the same problems in animals as they do in humans and their tendency to bioaccumulate — increase in concentration as they move up the food chain — means they pose a particular risk to already vulnerable species of fish and mammals in the ocean. PFAS in soils are tenacious and have the potential to contaminate plant material for many generations as plants take up the chemicals from their roots and release them again when they decompose. Meanwhile, PFAS in water are extremely mobile and rather than simply accumulating in the ocean, can make their way back into the water cycle from sea spray and redistribute over a wide area in rainwater.

What are Governments Doing About PFAS?

Even as it becomes clearer that PFAS contamination is both more ubiquitous and more harmful than originally thought, federal and state governments have been slow to respond. In a situation that parallels the agency’s approach to pesticide regulation, a long-term pattern of deference to the chemical industry means that the EPA isn’t well equipped to do its own detailed risk assessments and so even as medical journals publish more and more research pointing to the role of PFAS as potent endocrine disruptors, response from the agency has been inconsistent and slow.

Despite early recognition that many PFAS could leach into food, it took the EPA until 2002 to begin the process of regulating some of the worst offenders, when it mandated that manufacturers disclose using certain PFAS, but the timeline for action didn’t match the urgency of the problem. Even when voluntarily phasing out some of the worst PFAS, manufacturers have replaced well-researched chemicals with other PFAS that have less-understood health impacts. These chemicals had little trouble jumping through the hoops required by the FDA to get approved for use in food packaging, leading to the wide array of PFAS we see in products today.

Unsurprisingly, the anti-regulation Trump administration failed to take effective action on PFAS and even set a proposed safety limit for the chemicals, 70 parts per trillion (ppt), that was dramatically above levels researchers considered safe. The Biden administration has taken PFAS more seriously, releasing a proposal in March 2023 that would cap the most common PFAS in public water supplies to 4 ppt, far less than the earlier limit, but still a compromise from safe levels. However, it’s one thing to have goals and another to meet them; without serious infrastructure investment, most public utilities can’t test for PFAS effectively, let alone filter them out of water.

Meanwhile, some state governments have taken more aggressive action to curb PFAS production. California recently passed bills banning the sale of cosmetics containing PFAS, phasing out PFAS use in textiles and mandating PFAS disclosure for all products and ingredients entering the state. It also dedicated resources to monitoring PFAS levels in waterways, with a focus on the underserved communities that tend to have higher levels of PFAS because of their proximity to manufacturing and waste disposal sites. New York recently banned PFAS in clothing and food packaging, joining similar legislation from Maryland and Oregon, while Pennsylvania and Rhode Island both have introduced their own water monitoring standards and limits for the most common PFAS varieties.

But by far the most stringent PFAS legislation comes from Maine, where a progressive statewide ban on the products started in January 2023. Aiming to completely eliminate PFAS from all products by 2030, the regulation is a response to Maine’s acute on-farm PFAS crisis and growing concern about their impact. But the state isn’t stopping there: The attorney general’s office is suing two of the biggest PFAS manufacturers, DuPont and 3M, alleging they knew the risks associated with PFAS manufacturing but continued to produce and market them long after those risks became apparent.

Are We Too Late?

As governments finally begin to monitor PFAS levels, it’s increasingly clear that the most important thing to do is stop producing them immediately. But for places like Maine that have begun to look hard at their PFAS problem, there’s an unanswered question of what to do with the PFAS that are already in the soil.

No industrial contaminant is good news or easy to deal with, but most aren’t as tenacious as forever chemicals. There’s an array of techniques agencies like the EPA can use to clean up and contain environmental contaminants, like capping them off with impervious materials, treating or neutralizing them with other compounds or simply limiting access to areas while contaminants break down. Unfortunately, the science on how to remediate PFAS contamination is still sparse. Removing PFAS from water is possible, since they can be filtered out and contained with fairly common (albeit expensive) techniques on a municipal scale, but removing PFAS from soil is significantly more difficult, relying on techniques that are prohibitively expensive or that leave secondary contaminants.

On some contaminated land, there might be enough potential development money to make the current remediation techniques worth their high cost. But for farms, especially the dairy farms in Maine that were already barely breaking even, the current remediation strategies are laughably out of reach.

Still, farmers and researchers haven’t given up and are even looking at the crisis’s main problem, contaminated crops, with a silver lining. Since crops are clearly pulling PFAS out of contaminated soil, researchers are investigating whether they can be used efficiently enough to treat land through a process called phytoremediation. It’s a proven technique for some environmental contaminants like heavy metals, but with so many questions unanswered about how long treating soil could take and what to do with contaminated plants, it’s not the ready-to-use solution farmers need.

In the meantime, farmers affected by contamination need support to survive. The Maine Congressional delegation introduced the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, which would give financial assistance to farmers and extend testing capacity across the country, along with bolstering research on remediation strategies. As Maine Senator Susan Collins stated,  “This is not just a problem in Maine — PFAS contamination has been discovered on farms across the country and this problem will only become more evident as testing becomes more readily available.” With PFAS production still not in the rear view, addressing PFAS contamination on farms across the country is shaping up to be a lengthy and expensive endeavor.

“He needs to be investigated”: Abortion case judge may have hid law review article from Senate

Calls for an investigation into Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk mounted Saturday after The Washington Post revealed that the U.S. judge behind a temporarily blocked ruling against an abortion medication may have taken his name off of a controversial law review article as he sought a nomination to the federal bench from then-President Donald Trump.

In February 2017, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the Christian conservative legal group First Liberty Institute and sent an application to the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, established by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both Texas Republicans, to vet potential nominees from their state. He was interviewed by the committee in March, the two senators in April, and White House and Justice Department offices in May.

Trump nominated Kacsmaryk to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in September—the same month that the journal Texas Review of Law and Politics, which Kacsmaryk led as a University of Texas a law student, published “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” an article criticizing Obama administration protections for transgender patients and people seeking abortions,with First Liberty lawyers Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub listed as the sole authors.

Kacsmaryk’s nomination was sent back to the White House twice, but Trump renominated him both times and the judge was eventually confirmed by Senate Republicans in June 2019. Although judicial nominees are required to disclose any publication with which they are associated, the article is never mentioned in the questionnaire that Kacsmaryk filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When Kacsmaryk initially submitted a draft of the article to the journal in early 2017, Butterfield and Taub’s names did not appear anywhere, including in the footnotes, the Post reported. On April 11, a week after he was interviewed by the GOP senators, Kacsmaryk—whose initials are MJK—emailed an editor an updated version and attached a file titled “MJK First Draft.”

Later that month, Kacsmaryk, wrote in an email that after consulting with the editor in chief, “For reasons I may discuss at a later date, First Liberty attorneys Justin Butterfield and Stephanie Taub will co-author the aforementioned article.”

According to the Post:

Kacsmaryk did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for First Liberty, Hiram Sasser, said that Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution.” Aaron Reitz, who was the journal’s editor in chief at the time and is now a deputy to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said Kacsmaryk had been “our chief point of contact during much of the editing” and “was the placeholder until final authors were named by First Liberty.”

On Saturday, after this story was first published, Sasser provided an email showing that Stephanie Taub, one of the people listed as an author on the published article, was involved in writing an early draft.

But one former review editor familiar with the events said there was no indication that Kacsmaryk had been a “placeholder,” adding that this was the only time during their tenure at the law review that they ever saw author names swapped. The former editor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, provided emails and several drafts of the article.

Butterfield and Taub, who still work at First Liberty, did not respond to requests for comment, but Sasser told the Post that “Matthew appears to have not gotten to the project so Stephanie decided to do a first draft that Justin edited.”

“It appears Matthew provided some light edits,” Sasser added.

After the article was published, “Sasser sent what he said were emails showing that Taub, who was then associate counsel, was involved in writing the article as early as December 2016,” the Post reported. “She sent an outline to Kacsmaryk, according to the emails provided by First Liberty, and then a first draft one month later.”

As the newspaper noted:

When Kacsmaryk requested the authorship switch, the editor familiar with the events said they raised the issue with Reitz, the law review’s editor in chief. The lower-ranking editor asked why Kacsmaryk was making the request.

Reitz smiled, the editor recalled, then said, “You’ll see.”

Reitz did not address the exchange with the editor in his statement to the Post. But he said that “because of their work on the article, Mr. Butterfield and Ms. Taub rightfully received credit as authors.”

As a judge, Kacsmaryk has issued key decisions on both reproductive and trans rights. Earlier this month, he struck down the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs often taken in tandem for abortions, though his “junk science” ruling was temporarily halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In response to the revelations Saturday, Congressman Ted Lieu, D-Calif., urged Kacsmaryk to step down, tweeting: “Why did Judge Kacsmaryk mislead the American people during his confirmation hearing about his abortion views? Because he knew he wouldn’t be confirmed if people found out he was a religious zealot. Judge Kacsmaryk made a mockery of the confirmation process and must resign.”

U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., an attorney who served as lead counsel in Trump’s first impeachment trial, called for a probe: “The judge hand-picked by the GOP to enjoin mifepristone withdrew his name from a law review article denouncing medication abortion *during* his confirmation process—and did not disclose the article. He needs to be investigated.”

Federal judges serve lifetime appointments unless they retire or are removed from the bench—which requires being impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

“Unless there is some really surprising and persuasive innocent explanation for the sudden authorship swap, this is grounds for impeachment and removal,” New York University School of Law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman said of Kacsmaryk.

Given that the House is currently controlled by Republicans, the reporting provoked some calls for a probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)—who has openly criticized Kacsmaryk’s mifepristone ruling and this week pledged to soon hold a hearing on “the devastating fallout” since the U.S. Supreme Court overruledRoe v. Wade last June.

“A functioning Senate Judiciary Committee could investigate this,” declaredThe Nation‘s Jeet Heer.

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law professor and reproductive rights activist David S. Cohen agreed, arguing: “The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to call him in to testify and explain. Now.”

Alex Aronson, a former chief counsel to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who questioned Kacsmaryk during his confirmation hearing, told the Post that not disclosing such an article is “unethical” and raises concerns about “the candor and honesty of the nominee.”

“The Senate Judiciary questionnaire requires nominees to disclose all ‘published materials you have written or edited,'” Aronson tweeted. “It’s not a close call. Kacsmaryk needed to disclose this article he ghostwrote. What else did he bury?”

“No excuse”: Black Kansas City teen shot after knocking on wrong door — but white suspect released

Gun control advocates were among the progressives calling for criminal charges on Sunday for a Kansas City, Missouri resident who allegedly shot a Black teenager last week when the 16-year-old mistakenly knocked on his door.

Ralph Yarl reportedly meant to pick up his two younger brothers at a home on 115th Terrace in Kansas City on Thursday evening, but accidentally went to a house on 115th Street and rang the doorbell.

A suspect who has not been identified allegedly opened the door and shot Yarl once in the head and then in the arm after he had fallen to the ground.

Attorneys for Yarl’s family say the shooter was a white male.

Yarl was able to run to three different neighbors’ houses before finally reaching someone to ask for help, and has been hospitalized with a “life-threatening injury,” according to The Guardian.

Protests broke out in the city over the weekend after the suspect was released, under Missouri law, from a “24-hour hold” and allowed to walk free without being charged.

Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves has said the police department is currently compiling evidence and needs a victim’s statement in order to press charges, but attorneys for Yarl’s family have joined local community members and gun control advocates in demanding a prompt investigation and charges for the suspect.

“There can be no excuse for the release of this armed and dangerous suspect after admitting to shooting an unarmed, non-threatening, and defenseless teenager that rang his doorbell,” said civil rights attorney Lee Merritt, who has been retained by Yarl’s family.

The Kansas City Defender, a local news outlet, reported that community members assembled in front of the house where Yarl was shot on Sunday, holding a protest that “was absolutely unprecedented in this area of Kansas City.”

Shannon Watts, founder of the national gun control advocacy group Moms Demand Action, said volunteers with her organization joined the protest, where supporters called on prosecutors to charge the suspect with a hate crime.

Graves said in a statement that police are investigating whether the suspect may be protected legally by Missouri’s “stand your ground” law, which permits residents to use deadly force if they believe they are at risk of a crime including a robbery, burglary, or murder. A defendant in a stand your ground case only needs to convince a jury that they believed their safety was at risk before they shot someone, not that they were actually in danger.

Missouri also has a law called the “castle doctrine,” which allows a person to use deadly force to protect their home from an intrusion.

Benjamin Crump, another civil rights attorney who is representing Yarl’s family, told the Kansas City Star that prosecutors should charge the man regardless of Missouri’s pro-gun laws.

“You can’t just shoot people without having justification when somebody comes knocking on your door and knocking on your door is not justification,” Crump said. “This guy should be charged.”

As Common Dreams reported last year, a study by public health researchers found that stand your ground laws that went into effect between 2000 and 2016 were linked to an “abrupt and sustained” 11% spike in gun deaths.

Missouri saw one of the most dramatic increases in gun deaths over those years, with a 31% rise.

Civil rights advocate Bernice King noted that justice is “a continuum” and won’t be secured in Yarl’s case just through criminal charges for the suspect.

Justice, she said, “means the man who did this should be charged AND we need to work for the legislative and heart change to prevent these tragedies.”

Ex-prosecutor warns Trump’s “vengeance” lawsuit against Michael Cohen could blow up in his face

Former President Donald Trump’s $500 million lawsuit against former attorney Michael Cohen could backfire, former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut warned in an op-ed in Slate

Trump filed the lawsuit last week on the heels of his indictment in Manhattan over his role in hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign. The former president pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection to the payment, later testified that Trump reimbursed him for the payment and is expected to be a key witness at the trial.

Trump’s suit accuses Cohen of “multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of Defendant’s past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney.”

“Vengeance is in Trump’s blood,” Aftergut wrote, citing two “tip-offs” that the suit is retaliatory in nature.

“First, Trump only sued Cohen after being indicted. Trump could have brought his legal action at any time over the three years since Cohen publicly testified against Trump to Congress in 2019,” Aftergut wrote. “Second, Trump’s lawyers tripped all over themselves trying to explain why they brought their complaint now. Cohen’s conduct, they said, had ‘reached a proverbial crescendo and has left [Trump] with no alternative but to seek legal redress.'”

But the lawsuit could backfire, he warned.

“Trump just opened a pathway to discovery — and information for the public — that Cohen had sought in a different lawsuit which a judge reluctantly felt compelled to dismiss last November because of Supreme Court law limiting personal actions against government officials,” Aftergut wrote.

“In December 2021, Cohen sued Trump for orchestrating the [Cohen’s] reincarceration. In November 2022, federal Judge Lewis Liman lamented that Trump’s status as a government official in 2020, when the reincarceration occurred, blocked courts from providing any relief against Trump.”


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


Now, Aftergut wrote, Trump’s “quest for payback” is providing Cohen with new ammunition. 

“Trump is giving Cohen a clean second shot at exposing the same truth through discovery,” he wrote. “As a defendant in the new suit, Cohen should be entitled to subpoena documents and testimony to show a jury that the action against him is part of a pattern and practice on Trump’s part of silencing his enemies through misuse of the law, adding, “Cohen may also have a countersuit to bring if he believes that Trump has retaliated against his right to voluntarily speak to prosecutors. In any case, neither party is likely to emerge unscathed in this latest legal battle between the two.”

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, told CNN last week that “Trump is once again using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen will not be deterred and is confident that the suit will fail based on the facts and the law.”

Cohen vowed on his podcast last week to bring a counter-suit against the former president.

“I can’t believe how stupid he was to have actually filed it. He should have listened to the lawyers that told him ‘it’s a mistake’. He’s now opened himself up to everything that he refuses,” he said, per The Independent. “The documents are stupid. They don’t make any sense. He’s gonna get countersued, there’s no doubt about that one, for what he’s doing.”

If “Succession” is a competition that ends with a winner, we’d be foolish to count out Marcia

Everything in Logan Roy’s life is transactional. There are costs and rewards, dues and dividends, victors and the dead. This is why so much of the discourse related to the fourth season of “Succession” has to do with who is winning and who can win. Taking stock of Logan’s three kids at the start of “Honeymoon States,” set a day after his death, nobody seems to be winning.

Kendall (Jeremy Strong) is wrecked on the floor of his luxury condo. Kendall (Kieran Culkin)  stalks his place with cold purposeful emotional denial, brushing his teeth and not betraying a single emotion in the mirror. Shiv (Sarah Snook) is slumped in her bed and fields a call from her doctor, who drops the episode’s biggest surprise (that most people saw coming a season ago): she’s pregnant, and thanks to Dad’s manipulations, estranged from her husband Tom (Matthew Macfadyen). 

Only one Roy is in a position to pull a win out of this grave situation: Marcia.

To the end Logan’s third wife, played by Hiam Abbass, remains something of a mystery. The Roy children wouldn’t describe her so politely. In the first season, they treat her as if she’s a gold digger. (To be fair, they’re no fans of Logan’s second wife and their mother, Lady Caroline Collingwood (Harriet Walter), either.) Early in the series, a distrusting Shiv asks Marcia, “Who are you? Apart from a machine for gathering power?” We still not entirely sure.

SuccessionSuccession (HBO)

But Marcia never set her sights on the full yacht. Like everybody else in the Waystar Royco inner circle, she’s simply determined to get her payout for time served. Throughout the series nothing she concedes to Logan is without a price. And that usually has a monetary value – like, say, the improved divorce settlement she negotiates in exchange for smiling in his direction when it looked like the Feds were closing in on him.

Unlike Ivana Trump, Marcia will not be buried on a property owned by the Roys to score a tax break. She won’t be a footnote in his biography or a joke. She will not be a Melania either. That much is clear in her take-charge reappearance at the Manhattan penthouse the day after his death, decked out in black from the funerary fascinator in her hair to her smart heels.

The secondary purpose of this gathering at the deceased’s home is to determine who will be installed as the interim leader of Waystar Royco to steer the company through its sale. “For some of us it’s a sad day, but for others, it’s coronation demolition derby,” says Shiv. 

To Marcia, the gathering is her revival. “We spoke every morning and afternoon, so I came as soon as I heard,” he tells a flabbergasted Kendall upon his arrival. By Marcia’s report, she and Logan were very close and spoke intimately every evening.  

Neither he nor Roman and Shiv believe a word of it – “the belle of the ball,” Roman snarks, matched by Shiv’s “death becomes her” jab.  But who among them can refute her account? As they crack wise about the disingenuously reverential obits in the newspapers, the bitter joke is that nobody knew the true Logan Roy.

“I mean, to be honest. Dad sounds amazing,” Shiv remarks of the ways he’s described by journalists doing their poetic best to refrain from speaking ill of the dead. “I would like to have met Dad.”

It’s a throwaway remark, but it also reminds us of Shiv’s Achilles heel. Her father consistently showed her the low regard in which he held women. And yet whenever Daddy dangles a false route to power within Waystar Royco, Shiv sprints toward his ruse.

Marcia was never that unsophisticated. Quite the opposite – her unknowability is her sword and shield. At a dealmaking dinner with Nan Pierce (Cherry Jones, in Season 2’s “Tern Haven”) she refuses to let Logan spin some bull to keep the focus on him when Nan asks Marcia to tell her about growing up in Beirut.  

“Well, she doesn’t really like to talk about it,” Logan begins, to which she breaks in with, “Or you don’t like to ask about it.” He tries to weave a story about Marcia telling him about her whole life when they first met, and she sweeps that aside with, “If I have a year, I couldn’t tell you my whole life.”

Marcia’s inscrutability serves her well.

SuccessionSuccession (HBO)

This is the first time Marcia has appeared in this season of “Succession.” In an earlier episode, when Greg (Nicolas Braun) inquires as to her whereabouts Logan’s mistress Kerry (Zoe Winters) confidently answers, “Marcia’s not here. She’s in Milan shopping. Forever.”

At that juncture Kerry believes she’s on track to become this show’s equivalent to Julie Chen Moonves, scoring an anchor gig at ATN as her reward for bedding the old man.

But we understand that Marcia would never go out like that. Women worlds more formidable than weak little Kerry have come and gone, including Pierce’s former PGM CEO Rhea Jarrell (Holly Hunter), the lover before Kerry.

When it’s obvious that Logan’s relationship with Rhea extended beyond business, Marcia flat-out asks her if she was regularly tested for sexually transmitted diseases. “. . . I don’t know who else you’re screwing,” Marcia says to Rhea through an off-putting grin, reducing her to nervous babbling.

Then Marcia goes in for the kill. “‘Listen,” she hisses. “I have fought and I have lost. And I have fought and won. But when I lose, the other one will generally lose an eye or a soul.” Rhea, you’ll note, is gone.

If you saw that moment, you might suspect that Kerry would pay for that dismissiveness. Indeed, the day after Logan died, Kerry is nowhere to be seen. At first. Instead Marcia calmly watches Logan’s footmen turned back into mice, scurrying about as they jockey for power.  Tom apologizes to Kendall and Roman, who are unmoved. Hugo (Fisher Stevens) pulls Kendall aside to confess that his daughter sold a bunch of Waystar stock just before the news about Logan’s death went public.

When Kendall asks whether there are phone records indicating Hugo spoke to her on the day, he busts out with the good old ironclad “I can’t recollect.”

“See how they run,” Marcia disdainfully sighs as Frank (Peter Friedman) and Karl (David Rasche) scamper to an upstairs room, followed by Gerri (J. Smith-Cameron), to discuss the ambiguous document Logan left behind in his safe.

One that is legally meaningless, Gerri says, due to how old it is and the fact that Logan did not communicate his wishes to his lawyer. Regardless, it specifies Logan’s wish for Kendall to take over as CEO, although Ken’s name appears to be either underlined or crossed out. 

SuccessionSuccession (HBO)

When they bring Shiv, Roman and Kendall into the discussion, they point out that Kendall’s case is weak, given his multiple attempts to overthrow his father. Roman, as COO, is better positioned to seize the title. But the only detail that’s in writing is that Logan once intended to hand the kingdom’s keys to his second eldest son.

In the meantime, Logan’s primo, Connor, strolls up to Marcia and offers to purchase the house. She blithely tells him she’s seeking between $60 and $70 million. He offers $63 million, without consulting any real estate data or an inspection. “Done,” she says. They seal it with a spit and a handshake, which isn’t an actionable contract. But Connor is dumb, and Marcia knows this.

Shiv, on the other hand, is naïve enough to believe her father has accounted for her future in his vision for the company after he’s gone. Alas, her name isn’t listed among the penciled addendums from unspecified eras. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Cousin Greg received a meaningless scribble, with a question mark. “Nevertheless!” Greg says hopefully.

Gerri stresses none of this has legal value, since Kendall, Shiv and Roman no longer have majority control of Waystar, “It is from some time ago,” Frank echoes, adding, “Logan was a man of different moods.”

Unlike Logan’s top brass, when the beneficiary of one of his final moods crashes the party, Marcia is ready. A whimpering Kerry begs to be allowed upstairs to gather her things. Marcia instructs Logan’s body man Colin (Scott Nicholson) to stop her.

A housekeeper brings Kerry’s household remains in a bag, which the defenestrated side piece accidentally dumps on the floor. Roman helps her gather her humble toiletries and listens as Kerry whimpers in his ear, “He was making arrangements about us, so could you check? He was going to make it known. He was going to write his lawyers or something. Can you check? Can you check on it?”

Colin instructs the other security to take her out the back.  “We’re calling her a taxi to the subway so that she can go home to her little apartment,” Marcia buzzes before swooping off like the queen bee she is. Provided Connor makes good on their agreement, that may be all Logan’s third wife needs to secure her tidy piece of the old man’s fortune. Because Logan definitely did not take care of Kerry in writing.


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


Shiv may not be in much of a better position. After a bit of wheeling and dealing with the board, Roman and Kendall team up and persuade Shiv to go along with them being announced as co-CEOs. The boys assure their sister that Logan’s death brought them together, and their unity is real while the boys’ new titles are a means of smoothing their way to the company’s sale.

“This is a dad promise, on yesterday,” Pinky makes her brothers swear, and the boys agree. “We’re not going to f**k you,” Roman assures her. Sandy Furness’ (Larry Pine) paralyzed rictus in her direction tells another story, especially after she faceplants while trying to walk away from the scene. He knows that Logan molded his sons more closely in his image, which Kendall confirms after he and Roman initially instruct Waystar’s comms team Hugo and Karolina (Dagmara Domińczyk) to craft a kind transition message to the shareholders regarding their fitness for these positions.

This is preferable to the alternate Karolina and Hugo propose, which would be to spread the message that Roman and Kendall had been running the company from the sidelines all along to mask Logan’s decline, along with mentioning even worse sins the Roy paterfamilias committed in life.

Roman vehemently disagrees with the smear tactic, and in front of Karolina, Kendall seconds that disgust. Moments later, though, Kendall revisits what his dad wrote about him in the document and takes Hugo aside, instructing him to launch a shadow campaign surfacing the “bad dad stuff.”

“It’s what he would do,” Kendall says. “He’d want this. For the firm. So action that. But soft. No prints.” Hugo expresses hesitation, but Kendall insists, especially since he has leverage on his PR guy. “Just get on it. Unless . . . you want me to pull out the strap on?”

Like father, like son . . . which does not bode well for Logan Roy’s only daughter, or the strength of that non-binding “dad promise.”

Ex-prosecutor: Fox plot to appeal defamation case to Supreme Court could badly backfire

Fox lawyers are already preparing to lose the network’s defamation case against Dominion Voting Systems — but think they have a chance of prevailing if they appeal the case to the Supreme Court, according to The New York Times.

Fox’s legal team is already preparing for an appeal, “a sign they are under no illusion that beating Dominion’s case will be easy,” according to the Times’ Jeremy Peters.

Fox Corp. general counsel Viet Dinh, who is expected to be called as a witness in the trial, has privately told colleagues that he believes the company’s odds before the Supreme Court would be good and “certainly better” than in front of a Delaware jury, sources told Peters.

Both sides have retained experienced appellate lawyers before the trial even gets underway. 

But it’s unclear whether the court would actually side with the company in the case.

“It’s not clear to me why Fox News believes it will fare well in the Supreme Court if it loses at trial against Dominion,” tweeted former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Conservative judges have expressed a desire to make libel cases easier, not harder, to prove.”

Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at the Naval Academy, also questioned Fox’s reasoning. 

For the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule in favor of Fox, it would need to expand First Amendment protections, he explained. “And I just don’t see this Court doing that. Two of the most conservative justices may want to weaken those protections.”

“I know the response is: this Court just wants to help Fox win. But it would need to do something like set a new standard that makes it even more difficult to show actual malice,” he added.


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


The judge overseeing the case delayed the start of the trial until Tuesday amid reports that he asked both sides to discuss a potential pre-trial settlement. 

Fox has argued that it was merely reporting on allegations as protected under the First Amendment but troves of internal messages released during discovery revealed that Fox executives and hosts privately trashed the same baseless conspiracy theories they aired while worrying about angering former President Donald Trump and his fans.

“If this case goes the wrong way,” John Culhane, professor of law at Delaware Law School at Widener University, told the Times, “it’s clear from my perspective that would be a terrible mistake because this is about as strong as a case you’re going to get on defamation.”

He added: “I think it would embolden them even further.”

Clarence Thomas caught reporting up to $750,000 in income from company that doesn’t exist: report

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly claimed rental income from a real estate firm that has been out of business since the early 2000s, according to The Washington Post.

Thomas for the past two decades reported income that his family received from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership — a Nebraska real estate firm started by his wife, Ginni, and her family in 1982 — amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Washington Post reported that the company shuttered in 2006, and was ultimately rolled into a new, separate firm called Ginger Holdings, LLC. However, since then, Thomas has allegedly continued to claim income — reported as “rent” — from Ginger, Ltd., Partnership, with recent years seeing him report between $50,000 and $100,000 annually, per financial disclosure reports. In sum, he has reported receiving between $270,000 to $750,000 from the firm since 2006.

The report comes on the heels of a bombshell ProPublica report released last month, detailing how the conservative justice and his wife have for over two decades accepted luxury trips and other gifts from GOP megadonor and real estate magnate Harlan Crow. 

The report stated that the costs incurred through the travel may be in violation of federal law, as the trips “appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures.” According to two ethics law experts who weighed in on the report, his failure to report the flights “appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts.” 

Following the report’s release, Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., vowed that Thomas would be held accountable.

“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards. Today’s Pro Publica report reveals that Justice Thomas has for years accepted luxury travel on private yachts and jets and a litany of other gifts that he failed to disclose,” Durbin said in a statement at the time. “This behavior is simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a Justice on the Supreme Court.”


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


Durbin said the report “demonstrates, yet again, that Supreme Court Justices must be held to an enforceable code of conduct, just like every other federal judge. The Pro Publica report is a call to action, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will act.”

Thomas has ostensibly feigned ignorance in the past. After revising his financial disclosure forms in 2011 following scrutiny from watchdog group, Common Cause, Thomas stated that he did not understand the filing instructions, according to the Post. In 2020, Thomas once again amended his disclosure forms when another watchdog organization determined that he had not reported reimbursements for travel to speak at two law schools.

“Any presumption in favor of Thomas’s integrity and commitment to comply with the law is gone,” Stephen Gillers, a legal expert at New York University told the Post. “His assurances and promises cannot be trusted. Is there more? What’s the whole story? The nation needs to know.”

Gillers, who called for Thomas to face a federal investigation, added that trust in the Supreme Court is “now in serious jeopardy, and others must do something to stop the free fall.”

“Dominion has a killer case”: Legal experts say settlement talks suggest Fox News got cold feet

The judge overseeing Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News delayed the start of the trial until Tuesday amid reported settlement talks.

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis announced on Sunday that the start of the trial would be delayed by 24 hours after it was scheduled to kick off on Monday. No official reason was given for the delay but The Washington Post reported that the trial was postponed to allow both parties to discuss a potential settlement in the case.

The weeks-long trial was set to commence Monday morning, with Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch reportedly set to testify as early as the first day. Fox stars like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Maria Bartiromo were also expected to take the witness stand during the trial.

Instead, the two sides will meet Monday to determine if a “last-minute deal to avoid trial could be brokered,” the Post reported, citing two sources familiar with the case. One of the sources added that Davis asked the two sides to try to make one final push for a settlement before proceeding to trial.

Fox and Dominion previously entered mediation around December 2022 but were unable to reach a settlement.

Fox has already pursued settlement talks on “multiple occasions,” according to media reporter Brian Stelter. “Dominion, knowing it has tremendous leverage, held firm.”

Since then, Fox has been hit by repeated adverse rulings from the judge. Davis ruled that Fox’s statements about Dominion at the heart of the lawsuit were false, meaning that Dominion would only have to prove that the network acted with “actual malice.” Davis last week also ordered an investigation into whether Fox withheld key evidence during discovery.

Fox has denied that they defamed the company, arguing that they were merely reporting on notable allegations as protected under the First Amendment. The network claimed it complied with all of its discovery obligations.

Pre-trial discovery revealed troves of internal messages showing that Fox executives and hosts trashed the same debunked conspiracy theories they aired while expressing concerns that fact-checking the false claims would draw former President Donald Trump’s ire and potentially send viewers to even more pro-Trump outlets.

Dominion officials have said “they would not settle without a full-throated apology and acknowledgment from Fox that it aired false information — a position that could put the network at odds with many viewers and Trump, who is again running for president,” according to the Post.


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


Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman tweeted that the case could be a candidate for a settlement because “Dominion has a killer case on liability but seeking damages that are hard to justify.”

A big settlement offer from Fox “could make sense for both,” he wrote.

Attorney Bradley Moss added that “trials are a wild card” and there is a “non-trivial chance the pre-trial rulings get reversed on appeal and the whole thing is tossed.”

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote that Fox “should have pursued this strategy long ago, settling before damaging emails and texts became part of the public record.”

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, said on Sunday that “there’s something about being on the eve of trial that can really sober up both parties.”

“Look at it from Fox’s point of view: they’re looking at the likelihood — if there’s a trial — of having all of their, or many of their, most prominent anchors have to take the stand, testify and get cross-examined. You can understand why they would be hit by reality at the last moment, say, ‘We need to avoid this,'” Honig said, adding that Dominion “has a very strong case here for defamation.”

The centrist plan to sabotage Joe Biden

Here we go again. It seems as if every other election cycle or so for the past few decades has produced dreams of a centrist third party “unity” ticket that would appeal to all the Americans who say they want the partisan bickering in Washington to stop. The Beltway media gets excited at the idea of “the grown-ups” being in charge and the Big Money Boys lick their chops at the prospect of a party based entirely on their needs and their needs alone. This year it looks like the perennial group that calls itself No Labels has decided to throw a monkey wrench into our closely divided electoral college map and possibly send Donald Trump back to the White House in 2024 — in the name of unity, of course.

No Labels is already gathering signatures to get on the ballot and is trying to recruit a Democrat and a Republican to run as a bipartisan ticket. Joe Manchin D-W.V., Kirsten Sinema, D-Az., Susan Collins, R-Me., and former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan are the names mentioned most often. (At least they aren’t pulling former Democrat turned Independent pain in the neck Joe Lieberman out of mothballs for another run.)

The New Republic obtained a video the organization is showing to donors to illustrate why this ticket is needed.

“With the extremes on both sides dominating the primaries,” the video warns, “the two parties are on a path to nominating candidates most eligible voters will find unacceptable.” Above these words, the video shows photos of four political figures—in order of appearance, Donald Trump, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

That’s right. Nowhere in the video is that dangerous left wing firebrand, incumbent president and presumptive nominee Joe Biden even mentioned. It does give away the game, doesn’t it? The only people who would respond to that message would be the rich Republicans who fund No Labels. It’s not a mystery why this video has not been distributed publicly. Most normal people know that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are not running for president and that the mainstream warhorse Joe Biden beat Warren and Sanders in the 2020 primary and Donald Trump in the general. 

The ad is bizarre, to say the least. No Labels may think Biden is too liberal but you simply can’t say he isn’t bipartisan. He managed to get through more major bipartisan legislation on infrastructure, climate change, domestic manufacturing, election integrity, gun safety than any president in recent memory. Is bipartisanship what they really want or are they more interested in preening about “unity” while lobbying under the table for corporate interests? It’s so off base that even the usually compatible centrist think tank Third Way has denounced this effort.

There have been these “centrist” movements for quite a while. I recall back in 2008 a big gathering at the University of Oklahoma led by Michael Bloomberg, then considering a third party run, who shared this stirring message:

“People have stopped working together, government is dysfunctional, there’s no collaborating and congeniality,” Bloomberg said to applause from the crowd.

Same old same old. In 2012, they really revved up with “Americans Elect” yet another dark money big donor group with the same agenda:

By its own account, the group is driven by civic-minded citizens who feel that moderates and independents have been disenfranchised by the tendency of the two parties play to their bases, especially in primaries, when independents cannot vote in many states.

No Labels was launched in 2010 when centrists like Joe Lieberman decided that President Barack Obama was failing to reach out to the Republicans and work toward common solutions to America’s problems. The fact that this was complete and utter nonsense (remember the Grand Bargain?) didn’t matter — there was money to be made and this group was going to get a place at the trough. The group was launched by a former Democratic fundraiser named Nancy Jacobson a noted “radical centrist” who got billionaire funders Michael Bloomberg and Andrew Tisch to sign big checks right away. They were the first of many although we don’t know exactly who they all are because it’s a dark money group that is not obliged to name its donors. But there have been reports of fundraising appeals made to everyone from David Koch to PayPal founder Peter Thiel to associates of George Soros. Considering the mission, I wouldn’t expect many liberal-minded billionaires to join up but I suppose you never know.

This year they are reported to have already gathered 70 million for a spoiler third-party presidential campaign. In our very closely contested, antiquated, and undemocratic electoral college this is just what the doctor ordered to give the Republicans another go at it.

It’s hard not to assume that’s the plan. Jacobson is married to shady pollster Mark Penn who was affiliated with the Clintons back in the day but has steadily become hostile to the Democratic Party over the years. Penn has been intimately involved with No Labels. One of his most famous contributions to their attempts at sabotage was back in 2017 during the Obamacare repeal attempt. As the Daily Beast reported at the time, Penn tweeted this inane bit of political advice:

The Democrats missed their chance to shape healthcare and let the Freedom Caucus be the key swing actor. Time to get off the sidelines.

I don’t know what he was smoking or drinking but the idea that the Freedom Caucus has ever been or ever will be a “key swing actor” is delusional. They would rather cripple their own agenda rather than ever compromise on anything. (And they have.) The notion that the Democrats should help them destroy the party’s signature health care plan has always been ridiculous, although many centrist types like Penn have argued for it from the beginning.

There are always third party gadflies in presidential races and they can have an effect. Ross Perot in 1992 arguably shifted the race to Bill Clinton and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader’s 94,000+ votes in Florida certainly cost Al Gore the White House in 2000. There’s an argument to be made that Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s run in 2016 made the difference in the electoral swing states that Donald Trump won narrowly. The stakes were high then but we can attribute that to the fact that like most of us, it was inconceivable to those voters that so many people would vote for the bizarre Donald Trump for president. I think most Americans have been properly schooled about that by now.

Well, except for these centrists who seem to be living in some kind of insular dream world where the electoral college isn’t closely divided and the stakes aren’t monumental. To compare Trump and Biden when Trump is currently under indictment and likely to be indicted in several more cases, after having incited an insurrection is daft. What’s Biden’s crime? Passing too much bipartisan legislation and not paying off porn stars?

This is nothing more than sabotage and it couldn’t come at a worse time. Let’s hope it fizzles like these centrist third party bids have done in the past. Let them meddle somewhere else. We don’t have the luxury of indulging another high-dollar, dark money vanity project right now.  

Connecting Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump: Tied together by a mutual worship of corrupt power

At its core, fascism is corrupt power where there is one set of rules for the Great Leader and their followers and allies and another set of rules and laws and expectations for everyone else. Unrestrained and corrupt power is both the means and ends of the fascist and other anti-democracy projects. That same corrupt power is a type of unifying energy field for today’s Republican Party and the “conservative” movement more broadly.

Donald Trump participated in a decades-long crime spree. The presidency was but an opportunity for him to continue with those crimes on a historic and unprecedented scale and level. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas operates by the same underlying principles of corrupt power as Donald Trump.

For several decades, Thomas has been violating ethics rules by receiving gifts and favors from individuals and groups who have interests before the Supreme Court. As revealed in a new report by the ethics watchdog group ProPublica, Thomas has been receiving the equivalent of tribute payments — including real estate — from his best friend, right-wing billionaire financier and power broker Harlan Crow. 

As Max Moran notes in The American Prospect, “This is not even the first time he has been caught in this exact scandal,” pointing to a 2004 Los Angeles Times report. “Thomas’s fix for the ethical violation,” Moran writes, “was to try to make it harder to track.”

Much attention has been focused on how Thomas’ sponsor and benefactor is an apparent Nazi fetishist. Crow’s attraction to such evil objects and the vile politics they represent and endorse – however he (and his defenders) tries to excuse-make and rationalize it with pretzel-twisted logic – is critically important for understanding the agenda to end multiracial pluralistic democracy that Thomas and the other right-wing Supreme Court justices and today’s “conservative” movement are imposing on the country. Other observers have focused on how Thomas’s corruption is indicative of larger problems with the U.S. Supreme Court and how it is now a nakedly partisan institution that does not view the law in a neutral way, but instead, as something to be bent and weaponized in service to the Republican-fascist and “conservative” revolutionary project.

While critically important on their own merits, these concerns and interventions point to a much larger cultural and political problem: corrupt power dominates the American elite class, and this has had extremely deleterious consequences for the American people and their well-being.

How have Trump and his allies and followers responded to his being held accountable under the law for his obvious crimes? Quite predictably: With threats of violence and civil unrest, lies, and false claims that Trump is some type of innocent “victim.” Even more absurdly, Trump’s cultists are even claiming that he is some type of divinely commanded Jesus Christ-like figure who is being “martyred” and “persecuted” by the Democrats and “the deep state.”

Corrupt power dominates the American elite class, and this has had extremely deleterious consequences for the American people and their well-being.

Through their broken reasoning the Great Leader and his or her followers are, by definition, above and outside of the law. For Donald Trump the private citizen to be treated the same way as other Americans – even though he has been granted far more latitude of action and freedom from consequences – is deemed unacceptable for the Republican fascists and those who share their beliefs about and commitment to corrupt right-wing power.

In a conversation last week with Salon, author and investigative journalist David Neiwert offered these insights about Trump’s arrest and arraignment:

A central element of any kind of autocratic rule is a degraded and corrupt, two-tiered version of the rule of law, in which the authoritarian rulers are by nature exempt from all legal constraints, while the people they rule over are subject to draconian and often discriminatory enforcement of laws. That’s what Donald Trump’s defenders have been working toward since the day of his election in 2016, and it’s what they’re battling for in court now.

Like all good authoritarians, they’re trying to convince the public that this kind of de facto immunity from accountability, legal and otherwise, is the birthright of powerful men like Trump, the natural state of things. And until the advent of democratic rule, that probably was more or less the case.

This is what we’ll hear from the neofascists who are out there preparing once again to man barricades on Trump’s behalf—and not just the Proud Boys and Three Percenter types, but the Tucker Carlsons and the Jim Jordans as well. This is about undermining and ultimately demolishing our democratic institutions—among which the rule of law is probably the most fundamental.

Not to be overlooked, Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, who is a right-wing attorney and operative, played a central role in the Trump regime’s Jan. 6 coup attempt. If Trump and his cabal’s coup plot had developed according to plan, the 2020 Election would have been decided in part by Justice Thomas. Thomas telegraphed what his decision in such a case would be when he was the only member of the Supreme Court to decide in favor of Trump’s petition to stop the House of Representatives from accessing documents about the traitor president’s Jan. 6 coup attempt. Thomas’ embrace of corrupt power represents a larger pattern of ethically compromised if not outright corrupt behavior by the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court.

The American people know from experience that there is a double standard where the rich and the powerful are routinely able to violate the law without serious consequences while everyday people enjoy no such privileges. The result is a legitimacy crisis for American democracy, its social institutions, and elites including the news media and the courts. One of the few American institutions to consistently be held in high regard by the American people is the military. That is a mark of a failing democracy that could potentially succumb to military rule.

Max Moran summarizes this horrible state of affairs:

If the highest justices in the country regularly violate the laws they interpret, then they do not deserve to be arbiters of legality. Failing to act on something this clear means Democrats accept that regular people have no guaranteed rights, and those with power and prestige can do no wrong. Refusing to create ‘a big circus’ might maintain congressional Democrats’ personal delusions of bipartisan comity, which has never been reciprocated. The cost of this self-serving fantasy, though, would be any fleeting claim that the United States government has legitimacy in the first place.

Corrupt power is the driving force behind “too big to fail” and how the moneyed classes and corporations can make selfish, grossly irresponsible, and in many cases illegal decisions that cause financial ruin and misery for the American people. Yet, those same actors are never held accountable and are instead rescued with public money and other support. The average American has no such protections or safety net.

From pollution and environmental disaster as seen with the recent train derailment in Ohio, the opioid crisis, mass shootings, and other examples of corporate crime and malfeasance, corrupt power motivates such behavior and its underlying belief that the rich and powerful are immune from being held responsible for their crimes and the societal and personal harm they cause the American people.

America is sick with extreme wealth and income inequality, where the moneyed classes and plutocrats literally do not live in the same society as everyone else. Corrupt power helps to create, sustain, and expand such an unjust and anti-democratic arrangement.

In many ways, corrupt power and its inherently fascist attributes are the root of America’s democracy crisis and the Age of Trump and what it has wrought. Healing America’s democracy crisis and stopping the ascendant neofascist movement(s) in its various forms demands a moral reckoning where 1) corrupt power is exposed as not being “the natural order of things” but instead a perversion of it and 2) the rule of law in service to justice is applied equally to both the rich and powerful as well as everyday people.

Ultimately, the moral reckoning that American society needs will necessitate very difficult questions about the collective character of the American people and the leaders they put in power.

In a profile at the New Statesman, political scientist Brian Klaas explained this great challenge in the following way:

Our modern society has made it extremely unattractive to normal, decent human beings to end up in positions of power…. I don’t think I’m alone in that. I think there’s lots of people who think: I could make the world a little better, but the cost might be enormous to me.

I conducted 500 interviews with some of the worst people around – and they weren’t normal….There are quirks about them, there’s something wrong with some of them, but they’re all very, very good at getting into power. And that’s not an accident. There are ways you can counteract that tendency or amplify it, and I think we’re unfortunately amplifying it quite a lot.”

Power is a relational thing, you can’t be a leader if you don’t have followers. So as much as we complain about the leaders we have, we have to acknowledge, at least in a democratic society, that we put them there.

That’s not about the bad people, that’s not about systems. That’s about us.

Unfortunately, that isn’t as easy to correct.

Fox News has lost control of its viewers

Roger Ailes came up with the idea for Fox News in the 70s, when he was working as an image consultant for then-president Richard Nixon. From the get-go, the idea was that a TV network would be a top-down propaganda outlet that would manipulate and control voters, especially more conservative ones. “People are lazy,” read a document titled “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News” that was presented to Nixon in 1970. “With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.” Even though the document was unsigned, it’s widely believed to be the work of Ailes, who wanted a “pro-Administration” mouthpiece that could go around the traditional media.

The plan didn’t get off the ground during the Nixon administration. It’s arguable, and Ailes certainly believed, that if such a network had existed at the time, Nixon would have very well been able to survive Watergate. A Fox News would have been able to blast Republican voters with non-stop excuses that they could use to ignore the uncomfortable reality that their president was irredeemably corrupt. The proof of concept is evident: Donald Trump has survived multiple scandals that all make Watergate look like small stakes, largely because Fox is on hand to feed GOP voters all the rationalizations they need to stick by Trump’s side.


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


Ailes, who died in 2017, was able to make his right-wing “news” network a reality in 1996 when he used Rupert Murdoch’s backing to found Fox News. A defamation lawsuit against Fox by Dominion Voting Systems, which a judge delayed start of until Tuesday, has already revealed that Fox News does not work as Ailes imagined it would. It is not a top-down propaganda outlet exploiting the empty heads of its right-wing audience in order to exert mind control over them. On the contrary, pre-trial documents filed by Dominion show the opposite: Fox’s content is determined largely by the audience. Fox viewers want their favorite network to affirm the various racist conspiracy theories that proliferate on right-wing social media, and Fox leadership, eager to keep viewers and ad dollars, has been all too willing to comply. Even when, as the documents show, they’re well aware that the “news” they’re reporting isn’t true. 

It’s likely that the trial will result in even more embarrassing evidence of how much Fox has reshaped itself to appeal to its audience’s ugliest desires. 

Indeed, the relationship that Ailes imagined between the network, its viewers, and the GOP is turning out to be the inverse of what he imagined. He wanted Fox to be a place where Republican leadership handed out marching orders of what to think and how to act to a compliant audience. Instead, it’s the audience who is using Fox News to set the priorities for the GOP. Ideas and demands burble up from the fever swamps of right-wing social media, where they’re picked up by Fox News. After these foul notions get highlighted by fascist hype men like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, Republican leaders often scramble to turn the ever-more-radical views of the Fox audience into actual policy. 

Dominion alleges that Fox, in its eagerness to validate Trump’s false claim that President Joe Biden stole the 2020 election from him, repeatedly presented as fact conspiracy theories accusing Dominion machines of changing votes. For a few months, Dominion’s court filings have revealed embarrassing internal communications from Fox leadership and its hosts, showing that they were deeply worried their viewers would abandon them if they didn’t do more to elevate the Big Lie and its attendant conspiracy theories. 

“Respecting this audience whether we agree or not is critical,” host Sean Hannity wrote in one text, arguing that Fox needed to step up its game in airing these election conspiracy theories, even though he knew full well that Biden was the actual winner. 

After all, Fox is a propaganda outlet, but it’s also a profit-driven company. Making money means giving their audience what it wants. The audience wants lies. As Murdoch agreed during his deposition, “It is not red or blue, it is green.”


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


Despite this lawsuit, if you tune into Fox any night, you can see things haven’t changed. What’s put on air is dictated by the racist obsessions, culture war paranoia, and conspiracy theories that the MAGA base proliferates on social media. Republican leaders then bend towards what Fox News is pushing. 

As an example, look at the case of Daniel Perry, who was recently — and correctly — found guilty of murder for killing a Black Lives Matter protester in 2020. This isn’t an ambiguous case. The evidence showed Perry was telling friends ahead of time of his desire “to shoot some protesters.” He deliberately drove to a protest for no other reason than to pick a fight with the protesters. His murder victim, Garrett Foster, was armed, but all evidence shows that Foster did not threaten Perry’s life with the gun he was carrying. It’s an open-and-shut murder. 

But the scumbuckets of right-wing social media want it to be legal to kill leftists whenever they want. Carlson, always eager to amplify the nastiest rhetoric of social media, has taken up the cause, championing Perry as a hero and demanding his pardon. And the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, hopped to, pressuring the pardon board into offering a recommendation for Perry’s release so that he can sign it. 

It’s likely that the relationship between Fox News and its viewers did, at one time, exist how Ailes imagined it, where Fox News tells people what to believe and they obediently listen. The advent of social media, however, shifted the locus of power away from the network to its viewers. On social media, there’s no real check on how wild conspiracy theories can get or how far misinformation can spread. To compete with that, Fox News has to offer the same high-octane right-wing nuttery. It’s likely that the trial will result in even more embarrassing evidence of how much Fox has reshaped itself to appeal to its audience’s ugliest desires. 

On Friday, Fox blitzed reporters with a statement that bragged that “the case has had no impact on our viewership and that FNC remains the most-watched network in cable.” For once, it’s reasonable to believe something Fox News is saying. After all, the network has gotten very good at keeping viewers by giving them exactly what they want. 

“It doesn’t protect lies”: Here’s what legal experts think of Fox News’ First Amendment defense

First Amendment experts say Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News could have a major impact on the public’s trust in the media and the future of defamation law.

The voting technology company sued the right-wing network for repeatedly airing debunked TrumpWorld post-election conspiracy theories suggesting Dominion changed or deleted votes to help President Joe Biden get elected.

The judge has already ruled that Dominion has established that Fox’s “allegedly defamatory statements” are “clearly false,” said Catherine Ross, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who specializes in First Amendment issues.

“The next thing that Dominion needs to show is that the statements were made with ‘actual malice’, which is the standard under New York Times v. Sullivan – the leading defamation Supreme Court case and the last case to be this important up until now,” Ross said. 

What distinguishes “the Dominion case is that Fox’s own internal documents seemed to suggest that they knew that what they were reporting was not accurate.”

That means that Dominion will either have to prove that Fox knowingly made false claims about the company or show that the network proceeded with “reckless disregard” and continued sharing information whether it was false or not. 

“But we have seen really substantial evidence that [Fox], at a minimum, had reason to suspect or to know that these statements were false,” Ross said.

Private text messages and emails released in the case revealed that on-air personalities, producers and executives did not believe the election lies former President Donald Trump promoted and even criticized some of his conspiracy theories about the 2020 election being stolen internally.

But, on air, Fox News personalities like Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity continued to air falsehoods pushed by the former president’s allies.

“One of the shocking things revealed by the discovery, in this case, is that the Fox higher-ups and the individual shows didn’t really want to hear from the fact-checkers,” Ross said. “There are fact-checkers at Fox but nobody wanted to hear what they were saying.”

Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch even acknowledged that some of the hosts crossed a line.

“Maybe Sean and Laura went too far,” Murdoch wrote in an email to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott, referring to the primetime hosts pushing out election denialism after Trump’s loss.

Dominion’s lawsuit says that Fox received more than 3,600 emails that debunked their statements and explained how they were false. Despite this correspondence, Fox “refused to retract any of its false and defamatory statements about Dominion,” the voting company said.

Guests like former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow founder Mike Lindell appeared on Fox to push conspiracy theories about the election without any evidence.

It’ll be “quite embarrassing” for some of the Fox hosts to be confronted on the witness stand with what they promoted compared with what they actually believed, said John Kaley, former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. 

“What I will be looking at is the examination of some of the Fox hosts by Dominion’s lawyers, and I’ll be curious to see how they attempt to explain the juxtaposition between what they were saying in private and what they were broadcasting publicly,” Kaley said.


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


It is difficult to prove libel due to the high legal bar set by New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that is considered critical to the First Amendment. During the civil rights movement, Southern officials were suing newspapers like the New York Times over minor errors in their coverage, Lyrissa Lidsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florida, told Salon.

“The Supreme Court, at the time, recognized that defamation law could be used as a tool to silence the press in covering newsworthy stories at a pivotal moment in American history, just because they got a few details wrong, and so the Supreme Court developed a rule as a result,” she said.

The rule established a standard where negligently getting details wrong was not going to result in liability, allowing journalists to have “breathing space” if they made occasional errors, Lidsky said. In order to have liability when you’re reporting about public officials or public figures on matters of great public concern, attorneys have to show that a defendant had “actual malice.”

Having a high standard to meet defamation is important for freedom of the press in a democratic society, Kaley said. “But what distinguishes, perhaps, the Dominion case is that Fox’s own internal documents seemed to suggest that they knew that what they were reporting was not accurate.”

Davis last week imposed sanctions on Fox after Dominion accused the company’s lawyers of withholding information in the discovery process, which Fox denied. 

Abby Grossberg, a former Fox producer who is suing the network, recently claimed that the network has audio recordings of Giuliani and Powell admitting they had no evidence to support their Dominion election fraud lies. The recordings hadn’t been turned over to Dominion’s lawyers until a week ago, according to The New York Times.

Dominion also accused Fox of failing to disclose the scope of Murdoch’s officer role at Fox News. Since Dominion filed its suit in 2021, Fox had argued that Murdoch and Fox Corporation should be excluded from the case because Murdoch and other senior executives had nothing to do with running Fox News, but the network recently disclosed to Dominion that Murdoch was a corporate officer at the network, The Times reported.

“The judge likely would be entitled to give an instruction to the jury that Fox’s late production of these materials is a fact they could consider in determining liability,” Kaley said.

Whether Murdoch made decisions as a corporate officer of Fox News or not is a key detail in Dominion’s case. The voting technology company has tried to show that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corporation, were involved in making decisions about what Fox broadcast as part of its coverage of the 2020 election.

“Dominion is trying to establish that there was a knowledge of falsity at the highest levels of editorial control of the programming,” Lidsky said. “It’s a very complex trial, [which will look at] what did each individual know about the truth of what they were putting out there? And when did they know it relative to their programming decisions?”

Fox so far has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that they were reporting on notable allegations protected by the First Amendment. 

“Dominion’s lawsuit is a political crusade in search of a financial windfall, but the real cost would be cherished First Amendment rights,” a Fox News spokesperson said in a statement. “While Dominion has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines, FOX News remains steadfast in protecting the rights of a free press, given a verdict for Dominion and its private equity owners would have grave consequences for the entire journalism profession.”

As the trial moves forward, Lidksy said she is worried about how the case will impact the public’s trust in the media since it is “already really low.” But beyond that, she added, there have been a lot of powerful and prominent voices calling for reform of defamation law to make it easier to sue the press. This case may lend support to those voices and further weaken protections offered to the press under the current law. 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are among the leading proponents who have argued that the 1964 Sullivan decision granted too much leeway to news outlets.

“Defamation law has unfortunately been weaponized to try to intimidate and beat up particularly less well-funded news organizations and some have, in fact, been put out of business by these kinds of lawsuits and that is done by people all over the political spectrum,” Ross said. “The former president is famous for bringing meritless defamation lawsuits and he has a very deep pocket.”

Fox News is also facing a second defamation lawsuit from voting technology company Smartmatic, which is demanding $2.7 billion, over the network’s coverage of TrumpWorld’s false claims about the 2020 election.

The list of potential witnesses who may be called to testify in Dominion’s trial includes many Fox stars like Carlson, Bartiromo, Hannity, Pirro and Bret Baier, as well as former host Lou Dobbs. The network also told Davis in a letter that it would make Suzanne Scott, Fox News CEO, available. 

“I continue to think New York Times v. Sullivan struck the balance pretty well,” Lidsky said. “It doesn’t protect lies, it doesn’t protect reckless falsehoods and we’re going to see if that standard is met in this case, even though it is a very high standard.”

Finland’s move into NATO ends an era of neutrality in Europe: What comes next?

On April 4, Finland officially became the 31st member of the NATO military alliance. The 830-mile border between Finland and Russia is now by far the longest border between any NATO country and Russia, which otherwise borders only Norway, Latvia, Estonia and short stretches of Poland and Lithuania where they encircle the Russian territory of Kaliningrad.

In the context of the not-so-cold war between the U.S., NATO and Russia, any of these borders is a potentially dangerous flashpoint that could trigger a new crisis, or even a world war. But a key difference is that the Finnish border comes within about 100 miles of Severomorsk, where the Russian Navy’s northern fleet and 13 of its 23 nuclear-armed submarines are based. This could well be where World War III will begin, if it hasn’t already started in Ukraine.

In Europe today, only Switzerland, Austria, Ireland and a handful of other small countries remain outside NATO. For 75 years, Finland was a model of successful neutrality, but it is far from demilitarized. Like Switzerland, it has a large military, and young Finnish citizens are required to perform at least six months of military training after they turn 18. Its active and reserve military forces make up more than 4% of the population — in the U.S., that proportion is just 0.6% — and 83% of Finns say they would take part in armed resistance if Finland were invaded.

Only 20% to 30% of Finns have historically supported joining NATO, while the majority have consistently and proudly supported the nation’s policy of neutrality. In late 2021, a Finnish opinion poll measured popular support for NATO membership at 26%. But after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, that jumped to 60% within weeks and by November 2022, 78% of Finns said they supported joining NATO.

As in the U.S. and other NATO countries, Finland’s political leaders have been more pro-NATO than the general public. Despite longstanding public support for neutrality, Finland joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace program in 1997. Its government sent 200 troops to Afghanistan as part of the UN-authorized International Security Assistance Force after the 2001 U.S. invasion, and they remained there after NATO took command of this force in 2003. Finnish troops did not leave Afghanistan until all Western forces withdrew in 2021, after a total of 2,500 Finnish troops and 140 civilian officials had been deployed there, and two Finns had been killed.

A December 2022 review of Finland’s role in Afghanistan by the Finnish Institute of International Affairs found that Finnish troops “repeatedly engaged in combat as part of the military operation that was now led by NATO and had become a party in the conflict,” and that Finland’s proclaimed objective, which was “to stabilize and support Afghanistan to enhance international peace and security” was outweighed by “its desire to maintain and strengthen its foreign and security policy relations with the U.S. and other international partners, as well as its effort to deepen its collaboration with NATO.”

In other words, like other small NATO-allied countries, Finland was unable, in the midst of an escalating war, to uphold its own priorities and values, and instead allowed its desire “to deepen its collaboration” with the U.S. and NATO to take precedence over its original aim of trying to help the people of Afghanistan to recover peace and stability. As a result of these confused and conflicting priorities, Finnish forces were drawn into the pattern of reflexive escalation and use of overwhelming destructive force that have characterized U.S. military operations in all its recent wars.

Faced with the Ukraine war, Finland was unable to uphold its cherished priorities and values, and instead decided “to deepen its collaboration” with the U.S. and NATO.

As a small and new NATO member, Finland will be just as impotent as it was in Afghanistan to affect the momentum of the NATO war machine’s rising conflict with Russia. Finland will find that its tragic choice to abandon a policy of neutrality that brought it 75 years of peace, and to look to NATO for protection, will leave it dangerously exposed on the front lines of a war directed from Moscow, Washington and Brussels that it can neither win nor independently resolve nor prevent from escalating into World War III.

Finland’s success as a neutral and liberal democratic country during and since the Cold War has created a popular culture in which the public are more trusting of their leaders and representatives than people in most Western countries, and less likely to question the wisdom of their decisions. So the near-unanimity of the political class on the decision to join NATO in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine faced little public opposition. In May 2022, Finland’s parliament approved joining NATO by an overwhelming vote of 188-8.


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


But why have Finland’s political leaders been so keen to “strengthen its foreign and security policy relations with the U.S. and other international partners,” as the Finland in Afghanistan report said? As an independent, neutral but heavily armed military nation, Finland already meets the NATO goal of spending 2% of its GDP on the military. It also has a substantial arms industry, which builds its own modern warships, artillery, assault rifles and other weapons. 

NATO membership will integrate Finland’s arms industry into NATO’s lucrative arms market, boosting sales of Finnish weapons, while also providing a context to buy more of the latest U.S. and allied weaponry for its own military and to collaborate on joint weapons projects with firms in larger NATO countries. With NATO military budgets increasing, and likely to keep increasing, Finland’s government clearly faces pressures from the arms industry and other interests. In effect, its own small military-industrial complex doesn’t want to be left out.

Since it began its NATO accession, Finland has already committed $10 billion to buy U.S.-made F-35 fighters to replace its three squadrons of F-18s. It has also been taking bids for new missile defense systems, and is reportedly trying to choose between the Indian-Israeli Barak 8 surface-to-air missile system and the U.S.-Israeli David’s Sling system, built by Israel’s Raphael and the U.S.’s Raytheon.

Finnish law prohibits the country from possessing nuclear weapons or allowing them in the country, unlike the five NATO countries that store stockpiles of U.S. nuclear weapons on their soil: Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. But Finland submitted its NATO accession documents without the exceptions that Denmark and Norway have insisted on that allow them to prohibit nuclear weapons. This leaves Finland’s nuclear posture uniquely ambiguous, despite President Sauli Niinistö’s promise that “Finland has no intention of bringing nuclear weapons onto our soil.”

This lack of discussion about the implications of Finland joining an explicitly nuclear military alliance is troubling, and has been attributed to an overly hasty accession process in the context of the war in Ukraine, as well as to Finland’s tradition of unquestioning popular trust in its national government. 

Perhaps most regrettable is that Finland’s membership in NATO marks the end of the nation’s admirable tradition as a global peacemaker. Former Finnish President Urho Kekkonen, an architect of the policy of cooperation with the neighboring Soviet Union and a champion of world peace, helped craft the Helsinki Accords, a historic agreement signed in 1975 by the U.S., the Soviet Union, Canada and every European nation except Albania aimed at improving détente between the Soviet Union and the West. 

Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari continued the peacemaking tradition and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008 for his critical efforts to resolve international conflicts, from Namibia to Aceh in Indonesia to Kosovo. 

Speaking at the UN in September 2021, President Niinistö seemed anxious to follow this legacy. “A willingness of adversaries and competitors to engage in dialogue, to build trust and to seek common denominators — that was the essence of the Helsinki spirit. It is precisely that kind of a spirit that the entire world, and the United Nations, urgently needs,” he said. “I am convinced that the more we speak about the Helsinki spirit, the closer we get to rekindling it — and to making it come true.” 

Of course it was Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine that drove Finland to abandon the “Helsinki spirit” in favor of joining NATO. But if Finland had resisted the pressure to rush into NATO membership, it might instead now be joining the “Peace Club” being formed by Brazilian President Lula to revive negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Sadly for Finland and the world, it now appears that the Helsinki spirit will have to move forward — without Helsinki.

Buoyed by Bill Hader’s confident directing, “Barry” saves its best hits for last

The fourth and final season of “Barry” premieres less than a week after Warner Bros. unveiled the title for its mega streamer as Max, confusing if not scandalizing the public by dropping “HBO” from its title.

The last ride of Bill Hader’s regretful unhinged hitman Barry Berkman would seem to have little to do with the media conglomerate’s branding decision unless one contemplates all the ways this show represents the pinnacle of what the premium cable meant when it once insisted that it’s “not TV.”

Hader and co-creator Alec Berg never shied away from the episodic format or attempted to persuade us that each season was more of a four-hour movie than a show. Instead, with each new season, they and the writers pushed Barry and everyone connected to him by choice or force to funnier, darker places.

BarryBill Hader in “Barry” (Merrick Morton/HBO)

They also pulled off a feat that few other series about complicated and essentially terrible people do well, if at all, panning comedic situations out of darkness and pure evil, bringing us to the other side of each season while still enjoying the company of these narcissists and killers.

Chalk it up to the writers and actors’ refusal to ingratiate their self-involved actors, gangsters, and hitmen to the audience, to explain their actions or achieve absolution even if Barry, for one, never stops seeking forgiveness or a new start. Not even after he snaps and kills entire branches of organized crime, friends and foes alike.

That refusal to pander frees Hader and his co-stars Sarah Goldberg, Anthony Carrigan, Henry Winkler, and Stephen Root to slough off their skins between each new season, culminating in these final episodes where everyone is raw, ragged and bloody. Barry especially, which would seem to be a given since he ended the third season on his way to prison.

Barry Berkman is an ever-accelerating decline in progress, inspiring Hader to steadily and entirely transform his performance with each new cycle of episodes. Anyone watching had to sense that Barry would end up precisely where we see him now – angry, guilt-frayed, and alone, albeit locked up with his traitor of an ex-handler Fuches (Root).

The face Hader puts on Barry in these new episodes is less explosive than the smoking volcano he personifies in Season 3 but scarier somehow – although that fright may be less for the people around him than for him. Somehow the star translates Barry’s complete brokenness into the look of a man who is melting like a cheap candle, notably in wordless sequences that play out in disconnected stares and jaws slackened by hopelessness and violence.

Hader, a two-time Emmy winner for this role, has fine-tuned his performances to be synchronous with his directing; he helms all eight installments of this season, seven of which were made available for review. Each is a sprightly ride integrating what he and the cast bring out in the script with the lens’ language, playing with our comprehension of what’s reality versus hallucination, jolting lucid dreams into reality with the simplest tricks.

“Barry” represents the pinnacle of what the premium cable meant when it once insisted it’s “not TV.”

He spreads that careful devotion to framing scenes shots and capturing the psychological currents of a situation through angles and distance, which alchemizes wonderfully with Sally’s (Goldberg) subplots and fluffs Winkler’s portrayal of Gene Cousineau’s dangerous arrogance if that’s possible. Goldberg and Winkler glow in their own right, for separate reasons.

Sally’s Hollywood flameout requires her to slink back to Joplin, MO., providing the audience a window into the reasons she left. Haunting as those scenes are they’re also brutally funny. That matches the methods and general life approach of her acting mentor Gene, riding a new high after parlaying his misadventures with Barry into a reset of his 15 minutes, with the vengeful Jim Moss (Robert Wisdom) never far from him, still hunting for solace and his daughter’s murderer.

BarryAnthony Carrigan and Michael Irby in “Barry” (Merrick Morton/HBO)

NoHo Hank is, as ever, a balm to soothe the horror or all the death and murder in his midst, although his brush with death by a hungry predator after being chained to a radiator dims some of the light in him. Carrigan’s upbeat smoothness cheers the character despite obvious signs that his ordeal to save Cristobal (Michael Irby) has embittered a share of his optimism.

The star-crossed lovers survived and have set up shop away from Los Angeles, taking a stab at their own version of starting over which, as this series is fond of reminding us, is impossible.


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


“Barry” is cumbersome, always precise, and these episodes wind with many turns that require a person to remind themselves that it was once clearly designated as a comedy. That’s not to say the joy is no longer present – everyone in front of the camera and behind it faultlessly maintains that engine.

Still, it’s more of a work of open desolation, tension, drama and ache than it ever was while affording the audience relief via oases of slapstick and hilarity.

BarrySarah Goldberg in “Barry” (Merrick Morton/HBO)One tendency that HBO shows popularized, is the habit of reducing the totality of a show and its arcs to answering a single question related to outcome. Who will end up on the Iron Throne? Or the “Succession” version of that pondering: who will “win”? Will the antihero pay for his sins? I’m not looking forward to finding out how “Barry” ends, but hopefully conversations leading up to that finale aren’t reduced to one or two simple queries.

Hader and Berg designed “Barry” with more complexity than that; besides, the third season finale checked two major queries off the list – he got caught, and he’s in prison. If there’s anything left to ponder, maybe it’s whether these people will get what they deserve, what that means, and whether that matters. All of these questions boil down to the hope that “Barry” will send these characters off well and give the show a good ending.

Seven out of the season’s eight episodes leave a strong impression that it will.

“Barry” premieres Sunday, April 16 at 10 p.m. on HBO.

 

American Music Honors: Jon Stewart hosts an event celebrating a vast tapestry of musical styles

Last night, Monmouth University’s Bruce Springsteen Archives and Center for American Music unveiled the first edition of the American Music Honors, an annual awards gala expressly designed to pay tribute to the artists behind the nation’s vast tapestry of musical styles and innovations

The Bruce Springsteen Archives and Center for American Music was established in 2017 with the mission of preserving Springsteen’s legacy and celebrating the history of American music and its diversity of artists and genres. Founded by Robert Santelli, the organization’s executive director, the archives include a repository comprised of more than 35,000 items. Each year, scholars from across the globe visit Monmouth University to carry out research associated with Springsteen’s life and work.

But Saturday evening marked the Center for American Music’s turn to shine. With a spate of honorees that included Steven Van Zandt, Sam Moore, Darlene Love and Steve Earle, the star-studded event featured a host of show-stopping performances, while placing American music’s creative heritage front and center. Hosted by comedian Jon Stewart, the event was the brainchild of Santelli, whose leadership has been behind some of the nation’s most vaunted institutions, including the Grammy Museum, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the Experience Music Project.

According to Santelli, “American Music Honors aims to celebrate those artists who have demonstrated artistic excellence, creative integrity, and a longstanding commitment to the value of music in our national consciousness. All of our inaugural honorees are worthy of acknowledgment and appreciation.” Following Santelli’s remarks, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy took to the stage, where he issued a proclamation naming September 23rd, Springsteen’s birthday, as Bruce Springsteen Day.

Steve Earle, the event’s first nominee, has enjoyed a Grammy award-winning career as an American singer-songwriter working in a host of musical styles ranging from rock and bluegrass to folk and the blues. Following a moving introduction from E Street Band bassist Garry Tallent, Earle joined the house band, the Disciples of Soul, for a rousing rendition of his foot-stomping hit “Copperhead Road.”


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


In the evening’s most heartrending tribute, Springsteen provided a video introduction to Darlene Love’s long and storied career, especially her early work as the lead vocalist for the Phil Spector-produced “He’s a Rebel” and “She’s Sure the Boy I Love.” In her acceptance speech, Love spoke movingly about the perseverance that has made her long career possible, remarking that “nobody does it alone” and noting her personal and professional debts to Van Zandt, Springsteen, and others. Love brought the house down with her bravura performance of “River Deep Mountain High” with the Disciples of Soul.

Listen to Love’s appearance on the Everything Fab Four podcast:

Introduced by Asbury Park legend Southside Johnny Lyon, Sam Moore was feted for his work as a member of the iconic soul music duo Sam and Dave. With Dave Prater, Moore cut his teeth in the gospel tradition before creating an innovative soulful sound that resulted in such hits as “You Don’t Know Like I Know,” “Hold On! I’m Comin’,” “When Something Is Wrong with My Baby” and “Soul Man,” among others. With the Disciples of Soul providing an appropriately funky accompaniment, Moore turned in a stirring performance of “I Thank You.”

The event’s honorees concluded with Van Zandt, who was fittingly introduced by Springsteen. During his video tribute, Springsteen made special note of the longstanding E Street Band guitarist’s humanitarian efforts, especially his world-changing Artists United Against Apartheid effort and, most recently, his TeachRock initiative, which spearheads a national K-12 music curriculum explicitly designed to maintain student engagement and promote lifelong learning.

Listen to Van Zandt’s appearance on the Everything Fab Four podcast:

After accepting the American Music Honors statuette, Van Zandt led the Disciples of Soul through a heart-pounding set that included renditions of such Springsteen classics as “Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out” and “Hungry Heart,” as well as “Soul Man,” Sam and Dave’s signature tune. With an unforgettable musical revue capping off its first foray, the American Music Honors kicked off the new musical tradition at Monmouth University’s West Long Branch, New Jersey, campus in fine style.