Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Enjoy this cozy, Dolly Parton-approved soup from the “The Unofficial Dollywood Cookbook”

Dolly Parton said her mama, Avie Lee, was always tuned into the individual needs of her twelve children. She used this soup as a way to both involve her kids in the cooking process and give some special attention to a child that needed a little extra love. While the soup was being prepared, Avie Lee sent her kids outside to each collect a small stone. When the siblings brought their stones inside and gave them to their mom, she chose the “perfect” one—presented by the child she secretly knew needed a boost that day—to wash and toss right into the soup pot! While you don’t need to include the stone to make this delicious soup, this is a touching tradition to try with your own family.

Buy the book here!

Served at: Song & Hearth: A Southern Eatery, Dollywood’s DreamMore Resort & Spa


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


Dolly’s Stone Soup
Yields
08 servings
Prep Time
00 hours 15 minutes
Cook Time
2 hours 30minutes 

Ingredients

8 cups chicken stock

1 pound russet potatoes, peeled and cut into 1/2″ chunks

1 (14.5-ounce) can diced tomatoes, drained

4 cups chopped cabbage

1 pound turnips, diced

2 large carrots, peeled and diced

1/3 cup chopped sweet onion

4 medium cloves garlic, peeled and minced

1 pound smoked ham hock

1 teaspoon salt

1 teaspoon ground black pepper

1 small clean stone (optional)

 

Directions

  1. In a large stockpot over medium heat, add stock, potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, turnips, carrots, onion, garlic, and ham hock. Season with salt and pepper and stir to combine.

  2. Increase heat to medium-high and bring to a boil. Once boiling, reduce heat to medium-low and allow to simmer, stirring occasionally, 2 hours or until vegetables are tender.

  3. Remove ham hock and shred meat from bone. Return meat to soup and discard bone. Drop stone into soup, if desired. Serve warm.

Excerpted from The Unofficial Dollywood Cookbook by Erin Browne. Copyright © 2023 by Erin K. Browne. Photos by Harper Point Photography. Used by permission of the publisher. All rights reserved. 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission. 

“Never seen anything like this”: Expert says Bragg’s Jordan lawsuit reveals “effort to intimidate”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Tuesday sued House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, alleging a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on his prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

Trump was charged last week with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records in Bragg’s investigation into hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Ahead of Trump’s formal arraignment last week, Jordan launched a counter-investigation into Bragg’s probe and now plans to travel to New York City to hold a field hearing called “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan” on April 17. 

Bragg filed a 50-page suit over the “transparent campaign to intimidate and attack” him in an effort to prevent House Republicans from meddling in his case.

“Rather than allowing the criminal process to proceed in the ordinary course, Chairman Jordan and the committee are participating in a campaign of intimidation, retaliation and obstruction,” the suit said, adding that Bragg has received a litany of calls and emails from fervent Trump supporters, “many of which are threatening and racially charged.”

The New York Times reported that Bragg’s attorneys are also hoping to stave off the enforcement of subpoenas by Jordan, including a subpoena he sent to Mark Pomerantz — who was once involved in the district attorney’s investigation into Trump — shortly after prosecutors revealed the 34 felony counts brought against the ex-president. 

Jordan responded to news of the suit on Twitter. 

“First, they indict a president for no crime,” he wrote. “Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.”


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


Bragg’s office has indicated that it spent around $5,000 in federal funds on investigations into Trump and his company between 2019 and 2021, with the bulk of it on litigation related to a legal feud with Trump over his tax returns. In a Tuesday statement, Bragg called the subpoena to Pomerantz “an unconstitutional attempt to undermine an ongoing New York felony criminal prosecution and investigation.” 

Karen Friedman Agnifilo, the former chief assistant district attorney at the Manhattan D.A.’s office, told CNN that she had “never seen anything like this before.”

“D.A. Bragg, in this 50-page legal filing that was filed today, he sets out a campaign of interference and intimidation. Because… Rep. Jim Jordan is trying to say, yes, it’s because of these $5,000 in federal funds and that you claim that you have oversight over that,” she explained.

“But really, what Alvin Bragg sets out with, including all the tweets by the former president, as well as Jim Jordan and others — he also included the photo of the baseball bat near his, near Alvin Bragg’s head,” Agnifilo continued. “He talks about the racial — the racial slurs, the dog whistles, and also that, as a result of this campaign of intimidation by Jim Jordan and others and Trump that has been coordinated, that Alvin Bragg has gotten over 1,000 threats since then, including white powder in his office, really hateful racial slurs that have been directed at him and others.”

“So he’s really made, I think, an excellent case that this is an effort to intimidate him into not prosecuting,” she added, “versus legitimate legislative oversight.”

Greg Abbott’s BLM pardon: Vigilante justice is always about racism for the right

The last few years have seen a new round of vigilante killings in America, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the civil rights movement. And under a new interpretation of the meaning of self-defense, many are getting away with it.

Recall a few years back when an armed man named George Zimmerman down in Florida thought a young Black kid named Trayvon Martin looked suspicious so he jumped him and when the startled teenager fought back, Zimmerman shot and killed the boy. He said he felt threatened and was only defending himself. The jury acquitted him.

More recently, a young white man named Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of murder charges in Kenosha, Wisconsin when he waded into a protest armed with an AR-15 and killed two unarmed men, wounding a third. Rittenhouse may have been the one armed with a semi-automatic rifle but he said he felt threatened by the protesters so he opened fire. The jury found that to be a reasonable reaction.

This interpretation of self-defense exists partly because the right has legalized carrying loaded firearms in public which makes any public confrontation potentially lethal. These cases are often based on “stand your ground” laws and a definition of “self-defense” that holds you can shoot someone if you merely “feel threatened,” which these incidents demonstrate. (Of course, it isn’t just a gun issue — a number of states have legalized using your car as a deadly weapon to kill protesters too. )

In America today, if you grab your loaded gun and go looking for trouble, there’s a good chance the law will be on your side rather than the person you shot. It was their poor judgment that led to their deaths by making the armed assailant feel afraid. It’s open season for vigilantes.

Naturally, Rittenhouse became a hero on the right and now appears on the wingnut grifting circuit as a spokesman for gun rights. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., even offered a bill to give him the Congressional Gold Medal, the institution’s highest honor. (She voted against giving the medal to the Capitol Police for their actions on January 6, however.) Zimmerman was also lionized, even auctioning off the gun he used in the attack allegedly for $250,000, but has also been in and out of trouble ever since it happened. Both cases were not about a deadly confrontation such as road rage or a personal beef. They were political acts.

This is the real agenda of the gun proliferation fetishists: The ability to be armed at all times and shoot their enemies with impunity.

Zimmerman was a civilian on some sort of half-baked neighborhood watch who saw a young Black kid walking down the street and assumed he was up to no good without any evidence at all. Rittenhouse drove miles from his home in a neighboring state to confront people who were protesting the police killing of an unarmed Black man. This is the real agenda of the gun proliferation fetishists: the ability to be armed at all times and shoot their enemies with impunity.

It hasn’t yet panned out across the board. The vigilante killing of jogger Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia at the hands of three white men who chased him in a truck and shot him when he didn’t immediately comply with their order to stop ended with a guilty verdict on state murder charges and a federal conviction for a hate crime. And down in Texas, a would-be Kyle Rittenhouse named Daniel Perry was just convicted of murder for shooting a protester when he drove his car into a Black Lives Matter protest in June of 2020.


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


Perry, an Army sergeant and part-time Uber driver, had said on Facebook chats that he “might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex” and said that he “might go to Dallas to shoot some protesters.” He’d even discussed with a friend how one could get away with it by claiming self-defense. His friend was disturbed enough that he appeared to try to talk him down saying, “We went through the same training … Shooting after creating an event where you have to shoot, is not a good shoot.” (His friend was correct.)

When they searched his computer they also found that he’d searched “protesters in Seattle get shot” and “riot shootouts.” On July 25, he drove his car into an Austin crowd where a protester named Garrett Foster, legally carrying a semi-automatic rifle walked toward his car and told him to back off. Perry shot him five times. Witnesses testified that Foster never raised his gun. It was recovered with the safety still on and no bullet in the chamber. Perry raised the state’s strong “stand your ground” law as his defense but even a Texas jury didn’t buy it. It was obvious that Perry had driven to the protest with a mind to shoot a protester and he did it. Even that daft law doesn’t cover premeditated murder. But leave it to Texas to bring a new level of extremism to this issue.

Rather than accept the verdict based upon all the evidence and a judge’s instructions about how to apply the law, the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, promised to immediately pardon Perry even before the man has been sentenced. He’s just waiting for the required high sign from his hand-picked pardon and parole board. They aren’t too busy. Abbott only pardoned two people all last year.

Vigilantism is a very old story in America and one of its prominent characteristics has been that it always seems to be most prevalent when it is encouraged or condoned by political power and law enforcement. It’s most often been used against racial minorities, particularly Black Americans during the horrific post-Reconstruction period and Jim Crow all the way up to today. The echoes of that are all over these latest incidents, whether it’s the killing of Black people or the killing of white people protesting the killing of Black people.

Donald Trump sold himself as an avenging angel back in 2016, telling his crowds that he had a concealed carry permit and acting out fantasies about gunning down someone who threatened himself on the street. He gleefully led them in chants of “Death Wish” after the 1970s vigilante movie of that name. In 2020 he celebrated Kyle Rittenhouse and encouraged people to get violent with protesters. He is the perfect avatar for the right-wing movement that claims to be for law and order while it encourages lawlessness — by a select few — at every turn.  

“The judge is pissed”: Judge says Fox News has a “credibility problem” after Murdoch revelation

The judge overseeing Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News called out the network’s “credibility problem” after a last-minute revelation about billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s role at the company.

Justin Nelson, an attorney for Dominion, alleged on Tuesday that Fox News withheld information that would have allowed the voting machine company to obtain more of Murdoch’s communications in the lawsuit, according to The Washington Post.

Nelson told Judge Eric Davis that the company was led to believe that Murdoch was only an officer at Fox News’ parent company, Fox Corp., but in recent days the company learned that he also has an officer title at Fox News.

“This alone has meant that we are missing a whole bunch of Rupert Murdoch documents that we otherwise would have been entitled to,” Nelson said. “It’s very troubling that this is where we are. It’s something that has really affected how we have litigated this case.”

Davis “echoed Nelson’s frustration,” according to the Post, and said the missing information about Murdoch’s title may have affected his decision-making in limiting the scope of the case.

“I could have made an entirely wrong decision,” Davis said before calling out the network’s “credibility problem.”

“My problem is that it’s been represented more than once to me that he’s not an officer of Fox News,” Davis said. “I need to feel comfortable that when you represent something to me, it’s the truth. I’m not very happy right now. I don’t know why this is such a difficult thing.”

Legal experts observed that it was unusual for the “mild-mannered” judge to be “fairly steaming.”

“Wow,” tweeted attorney George Conway. “The judge is pissed, as he should be,” he wrote.

Dominion is suing Fox over false claims made by Trump allies that the company rigged the election against former President Donald Trump. Internal messages released in the lawsuit show that Murdoch, executives and hosts trashed the conspiracy theories they aired and Murdoch acknowledged in his deposition that some hosts “endorsed” the false claims.

An attorney for Fox said that Murdoch’s title at Fox News was an “honorific,” according to the Post.

“Rupert Murdoch has been listed as executive chairman of Fox News in our [Securities and Exchange Commission] filings for several years and this filing was referenced by Dominion’s own attorney during his deposition,” a spokesperson for Fox said in a statement.


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


Dominion sued Fox Corp. as well as Fox News and were able to depose Murdoch and obtain some of his internal communications but Nelson argued that the company should have received additional documents, adding that Dominion is “still evaluating our options.”

The judge said that he does not anticipate the revelation to derail the case but would need to determine how to handle the issue, according to the Post.

“I don’t know if this is something we have to turn the battleship around, that it’s that big of a deal,” he said. “We’ll deal with it.”

At the end of the hearing, Davis told a Fox attorney, “I’m not mad at you.”

“I’m mad at the situation I’m in,” he said. “So, I have to figure out how I deal with that.”

Jury selection in the trial is slated to begin on Thursday.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, said he would “feel queasy” heading into the trial if he was an attorney for Fox.

“I would not want to be in the position of defending Fox here. I think they’re headed for a full-blown journalistic and legal disaster. It is very difficult to successfully sue a media outlet for defamation in this country… that’s a very high bar,” he said. “But here we have Fox’s own texts in black and white, where they call the election fraud claims, and I quote, ‘nuts,’ ‘insane,’ ‘B.S.'”

A tax break on clean energy projects is coming to coal and oil towns

Community advocates in the coalfields of central Appalachia and other places dependent upon fossil fuel production have long insisted that their towns cannot be left behind by the nation’s switch to renewable energy. The Biden administration has responded to such calls by working to ensure under-resourced communities benefit from this green transition. 

To help achieve that, the Inflation Reduction Act includes a 30 percent tax break for wind, solar, and other green energy projects. It provides an additional 10 percent credit for projects in “energy communities” — those long anchored, and polluted, by fossil fuel industries. The tax break is intended for energy developers and manufacturers that might relocate to a community, employ local people, and contribute taxes to the local government.

Last week, the Treasury Department outlined how clean energy companies can secure those credits. For a project to qualify, at least 0.17 percent of the targeted community’s employment or 25 percent of its tax revenue must be related to the extraction, processing, transport, or storage of coal, oil, or natural gas. 

Although the program will help cities and towns nationwide, the need is particularly acute in Appalachia, where coal industry jobs fell 54 percent between 2005 and 2020, according to a report by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Along with its guidelines, the Treasury Department released a map indicating in red which U.S. counties might be eligible for these projects. The coalfields of central Appalachia, particularly West Virginia and portions of Virginia and Kentucky, are almost solidly red.  

“Communities like coal communities have the knowledge, infrastructure, resources, and know-how to play a leading role in the move to a clean energy economy,” Wally Adeyemo, deputy U.S. treasury secretary, said, according to Reuters.

Many of the people in those areas are growing amenable to the wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays that are increasingly common sights. Tony Smith founded Secure Solar Futures in Staunton, Virginia, in 2004, and says the technology didn’t always enjoy broad support in the region. “We were trying to develop a solar project in southwestern Virginia and were met by resistance from the coal industry, and it died,” he said. 

That attitude has slowly begun to change, and the company and its partners, including Mountain Empire Community College, have made a point of using the region’s expansion of solar energy as a chance to invest in the the workforce. Together they’ve developed an apprenticeship program that employs students for several weeks and pays them $17 per hour while providing them with gear, training, and networking opportunities. 

The opportunities extend well beyond installing photovoltaic panels, Smith said. There’s work to be done in everything from maintenance to accounting to engineering, and the skills required to work in the solar power industry — or wind, for that matter — are applicable in carpentry, electrical work, and other trades. “A lot of jobs come about during installation, but the solar business itself is multidisciplinary,” said Smith. 

A 2020 study by West Virginia University found renewable energy is increasingly competitive in Appalachia. Beyond Secure Solar Futures and the Solar Workgroup, a whole crop of renewable energy projects are popping up in the coalfields there. Black Rock Wind Farm in Mineral County, West Virginia, for example, has created 200 union construction jobs since last year. Many of these companies, including Solar Holler in Huntington, West Virginia, work alongside union apprenticeship programs.

Some projects are finding new uses for the thousands of acres of unreclaimed minelands that dot the region. In 2021, a former Democratic state auditor in Kentucky announced a massive utility-scale solar farm atop a strip mine in Martin County. The Nature Conservancy is exploring the possibility of renewables development on some 13,000 acres of strip-mined land on the 253,000 acres it owns in Kentucky, Virginia, and east Tennessee. 

The tax credit outlined in the IRA also may help energy developers bypass one major obstacle to getting green projects started: sluggish state legislatures that are friendly to fossil fuels and uncertain about energy transition. Recent reporting by Inside Climate News showed that Kentucky, despite a 65 percent decline in coal production since 2013, ranks last in the country for wind and solar energy production. The state recently passed legislation intended to forestall the closing of 50-year-old coal-fired power plants.

Still, Smith is encouraged by the changing attitudes he’s seen in some state and local lawmakers. In West Virginia, for instance, legislators recently doubled the cap on power purchase agreements, which will allow savings for homeowners, schools, and nonprofits with smaller solar arrays.

“The IRA will help accelerate investment in these communities, which would otherwise be difficult because they are more remote,” he said. Renewable energy developers in the region still face major challenges in under-resourced mountain communities, most of them related to supply chain issues, outdated electrical systems, and facilities in poor repair. A tax credit could provide the boost needed to see more clean energy projects past the finish line.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/energy/a-tax-break-on-clean-energy-projects-is-coming-to-coal-and-oil-towns/.

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

Inside climate activists’ uneasy relationship with ‘net-zero’

In the premier episode of Apple TV’s climate show, Extrapolations, it’s 2037 and Earth is in turmoil. Global temperatures have reached record highs. Wildfires rage on every continent. People lack clean drinking water, while a stone-faced billionaire hoards patents to life-saving desalination technology. 

People are understandably upset. Because it’s nearly a decade and a half in the future, protests now include towering holograms and desperate calls to limit global warming — which has long since blown past 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) — to 2 degrees C. One thing is eerily familiar, though: In one scene, demonstrators chant “net-zero now!” — a catchphrase with origins at the end of the last decade. 

To some, this is a surprising slogan to hear today, let alone in 2037. Although the concept of global net-zero is rooted in climate science, today’s carbon neutrality pledges from individual governments and corporations have been criticized in some quarters as a “con,” because they allow polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases. The carbon offset projects that are supposed to neutralize all those residual emissions are often questionable, if not a sham.

“If today’s version of net-zero is still the rallying cry for climate action 15 years from now, we are in big, big trouble,” said Rachel Rose Jackson, director of climate research and policy for the nonprofit Corporate Accountability. “I hope we’re headed down a different path.”

Just what that path looks like, however, remains a matter of debate.

The concept of net-zero is rooted in the climate science of the early 2000s. Between 2005 and 2009, a series of research articles showed that global temperatures would continue rising alongside net emissions of carbon dioxide. The “net” acknowledged the role of long-term processes like deep-ocean carbon uptake, in which the seas absorb the pollutant from the air. These processes occur over decades, even centuries.

The term “net-zero” doesn’t appear in the Paris Agreement of 2015, but it was at about that time that it went mainstream. Based on recommendations from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, countries agreed in Article 4 of the accord to achieve a “balance” between sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions during the second half of the century.

So far, so good; this is relatively noncontroversial. “Global net-zero is nonnegotiable if you’re serious about climate targets,” said Sam Fankhauser, a professor of climate change economics and policy at the University of Oxford. Where things start to skew, however, is when individual countries and businesses adopt net-zero targets for themselves. “That’s where you leave the science and get into the realm of policy and opinion,” Fankhauser said.

Sweden became the first country to legislate a midcentury net-zero goal in 2017. Since then, that target has exploded in popularity, almost to the exclusion of other pledges. Some 92 percent of the global economy is now covered by a patchwork of such commitments, made by entities including 130 countries and 850 of the planet’s largest publicly traded companies. 

Fankhauser considers that good news. “None of those firms or organizations had any targets at all before, so they’re moving in the right direction,” he said, although he added that there’s lots of room for improvement in the integrity of those promises. A global analysis published last year found that 65 percent of the largest corporate net-zero targets don’t meet minimum reporting standards, and only 40 percent of municipal targets are reflected in legislation or policy documents.

Others, however, have harsher words for something they consider little more than “rank deception” from big polluters. With heads of state and fossil fuel companies pledging net-zero yet planning to expand oil and gas reserves, Jackson said the logic behind carbon neutrality has been “completely lit on fire” by greenwashing governments and corporations. “They have entirely co-opted the net-zero agenda,” she said. 

At the heart of the issue lies that little word, “net,” and the offsets it implies. When companies or governments can’t get their climate pollution to zero, they can pay for offset projects to either remove carbon from the atmosphere or prevent hypothetical emissions — like by protecting a stand of trees that otherwise would have been razed. Under ideal conditions, a third party evaluates these offsets and converts them into “credits” polluters can use to claim that some of their emissions have been neutralized.

The problem, however, is these offsets are too often bogus — the market for them is “honestly kind of a Wild West,” said Amanda Levin, interim director of policy analysis for the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. For projects claiming to avoid emissions, it’s difficult to prove the counterfactual: Would a given forest really have been cut down without the offset project? And carbon removal schemes like those based on afforestation — planting trees that will store carbon as they grow — might last only a few years if a disease or forest fire comes along.

Levin said polluters too often use poorly regulated and opaque “junk offsets” to delay the absolute emissions reductions required to combat climate change. Although the IPCC includes offsets in nearly all of its pathways to keep global warming well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), experts agree those offsets should be considered a last resort used only when it’s no longer possible to further cut climate pollution. 

“Net-zero does not mean that we don’t have to take steps to directly reduce our emissions,” Levin said. 

Many, many others — from environmental groups to scientists to policymakers — agree. Where opinions differ, however, is what to do about it. Many net-zero critiques are paired with suggestions for reform, like a 2022 report from a U.N. panel that blasted nongovernmental net-zero pledges as “greenwash.” It recommended tighter guidelines on reporting and transparency, as well as new measures to ensure the integrity of offsets.

Carbon Market Watch, a European watchdog and think tank, takes a slightly different approach. In a February letter to members of the European Parliament, the organization called for a total ban on “carbon neutrality” claims for companies’ products, arguing that such boasts give consumers the false idea that business as usual can continue without adverse impacts on the climate or environment. 

“To say that you neutralize your climate impact by investing in an avoided deforestation program halfway across the world? That’s not scientifically sound,” said Lindsay Otis, a policy expert for Carbon Market Watch. “It deters from real mitigation efforts that will keep us in line with our Paris Agreement goals.”

To Otis, it’s not necessarily offset projects that should be banned. Although she acknowledged that many are problematic, she said mitigation efforts like reforestation can have “a potential real-world benefit,” and it would be a mistake to stop funding them. Instead, she considers this a communication problem: Rather than allowing companies to claim carbon mitigation projects cancel out residual emissions, Carbon Market Watch favors a “contribution claim” model, in which polluters advertise only their financial support for such projects. Some carbon credit sellers like Myclimate are embracing a version of that model, as is the global payment service Klarna.

Carbon Market Watch distinguishes between “carbon neutrality” claims, which describe companies’ products and current environmental performance, and “net-zero” claims about what companies say they’ll do in the future, as in “net-zero by 2050.” It says the latter are still permissible, but only if backed by a detailed plan to quickly drive down emissions and not offset them.

On its face, this is similar to an alternative benchmark that has gained popularity in recent years: “real zero,” which involves the rapid elimination of all fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas emissions without the use of offsets. At least two major companies, the utilities NextEra and National Grid, have eschewed their own net-zero goals in favor of real zero. However, some environmental groups — including a coalition of 700 organizations from around the world — take the concept further. They see real zero as a whole new lens with which to view equitable climate action, one that rejects a single-minded, technocratic focus on greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The real zero framing puts at the center not just the urgency” of climate mitigation, “but also fairness,” said Jackson, the policy director at Corporate Accountability. She and others say real zero is an opportunity to reorient the international climate agenda around new priorities, like funneling climate finance to the developing world and protecting Indigenous land rights. It also sets faster decarbonization timelines for the biggest historical polluters and demands that they pay reparations to communities most harmed by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

It’s a far-reaching and ambitious agenda, and its calls for climate justice are broadly supported by experts and policy wonks. Still, some push back, returning to the idea of net-zero as a global necessity. 

“While real zero is a valuable guiding light, net-zero is still a worthy and necessary goal,” said Jackie Ennis, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Her modeling shows that even the most ambitious carbon mitigation scenarios will require offsets for the hardest-to-abate corners of the economy, which she defined to include waste management and animal agriculture. She pointed to work from the independent Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market to define criteria that define a “high-quality” offset — including whether it contributes to sustainable development goals and doesn’t violate the rights of Indigenous peoples.

According to Fankhauser, the “gold standard” here is geological removal, in which carbon is drawn out of the atmosphere and locked up in rock formations. This technology can’t yet handle even a tiny fraction of the planet’s overall carbon emissions, but experts say it could one day enable offsets that are less prone to double-counting and more likely to sequester carbon for the long haul.

Fankhauser suggested a sort of middle ground between real and net-zero, in which governments set different decarbonization targets for different sectors: net-zero for those like shipping and steel-making for which zero-carbon alternatives aren’t yet viable, and the total elimination of emissions for the rest of the economy. Some jurisdictions already do something like this. The economy-wide net-zero target set by New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act prohibits offsets for the power sector and caps them at 15 percent for the state’s overall emissions by 2050. That means 85 percent of Empire State emissions reductions must come from actually reducing emissions. 

“That’s a perfect example of how policymakers are trying to constrain the use of offsets so they’re being used where it’s most valuable,” said Levin, with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

More global efforts, however, are hard to come by, likely because there’s so much contention around the net-zero agenda. One thing people seem to agree on, however, is that the status quo is not working. Although thousands of companies and governments have pledged to reach net-zero sometime in the next several decades, the planet is still on track for dangerous levels of global warming — 2.8 degrees C (5 degrees F), to be precise. That’s more than enough to “cook the fool out of you,” as one protester in Extrapolations so eloquently put it.

“The current trajectory is one of failure,” Jackson told Grist, though she said it’s not too late to turn things around. “The money exists, the technology exists, the capacity exists — it’s only the lack of political will. If we’re brave enough to alter course and redirect toward what we know is needed, then a totally different world is possible.”


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/protest/inside-climate-activists-uneasy-relationship-with-net-zero/.

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

The not-so-hidden message behind Donald Trump’s Easter threats of “World War III”

The leader-follower relationship is a feedback loop of emotions, ideas, thoughts, values, beliefs and actions. A healthy leader and movement that is trying to create a better more just democratic society is empowered by their relationship towards positive ends. An unhealthy leader and movement can cause great harm to society, through outcomes that are much more pernicious and damaging than any one leader could likely achieve by themselves. Donald Trump and his MAGA movement are decidedly in the second category.

Political scientists, social psychologists, and other researchers have repeatedly shown that Trump’s followers are deeply attracted to his lawbreaking and general contempt for democracy and social norms because they see such antisocial behavior as an example of a “strong leader” who “will fight for people like them.” This is a defining feature of the conservative-authoritarian political personality type.

“Trump cannot deal with any divergence from his perspective. The reception he received in New York on Tuesday must have been disconcerting, to say the least, for the boy in the partisan bubble.”

As we have seen throughout modern history (and before) fascism and other forms of illiberal politics corrupt the ethics and morals of the people who are attracted to such political projects; sick leaders attract sick followers; sick societies produce sick leaders and sick movements.

Since his arrest and indictment in Manhattan, Trump has escalated his threats and incitements to destruction, terrorism, civil war, white supremacy, antisemitism, paranoid delusions, and other evil. Instead of pushing Trump’s loyal followers and cultists away from him, such negative and pathological behavior is bringing them all closer together in what they see as an apocalyptic existential struggle against the left. 

In a conversation last with Salon last week, Dr. Justin Frank, who is one of the country’s leading mental health experts and author of the book “Trump on the Couch,” issued the following ominous warning about the traitor ex-president’s apparent state of mind in the aftermath of his being arrested and indicted in Manhattan:

[T]rump is dominated by the death instinct which includes pleasure in being destructive. A person who has that temperament is going to manage his anxieties and fears and other stress by escalating fantasies of destructiveness. In Trump’s mind, he is visualizing burning things and blowing them up. He is fantasizing about hurting other people. Those fantasies of harm and destruction bring him great pleasure. A person like Trump may be fantasizing about committing acts of mass murder.

If Trump were a mafia boss, he would get his consiglieres to act on his behalf. For Trump to truly be calm and at peace he would need to rule the world, to dominate everyone and everything around him. Trump lives to make other people scared. He will also not let himself feel dependent on, or need, other human beings.

In the days since that conversation, Donald Trump’s public mental decompensation and violent acting out and other terroristic threats have greatly escalated. Last Sunday, Trump “celebrated” Easter by issuing the following proclamation on his Truth Social disinformation platform:

HAPPY EASTER TO ALL, INCLUDING THOSE THAT DREAM ENDLESSLY OF DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF DREAMING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, THOSE THAT ARE SO INCOMPETENT THEY DON’T REALIZE THAT HAVING A BORDER AND POWERFUL WALL IS A GOOD THING, & HAVING VOTER I.D., ALL PAPER BALLOTS, & SAME DAY VOTING WILL QUICKLY END MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD, & TO ALL OF THOSE WEAK & PATHETIC RINOS, RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS, SOCIALISTS MARXISTS, & COMMUNISTS WHO ARE KILLING OUR NATION, REMEMBER, WE WILL BE BACK!

On Easter, Trump also threatened “World War III.” 

Last week, Trump also chose to amplify what is a de facto death threat from one of the users of Truth Social against President Biden:

Perverted joe Biden is a treasonous traitor trying to overthrow the United States of America and our constitution. That makes him and democrats public enemy .They will pay for crimes against humanity and treason.

This is not the first time that Donald Trump has either directly or indirectly threatened the lives and safety of President Biden and other leading Democrats. But because it is so unseemly and disturbing, the American mainstream news media and larger political class have incorrectly and irresponsibly decided to largely ignore or downplay such acts of stochastic terrorism and other verbal bomb-throwing. 

Via email, Dr. Frank shared these concerns and warnings about Trump’s deteriorating mental health and behavior:

Now that Trump is back in his lair at Mar-a-Lago, he feels free to write and say what he wants without pesky fact-checkers getting in the way or disbelievers sliding into his DMs. He can give stirring speeches to a handful of unquestioning, hand-picked sycophants who know when to cheer and boo. This is because Trump cannot deal with any divergence from his perspective. The reception he received in New York on Tuesday must have been disconcerting, to say the least, for the boy in the partisan bubble.

His projection is there for all to see – “those that dream endlessly of destroying our country because they are incapable of dreaming anything else.” This is the most autobiographical of all his projections over the years. They come straight from his unconscious. He is like the child who says his brother pushed him down the stairs, neglecting to mention the fact that he provoked it. To anyone paying attention, Trump’s outbursts are transparent.

He gives permission to unstable people to carry out their grievances at a murderous level. This is not just because violent people love Trump, but because they are following Trump’s stated practice of striking back “ten times as hard” with any means available when he feels wronged.

I’m beginning to think a warning, or even a gag order is not sufficient. He needs to be secured where nobody can hear his genuinely dangerous outpourings. And it needs to be now.

Fascism and other forms of authoritarian and anti-human politics take hold over society through normalization. The normalization process is accelerated by how a society’s leaders and other influentials – especially among the political class and media – come to see such aberrant behavior as somehow a new type of “normal” or convince themselves that ignoring fascist and other anti-democratic leaders and movements will somehow make them go away. Even more dangerous is when institutional political parties such as the Democrats convince themselves that they can negotiate or compromise with neofascists, authoritarians, and other malign actors such as today’s Republican Party in order to find “consensus” and “common ground.” Such an approach is a practical endorsement of and surrender to fascism and authoritarianism.

Although Joe Biden may be president, the Age of Trump and ascendant neofascism are continuing to spread across the country – largely unchecked. The Age of Trump is a form of malignant normality that the American people are far from escaping.

To wit. Polls show that if the 2024 presidential election were held today that President Biden and Donald Trump would be in a tie. Biden, for whatever his faults, is a good human being and a dedicated public servant who believes in democracy. Trump, on the other hand, is a naked fascist, demagogue, and an enemy of the common good.

Dr. Frank highlighted the differences between the two men in the following way:

Compare his behavior with President Biden’s Easter message: Today, we hold close the Easter message that nothing—not even death—can match the power of faith, hope, and love. And we remember Jesus’ sacrifice and recommit ourselves to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves, embracing His call to treat one another with compassion. To complete the picture, Trump also posted in capital letters, “WORLD WAR III.”

A healthy society would not have elected Trump in the first place. A healthy society – or one that wanted to get better – would certainly not put him in a position to repeat, in an even worse way, his reign of terror and destruction.

As Donald Trump faces more serious legal consequences for his political crime spree and the 2024 Election grows closer, he will only become more dangerous, violent, and out of control. For the safety of the country, Trump must be contained and stopped. Will the American people and law enforcement have the courage to do so? We will soon find out and the answer will determine the future of the country and its democracy and society.

Blinded by hate: Republicans too busy to notice plummeting poll numbers for Trump and GOP

Perhaps it’s a sign that they’re still traumatized by the 2016 election. Or, more likely, it’s just that elite members of the pundit class have subconscious anxieties when they see rich people actually held to account for their crimes. But far too much media chatter after Donald Trump finally faced indictments got caught up in a hand-wringing contest over who was most fearful this would somehow help him electorally. Well, score one for common sense over the received wisdom of the punditocracy: A new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows Trump’s already low favorability ratings have plummeted even further, to 25%. 

For context, that’s 14 points lower than when Trump called the white nationalists who threw a 2017 race riot “very fine people.” It’s 9 points lower than when he incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021.


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


Despite the relentless whining about “witch hunts” from Trump, the polling also shows most Americans are well aware he’s a criminal, with 53% saying Trump “intentionally” did something wrong. And let’s face it, most of the 20% saying he’s innocent probably don’t believe that, so much as they’re just loyal Republicans. But despite the fact that Trump is shaping up to be the loser that a small but outspoken faction of anti-Trump Republicans say he is, so far, it still seems he’s got a lock on the Republican presidential nomination during next spring’s primary. Indeed, he seems to be growing in popularity with the GOP base, even as his already low approval numbers with the general public plummet further. 

The more the public sees Republicans for who they really are, the less the public likes them.

For many GOP voters, it really is that they would rather lose the 2024 presidential race than admit liberals were right about Trump. But, I suspect, for many others, it’s just that they are in deep denial. Trump and his right-wing media acolytes keep claiming indictments will only make Trump stronger. That is classic wishful thinking, and unsurprising coming from Trump, a man who has coasted his whole life by pretending to be everything he is not, such as a smart businessman or savvy power player. But it’s wishful thinking that’s infecting the MAGA base. After all, many of them live in a bubble where they don’t consume non-MAGA media or interact with normal non-MAGA Americans much, if at all. So it can be easy to convince themselves that the orange-hued fascist is as popular nationwide as he is in their Facebook mentions. 

This level of delusion about their own popularity is not just Trump-centric. There are many signs that Republicans have become an ostrich party: The more the public sees Republicans for who they really are, the less the public likes them. But Trump’s narcissism is spreading throughout the party, causing people who really should know better to believe that they have a wellspring of support that simply doesn’t exist. 

The evidence has become overwhelming at this point: The anti-abortion views of Republicans are wildly unpopular. Before the Dobbs decision last year, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it was plausible enough that the public was “divided” on abortion. Turns out, however, that was mostly because people didn’t actually think they were going to lose access. Now that most Americans see this as a live political issue, instead of a settled right, the backlash has been dramatic. Republicans are losing race after race that they would have otherwise won, but for abortion. Yet, Republicans seem unwilling to admit that abortion is a political loser for them. 

The recent Wisconsin state supreme court race is a good example. It’s not especially mysterious what happened: Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz beat election denier Dan Kelly by campaigning on the dual promises that she would protect abortion rights and work to restore democracy to the state. Her victory over Kelly would be properly described as an ass-whupping. Not only did she beat him by 11 points at the polls, but voter turnout was unbelievably high for an off-year election for a seat many people probably didn’t even previously know was an elected one. In particular, young voters turned out in what looks to be record numbers.

But rather than admit that abortion is a losing issue, many Republicans think the problem is they aren’t anti-choice enough.

Dominic Pino of the National Review lamented that Kelly hadn’t run enough ads highlighting his anti-abortion views, writing, “Conservatives who run away from the abortion issue are destined to lose on it.” His attitude is clearly shared by the majority of Republicans in state legislatures, who keep drafting ever more draconian abortion bans. “Keep banning abortion until morale improves” appears to be the guiding philosophy here. 


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


The situation in Tennessee last week is starting to look like another example of Republican delusion. Perhaps it’s because Trump didn’t seem to lose any intra-party support after he had dinner with a couple of Hitler sympathizers late last year. But Tennessee Republicans seemed to have no idea that it was a bad look to expel two Black members of the state legislature simply for speaking out about gun violence in the wake of a mass shooting. The story rocketed to the top of headlines, drawing national attention. Indeed, as Sam Brodey of the Daily Beast explained, videos of the expelled members “racked up millions of views on social media,” and a huge amount of money started to pour in. The whole thing helped accelerate “a sea change within the Democratic Party,” of “national energy, outrage, and dollars flowing to fierce battles unfolding in the state capitals they once neglected.” 

For many GOP voters, it really is that they would rather lose the 2024 presidential race than admit liberals were right about Trump.

In retrospect, Republicans really should have seen the virality of this story coming. After all, it confirmed the public’s worst suspicions about Republicans: They are hella racist, hate democracy, and don’t care how many people die by gun violence, so long as they keep getting their NRA funding. All the accusations against Republicans that often get dismissed as liberal hyperbole were right there on display in people’s faces. It was especially hard for Republicans to run away from the fact that, out of the three representatives whose expulsion came up for a vote, only the white person was spared. 

There’s no need to be concerned, however, that Republicans have learned a lesson from any of this. On the contrary, Tennessee Republicans are threatening even more retaliation against voters, if those voters continue to insist that they have a right to elect their own leaders. The GOP leadership is reportedly threatening to withdraw education funding from schools in Nashville and Memphis if those cities return the two expelled members to the state legislature. If there are any lingering doubts Republicans hate democracy, punishing voters for daring to vote should remove it. 

Of course, that hatred of democracy is why Republicans are less worried than they should be about their ballooning unpopularity. Republicans are already dependent on gerrymandering and voter suppression to give them power way beyond what they actually earn at the ballot box. They clearly expect, or hope anyway, that they can corrupt the system even further, so that voters never have a real say in who their leaders are again. But if this progressive backlash keeps growing, voters may actually have a chance to throw Republicans out before the GOP fires the kill shot on American democracy. 

Koch Industries backed Tennessee Republicans who expelled Black Democrats

Members of the Tennessee GOP who expelled the two youngest Black Democrat lawmakers from the state House for their gun-control protest got thousands of dollars last year from Koch Industries, which is owned by the conservative Koch family and has worked to loosen gun laws, campaign finance records show.

Although the expulsions may prove to be short-lived, they sparked national outrage, including condemnation from the White House and cries for a federal response. And the protest that prompted the expulsion came in the wake of yet another mass shooting, as well as years of Tennessee Republicans loosening gun laws.

According to state campaign finance data, Koch Industries gave at least $21,000 to 27 Tennessee state Republican representatives who voted for expulsion, including state House Speaker Cameron Sexton, during the last election cycle.

Koch Industries, which is controlled by right-wing billionaire Charles Koch, is also one of the corporate backers of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has crafted model gun legislation for Republican allies to pass in state legislatures around the country, according to a report by the Center for Media and Democracy’s (CMD) ALEC Exposed project.

Koch Industries also gave $7500 to Gov. Bill Lee, R-Tenn., and an additional $11,000 to Republican candidates in the other chamber, the Senate, for a total of $39,500 in campaign contributions.

Two-thirds of the Tennessee House Republican supermajority voted on Thursday to expel Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson for leading hundreds of students in a demonstration calling for tougher gun laws and talking out of turn during House proceedings following the shooting death of three nine-year-old students and three adults at a Christian school in Nashville last month. Jones and Pearson represent Nashville and Memphis, respectively.

The lower legislative body did not, however, vote to oust Rep. Gloria Johnson (D), who is White, although she joined Jones and Pearson in protest.

ALEC, which refers to itself as a “forum for experts” and stakeholders to discuss state–level issues, has for years, and even decades in some cases, worked to oppose bans on semi-automatic weapons, support concealed carry, and encourage guns on college campuses, according to the CMD. Sample draft legislation obtained by CMD appears to have been scrubbed from ALEC’s website.

Tennessee Republicans have introduced bills to make it easier for people to carry guns onto public property and universities, as well as let faculty and staff carry concealed weapons on school grounds, and to lower the age requirement for concealed-carry permits to 18 years old.

Jones was reinstated to his House seat by unanimous vote of the Nashville Metro Council Monday.

“Today we are sending a resounding message that democracy will not be killed in the comfort of silence,” said Jones to a crowd of supporters on the state Capitol steps Monday night. “Today we send a clear message to Speaker Cameron Sexton that the people will not allow his crimes against democracy to happen without challenge.”

Pearson will likely be appointed to his House seat by a similar process on Wednesday.

According to reports, Pearson says county commissioners in his district have been threatened by state officials with funding cuts if they appoint Pearson back to the state House on Wednesday.

“This is what folks really have to realize,” Pearson told Common Dreams. “The power structure in the state of Tennessee is always wielding against the minority party and people.”

Sexton, who likened Jones and Pearson to January 6 insurrectionists, may have trouble of his own in the House. The investigative website Popular Info reports that Sexton does not live in his district. If true, it would violate state law and bar Sexton from keeping his office.

As interim appointees, Jones and Pearson will be eligible to run in a still-unscheduled special election and then again in the November 2024 general election.

TYT Washington Correspondent Candice Cole was previously a correspondent and senior White House producer for the Black News Channel and has worked at a number of local news outlets. You can find her on Twitter @CandiceColeNews.

Will it never stop?: From forever war to eternal war

“It is time,” President Biden announced in April 2021, “to end the forever war” that started with the invasion of Afghanistan soon after the tragic terror attacks on this country on September 11, 2001. Indeed, that August, amid chaos and disaster, the president did finally pull the last remaining U.S. forces out of that country.

A year and a half later, it’s worth reflecting on where the United States stands when it comes to both that forever war against terrorism and war generally. As it happens, the war on terror is anything but ended, even if it’s been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and simmering conflicts around the globe, all too often involving the United States. In fact, it now seems as if this country is moving at breakneck speed out of the era of Forever War and into what might be thought of as the era of Eternal War.

Granted, it’s hard even to keep track of the potential powder kegs that seem all too ready to explode across the globe and are likely to involve the U.S. military in some fashion. Still, at this moment, perhaps it’s worth running through the most likely spots for future conflict.

Russia and China

In Ukraine, as each week passes, the United States only seems to ramp up its commitment to war with Russia, moving the slim line of proxy warfare ever closer to a head-to-head confrontation between the planet’s two great military powers. Although the plan to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia clearly remains in effect, once taboo forms of support for Ukraine have over time become more acceptable.

As of early March, the United States, one of more than 50 countries offering some form of support, had allocated aid to Ukraine on 33 separate occasions, amounting to more than $113 billion worth of humanitarian, military, and financial assistance. In the process, the Biden administration has agreed to provide increasingly lethal weaponry, including Bradley fighting vehicles, Patriot missile batteries, and Abrams tanks, while pressure for even more powerful weaponry like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and F-16s is only growing. As a recent Council on Foreign Relations report noted, Washington’s aid to Ukraine “far exceeds” that of any other country.

In recent weeks, the theater of tension with Russia has expanded beyond Ukraine, notably to the Arctic, where some experts see potential for direct conflict between Russia and the U.S., branding that region a “future flashpoint.” Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently raised the possibility of storing tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, perhaps more of a taunt than a meaningful gesture, but nonetheless another point of tension between the two countries. 

Leaving Ukraine aside, China’s presence looms large when it comes to predictions of future war with Washington.  On more than one occasion, Biden has stated publicly that the United States would intervene if China were to launch an invasion of the island of Taiwan. Tellingly, efforts to fortify the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region have ratcheted up in recent months.

In February, for example, Washington unveiled plans to strengthen its military presence in the Philippines by occupying bases in the part of that country nearest to Taiwan. All too ominously, four-star Air Force General Mike Minihan went so far as to suggest that this country might soon be at war with China. “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me [we] will fight in 2025,” he wrote in a memo to the officers he commands in anticipation of a future Chinese move on Taiwan. He also outlined a series of aggressive tactics and weapons training maneuvers in preparation for that day. And the Marines have been outfitting three regiments for a possible future island campaign in the Pacific, while war-gaming such battles in Southern California.  

North Korea, Iran, and the War on Terror

North Korea and Iran are also perceived in Washington as simmering threats.

For months now, North Korea and the U.S. have been playing a game of nuclear chicken in parallel shows of missile strength and submarine maneuvers, including the North’s mid-March launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and, at least theoretically, reaching the U.S. mainland. In its leader Kim Jong-un’s words, it was intended to “strike fear into the enemies” of his country. In the last days of March, his military even launched a reputed underwater nuclear-capable drone, taking the confrontation one step further. Meanwhile, Washington has been intensifying its security commitments to South Korea and Japan, flexing its muscles in the region, and upping the ante with the biggest joint military drills involving the South Korean armed forces in years.

As for Iran, it’s increasingly cooperating with an embattled Russia when it comes both to sending drones there and receiving cyberweapons from that country. And since Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the JCPOA nuclear treaty with Iran in May 2018, tensions between Washington and Teheran have only intensified. International monitors have recently concluded that Iran may indeed be approaching the brink of being able to produce nuclear-grade enriched uranium. At the same time, Israel has been ramping up its threats to attack Iran and draw the United States into such a crisis.

Meanwhile, smaller conflicts are sizzling around the globe, many seemingly tempting Washington to engage more actively. On President Biden’s agenda in his recent meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for instance, was the possibility of deploying a Canadian-led multinational force to Haiti to help quell the devastating gang violence ravaging that country. “We believe that the situation on the ground will not improve without armed security assistance from international partners,” a National Security Council official told NPR’s Morning Edition ahead of the summit. Trudeau, however, backed away from accepting such a role. What Washington will now do — fearing a wave of new immigrants — remains to be seen.  

And don’t forget that the forever war on terror persists, even if in a somewhat different and more muted form.  Although the U.S. has left Afghanistan, for instance, it still retains the right to conduct “over the horizon” air strikes there. And to this day, it continues to launch targeted strikes against the al-Shabaab terror group in Somalia, even if in far lower numbers than during the Trump years when drone strikes reached an all-time high of more than 200. So far, the Biden administration has launched 29 such strikes in the last two years.

American drone attacks persist in Syria as well. Only recently, in retaliation for a drone attack against U.S. troops there that killed an American contractor and wounded another, as well as five soldiers, the Biden administration carried out strikes against Iranian-backed militias. According to National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby, President Biden has still not ruled out further retaliatory acts there. As he told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation at the end of March, referring to ISIS in Syria, “We have under 1,000 troops [there] that are going after that network, which is, while greatly diminished, still viable, and still critical. So we’re going to stay at that task.”

Other than Syria and Iraq (where the U.S. still has 2,500 troops), the war on terror is now particularly focused on Africa. In the Sahel region, the swath of that continent just below the Sahara Desert, including Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Sudan, among other countries, the legacies of past terrorism and the war in Ukraine have reportedly converged, creating devastatingly unstable and violent conditions, exacerbating what USAID official Robert Jenkins has called “decades of undelivered promises.”

As journalist Walter Pincus put it recently, “With little public notice, the two-decades-long U.S. war on terrorism continues in the Sahel.” According to the 2023 Global Index for Terrorism, that region is now the “epicenter of terrorism.” The largest U.S. presence in West Africa is in Niger, which, as Nick Turse reports, “hosts the largest and most expensive drone bases run by the U.S. military,” intended primarily to counter terrorist groups like Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State. Weapons from the war in Ukraine have found their way to such terrorist groups, while climate-change induced weather nightmares, deepening food insecurity, and ever more dislocated populations have led to an increasingly unstable situation in the region. Complicating things further, the Wagner group, the Russian mercenary paramilitary outfit, has been offering security assistance to countries in the Sahel, intensifying the potential for violence. U.S. military forces and bases in the region have grown apace as the war on terror in Africa intensifies.

Legislative Support for Eternal Warfare

Legislative moves in Congress unabashedly reflect this country’s pivot to Eternal War. Admittedly, the push for an ever-expanding battlefield didn’t start with the great-power conflicts leading today’s headlines. The 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan, gave the president essentially unlimited authority to take offensive action in the name of countering terrorism by not naming an enemy or providing any geographical or time limits. Since the fall of 2001, just as Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) predicted while casting the only vote against it, that AUMF has served as a presidential “blank check” when it comes to authorizing the use of force more or less anywhere.

Former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane has pointed out that the perpetuation of “much of the legal, institutional, and physical infrastructure that underpin this decades-long” war on terror is now being extended to the Sahel, no matter the predictable results. As Soufan Group terrorism expert Colin Clarke told me, “A global war on terrorism has never been winnable. Terrorism is a tactic. It can’t be fully defeated, just mitigated and managed.”

Nevertheless, the 2001 AUMF remains on the books, available to be tapped in ever-expansive ways globally. Only this month, Congress once again voted against its repeal.

Admittedly, the Senate did recently repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of force that undergirded the Iraq War of 1991 and the 2002 invasion of that country. Notably, a new amendment proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to also create an AUMF against Iran-backed militias in the region was defeated. As recent military engagements in Syria have shown, new authorizations have proven unnecessary.

Congress seems to be seconding the move from Forever War to Eternal War without significant opposition. In fact, when it comes to funding such a future, its members have been all too enthusiastic. As potential future war scenarios have expanded, so has the Pentagon budget which has grown astronomically over the past two years. In December, President Biden signed the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which granted the Pentagon an unprecedented $816.7 billion, 8% more than the year before (with Congress upping the White House’s suggested funding by $45 billion).

And the requests for the 2024 budget are now in. As Pentagon expert William Hartung reports, at $886 billion dollars, $69 billion more than this year’s budget, Congress is on a path to enacting “the first $1 trillion package ever,” a development he labels “madness.” “An open-ended strategy,” Hartung explains, “that seeks to develop capabilities to win a war with Russia or China, fight regional wars against Iran or North Korea, and sustain a global war on terror that includes operations in at least 85 countries is a recipe for endless conflict.”

Whatever Happened to the Idea of Peace?

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, there is a widely shared sense that it’s going to last and last — and last some more. Certain experts see nothing short of years of fighting still on the horizon, especially since there seems to be little appetite for peace among American officials.

While French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to consider peace talks, they seem to have few illusions about how long the war is likely to go on. For his part, Zelensky has made it clear that, when it comes to Russia, “there is nothing to talk about and nobody to talk about over there.” According to Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the mood in both Moscow and Kyiv could be summed up as “give war a chance.”

China is, it seems, an outlier when it comes to accepting a long-term war in Ukraine. Even prior to his visit to Russia in late March, President Xi Jinping offered to broker a ceasefire, while releasing a position paper on the perils of continued warfare and what a negotiated peace might aim to secure, including supply-chain stability, nuclear power plant safety, and the easing of war-caused global humanitarian crises. Reportedly, the summit between Xi and Putin made little headway on any of this.

Here in the U.S., calls for peace talks have been minimal. Admittedly, last November, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley reportedly told the Economic Club of New York, “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it. Seize the moment.” But there has been no obvious drive for diplomatic negotiations of any sort in Washington. In fact, John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesperson, responded to President Xi’s proposal this way: “We don’t support calls for a ceasefire right now.” The Russians, he claimed, would take such an opportunity “to only further entrench their positions in Ukraine… [and] rebuild, refit, and refresh their forces so that they can restart attacks on Ukraine at a time of their choosing.”

Disturbingly, American calls for peace and diplomacy have tended to further embrace the ongoing war. The New York Times editorial board, while plugging future peace diplomacy, suggested that only continued warfare could get us to such a place: “[S]erious diplomacy has a chance only if Russia accepts that it cannot bring Ukraine to its knees. And for that to happen, the United States and its allies cannot waver in their support [of Ukraine].” More war and nothing else, the argument goes, will bring peace. The pressure to provide ever more powerful weapons to Ukraine remains constant on both sides of the aisle. As Robert Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee put it, “[T]his approach of ‘more, better, faster’ would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory.”

Whether in Ukraine, in the brewing tensions of what’s being called a “new cold war” in Asia, or in this country’s never-ending version of the war on terror, we now live in a world where war is ever more accepted as a permanent condition.  On the legal, legislative, and military fronts, it has become a mainstay for what passes as national security activity. Some of this, as many critics contend, is driven by economic incentives like lining the pockets of the giant weapons-making corporations to the tune of multibillions of dollars annually; some by what passes for ideological fervor with democracy pitched against autocracy; some by the seemingly never-ending legacy of the war on terror.

Sadly enough, all of this prioritizes killing and destruction over life and true security. In none of it do our leaders seem to be able to imagine reaching any kind of peace without yet more weapons, more violence, more conflicts, and more death.

Who even remembers when the First World War was known as “the war to end all wars”? Sadly, it seems that the era of Eternal War is now upon us. We should at least acknowledge that reality.

“When we fight, we win”: Rutgers strike shows rising union militancy as Dems push moderation

Negotiations between Rutgers University’s striking unions and the administration continued into the night Monday in Trenton under the auspices of the Murphy administration. Midday on Monday, Gov. Phil Murphy told reporters he was “hopeful” that the parties could resolve the outstanding issues “ASAP.”

The Governor’s most significant contribution appears to have been to convince the Rutgers administration to not race off to court to get an injunction against the strike and deepen the adversarial divide.

Murphy referenced his concern about just how late in the semester the strike had hit for the students “with the clock ticking toward the end of the school year” and said that he told “both sides” he was “not happy” that things had “gotten to this point.”

What’s disconcerting is that the union contract expired 284 days ago, and that Rutgers leadership and Gov. Murphy failed to connect the rising tide of union militancy around the country to events unfolding on the Camden, Newark, and New Brunswick campuses of one of the nation’s oldest universities.

In Murphy and Rutgers leadership we have a cadre fixated on projecting a national image but out of touch with the circumstances of working families in their own backyard unable to grasp just how disrespectful it is to work month and month without a contract.

For months the AAUP-AFT, the Rutgers Adjunct Faculty Union and the AAUP-BHSNJ, the three unions that represent the 9,000 professors, adjuncts, and support staff made their case to anyone who would listen. Their key issues included higher wage, equal pay for equal work for adjuncts, affordable housing and forgiveness for students’ overdue fees and fines.

Nicole Rodriguez, the president of New Jersey Policy Perspectives, a non-profit progressive think tank struck the right tone of respect for Rutgers’ workforce.

“We stand in solidarity with the Rutgers grads and faculty on strike across the state. These workers are the backbone of the university and have dedicated their lives to educating and inspiring the next generation of leaders, Rodriguez said. “They deserve to be recognized, respected, and fairly compensated for their contributions to the university and the state. In New Jersey, there is no place for a higher education model that underpays faculty, reduces tenured positions, and does not guarantee job security.”

Clearly Trenton and Rutgers C-Suite weren’t paying attention to what was going on in California when 48,000 University of California employees went out on strike for six-weeks, in what the New York Times described as “the largest among university-based workers in national history.”

“Key to the strike was California’s notoriously high cost of housing,” reported the New York Times back in December. “The union had sought relief from soaring rents by demanding that the university tie compensation explicitly to the cost of campus-area housing. The workers also had asked the university to raise their base pay for part-time work to about $54,000 a year.”

While professional beltway Democrats urge their party to be more moderate as the country steels itself for 2024, there’s evidence the labor movement, which acts as the arms and legs of the party, is growing increasingly militant and more willing to strike to upend the status quo.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Cornell University School of Industrial Labor Relations confirm the uptick in unions willing to walk out on management. According to Cornell’s Labor Action Tracker , 224,000 workers walked out in 2022 across 417 strikes and seven lockouts — a spike of more than 50 percent from the prior year.

The BLS data follows actions that involve of 1,000 workers or more and last year the agency reported there were 23, the second most strikes since 2002. One of those major strikes was the one at the University of California.

“Between the years 2002-2022, there have been an average of 16 work stoppages beginning in the year,” the agency reported. “The lowest annual total of major work stoppages was 5 in 2009 and the highest was 470 in 1952.”

Decades of growing wealth inequality capped off by a pandemic which exacted its deadliest toll on healthcare personnel, first responders, transit workers and other essential workers have the unions that represent many of them much less amenable to concessions they made that management banked on for a generation of historic profits.

And this upsurge in strike action has to be appreciated in the context of a 57 percent increase in the first half of 2022 to the National Labor Relations Board for applications for union representation. At the same time, there’s an upsurge in larger scale street protests sparked by the Supreme Court’s stripping away of women’s reproductive rights, mass casualty school shootings as well as police related homicides.

NURSES LED THE WAY IN 2023

Earlier this year, 7,000 nurses with the New York State Nurses Association went out on a four-day strike against Mt. Sinai and Montefiore Hospitals which won widespread public and political support. Going to the mat produced results like a 19.2 percent pay raise over three years as well as groundbreaking and enforceable patient nursing staffing ratio requirements.

At a press briefing after a deal was struck, NYSNA President Nancy Hagans, told reporters the contract wins came without any health care coverage concessions along with several new incentives to encourage and promote nurse retention.

Hagans credited the broad-based community support her members had received during the strike “which raised the profile of our struggle…the same struggle nurses and patients face everywhere. A struggle for dignity and for healthcare as a human right…Yesterday on the picket line we were chanting ‘one day longer-one day stronger. Today, we are saying that when we fight, we win.”

Last month, at the Triangle Fire commemoration in lower Manhattan that honors the 146 mostly immigrant young female garment workers that perished in the 1911 conflagration, Hagans referenced the awful price paid by her members during the pandemic when hospitals lacked basic PPE and staffs were strained to the breaking point.

“After losing dozens of our colleagues in the deadly battle against COVID and after seeing so much pain and loss that was preventable, NYSNA nurses gained the courage to fight for what we know is right,” Hagans told this year’s large crowd. “I can’t think of a better way to honor the legacy of the women and the girls who perished in the Triangle Fire. Like they did over a hundred years ago, we turned tragedy into action. We fought for a better world for ourselves and those who will one day walk in our shoes.”

UAW REBORN?

On March 27, Shawn Fain, the recently elected president of the United Auto Workers, told 1,000 delegates gathered in Detroit for the union’s Special Bargaining Convention the era of signing off on givebacks and tiered waged workforces was over.

“We’re here to come together to ready ourselves for the war against our one and only true enemy: multibillion-dollar corporations and employers that refuse to give our members their fair share,” Fain proclaimed. “The UAW is ready to get back in the fight for good jobs, for economic justice for our families and our communities.”

Fain’s election follows a sprawling federal criminal prosecution that resulted in at least 15 felony convictions of national and regional UAW officials, as well as a handful of auto company executives.

During the campaign Fain said he was running because he was “sick of the complacency” of the UAW leadership who had come to see  “the [auto] companies as our partners rather than our adversaries” and in the process gave themselves  “wage increases, early retirement bonuses, and pensions,” even as the rank-and-file failed to be made whole after major concessions made during the Great Recession of the late 2000s.

In his recent post-election address, Fain quoted extensively from the last book Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community”, perhaps his most radical volume.

“Dr. King was speaking to a new divide in the civil rights movement,” Fain said. “The movement had won the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They had won the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but social, economic, political discrimination against African Americans had persisted” and there was “no such assurance of the right to adequate housing or the right to an adequate income. Achievement of these goals would be a lot more difficult and require much more discipline, understanding, organization and sacrifice.”

Fain continued. “We have not yet won racial and economic justice in the workplaces for all of our members.  We have not yet won equal pay for equal work with an end of [wage] tiers that divide our members. We have not yet won an end to plant closures that destroy our working-class communities and tear our families and members apart. “

The UAW leader expressed a broader societal vision that echoed the union’s progressive legacy that had been tarnished over the last several years by multiple corruptions convictions culminating in the appointment of court supervised independent monitor and the first direct election by the union’s rank and filed and retired members.

“We have not yet won a higher education system that creates good jobs and provides free education as a public good,” Fain said.  “We have not yet won retirement security and healthcare and pensions for all. We have not yet won rights on the job for the hundreds of thousands of unorganized auto workers and millions of other workers across the country.”

Fain closed with King’s conclusion. “We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now.  In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late.”

“There is nothing to prevent us from paying adequate wages to schoolteachers, social workers, and other servants of the public to ensure that we have the best available personnel in these positions which are charged with the responsibility of guiding our future generations,” wrote King in “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community”. “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen whether he be a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer.”

RIGHT TO STRIKE FUNDAMENTAL

John Samuelsen is international president of the Transport Workers Union which represents 150,000 workers in the airline, railroad, transit, university, utility, and service workers including thousands in New Jersey.

It’s Local 100 represents tens of thousands of workers that run New York City’s transit system that’s operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

In an interview with Work-Bites, Samuelsen said that one of his union’s top state priorities was to end New York’s Taylor Law prohibition against public transit workers from striking to increase workers’ leverage at the bargaining table.

“Under the Taylor Law we lost the right to strike, and we were compelled to represent everybody– even if they opted out of the union, but we got their dues money. After the U.S. Supreme Court Janus decision, we lost the ability for those agency shop fees but still have to represent the people that don’t pay dues,” Samuelsen said. “Now, it’s a totally an unjust structure.”

In the New York State Assembly, the bill to remove the prohibition was introduced by Assemblywoman Stacey Pfeiffer Amato. In the State Senate it’s being advanced by Sen. Jessica Ramos, chair of the Labor Committee.

“I legislate for workers,” Ramos said in a statement. “When the workers of TWU came to me saying they need this tool to be able to fight for a fair contract that can support their families, I was more than happy to agree to champion their legislation. This adjustment will result in a strong contract for workers, which in turn will mean better service for New Yorkers.”

The TWU leader noted that workers doing the same kind of work on the LIRR or Metro-North Railroad, who are covered by the Federal Railway Act, have the right to strike even though they are both part of the MTA.

“It’s the same employer, same geography—one group can strike—the other can’t,” Samuelsen said. “It’s no coincidence the suburban rail carriers have the right to strike but inner-city transit workers can’t. This means with New York City Transit all of the leverage goes to the employer side of the table because they know we can’t strike so they do things like screw with our retiree healthcare.”

Samuelsen, who endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary, believes that President Biden made a political miscalculation last year when he asked Congress to deny the nation’s rail workers right to strike and to accept a contract a majority of them had rejected that lacked sick days.

“It was a mistake,” Samuelsen said. “If they had retained the right to strike, they would have had a settlement with the sick time they were looking for.”

Samuelsen believes that February’s Norfolk Suffolk’s train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio that resulted in a catastrophic release of vinyl chloride and other toxic chemicals was “an eye-opening experience for working people” across the country.

“I don’t think working people had any idea that these privatized freight rails were carrying ridiculously dangerous chemicals through America’s backyard while not being compelled to maintain the equipment in a state of good repair as the heinously pursued profits over the safety of the American people,” Samuelsen said.

For Samuelsen, King’s half-century old critique of American militarism and its prosecution of the war in Vietnam still resonates today.

“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” King wrote in “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community”.

“It does echo what Martin Luther King said-a different war but the same concept,” Samuelsen said. “So many people are making money off of this war and it’s not only this war—for several years we sent billions and billions into Iraq week after week. It’s just insane. Working people are not liberal anti-war– they support Ukraine against Russian aggression– but they want to assure Americans don’t continue to get shafted.”

The TWU leader said he was struck that there was political pushback over forgiving college student debt but no controversy over “30 years of war funding feeding an industry enriching every corporation involved in what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex,” Samuelsen said.  “It’s crazy that we can’t invest in the American people, but we can invest relentlessly in overseas wars.”

Democrats increasingly frustrated as Judiciary chairman lets GOP minority veto Biden judges

With the disastrous consequences of the far-right’s takeover of the federal court system becoming clearer by the day, the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is facing intense criticism for preserving a tradition that is allowing Republicans to veto judges nominated by President Joe Biden.

The so-called “blue slip courtesy” is a nonbinding Senate norm that allows lawmakers to reject nominees for court seats in their home states.

While Republicans didn’t hesitate to dispense with the informal rule when they were ramming through far-right judges at a torrid pace during former President Donald Trump’s four years in office, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has chosen to adhere to the blue slip norm for district court nominees.

That decision garnered fresh anger last week when Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., announced she would not return a blue slip for Scott Colom, a Biden nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Collum had already received approval from Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, also a Republican.

CNN noted Monday that “Durbin’s office blasted Hyde-Smith’s opposition to Colom in a statement that did not indicate whether he was rethinking the blue slip rule.”

“The rule has not been respected consistently through the modern history of the Senate, and Republicans nixed the requirement for U.S. circuit court vacancies under Trump. Democrats, now in control, have refused to bring it back for appellate nominees, but Durbin has said he’d like to keep it in place for district courts,” the outlet reported. “Durbin didn’t waver on that position when Sen. Ron Johnson [R-Wis.] flip-flopped last year on his support of a district court nominee in his home state, state Judge William Pocan, effectively torpedoing Pocan’s nomination.”

Progressive advocacy groups said Monday that Durbin’s refusal to ditch the blue slip tradition was made even more outrageous by a Friday ruling from Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas, who deemed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion medication mifepristone invalid. The U.S. Justice Department is appealing the ruling.

Shortly after Kacsmaryk handed down his ruling, which parroted anti-abortion talking points, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice of Washington State—an Obama appointee—issued a conflicting decision ordering the FDA to maintain access to the pill.

“If last week’s appalling ruling from a MAGA judge attempting to ban abortion medication has taught us anything, it’s that judges matter. Senate Dems must do everything in their power to confirm [Biden’s] nominees, including eliminating the blue slip ASAP.”

Hyde-Smith praised the Kacsmaryk ruling, calling it a “victory for pregnant mothers and their unborn children.”

Durbin’s adherence to the blue slip norm has also drawn frustration and backlash from fellow Democrats.

“If it’s a blue slip problem and the Republicans aren’t turning in their blue slips and they’re being obstructionist, then we need to think about changing the rules,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, told CNN.

In a tweet late Friday, former Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., faulted Durbin for “allowing the blue slip process to prevent confirmation of Democratic judges in red states” as right-wing judges attempt to further weaken abortion rights.

The Senate approved 96 federal judges during Biden’s first two years in office, outpacing all of his recent predecessors.

But the upper chamber confirmed just 34% more Biden judges in 2022 compared to the previous year, whereas the Senate under Trump approved 177% more judicial nominees in the former president’s second year in the White House than in his first.

The Senate greenlit a record 231 federal judges—not including Supreme Court justices—during Trump’s four-year tenure, filling vacancies across the country with young, often unqualified right-wing judges who will have significant power over U.S. law for decades to come.

In addition to further imperiling abortion rights, Trump-appointed judges have recently issued rulings against student debt cancellationLGBTQ+ protections, and efforts to revoke anti-immigrant policies implemented by the former president.

According to the American Constitution Society, 18 Biden judicial nominees are awaiting floor votes, 12 still must be reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and six are still waiting for hearings.

The Biden administration has thus far refused to pressure Durbin to drop the blue-slip rule entirely, even after Hyde-Smith made clear that she would try to tank Colom’s nomination.

Durbin has said the recent and indefinite absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D-Calif.—a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—has had an impact on the panel’s ability to advance judges.

CNN observed that since Feinstein’s office announced in early March that the senator was hospitalized with shingles, “the committee has only approved one nominee, Judge Matthew Brookman, the GOP-supported appointee for the Indiana district court seat.”

But The American Prospect‘s David Dayen stressed Monday that the Senate GOP only has effective veto power over Biden judges “because Durbin refuses to revoke the blue-slip tradition that willingly grants Republicans the ability to obstruct.”

A truck overturned while carrying toxic soil from the East Palestine chemical spill: report

40,000 pounds of contaminated soil being transported away from East Palestine, Ohio was spilled in the eastern Ohio county of Columbiana at 1 PM on Monday, according to several local news sources. The spill occurred as a truck driver, 74-year-old Phillip Falck of McDonald, Penn., was driving a vehicle full of hazardous material that originated in East Palestine. The northbound tractor-trailer traveled off of the roadway and hit both a ditch and utility pole before overturning onto its right side. The truck overturned on State Route 165 just north of Waterford Road.

The spill continues a recent trend of repeated hazardous material leaks, explosions and spills from trucks and trains — which critics say reflects the decades-long fight to deregulate the transportation industry, spearheaded by lobbyists working for corporations in that sector.

40,000 pounds of contaminated soil from East Palestine, Ohio was spilled all over the eastern county of Columbiana at 1 PM on Monday.

Both the local fire authority and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency were called to the scene. The Ohio EPA says that the spill was contained and is not a threat to local waterways. McDonald, who suffered minor injuries, was cited for operating a vehicle without reasonable control.

The chemical pollution horrors began on Feb. 3rd, when a train of about 150 freight cars crashed and exploded in the town of East Palestine. Many of those cars included hazardous materials, and over the ensuing weeks officials in eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania — including Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) — scrambled to control the situation. The Environmental Protection Agency performed soil and water tests to make sure that the hundreds of potentially harmful chemicals caused by the train accident did not poison the thousands of nearby civilians. Former President Donald Trump appeared in the area himself, and the derailment stirred up debate about the allegedly outsize influence of railroad lobbyists in Washington. The issue has even managed to cross the Mason-Dixon Line; residents of Harris County, Texas learned to their alarm in late February that contaminated water used to put out the fires from the train wreck was being injected underground in their area.


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


There are a wide range of chemicals that scientists are concerned about from the East Palestine crash, including vinyl chloride, 2-butoxyethanol, ethylhexyl acrylate, butyl acrylate and isobutylene.

Vinyl chloride, which is used to make plastic substances like vehicle upholstery and plastic kitchen ware, is a highly-flammable toxic gas with a mildly sweet odor that is extremely toxic when inhaled. It can significantly damage the respiratory and central nervous systems, and when metabolized by the liver, it can create a chemical known as chloroethylene oxide that is linked to increased risk of tumor formation. Excessive exposure to vinyl chloride is consequently linked to lung, liver, brain and blood cancers. Vinyl chloride is also dangerous when burned, as it produces toxic gasses like phosgene gas and hydrogen chloride.

East Palestine resident Linda Murphy learned there were traced of vinyl chloride in her urine almost two weeks ago, according to a local ABC news affiliate, and reported that she developed symptoms despite avoiding drinking public water. She told the news station, “Just felt like my eyes were tired and swollen, extremely sore throat, almost like I drank hot liquids. My voice was going in and out. I had a lot of trouble breathing, difficulty taking a deep breath, especially at night.”

2-butoxyethanol, also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, is a solvent used to make paints and varnishes that can irritate the eyes and lungs when inhaled. It has also been shown to cause cancer in animals, although there is no data about its effect on humans.

Then there’s ethylhexyl acrylate, a chemical used in paint binding and stain resistors that can irritate the lungs, throat, eyes and skin if inhaled or touched. Butyl acrylate is a pungent but colorless liquid that is used in adhesives, caulks and sealants (as well as paints) and — in addition to irritating the respiratory tract and skin — can trigger difficulties in breathing and irritation of the eyes and skin.

Officials in the Ohio city of Steubenville detected butyl acrylate in its water, but added they would remove it from the river using powder activated carbon.

Meanwhile, isobutylene is a flammable gas used to make O-rings, window seals and bottle stoppers. It can damage the respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems.

Mayor furious that Kentucky is going to “auction off” the AR-15 used in Louisville mass shooting

Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg on Tuesday decried a Kentucky law that allows the rifle used in Monday’s mass shooting to be auctioned off.

The shooting at Old National Bank on Monday killed five people and wounded eight others. The Louisville Metro Police Department reported that the suspect legally purchased the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting from a local gun dealership on April 4.

“Under current Kentucky law, the assault rifle that was used to murder five of our neighbors and shoot at rescuing police officers will one day be auctioned off,” Greenberg said during a Tuesday press conference at Louisville Metro Hall. “Think about that. That murder weapon will be back on the streets one day, under current Kentucky law.”

Greenberg said his administration has already directed police to remove the firing pin in confiscated guns before turning them over to the state.

“That’s all that the current law allows us to do” he added. “That’s not enough. It’s time to change this law, and let us destroy illegal guns, and let us destroy the guns that have been used to kill our friends and kill our neighbors.”

Rep. Morgan McGarvey, D-Ky., also delivered an impassioned speech at the presser, arguing that legislators have not put “the tools on the books to deal with someone who is an imminent danger to themselves or to others.”

“We can do this,” he continued. “We can come together at the federal level to solve this problem which is impacting all of us in a uniquely American way. And get universal background checks, so that people who shouldn’t have a gun can’t buy one. That we are taking weapons of war off our streets. That we are helping people who are in crisis.”

“That is not a political issue,” McGarvey added. “But it becomes one when Kentucky Republicans would rather ban books and pronouns and then make Kentucky a sanctuary state for weapons.”


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


Greenberg has adamantly opposed the resale of firearms confiscated by law enforcement, vowing in 2022 that part of his plan to reduce crime entailed seeing that Louisville police ensure that firearms are inoperable before they go to auction.

“We’re spending millions of taxpayer dollars to take illegal guns off the streets, to remove guns from the hands of criminals, or people seeking to do harm, and then there is a process in place where these guns end up back on the streets in different people’s hands,” Greenberg said during a September 2022 interview. 

Greenberg narrowly survived a shooting in February 2022, when a candidate for Louisville’s metro council opened fire on the then-mayoral candidate at his campaign headquarters. The gun allegedly used in the shooting was purchased at a pawn shop mere hours before the event took place.

Expert: Trump fighting Pence testimony because he may have “revealed his criminal state of mind”

Former President Donald Trump is appealing a ruling that would require former Vice President Mike Pence to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to Bloomberg.

Trump’s appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., challenges the bid by special counsel Jack Smith to compel Pence’s testimony earlier this year, asserting executive privilege in an effort to protect his conversations with the former vice president.

US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg had separately ruled on a claim Pence raised invoking legislative privilege against the subpoena for his testimony. However, his team announced last week that he wouldn’t appeal that decision. 

“Vice President Mike Pence swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and his claim that the Biden special counsel’s unprecedented subpoena was unconstitutional under the speech or debate clause was an important one made to preserve the separation of powers outlined by our founders,” Pence adviser Devin O’Malley told NBC News in a statement last week.

Under the Constitution, Pence’s role as vice president also made him the president of the Senate, entitling him to some measure of congressional immunity, Boasberg found. 

Boasberg did put some limits on Smith’s inquiry and affirmed that the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause offers some protections for Pence from providing testimony.

“Pence’s testimony could be highly significant because of his close proximity to Trump and [his] ongoing campaign to pressure Pence to overturn the 2020 election results,” former federal prosecutor Kevin O’Brien told Salon. “Trump may have explained to Pence his illegal plans and revealed his criminal state of mind.”

Unlike others who are close to Trump, he added, Pence “is probably inclined to tell the truth about these conversations,” making his testimony even more valuable. 

The former vice president has always been viewed as potentially a key witness in the election inquiry into Trump because of the conversations he took part in at the White House in the weeks prior to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

His role in the vote-counting process made him a target of Trump’s campaign to reverse the election results, according to the House Jan. 6 committee.


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


“I think Trump is merely seeking to delay the inevitable,” former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told Salon.

“[The] US Supreme Court has held that executive privilege is only a qualified privilege and must yield in the face of a stronger national interest, such as a grand jury investigation,” McQuade said.

She added that if Trump can get elected president again, before the cases against him are complete, he would have “the power to shut them down, as improper as that might be.”

The judge’s ruling isn’t public because it relates to sealed grand jury proceedings, but an advisor to Pence said last week that their legal claim “prevailed” as Boasberg’s ruling “affirmed for the first time in history that the Speech or Debate Clause extends to the Vice President of the United States.”

Last week, a New York grand jury indicted Trump, making him the first former U.S. president to be criminally charged. He pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to alleged hush money payments made during the final stages of his 2016 presidential campaign.

A mammoth meatball hints at a future of exotic lab-grown meats

Last week, an Australian “cultured meat” company called Vow made headlines with a meatball made from the flesh of a woolly mammoth – or something very much like it. Combining the technologies of lab-based cell culture and “de-extinction,” Vow scientists grew muscle proteins based on DNA sequences from the long-dead proboscideans.

The meatball was not intended for human consumption, but Vow hoped the gimmick would highlight the lighter environmental footprint of lab-grown meats, using the mammoth as a “a symbol of diversity loss and a symbol of climate change”. The meatball also hinted at a possible new variety and playfulness in meat consumption.

But is lab-grown meat really likely to put mammoths, dodos and other exotica on the menu? Taking into account the safety and economic hurdles the industry will have to clear, the result seems more likely to follow the pattern of genetically modified crops: less diversity and unforeseen social and environmental effects.

Healthy and safety risks

As Queensland scientist Ernst Wolvetang, who helped to engineer the mammoth-ball, acknowledged:

We haven’t seen this protein for thousands of years, so we have no idea how our immune system would react when we eat it.

Wolvetang thinks any such problems could quickly be solved. But even for lab-grown meat that uses conventional livestock such as beef or chicken, the health and safety risks are far from understood.

Existing concerns include the use of growth hormones in cultured meat, the potential for new or unexpected allergens, the way lines of cultured cells change their shape and function over time, the likelihood of microbial contamination and uncertainty around the nutrient content.

Even changing the texture or composition of meat may have health effects for our digestive system. These problems are likely to be exacerbated for foods based on resurrected proteins from the distant past.

Consider the “meat-systems”

But health and safety aren’t the only issues.

Critics of the de-extinction movement have argued that reintroducing animals like the woolly mammoth into the environment may have unpredictable and disruptive effects.

Would predators adapt? Would grasslands be trampled to oblivion? Should we devote our efforts to preserving still-live animals like rhinoceroses instead? Does the possibility of de-extinction make us less worried than we should be about the effect of humans’ actions on biodiversity?

We should also think in similarly broad terms about the impacts of lab-grown meats. In other words, we shouldn’t just think about meat itself, but about the “meat-systems” that produce it.

What will the economic system of lab-grown meat production look like? How will lab-grown meat disrupt farming and farming communities? How might it affect consumption? Will we eat more meat or less if we can gain access to “ethical” meat?

The lesson of GMOs

The development and rollout of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) over the past three decades can give us some important clues as to how such things may play out. Like lab-grown meats, GMOs at first promised the possibilities of diverse crops that would offer health benefits (like Golden Rice) or benefits to the consumer (like the Flavr Savr tomato).

Few of these possibilities were realized. Instead, most of the benefits of GMOs accrued to agricultural companies who developed and sold the seeds.

Rather than increasing the diversity of foods, GMOs have increased monocultures and reduced the variety of foods. This, in turn, has led to negative environmental and social consequences for agricultural communities.

Lab-grown meats face a similar risk. Despite the promise of Vow’s mammoth, in the short-term at least, it is likely that lab-grown meats will only become economical for consumers when produced at scale.

This suggests the most likely cultured meats on our menus won’t be alligator or dodo, but standardized versions of beef, chicken or pork. Production is also likely to focus on muscle tissue, rather than offal, feet, bone marrow or the other diverse parts of animals many of us consume.

The most likely outcome of lab-grown meat is not more diversity in protein, but significantly less.

The Italian response

Just as the mammoth meatball was making its debut, the Italian government moved to ban lab-grown meat, citing health and the nation’s food heritage. Synthetic foods, government ministers argued, would undermine Italian food traditions, threatening mortadella, pancetta and guanciale.

Coldiretti, an Italian farmers’ association that supported the ban, added the move would protect agriculture from “the attacks of multinational companies“.

Italy’s proposed ban has been branded “anti-innovation” and a setback for animal rights, but they are right to be cautious about the disruption that lab-grown meat could cause.

The history of GMOs has also shown how turning food into a technology has not only made produce less diverse but also consolidated corporate control over the food supply. Even if lab-grown meats are shown to be physiologically safe, we need to establish that they are economically, politically and culturally safe too.

Hallam Stevens, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, James Cook University

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

Two federal judges issued conflicting rulings on the abortion pill. Here’s what happens now

Last week, a federal judge in Texas finally made a highly anticipated ruling that could block access to mifepristone — one of the two drugs used in the recommended medication abortion regimen — as soon as this Friday. Yet a separate ruling made by a federal judge in Washington state could protect access to the drug. The conflicting messages from two separate federal judges could lead to a confusing situation regarding the accessibility of medication abortions. 

“They’re incredibly in conflict with each other,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline’s School of Law, told Salon. 

Statistically, medication abortions are a common procedure: According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, medication abortions account for an estimated 42 percent of all abortions in the United States where the method was reported to the CDC. In 2019, the CDC logged 247,000 medication abortion procedures.

While the Department of Justice asked a federal appeals court on Monday to put the Texas ruling on hold, healthcare law experts say the way in which both rulings are in conflict with each other is unprecedented, as a legal standoff is expected to ensue that may go to the Supreme Court. And together, legal experts worry about the precedent both cases set in regards to the relationship U.S. courts have over the independent federal agency. 

“They’re incredibly in conflict with each other,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline’s School of Law, told Salon. “One basically says we’re going to trust the FDA to make decisions based on science, and the other one says, ‘I’m going to second guess the FDA with anti-abortion propaganda.’ One says because of judicial fiat, the FDA approval of the drug is in question, and the other says FDA has to keep the status quo.”

As explained by Cohen, the Texas ruling made by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, is based on the misinformed argument that the FDA did not have the authority to approve mifepristone 23 years ago — and that the agency’s approval of the drug has put women in danger ever since and was unlawful. Though this is not true, much of Kacsmaryk’s brief includes anti-abortion rhetoric and pseudoscience to that effect.

“It’s a more favorable circuit for the position of the FDA and the DOJ in Washington than the circuit where Texas sits.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and nine other prominent medical organizations previously submitted an amicus brief including a list of evidence showing that mifepristone is safe and effective, and that the argument presented by the anti-abortion organization Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is scientifically inaccurate.

In Washington, a lawsuit was filed against the Food and Drug Administration by 18 Democratic attorneys general; that lawsuit challenges the agency’s authority to regulate mifepristone. Those attorneys general argue that because it is as safe as over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol, it should be treated as such.

In the case of the Washington lawsuit, Judge Thomas O. Rice, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the FDA from taking “any action to remove mifepristone from the market or otherwise cause the drug to become less available.” Though this suit similarly questioned the FDA’s authority to regulate the drug, if the attorneys general prevail it would protect access to mifepristone and likely make it more accessible.


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


“It could certainly be an important part of continuing the access to the pill,” Cohen said. “This Washington ruling is certainly important.”

Seema Mohapatra, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, agreed.

“It’s definitely possible,” Mohapatra said. “In terms of the circuit, it’s a more favorable circuit for the position of the FDA and the DOJ in Washington than the circuit where Texas sits.”

Mohapatra said that technically both lawsuits are questionable for what they say about the court’s ability to affect the decisions of a purportedly independent government agency.

“We now have two federal judges who have both ruled, kind of directing the FDA to do something — which in both cases is not really appropriate because the FDA is its own independent agency,” Mohapatra told Salon. “And what I mean about critiquing the Washington decision is that it’s a kind of a misunderstanding of how federal agencies work and what the roles of the courts are and what the roles of independent agencies are.”

In other words, Mohapatra said courts are not in the best position to be deciding whether a drug is safe or unsafe — that’s not their role.

As far as what the final impact of both ruling will be and how this will play out, both legal experts said it’s difficult to predict. 

At the moment, mifepristone is still legally accessible in states where medication abortions are allowed. Under Kacsmaryk’s ruling, there will be a nationwide injunction on Friday unless a higher court issues a stay. 

“If no action is taken by a higher court by Friday night at midnight, then we’re going to start seeing what happens next,” Cohen said. “Is the FDA going to announce what it does? Is it just going to sit with its appeal process and say nothing? Then what are the drug companies going to do in response to the ruling?”

Cohen emphasized that lawmakers aren’t “handcuffed by this order from a Texas judge” and it is “important that they take action consistent with their political views, which is that abortion should be accessible.”

Medication abortions typically occur by taking the brand name drug Mifeprex, which contains mifepristone. In the two-step process, a pregnant person first takes a mifepristone pill, which is the drug at the center of the lawsuit. Then 24 to 48 hours later, a second pill containing misoprostol is taken.

Medication abortion works up to 70 days after the first day of a person’s last period, which corresponds to week 10 of a pregnancy. As Salon previously reported, without the mifepristone pill, the first step in the process, the only drug that will be available for medication abortions is misoprostol. Yet Cohen predicts a lot can happen before it gets to that point.

“The first chapter has been written but there’s a lot more coming, there are going to be other filings or court decisions, probably within the next five days, and there’s going to be a lot of whiplash,” Cohen said. “I don’t know how it will play out, the Texas case is legally frivolous, but I have no confidence in the appeals court or the Supreme Court to agree with that.”

“That’s f**king corruption!”: Jon Stewart corners top Pentagon official in epic confrontation

Comedian and talk show host Jon Stewart called out a top Pentagon official over “corruption” at the Department of Defense during an interview last week.

Stewart interviewed Kathleen Hicks, the deputy secretary of Defense, at the War Horse Symposium at the University of Chicago on April 6, delving into intense questions about the military defense budget.

At one point in the discussion, titled “The Human Impact of Military Service,” Stewart underscored the Pentagon’s most recent audit, in which the chief comptroller determined that the military was unable to account for a whopping 60% of its assets. Stewart called the findings evidence of “waste, fraud and abuse.” 

Stewart also singled out the gaping dissonance between the DOD’s constantly expanding budget and its treatment of troops.

“We got out of 20 years of war and the Pentagon got a raise,” Stewart said. “I can’t figure out how $850 billion to a department means that the rank and file still have to be on food stamps. To me, that’s f***ing corruption.”

Hicks acknowledged that “we need to increase the spending that we are putting forward toward our service members and their families.”

“We’re putting our money where our mouth is in areas like child care … We do think we’re getting better on that,” Hicks said.

Hicks also tried to defer blame over funding issues to Congress.

“Part of what we’re recruiting individuals into is a lifetime of a social contract, and VA is at the other end of that,” she said. “So we work really closely with them, and they’re doing incredible work to advance … the quality of care for our veterans.”


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


The Associated Press reported in November that as many as 160,000 active-duty military members were coping with food insecurity and struggling to feed their families. Task and Purpose reported that, in August, the U.S. Army introduced a Financial Readiness Program to mitigate the rising costs of inflation and assist soldiers in managing their finances. 

The Military Times reported that Biden’s administration has requested a staggering $842 billion in military spending as part of its federal budget for 2024, in addition to $325 billion for the Department of Veteran Affairs spending. Both sums are the largest totals in U.S. history.

Stewart is a longtime advocate for better benefits for veterans, specifically soldiers exposed to hazardous and toxic chemicals from burn pits. He has oft lobbied in Washington D.C. to advance the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics, also known as the PACT Act.

Is the Sriracha shortage ending anytime soon? Unfortunately, the answer is no

To all Sriracha lovers: We hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks like the ongoing hot sauce shortage isn’t ending anytime soon.

Last year, Huy Fong Foods, Inc., the manufacturer of the beloved Sriracha hot chili sauce, announced that it will halt production of its products due to a shortage of red jalapeño peppers caused by extreme drought conditions in Mexico. Specifically, Huy Fong explained “weather conditions affecting the quality of chili peppers” and a “megadrought that studies link to human-caused climate change” for the shortage, per a letter to customers. The shortage of chilies affected Huy Fong’s Sriracha Hot Chili sauce, Chili Garlic and Sambal Oelek.

Now, almost a year later, bottles of Sriracha are still nowhere to be found on store shelves. Huy Fong recently announced that it is experiencing an “unprecedented inventory shortage” and is unsure when the sauce will be back.

“Although some production did resume this past fall season, we continue to have a limited supply that continues to affect our production,” the company said in a statement, per USA Today. “At this time, we have no estimations of when supply will increase.”

“We are grateful for your continued patience and understanding.”

Like clockwork, fans of the condiment took to social media to share their thoughts on the lack of Sriracha:

“I didn’t think the Sriracha shortage would affect me as bad as it has,” wrote one user on Twitter. Another user shared a photo of their dinner sans Sriracha, writing, “Another sushi bowl thing with shiitakes and tofu for dinner. The national sriracha shortage really hit home tonight.”

The ongoing shortage has also affected restaurants as they search for alternate hot and chili sauces to use in the meantime. Additionally, plenty of home cooks and fans alike have taken it upon themselves to make their own Sriracha from scratch.

“While people have been lamenting the #SrirachaShortage, I learned to make my own from [the] sriracha peppers I grew in my garden,” shared one user on Twitter. “I lacto-fermented the chilis w/garlic and this is my 3rd batch, aged 6 months. I left it chunky to mimic my fave @huyfongfoods chili garlic sauce.”

Similarly, a separate user said, “Running low on your Sriracha hot sauce? Add some white vinegar to it and thank me later. Even before the great Sriracha shortage of 2022 I have been adding vinegar. I prefer the taste after adding it. A Chinese restaurant told me years ago they do that to extend the bottles.”


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


During the beginning of the shortage, Salon Food’s Mary Elizabeth Williams shared a recipe for a homemade Sriracha that’s easy to make and doesn’t skimp on flavor. 

To start, blend Fresno chiles, garlic, water, and malt vinegar in a blender (or food processor). Transfer the mixture to a medium saucepan and add sugar and sea salt. Boil the sauce over high heat until it thickens. Then, let the sauce cool before blending it one last time until smooth. Pour the sauce into a jar or squeeze bottle and refrigerate it for at least one day. Enjoy the Sriracha for up to three weeks.

“Dropping like a rock”: New poll shows Trump falling into “fringe candidate” territory after arrest

Support for former President Donald Trump fell rapidly after he was charged with 34 felony counts of business falsification in Manhattan last week, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll

Despite Trump’s repeated claims that the indictment could actually help him by boosting his support in the election, the poll found that a majority of Americans — 53% — believe he did something illegal. The poll also showed that 11% say he acted wrongly but not intentionally, while 20% believe Trump was not culpable at all. 

The former president last week pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg related to the hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign. 

CNN poll released last week showed that 62% of independent voters approved of the indictment, indicating a shift in support that could prove damaging for Trump as the 2024 presidential election looms. 

The ABC News poll found that 50% believe he should be charged with a crime compared to just 33% who think he should not. Nearly half of respondents said that Trump should suspend his campaign in the wake of the indictment, up from 43% before the indictment.

The poll also showed Trump’s favorability rating falling to just 25%, down 10 points since the presidential election. President Joe Biden, who has struggled to garner public support since taking office in 2020, currently has a favorability rating of 34%.

MSNBC host Willie Geist warned on Tuesday that the poll shows Trump approaching “fringe political candidate” territory. 

“25 percent is a terrible number if you’re trying to win a general election again,” Geist said. 


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


Co-host Mika Brzezinski added that Republican candidates “want him to stay away” from their races in 2024 after his hand-picked candidates struggled last cycle.

“If his legal issues don’t take him off the ballot, maybe his poll numbers will,” she said, adding that the survey showed him “losing support rapidly, dropping like a rock.”

“His favorability ratings have never been great, nor the job approval ratings, but if you look at the favorability ratings, when we sit here talking about all the things he is doing and wondering why it doesn’t seem to catch up to him, he now has a favorability rating that’s collapsed down to 25 percent,” said co-host Joe Scarborough. “Actually lost more percentage points post-indictment.”

“It is all bad news for him,” he added, “especially the fact that only one in four Americans now have a favorable impression of him.”

“Comedians have to reflect on life”: “SNL” alum Jay Pharoah on comics becoming great dramatic actors

When it comes to success, society often pushes this idea of hyper-focus and insane dedication. Comedian Jay Pharoah explained how wandering, traveling and taking gambles has pushed both his acting and comedy to the next level. “I feel like this is the year of me really coming into myself with everything — with acting, with stand-up, even with music,” he told on me on “Salon Talks.”

Pharoah is most known for being a cast member on “Saturday Night Live” and being the best impressionist of all time— mastering the voices of Barack Obama, Kevin Hart, Jay-Z, Eddie Murphy, Bernie Mac and Chris Rock, to name a few. Being an industry master at anything makes it hard for fans to see you as something else. For Pharoah, that other something is dramatic acting — an art he’s been practicing since he was a teenager growing up in Virginia.

“When you’re really good at doing impressions, everything else has to line up with it,” Pharoah said. In his new film, “Spinning Gold,” in theaters now, Pharoah plays Cecil Holmes, a record executive and co-founder of Casablanca Records. It’s a challenging role that will force viewers to take him seriously because he has to rely solely on acting skills, not comedy. Pharoah opened up about the process of leveling up his acting, gathering ideas for a new comedy special and how stand-up opened his world as a “sheltered kid.”

Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Jay Pharoah here to hear about his transition from stand-up to multi-hyphenate artist and to catch his fresh impressions of Kanye West and Barack Obama, or read a Q&A of our conversation below.

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

You’ve been doing comedy for a long time. You started doing stand-up as a teenager. Is comedy in your DNA?

Absolutely, man. My family is funny. I got so many characters in my family. My dad is one of the funniest people in the world, and if I make him laugh I know I’m doing what I’m supposed to do. He used to laugh at me. Now he’s laughing. I’m like, “Ah, I’m wearing you down, Papa. I’m wearing you down.” We all funny. Everybody funny. My mom’s funny. She from Brooklyn, you know what I mean? They don’t really got no filter and they can really make somebody sensitive hurt. But whatever, you know?

Congratulations on the film “Spinning Gold.” Tell us how the project came about for you.

Timothy Bogart, who’s Neil Bogart’s son, reached out to me years ago. This was in 2013. We sat down. ’13 was funny because I had hips. I got rid of them s**ts. I don’t got them no more. I got rid of them s**ts.

Timothy hit me up. We had lunch in New York and he told me about this story. He was like, “Man, Casablanca Records. Buddha Records.” He was like, “The story of Kiss and P-Funk. And even Bootsy. Also Berry Gordy, Donna Summers, Bill Withers, fricking Village People.” These are all the artists, the prominent artists that were on that label. He said he knows he wants me in it, but he’s trying to figure out which role he’s going to give me. At first, he had me doing Frankie Crocker. That’s who I was supposed to be at first.

But I read for the sidekick role, which is Cecil Holmes. I read for Neil Bogart’s sidekick. He was like, “It’s more substance in the story, and I think you could pull it off. I want you to audition for this part.” I said, “All right, cool.” So I auditioned for that part, ended up getting it. And then shout-out to my boy Chris Redd. Chris Redd got Frankie Crocker. It’s been a long journey — you’re talking about talking about this film in 2013.

People don’t understand how long this stuff takes.

Yeah, and then starting to film it in 2019, having the world shut down and then pick up filming it again in 2021, to finally have a finished product to go to the movie theaters in 2023. It’s been a journey but I feel like a lot of people are going to get a chance to see different chops in this movie.

There’s a scene in there that if enough people see it, it could be nominated for something big. I feel like this is the year of me really coming into myself with everything, with acting, with stand-up, even with music. Dude, I got music. I got music dropping, official stuff. And I got bars. I got bars. 

“I feel like this is the year of me really coming into myself.”

You know, you drink that VA 757 water and goddammit you a superhero. I feel like everything is just pushing. I’m happy about it. I feel blessed. And I pay enough people. A lot of people getting percentages. You know what I’m saying? I’m like, God dang. We married? You take half my check. 

You got to put the work in and you got to have a team. You cannot do it without a team. Everybody has a team. Even people that you think, Michael Jackson had a team God dang it, Prince . . . Well, Prince was the only one who could do it by himself. Okay. He was the only one. Everybody else, they need a team. Prince was just like, “I don’t care. I play every instrument. I don’t need anybody.” And he didn’t. He played 22 instruments.

Prince was different, man. 

Hey, can we talk about how when I was on “Family Feud” and they were asking biggest pop stars of all time and I said Prince, it wasn’t even on the board.

That’s crazy. Who created that board?

Even Steve Harvey said, “Boy, that don’t make no sense, boy. You mean to tell me, you know good hell well that should be up on that board, boy. Everybody leave. Everybody leave. We walking out of here. We walking out of here.” Everybody just got up and walked out. 

I would’ve lost. I’m like Prince, the king, and HOV.

You said HOV? Hey, my cousin said Chris Brown. I said, “You done lost your mind.” Not with a survey of white people. They’re not going to pick Chris Brown. But I thought they’d pick Prince. I mean Breezy has frequented all communities when it comes to the ladies. Of course he has fans, but one of the kings of pop, you don’t have Prince up there?

That man ain’t been gone that long. They trying to forget about him already. 

They didn’t like him. They didn’t want him. They didn’t like him because he was acquiring his masters. You know when you do that, they don’t like you, man.

Funny comes so naturally to you. Is playing a role where you don’t get a chance to land a lot of jokes difficult?

No, I mean the good thing about me is I did grow up in theater. That’s where I started. That’s why I really had no fear of the stage when I started doing stand-up because I was already out there. I got scared on stage when I was nine years old when I was Powhatan in Pocahontas and I didn’t know the lines. My teacher still put me up and made me do it in front of everybody. The kids behind me, they had to feed me the lines and get me through it. My friends got me through it. They got me through it. 

But Mr. Salmons, Mr. Salmons, he was a butt at the time. I thought he was a butt, right? Fast forward to 11th grade year. 11th grade year, I do this play called “The Damn Yankees.”

“If you’re good at making somebody laugh, you can make somebody cry too.”

Two weeks before — and like I said, I didn’t know my lines when I was little — so I said to myself, I’m always going to know my lines. I have to do that.

Cut to two weeks before “The Damn Yankees” comes out, the lead, this dude, I’m not even going to give him justice because he’d probably take this clip and put it on his Facebook page or whatever. I’m not giving anybody clout, but the lead dropped out of the play two weeks before and I had to play the lead, Mr. Applegate. Shout-out to Ms. Schuler. I love Ms. Schuler. That’s my drama teacher from Indian River. She said, “I think you can do it.” I learned those lines in two weeks. Killed the performance. At opening night, Mr. Salmons was there and he said, “I knew you could do it. I knew you always had that in you.”

So I’m not foreign to the stage when it comes to dramatic acting, man, and being able to go there, because I was in Hurrah Players, theater troupes, all in Virginia. Shout-out to Hugh Copeland. God dang it, man. You getting a lot today. God dang, you pulling the threads off Jay Pharaoh! You just pulling back the layers and seeing everything out. So it wasn’t hard. It was comfortable.

If you could have it your way, would acting be number one for you?

I’ve been trying to tell people this for years. I’ve been trying to tell these folks, man. Now of course you have gotten to see some of the dramatic chops in the movies like “Unsane.” That movie I did with Christina Milian. I’m a little funny in that too. But I do have serious parts, “Resort to Love.” There was another movie I did with Ashley Benson called “Private Property.” That was another one that was dramatic.

You can see how a lot of people who are comedians are transitioning over to that. Martin Lawrence, he just did a film where he plays a detective. Not funny at all, but it’s a serious role. So if you’re good in one, if you’re good at making somebody laugh, you can make somebody cry too. You have those skill sets. Comedians have to reflect on life. So whatever is going on, whatever we’re portraying out there, whatever we’re giving out there, this is actual life that we’re painting for you. And we’ve been through it. That’s why you can connect with it. So it’s just natural. Eddie Murphy is great at drama. He should have had an Oscar.

Jamie Foxx has an Oscar.

Jamie Foxx. And look, Jamie Foxx got it for “Ray.” There’s so many. Another one you want to talk about that could cross over to that is Mike Epps. Mike Epps is good in dramatic roles. If you look at his chops, he’s good. Another one, Robin Williams. All of his characters had so much vulnerability with them. You could see the childlike innocence in his eyes. And it was like he could make you laugh or he could make you cry. Jim Carrey is the same.

I almost forgot Robin Williams did stand-up.

“In today’s age, you can cross every border. Everything you want to do, you can do it, as long as you put the work in.”

Right? And here’s something else funny. A lot of people forget that Jamie Foxx is a great stand-up comedian. People be forgetting that because they’re so used to seeing him in other things. But it’s like in today’s age, you can cross every border. Everything you want to do, you can do it, as long as you put the work in. You see Jake Paul and Logan Paul. You see how they just flipping, boxing, influencing, going to the WWE, all of this. It’s possible.

Donald Glover, the way that he crossed over, the way that he did “Atlanta,” the way that he did music, the way that he’s doing movies. It’s OK to be multi-talented in 2023. As long as you have a fan base and you have people who are willing to give you business, you can’t get canceled. Real talk.

You are the best when it comes to doing impressions. What biopic could you see yourself being in?

There’s a few. I mean, the easiest one, you can literally see it: Eddie Murphy. Listen, I can put the red leather suit on and just talk to the people and just be cool. That’s what it’s all about. Just being really cool. 

I can also play Kanye West. I could play Kanye West in the biopic. I was looking at our side by sides and I was looking at our smiles. I was like, “Oh s**t. I got a Kanye smile. I know I got the resting Kanye face.”

You got to get the jaw implants though. 

Dude, it was so hard for me to try to do that on “SNL” when I had retainers in and they put two little jaws back here in the back of my cheeks. I was talking, but as I’m talking, it’s coming up, bro. I was trying to keep it down. So I was, “You know, because. I try to tell people tidbits of information and people don’t listen because they don’t want the truth. And when they get the truth, they can’t handle it.” So I can see myself doing that. 

I could play Will Smith in a biopic if they pull my ear. If you’ve ever seen me do Behind the Actor on YouTube, that series I used to do with two actors going back and forth. I had Will Smith. I put tape behind my ears. Had them joints out like this, like dog, because Will Smith got some sonars on his head. Them joints is ultra 4K, he get the crispy signals. That’s what he get. He get all the squiggly channels that they pick up in the ear lobes. Shout-out to Will Smith though. He don’t need no bad press.

You have any specials in the works?

Yeah. I’m working on the material for this special. I haven’t done one since 2014. But I really needed to put the work in and just go on the road. Go on the road and really get comfortable, comfortable, comfortable on stage again. Because you’re doing “SNL,” you’re doing a million things. You can’t put as much focus on that when you have to split it for “SNL.” I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but you’ll have better results doing a special if you have the time to go on the road and constantly do the jokes over and over and over and over again.

Then I found my voice. I know where my voice is now. When I was like 26, 27, I didn’t really know. I was still trying to develop it because I was predominantly a voice guy. 

“I could play Kanye West in the biopic. I was looking at our side by sides and I was looking at our smiles. I was like, “Oh s**t. I got a Kanye smile.”

Of course I started stand-up early. I did. But I’ve always been really good at doing impressions. When you’re really good at doing impressions, everything else has to line up with it. You got to be really, really good at jokes too. You can’t just have one, because you know, you’ll be exposing the chinks in your armor. You have to make sure that everything is up to par. And yeah, I had to get out there. I had to write more.

You have more experience. You’re older.

That’s another thing. I was a sheltered kid. I come from a real marginalized, a community of apostolic folks. My folks are apostolic, man. I didn’t get exposed to everything that a lot of people got exposed to as kids. There was certain stuff I couldn’t listen to. I had to sneak and listen to Ludacris and listen to Biggie. I had to sneak that stuff man, because my parents, they weren’t having that.

I remember I was playing Ludacris’ “Back For the First Time” and I was playing his second track and then the lyrics go, “It’s too many n****s, not enough h**s, too many rookies, not enough pros. The game got switched on some Ludacris s**t. So all y’all can suck my d**k, b***h.” That part was playing. My dad comes in my room as I start playing track No. 2. He said, “Oh what you listening to?” I said, “Oh no.” I said, “Nah, Tony Pharoah.” I said, “Not today.” 

He said, “No, no, no. I want to know what you listen to. Go ahead and play it.” So I said, “OK.” I played the joint. “I hate it when there’s too many n****s, not enough h**s. Too many rookies. The game got switched on some Ludacris s**t. All y’all can suck my d**k.” My dad said, “Absolutely not.” He took the CD, man. He took the CD and put it in his room. But you know what was funny, that CD was a burned CD. So I just waited for him to leave for work and I swapped it out. And I brought it back and listened to it.

I didn’t have a lot of experience. I didn’t get kissed until I was 16 years old. I didn’t lose it until I was 18. There’s things, normal kids probably were freaks at like 12, 13. They was smelling each other’s fingers and s**t. I ain’t know nothing about that. When I left Virginia and I was on “SNL,” I had a girlfriend. I dated her for four years. And then after those four years, oh boy, them numbers. Woo. Then I started experiencing things. 

It’s all material. I tell my writing students, writers live in the world. You have to live in the world. If you don’t live in the world, what you talking about?

Art imitates life, bro. Art imitates life. And everything that is funny is relatable. Everything that you go through, you might think that you the only one that does something. No. We all do it. We just don’t all talk about it. And folks are waiting for somebody to talk about it. So they could be like, oh, I’m not alone. Because we all, we all do the same s**t. 

“Stand-up is such a fertile ground right now.”

Asian, Black, white, Spanish, Latino, whatever the hell you are. If you have a family, y’all go through the same exact s**t everybody does. Y’all might listen to different music, but the core general basis of it is all the same s**t.

I had to learn that. I thought stand-up was like some hard s**t like, “Oh, I got to come over here.” No, motherf****r. Be relatable. Don’t try to be so different. I know you trying to be different, but be different in commonality.

We cover a lot of politics here at Salon. How would Barack Obama tell everyone they need to go see “Spinning Gold” as soon as it comes out?

Well, he would say this. He would say that everybody in this movie is absolutely phenomenal. Also, he would also say that Jay Pharoah, he shines in a way that’s so splendid. That probably wasn’t highlighted the way that people wanted it to be highlighted years ago. So it is a big-screen movie. Go see it. And I get percentages. So make sure you take your a*s out to the movie theater and support Black artists.

I mean, there are other white people in there too. But it’s a good movie. And it’s about Motown, Buddha, Casablanca records and the history of it will never be seen like that ever again. It was sex, drugs, rock and roll. And back in the day, that’s just what used to happen. And I think you’re going to enjoy the ride and you’re going to see a lot of people together and you’re going to learn a lot and you’re going to end up loving those characters even more by the time you leave the film. So go see it, b***h.

Maple syrup fraud undermines the authenticity of Canada’s “liquid gold”

Maple syrup, Canada’s “liquid gold,” is among the 10 most adulterated foods globally.

Maple syrup’s desirability has made it a target for delinquent activities, including food fraud and theft. In 2011 and 2012, almost 3,000 tons of maple syrup were stolen from the Strategic Reserve in Québec.

The Great Maple Syrup Heist reflects the food’s status as a highly valuable commodity and the target of delinquent activities.


CBC’s The National takes a look at the Global Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve in Laurierville, Que.

In addition to the threat posed to maple syrup by thieves and smugglers, unreliable production yields due to climate events have required establishing production quotas to stabilize pricing and supply.

As a consequence, there have been reports of prohibition-style smuggling and sugar syrups labelled as maple syrup permeating the market. These actions cheat consumers and introduce food safety risks into the supply chain.

Consumers pay more for a lower value product. In addition, the introduction of other sugars or sugar syrups may pose risks to individuals with sugar sensitivities, as maple syrup has a lower glycemic index than white sugar or corn syrups.

Fingerprinting maple syrup glow

As such, there is a need for the development of more accurate and rapid testing tools to monitor maple syrup fraud.

Our research team at the University of Guelph has been developing methods to detect maple syrup fraud. We use fluorescence fingerprinting, which analyzes how certain molecules in maple syrup glow when exposed to UV and visible light, to see if there is any potential maple syrup adulteration.

In UV light, maple syrup naturally glows. Fluorescence fingerprinting maps the intensity of the light emitted by these specific fluorescent (glowing) compounds and can provide a unique 3D rendering of a sample’s composition while also reporting on its quality, safety and identity.

Using key features found in the fluorescence fingerprints, we explored ways to better detect maple syrup adulteration even when the levels are as low as 1%. 

Our study examines the adulteration of dark and amber maple syrups with common maple syrup adulterants, at percentages ranging from one to 50%

Distinct fluorescence fingerprints were found for each tested syrup and mixture, revealing features that can be used to distinguish pure from adulterated samples.

Machine learning and identification

an aerial photo of a cup with glowing liquid
Maple syrup glows under UV light. (M. Singh), Author provided

The fluorescence fingerprints obtained when the samples were exposed to UV and visible light show several features (or peaks) that gradually changed in samples tampered with adulterants. We were able to correctly detect adulteration in 70 to 100% of samples, depending on how the features were quantified and analyzed, by creating a fluorescence index or by using machine learning techniques.

To fully validate this approach, we will need to use larger datasets that will help us control for other factors — like the environments maple trees grow in — that may affect the content of the syrups.

Other common fingerprinting techniques, such as DNA barcoding that examines short DNA fragments, can detect adulteration in other foods, like fish or sausages.

These methods don’t work well for maple syrup because the extensive processing required to transform sap into syrup potentially degrades the DNA.

In contrast, fluorescence fingerprints rely on a food’s chemical composition, so identifying the presence of adulterants can happen even in highly processed samples. Most foods naturally contain intrinsic fluorescent compounds, which means they glow under UV and visible light — the amount of and type of glow represent distinguishing characteristics.

Quality control

Since using fluorescent fingerprinting only requires the use of light, it is a non-invasive, efficient and affordable strategy for checking whether maple syrup contains any other sugar syrups. It is also fast, providing information about a sample within minutes.

This approach can be applied at different points in the supply chain as part of quality assurance and control. This would ensure that consumers receive safe, high-quality foods and that they are not cheated financially. Confirming the quality of maple syrup would also protect the brand reputation of Canadian products.

Maia Zhang, research assistant at the University of Guelph, co-authored this article.The Conversation

Maleeka Singh, PhD Candidate, Food Science, University of Guelph; Maria G. Corradini, Associate Professor – Arrell Chair in Food Quality, University of Guelph; Robert Hanner, Professor, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, and Sujani Rathnayake, Research assistant, Hanner Lab, University of Guelph

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

Democrats warn John Roberts: If you don’t hold Clarence Thomas accountable, we will

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday announced plans to hold a hearing in the coming days “regarding the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards,” citing ProPublica’s reporting on over 20 years’ worth of luxury travel accepted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from a billionaire Republican megadonor.

The planned hearing is detailed in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts and follows comments made by the committee chair, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, last week in which he called for an “enforceable code of conduct” for the justices.

If “the Court does not resolve this issue on its own, the Committee will consider legislation to resolve it,” the letter said.

Monday’s letter echoed a call from 22 Democratic lawmakers last week for Roberts to launch an investigation into Thomas’ trips and his failure to report them. That group included members of both the House and Senate judiciary committees.

In their separate letter to Roberts, those lawmakers — including Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnsonwrote that as chief justice, Roberts is duty-bound to conduct a “swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation” in order to “safeguard public faith in the judiciary.”

Both letters hinted at congressional action to strengthen the court’s rules around ethics and disclosure. The court “has barely acknowledged, much less investigated” the details reported by ProPublica, the lawmakers wrote Friday, citing their alarm over “allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct at the Supreme Court.”

“Should the Supreme Court continue to refuse to act swiftly on these matters,” the letter added, “we will continue to press Congress to act to restore accountability and ethics at the highest Court in the land.”

The flurry of activity by the lawmakers comes in response to ProPublica’s report revealing that for years, Thomas had accepted luxury trips from Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow without disclosing them. The trips included international cruises on Crow’s superyacht, flights on Crow’s private jet and regular summer getaways at Crow’s private lakeside resort in the Adirondacks.

A Supreme Court spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letters.

In a brief statement on Friday, Thomas cited “guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary” that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Crow previously told ProPublica that he and his wife never discussed a pending case with Thomas and had “never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue.” He also said that he is “unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that.”

An ethics law passed after the Watergate scandal requires justices and other federal officials to disclose most gifts to the public. That law, legal ethics experts told ProPublica, clearly mandates that gifts of transportation, including private jet flights, be reported.

Urging the court to adopt stricter rules on Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee members noted that justices’ “ethical standards” have raised concerns before. They pointed to a series of articles in 2011 that revealed some of the close ties between Thomas and Crow.

“This problem could have been resolved then. Instead, according to ProPublica’s reporting, Mr. Crow’s dispensation of favors escalated in secret during the years that followed. Now the Court faces a crisis of public confidence in its ethical standards that must be addressed,” they wrote.

In the letter sent last week, the Democrats — whose ranks include Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York and Rep. Adam Schiff of California — cited a pressing need for updated rules for the court. “It is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of government in a proper code of ethics enforced by independent investigation and reporting,” they wrote.

The lawmakers also questioned Thomas’ defense, noting that the so-called personal hospitality exemption to the law is “not meant to allow government officials to hide from the public extravagant gifts by wealthy political interests.”

And they raised concerns around the broader ethical implications of a Supreme Court justice taking undisclosed trips with other guests, calling for more robust disclosure and ethics rules for the court. In one instance detailed in ProPublica’s report, Thomas was joined at Crow’s Adirondacks resort by corporate executives, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

Whitehouse and others have already introduced a bill this year aimed at tightening the court’s rules, among other reforms.

Spokespeople for Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Truly random drug testing: ADHD patients face uneven urine screens and, sometimes, stigma

Some adults who take prescription medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder are required to have their urine tested for drugs several times a year. Others never are tested.

Such screenings are designed to check if ADHD patients are safely taking their pills, such as Adderall, and not selling them, taking too many, or using other drugs.

Several doctors told KHN there are varying opinions and no national standards on the role of urine testing to monitor adults who take ADHD medication. So patients face dramatically different requirements, depending on their clinics’ and health insurers’ policies.

“There really isn’t much literature to guide you on how to do this,” said Dr. Margaret Chaplin, a Connecticut psychiatrist who treats patients with ADHD, mental illnesses, or substance use disorders.

Chaplin first noticed the lack of testing standards about eight years ago, when she and colleagues proposed ways to prevent stimulant misuse in adult ADHD patients.

Her team recommended urine tests only if patients exhibit “red-flag behavior,” such as appearing intoxicated, repeatedly reporting lost prescriptions, or frequently switching doctors. Some doctors and clinics make testing decisions on a patient-by-patient basis taking into account those red flags or patient history. Others apply universal policies, which may be aimed at preventing discrimination. Some insurance companies and state Medicaid systems also have testing requirements.

ADHD stimulants, opioid pain medications, and some other drugs are classified as controlled substances, which are tightly regulated because they can be addictive or misused.

ADHD patients subjected to frequent drug screens say the tests can be time-consuming and expensive. Some feel stigmatized.

A.C. Shilton felt relieved when she was diagnosed with ADHD in her mid-30s. The farmer and freelance journalist from rural Tennessee said the diagnosis explained why she felt so disorganized and forgetful, and as if her brain were a motor running all day. Shilton said her medication slows that motor down.

The 38-year-old Jamestown resident said her first doctor ordered urine tests once a year. That doctor eventually closed his practice, and Shilton said her next physician made her take a test at nearly every visit.

“You go in to get the standard of care, which is this medicine, and you’re kind of treated like you’re a bad person again; there’s some shame associated with that,” Shilton said.

She was also upset after learning office staffers were incorrect when they told her that urine testing was required by law — something that other ADHD patients posting on social media forums said had happened to them too.

Shilton said few doctors treat adult ADHD patients in her rural community. She now drives more than an hour to a different clinic, which doesn’t require her to take as many drug tests.

Travis Gordon, 47, of Charlotte, North Carolina, has gone to the same ADHD clinic for more than 10 years. Gordon said he wasn’t drug-tested in the first few years. Then, for several years, he had to give a urine sample every three months. During much of the covid-19 pandemic, he wasn’t tested. Now, he’s screened every six months.

“We shouldn’t have to feel like street criminals to get drugs that are needed for our daily success,” Gordon said.

Gordon said it would make sense for doctors to order tests more frequently as they get to know new patients. But he said he doesn’t understand why such testing should continue for people like him, established patients who properly take their medication.

Traci Camper, 50, of northeastern Tennessee, said she has “never even tried a cigarette,” much less used illicit drugs, but her doctor has required urine tests every three months for more than 10 years. Camper said the process can be inconvenient but she’s ultimately OK with the tests, especially since she lives in an area with high rates of drug abuse.

The clinics that Shilton, Gordon, and Camper went to did not respond to KHN’s requests for interviews about their testing policies.

Adults are diagnosed with ADHD if they have multiple, frequent symptoms so severe they interfere with work, relationships, or other aspects of life. Treatments include therapy and medication, most often stimulants.

ADHD patients have been affected by the response to the opioid crisis, which has led to more scrutiny for all controlled medications. Some have reported trouble filling their prescriptions as drug distribution companies limit sales to certain pharmacies. Some patients, especially rural ones, could face obstacles if the federal government reverts to pre-pandemic rules that require at least one in-person appointment to receive controlled drugs via telehealth.

Chaplin said doctors who treat ADHD may feel the need to be extra vigilant with drug testing because of this increased scrutiny, or due to the risk of misuse.

An estimated 3.7 million Americans 12 or older misused prescription stimulants in 2021, and 1.5 million had a prescription stimulant use disorder, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Americans are more likely to misuse or be addicted to prescription opioids, sedatives, and tranquilizers, the agency said.

Adults with ADHD are more likely to have a substance use disorder than those without the condition, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Although there aren’t formal standards, several health care organizations and professionals have made recommendations to prevent and detect adult ADHD stimulant misuse. Suggestions include requiring patients to sign prescription-agreement contracts and regularly checking databases that show all controlled medications each patient is buying.

Chaplin said there’s little research into how effective any method is at preventing medication misuse.

A recent survey found that 42% of family physicians and 21% of college health professionals who treat adult ADHD require their patients to submit random urine drug screens.

Gordon, Camper, and some ADHD patients on social media forums said their drug screens have come at predictable intervals, instead of random ones.

Dr. Sidarth Wakhlu, a psychiatrist who specializes in treating substance use disorders at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said some of his patients also have ADHD. He suggests drug-testing most ADHD patients once or twice a year. For “someone who has no addiction history, has no red flags, every three months is an overkill,” he said.

The cost of drug testing is as variable as the frequency.

For example, Dr. Michael Fingerhood at Johns Hopkins University uses urine tests that cost as little as $60 before insurance. Fingerhood makes testing decisions case by case for patients who take controlled substances to treat ADHD, pain, or opioid addiction.

Gordon used to pay $110 for each of his tests when he had insurance his doctor did not accept. Shilton’s insurance was billed $545 for a test. Shilton said she complained to a nurse who said, in the future, she could use a less expensive test.

Shilton said she replied, “Well, why aren’t we doing that to begin with? Why are we doing this extremely fancy drug testing?”

Wakhlu said the more expensive urine tests can identify specific types and quantities of drugs. Such tests are usually used to confirm the results of initial, less pricey tests, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Wakhlu said that when test results show a patient might be misusing stimulants, doctors should initiate a non-accusatory conversation to discuss the results and, if needed, offer help. He also said it’s important to emphasize safety, such as how taking too much ADHD medication or combining it with other stimulants, such as methamphetamine, can be dangerous.


KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.