Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“They’re such cowards”: GOP pushes bill targeting food aid for the poor

More than a dozen House Republicans are expected to release legislation Tuesday that would impose more harsh work requirements on certain recipients of federal food aid, a clear signal that the GOP intends to target nutrition assistance in critical debt ceiling, budget, and farm bill talks.

Led by Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., the measure would “expand the age bracket for able-bodied [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] recipients without dependents, who have to meet complicated work requirements,” according to Politico, which obtained a copy of the bill ahead of its official introduction.

Johnson’s legislation, which currently has 14 Republican co-sponsors, would broaden the SNAP work requirement age bracket for able-bodied adults without dependents to 18 to 65, adding 16 years to the current age ceiling of 49, Politico reported. Former President Donald Trump previously proposed raising the age ceiling to 62.

Under SNAP rules, people categorized as able-bodied adults without dependents are only allowed to receive federal food benefits for three months during any three-year period when they aren’t employed or taking part in work training, a restriction that experts and advocates have long decried as cruel and punitive.

“Essentially, this is a time limit—which disproportionately affects people of color—that takes SNAP away when people aren’t working, withholding food as a punishment for not having a stable job,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes.

Most adult SNAP recipients already work, though they are often precarious, low-wage jobs with poor benefits.

While Johnson and other Republicans claim their support for more stringent SNAP work requirements stems from a desire to boost employment, research has repeatedly shown that they are ineffective at doing so. Work requirements do, however, succeed at booting many people off the program.

States are currently allowed to request waivers for the SNAP benefit time limits, but Johnson’s bill would constrain the federal government’s ability to grant such requests, Politico reported.

“These guys talk about states’ rights all the time, except when it comes to poor people,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said in response to the GOP bill.

Johnson’s legislation comes as food insecurity is mounting across the U.S. after emergency SNAP benefit expansions lapsed earlier this month, slashing benefits for tens of millions of people amid high food prices. The cuts—the result of an end-of-year deal in Congress—have been dramatic for many, costing families hundreds of dollars per month in food aid.

“These enhanced benefits were a lifeline for millions—many of whom will now go hungry,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “And Republicans want to cut these programs even further.”

Politico reported that while Democratic lawmakers are publicly voicing opposition to the Republican Party’s latest attack on food benefits, “some House Democrats are quietly raising alarms about their lack of plans to push back on the GOP proposals.”

“We need to be prepared for a showdown on food security—and right now, we’re not ready,” one unnamed House Democrat told the outlet.

Anti-hunger campaigners are pushing Democrats to protect food benefits and fight for a permanent SNAP expansion during upcoming farm bill negotiations.

But as Slate’s Alexander Sammon wrote last week, “the lack of willingness to fight for SNAP when it was already expanded is not a heartening sign.”

Asteroid headed for Earth in 2046 tops the “risk list” for planetary impact

A newly discovered space rock is poised to fly by Earth in approximately 23 years — and while the chance that it hits Earth is not tremendous, among all known asteroids it has the highest chance of hitting Earth, according to NASA. 

The asteroid, known as 2023 DW, was only discovered in late February, but it has already skyrocketed to the top spot on the “Risk List,” a registry organized by the European Space Agency (ESA) as a way of ranking near-Earth objects with a “non-zero impact probability.”

If it were to hit Earth, 2023 DW is big enough that it could rival the Tunguska event, a massive explosion in Siberia in 1908 that flattened 80 million trees.

Originally discovered on February 26 by French astronomers Georges Attard and Alain Maury, 2023 DW zips around the sun every 271 days. It may resemble a lumpy potato, but the asteroid’s diameter has been calculated to be around 50 meters (165 feet), about the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. And it’s moving fast (relative to Earth), clipping through space at about 15.3 miles (24.6 kilometers) per second.

NASA initially reported there was a 1 in 560 chance that 2023 DW could impact Earth on Valentine’s Day, 2046. Later, that number was updated to a 1 in 1,584 chance. That might not sound like much, but it still incredibly high odds compared to the 1,450 other objects on the ESA’s Risk List. (Update Friday, March 17: With updated figures, the odds have dropped to 1 in 5847, making it 5th on the list. That’s still pretty high, but that threat is expected to drop to almost zero over the coming days.)

“Often when new objects are first discovered, it takes several weeks of data to reduce the uncertainties and adequately predict their orbits years into the future,” NASA said on Twitter.

If it were to hit Earth, 2023 DW is big enough that it could rival the Tunguska event, a massive explosion in Siberia in 1908 that flattened 80 million trees, killed at least three people and is the largest impact event on Earth in recorded history. While we are not entirely certain what caused the explosion in the sky, the chief culprit is considered a meteor air burst triggered by an asteroid similar in size to 2023 DW. In contrast, the Chelyabinsk meteor — which exploded over Russia on February 15, 2013 and damaged over 7,200 buildings and hospitalized 112 people — was less than half that size. We could expect a similar fallout if 2023 DW were to slam into Earth, though it really depends on a lot of factors.

Far more devastating impacts have left their mark through Earth’s history — and, often, radically changing the evolution of life. The rock that many paleontologists theorize killed the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago was about six miles wide and triggered “mega-earthquakes” that lasted for months, as well as wiping out an estimated 75 percent of all life on Earth. There’s no reason to believe such an event couldn’t someday repeat itself, so it’s prudent to be prepared.

Luckily, NASA and other space agencies have been working on technology to deflect such a deadly impactor. Despite what certain blockbuster films might lead one to believe, it is not smart to use bombs to stop an asteroid. That would just make the problem worse by creating tons of smaller asteroids. Instead, astrophysicists believe the best defense is to knock asteroids off course long before they make their final approach, like a spaceborne billiards game yet with higher stakes.

Last September, NASA and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory deliberately crashed a space probe into an asteroid called Dimorphos as part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). The test was a smashing success. Images and video of the impact depicted spectacular trails of debris and it later became clear that the probe altered the orbit of the asteroid as planned. DART has been described in a NASA video as “a watershed moment for planetary defense and humanity.”


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


On March 1st, a series of articles published in the journal Nature described how this stunt was pulled, how the impact transferred momentum and what kind of stuff was sprayed into space when DART collided with the space rock, which apparently blasted out at least one million kilograms (2.2 million pounds) of rock, creating a tail of rubble stretching for tens of thousands of kilometers. Most importantly, it altered Dimorphos’ orbit by about 33 minutes. DART was an extremely successful mission.

This tech is critical for the future of humanity. When it comes to a giant rock hitting our planet, most experts agree that it’s not a matter of if, but when. Last December, scientists announced the discovery of three asteroids that were hiding in the glint of the sun, one of them being the largest potentially hazardous near-earth asteroid spotted in eight years. This follows a similar discovery of a “planet killer” asteroid in November, though none of these rocks are considered likely to hit us compared to 2023 DW.

It’s not always easy to detect space rocks that could pose a threat to life on Earth, but on a long enough timescale, we are almost guaranteed to be hit by one. We need to be prepared. Whether the technology developed with DART will be deployed against 2023 DW or another menacing space rock remains to be seen, but given that the stakes could literally equal widespread extinction, we can’t be too careful.

Expert: Why SVB and Signature Bank failed so fast – and the US banking crisis isn’t over yet

Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed with enormous speed – so quickly that they could be textbook cases of classic bank runs, in which too many depositors withdraw their funds from a bank at the same time. The failures at SVB and Signature were two of the three biggest in U.S. banking history, following the collapse of Washington Mutual in 2008.

How could this happen when the banking industry has been sitting on record levels of excess reserves – or the amount of cash held beyond what regulators require?

While the most common type of risk faced by a commercial bank is a jump in loan defaults – known as credit risk – that’s not what is happening here. As an economist who has expertise in banking, I believe it boils down to two other big risks every lender faces: interest rate risk and liquidity risk.

Interest rate risk

A bank faces interest rate risk when the rates increase rapidly within a shorter period.

That’s exactly what has happened in the U.S. since March 2022. The Federal Reserve has been aggressively raising rates – 4.5 percentage points so far – in a bid to tame soaring inflation. As a result, the yield on debt has jumped at a commensurate rate.

The yield on one-year U.S. government Treasury notes hit a 17-year high of 5.25% in March 2023, up from less than 0.5% at the beginning of 2022. Yields on 30-year Treasurys have climbed almost 2 percentage points.

As yields on a security go up, its price goes down. And so such a rapid rise in rates in so short a time caused the market value of previously issued debt – whether corporate bonds or government Treasury bills – to plunge, especially for longer-dated debt.

For example, a 2 percentage point gain in a 30-year bond’s yield can cause its market value to plunge by around 32%.

SVB, as Silicon Valley Bank is known, had a massive share of its assets – 55% – invested in fixed-income securities, such as U.S. government bonds.

Of course, interest rate risk leading to a drop in market value of a security is not a huge problem as long as the owner can hold onto it until maturity, at which point it can collect its original face value without realizing any loss. The unrealized loss stays hidden on the bank’s balance sheet and disappears over time.

But if the owner has to sell the security before its maturity at a time when the market value is lower than face value, the unrealized loss becomes an actual loss.

That’s exactly what SVB had to do earlier this year as its customers, dealing with their own cash shortfalls, began withdrawing their deposits – while even higher interest rates were expected.

This brings us to liquidity risk.

Liquidity risk

Liquidity risk is the risk that a bank won’t be able to meet its obligations when they come due without incurring losses.

For example, if you spend US$150,000 of your savings to buy a house and down the road you need some or all of that money to deal with another emergency, you’re experiencing a consequence of liquidity risk. A large chunk of your money is now tied up in the house, which is not easily exchangeable for cash.

Customers of SVB were withdrawing their deposits beyond what it could pay using its cash reserves, and so to help meet its obligations the bank decided to sell $21 billion of its securities portfolio at a loss of $1.8 billion. The drain on equity capital led the lender to try to raise over $2 billion in new capital.

The call to raise equity sent shockwaves to SVB’s customers, who were losing confidence in the bank and rushed to withdraw cash. A bank run like this can cause even a healthy bank to go bankrupt in a matter days, especially now in the digital age.

In part this is because many of SVB’s customers had deposits well above the $250,000 insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. – and so they knew their money might not be safe if the bank were to fail. Roughly 88% of deposits at SVB were uninsured.

Signature faced a similar problem, as SVB’s collapse prompted many of its customers to withdraw their deposits out of a similar concern over liquidity risk. About 90% of its deposits were uninsured.

Systemic risk?

All banks face interest rate risk today on some of their holdings because of the Fed’s rate-hiking campaign.

This has resulted in $620 billion in unrealized losses on bank balance sheets as of December 2022.

But most banks are unlikely to have significant liquidity risk.

While SVB and Signature were complying with regulatory requirements, the composition of their assets was not in line with industry averages.

Signature had just over 5% of its assets in cash and SVB had 7%, compared with the industry average of 13%. In addition, SVB’s 55% of assets in fixed-income securities compares with the industry average of 24%.

The U.S. government’s decision to backstop all deposits of SVB and Signature regardless of their size should make it less likely that banks with less cash and more securities on their books will face a liquidity shortfall because of massive withdrawals driven by sudden panic.

However, with over $1 trillion of bank deposits currently uninsured, I believe that the banking crisis is far from over.

 

Vidhura S. Tennekoon, Assistant Professor of Economics, Indiana University

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

Doctors warned her pregnancy could kill her. Then Tennessee outlawed abortion

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

One day late last summer, Dr. Barry Grimm called a fellow obstetrician at Vanderbilt University Medical Center to consult about a patient who was 10 weeks pregnant. Her embryo had become implanted in scar tissue from a recent cesarean section, and she was in serious danger. At any moment, the pregnancy could rupture, blowing open her uterus.

Dr. Mack Goldberg, who was trained in abortion care for life-threatening pregnancy complications, pulled up the patient’s charts. He did not like the look of them. The muscle separating her pregnancy from her bladder was as thin as tissue paper; her placenta threatened to eventually invade her organs like a tumor. Even with the best medical care in the world, some patients bleed out in less than 10 minutes on the operating table. Goldberg had seen it happen.

Mayron Michelle Hollis stood to lose her bladder, her uterus and her life. She was desperate to end the pregnancy. On the phone, the two doctors agreed this was the best path forward, guided by recommendations from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, an association of 5,500 experts on high-risk pregnancy. The longer they waited, the more complicated the procedure would be.

But it was Aug. 24, and performing an abortion was hours away from becoming a felony in Tennessee. There were no explicit exceptions. Prosecutors could choose to charge any doctor who terminated any pregnancy with a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. If charged, the doctor would have the burden of proving in front of a judge or jury that the procedure was necessary to save the patient’s life, similar to claiming self-defense in a homicide case.

The doctors didn’t know where to turn to for guidance. There was no institutional process to help them make a final call. Hospitals have malpractice lawyers but do not typically employ criminal lawyers. Even local criminal lawyersweren’t sure what to say — they had no precedent to draw on, and the attorney general and the governor weren’t issuing any clarifications. Under the law, it was possible a prosecutor could argue Hollis’ case wasn’t an immediate emergency, just a potential risk in the future.

Goldberg was only a month into his first job as a full-fledged staff doctor, launching his career in one of the most hostile states for reproductive health care in America, yet he was confident he could stand in a courtroom and attest that Hollis’ condition was life-threatening. But to perform an abortion safely, he would need a team of other providers to agree to take on the same legal risks. Hollis wanted to keep her uterus so she could one day get pregnant again. That made the operation more complicated, because a pregnant uterus draws extra blood to it, increasing the risk of hemorrhage.

Goldberg spent the next two days trying to rally support from his colleagues for a procedure that would previously have been routine.

Vanderbilt declined to comment for this article, but Hollis’ doctors spoke to ProPublica in their personal capacity, with her permission, risking backlash in order to give the public a rare view into the dangers created when lawmakers interfere with high-stakes medical care.

First, Goldberg and a colleague tried the interventional radiology department. To lower Hollis’ chance of bleeding, Goldberg wanted doctors to insert a special gel into the artery that supplied blood to her uterus to reduce its flow. But that department’s leadership didn’t feel comfortable participating.

Next, they approached a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who a week earlier had said he would be able to provide an injection to stop the fetus from growing and decrease blood flow. But once the law went into effect, that specialist grew uneasy, he told ProPublica. He asked that his name not be used because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The specialist would have to do the procedure in a room of nurses and scrub techs with an ultrasound image projected on the wall — all potential evidence that could be used against him in a trial. He thought about his family, what it would mean to go to prison. “I’m so disappointed in myself,” he told Goldberg and his colleague as he refused to participate.

That night, Goldberg went home and buried his face into the soft fur of his 100-pound Bernedoodle dog, Louie. He believed strongly that knowing how to perform an abortion was a necessary part of health care; he’d spent two years training in Pittsburgh to have the skills to help people like Hollis. Now he felt like everyone was leaving him alone with the responsibility. He worried about being able to manage that massive bleed alone.

He felt sick when he told Grimm his decision: “It’s too dangerous,” he said.

Grimm felt a mix of anger, fear and sadness burning beneath his ribs. He could scarcely believe the situation. Raised Christian in the deep South, he had never agreed with abortion as a moral choice. But as an OB-GYN whose patient was in mortal peril, he couldn’t begin to comprehend what politicians were thinking. He had told Hollis an abortion ban was coming, but had thought there would be an exception for cases like hers that came with high risks.

He knew Hollis would have difficulty traveling. It began to sink in: The families who would most starkly bear the consequences of the law would be those with little means, whose fragile stability could be disrupted by any unexpected hurdle.

He collected himself as he dialed Hollis. It was Aug. 26, the day after the ban went into effect.

It was also Hollis’ 32nd birthday. She was at her job as an insulator apprentice, monitoring her co-workers as they wrapped rolls of fiberglass around pipes, when she saw Grimm’s name flash on her phone. She headed outside, her long hair coiled under a hard hat, her stomach churning.

The past month had been a dizzying, sickening whirlwind of thrill, then worry, then stubborn hope, then all-consuming terror. She didn’t want to lose her pregnancy, but she didn’t want to die. She had anguished over the decision, prayed about it with her husband, gotten a second opinion and gone around and around with Grimm.

Now, as she stepped outside to take the call, all she wanted to hear was her doctor’s usual calm reassurance and the plan for her care.

But Grimm’s voice was heavy as he began:

“I’m so, so sorry.”

Few Tennessee lawmakers stopped to consider the ramifications when they gathered in 2019 to pass what would wind up being one of the nation’s most severe abortion bans.

It was a trigger law, just words on paper as long as federal abortion rights granted by a 1973 Supreme Court ruling remained in place. “It wasn’t like Roe v. Wade was on the verge of being overturned,” said state Sen. Richard Briggs, a heart surgeon who co-sponsored the bill. “It was theoretical at that point.”

To many, the ban seemed like a publicity stunt. It didn’t even get much pushback from doctors or abortion-rights advocates.

But the influential anti-abortion group National Right to Life was following a strategy.

For decades, the group’s leaders have written and lobbied for model legislation aimed at injecting their particular vision of morality into abortion regulations around the country. In many conservative states, they exert a stranglehold on politics, publishing annual scorecards to track lawmakers’ votes on anti-abortion legislation and funding primary challengers against candidates they don’t consider committed enough.

Invigorated by President Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominations starting in 2018, they pushed so-called “trigger bans,” designed to go into effect in a future where Roe was overturned. It’s an approach Bob Ramsey, a Republican legislator in Tennessee at the time, likened to throwing spaghetti at the wall “to see what sticks.”

Republican lawmakers knew that voting against the abortion ban bill could spell political peril.

“Unfortunately, it’s all about the next election,” Ramsey said. “We didn’t get together and debate the morality of pro-choice or the confusion for medical providers. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion.” In the end, he abstained, and lost his next primary to an opponent who castigated him for not being anti-abortion enough.

But the law sailed through without Ramsey, on party lines.

The Supreme Court’s decision came on June 24, 2022. Tennessee’s abortion ban kicked in two months later. Overnight, procedures that had not been considered “abortion” by many, but simply part of reproductive health care, were a crime. That included offering dilation and evacuation procedures to patients whose water broke too early or who started bleeding heavily in their first trimester. Terminating dangerous pregnancies that never result in a viable birth, like those that settle inside a fallopian tube or develop into a tumor, was also technically an abortion. Each case now presents doctors with an ethical dilemma: Provide the patient the standard of care accepted by the medical community and face a potential felony charge, or try to comply with the broadest interpretation of the law and risk a malpractice case.

National Right to Life considers Tennessee’s abortion ban its “strongest” law, and the group’s Tennessee lobbyist has said the law should only permit abortions that are urgently necessary, such as for someone bleeding out, and not allow those “to prevent a future medical emergency.”

Gov. Bill Lee has defended the law as providing “maximum protection possible for both mother and child.” But some who voted in favor of the bill have since acknowledged they didn’t read it closely or understand how completely it tied the hands of doctors. Briggs, the bill’s co-sponsor, has advocated for changes and lost the endorsement of Tennessee Right to Life.

Tennessee’s ban and others triggered across the country are already unleashing havoc. The uncertainty over how the vague standards will be treated in the courts has created a chilling effect on patient care, doctors and other experts say. Though most bans contain exceptions for abortions necessary to prevent a patient’s death or “a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” data suggests few people have been able to access abortions under those exceptions.

ProPublica reviewed news articles, medical journal studies and lawsuits and found at least 70 examples across 12 states of women with pregnancy complications who were denied abortion care or had the treatment delayed since Roe was overturned. Doctors say the true number is much higher.

Some of the women reported being forced to wait until they were septic or had filled diapers with blood before getting help for their imminent miscarriages. Others were made to continue high-risk pregnancies and give birth to babies that had virtually no chance of survival. Some pregnant patients rushed across state lines to get treated for a condition that was rapidly deteriorating.

Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung, a maternal-fetal specialist who left Tennessee in January because of the trigger ban, said that after the law went into effect, she referred an average of three to four patients out of state every week for abortion care to address high-risk conditions she could no longer help with.

But, she said, not everyone has the resources or ability to leave the state for an abortion.

Raised in the depths of Tennessee’s opioid epidemic in a family haunted by addiction, Hollis’ earliest memory is of clutching her baby brother when she was 5 years old, as her alcoholic father flipped tables. When she was 9, she said, her mother’s boyfriend gave her drugs and read her the Bible before he molested her. By 12, she was living with a teenage boyfriend and babysitting his brothers in exchange for hydrocodone pills.

At 21, Hollis began having children: first a son and then two daughters. At 27, when she had her third child, she was trying to stay sober. But the father of that child, Chris Hollis, showed up to the hospital high on opioids. The Department of Children’s Services drug tested him and took custody of all of Hollis’ children.

If her life with her kids had been chaotic, hustling to survive in the pill mill economy and dealing with multiple arrests, her life without them was a black hole of shame and self-hatred. She gave in to drugs and fights and ended up living on the street; one day, in September 2019, she landed in the hospital after an attempted suicide. Three days later, she was a passenger in a car crash that killed a close friend. It was at that moment that she decided she wanted to live. She went from the hospital to rehab.

When Grimm met her in 2021, at a clinic for mothers with opioid use disorder, she was pregnant with her fourth child and sober. He believed Hollis could stay that way; she was sufficiently exhausted by her cycles of addiction. He often used her progress forging a new path for her family to inspire other mothers in the program. He liked her fast-talking boldness and how she owned her past. She liked the way he listened and didn’t judge.

After baby Zooey arrived in February 2022, it seemed to Hollis like life was finally gathering momentum. She had reconnected with Chris Hollis, who she first befriended working at Wendy’s as a teenager. She had always known he held a flame for her, from the time he offered to take her duties cleaning the Frosty machine. Over the years they broke up and reconnected multiple times.

Now both in recovery, they had gotten married, rented a house in Clarksville, a small town near a military base, and joined a church. Together, they ran a small vinyl siding business. Hollis managed the accounting and worked a factory job for extra income. She began to study for her peer recovery specialist certification, imagining a day when she would help other mothers climb out of addiction. She hoped to save enough money to buy a house and eventually pay lawyers to get her other children back.

But three months after Zooey’s birth, Hollis faced a major setback.

Someone accused her of leaving her daughter unsupervised in a car outside a vape shop, records show. Hollis disputed it, but the Department of Children’s Services put Zooey in the custody of her cousin while they investigated the allegation of child endangerment. Hollis and her husband moved out so the cousin could live at their family home.

Then, in July, Hollis was shocked to learn she was pregnant again; she’d just begun taking birth control pills, but it might have been too recent for them to be effective. Her first call was to Grimm, who worried that a pregnancy this soon, on top of four previous C-sections, put her at risk of developing a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. By Hollis’ eight-week ultrasound in early August, Grimm’s worst fears were confirmed.

Her life was at risk, he told her. Her pregnancy could rupture and cause a hemorrhage in the first trimester. It was almost certain to eventually develop into a life-threatening placenta disorder. There was little data to predict whether the baby would make it. If it survived, it was sure to be born extremely early, spend months in critical care and face developmental challenges. He offered to schedule an abortion for two days later. If they moved quickly, the procedure would be relatively straightforward. But Hollis needed time to think.

She’d felt a faint thrill when she learned about the tiny life inside of her. Building a family with her husband in their fragile new stability had felt like a chance to redeem herself. Abortion went against her beliefs. What if this was her last chance to have another child?

Grimm gave her his cell phone number. “Want you to know this is so difficult,” he texted. “With you, no matter what you decide.”

It was the second opinion, two weeks later, that convinced her. Doctors at another hospital confirmed her condition was, indeed, life-threatening and already worsening. One of the only places in Tennessee equipped to handle a pregnancy as complicated as hers was Vanderbilt.

“Honey,” her husband told her, “I can’t lose you.”

On Aug. 24, about two weeks after learning the diagnosis, she messaged her doctor:

“Dr. Grimm, me and my husband need to talk to you. We have really thought about everything and we need you to call us.”

But two days later, Hollis paced outside her workplace listening to Grimm break the news that the other doctors had backed out “due to the current legal climate.”

The only thought Hollis could muster was no. No no no no no. This could not be happening.Not now.

She squeezed her thumb in her fist as Grimm explained that Vanderbilt couldn’t offer an abortion that would try to preserve her uterus — only a hysterectomy that would end the pregnancy and extinguish any chances she could ever get pregnant again. Grimm told ProPublica it was his understanding that ending the pregnancy this way would comply with the law’s provision for avoiding irreversible impairment to a major bodily function. Other doctors involved in her care confirmed they felt their only option for providing an abortion was to sterilize her.

Grimm told Hollis they could help her arrange to travel out of state, where doctors could perform an abortion and possibly save her uterus. Each day that passed would make that more difficult. Going to Pittsburgh, where Goldberg had connections, was her best option, but would require days of travel to complete paperwork and comply with Pennsylvania’s state-mandated waiting period.

Hollis felt trapped in a different kind of risk calculation: At the same time the state was trying to force her to keep her pregnancy, it was also threatening to take away her daughter.

Already, she and her husband hovered over their phones in case Zooey’s case workers needed their attention. She worried she might be accused of abandonment if she left. She also feared losing her job. Her bosses at the factory had laid her off for “personal reasons” after learning she was pregnant for a second time in less than a year, she said. She had just started a new job and relied on it to help pay two rents and $9,000 for a lawyer to fight to keep Zooey. She didn’t know where she would get money for a sudden trip anyway.

She hung up with Grimm, went back inside and cried for the rest of her shift.

As the months passed, Tennessee’s medical community grappled with the real world implications of the new legal landscape.

Vanderbilt, the largest hospital in the state and a private institution, promised its doctors it would pay to defend against any criminal charges and was able to resume offering limited medically indicated abortion care, according to multiple doctors. Vanderbilt declined to comment.

Goldberg and his colleagues’ approach evolved. They began to admit nearly every patient and make each specialist individually assess them. It was costly and time-consuming, but Goldberg believed it made a difference for medical providers to have to look a patient in the eye before refusing to participate in their care. If they agreed an abortion was appropriate, he wrote up long defenses of the patient’s condition and had three other doctors sign off.

Still, almost weekly, Goldberg found himself having to turn away patients he believed should qualify for medically indicated abortion care. He and his colleagues also noticed that doctors at smaller hospitals, who had far less support, seemed to be treating complex cases as hot potatoes and sending them to Vanderbilt. That delayed care for patients. Goldberg worried about those who might not get transferred in time.

ProPublica spoke with 20 Tennessee medical providers about life under the ban, on condition of anonymity because they feared professional and personal repercussions; some said that they had witnessed a new trepidation in their ranks. “I’ve seen colleagues delay or sit on assessing the clinical data longer when they know the diagnosis is probably ectopic,” one said, referring to pregnancies that implant outside the uterine cavity, which are always life-threatening. “People were like, ‘I don’t want to be involved because I don’t want to go to prison,'” said another. “It’s crazy — even assessing the patient or having a role in their care makes people scared.”

Meanwhile, Goldberg’s wife, a therapist who asked that her name not be published to protect their family’s privacy, was hearing from a number of pregnant patients who had bled for weeks, but didn’t understand why. Their providers hadn’t mentioned the word “miscarriage” or offered dilation and evacuation procedures. Instead they were told, “Let your body do what it’s going to do.”

Once the ban went into effect, Hollis felt doctors in Tennessee were afraid to touch her. A few days after her conversation with Grimm, overwhelmed, she texted him: “Schedule a hysterectomy.” He asked her to call him, but before she could, she began to feel an intense pain that made her double over.

She went to an emergency room near her home, but left after an hour without being seen. She drove to Vanderbilt and told workers she was at risk for a placenta disorder, the complication Grimm had told her she was showing signs of developing, hoping to to get seen more urgently. “Nobody even looked at me after that,” she said. She remembered waiting for hours in triage, crying and incontinent, until she gave up and headed to a third hospital, which gave her antibiotics for a urinary tract infection. Doctors had spent weeks explaining her condition was life-threatening; she didn’t understand how she could be left to sit in a waiting room.

She never brought up the hysterectomy again. “I thought the law meant I couldn’t have one,” she said. Grimm didn’t follow up about the text and said he always remembered Hollis emphatically saying she wanted to try to preserve her fertility.

As friends and coworkers began to ask her about her visible pregnancy, Hollis acted excited. But there was nothing happy about the experience. She constantly worried about what her husband and Zooey would do if she died, and called up the Social Security Administration and her union to find out what kind of survivor benefits existed. She moved through her days trying to pretend she wasn’t pregnant. It was the only way to keep the overwhelming fear at bay and continue working. Then, in mid-November, her employer laid her off, saying it couldn’t accommodate the work restrictions required by her doctor.

At regular appointments, Grimm watched in horror as her placenta began to bulge and threaten her bladder, an expected consequence of a cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy. She was exhibiting all the signs of developing placenta percreta, the worst form of a placenta disorder, a condition that makes high-risk specialists shudder. Delivery requires massive blood transfusions, often necessitates removal of the bladder and carries a 7% chance of death.

Grimm didn’t know what to do for Hollis other than to lower his boundaries and try to support her whenever she needed him. Her texts came at all hours — about her problems sleeping, her concerns about paying rent, her worries about the baby’s movement and the pains she felt. She had not been at her company long enough to qualify for disability leave and begged him to help her appeal: “I’m not sure what else to do, I am running out of time and I’m scared.”

In the end, he couldn’t offer much more than directing her to social workers and sharing earnest platitudes: “You’re the bravest person I know,” he told her.

Grimm’s wife noticed the weight he carried home. He found it difficult to be present, zoning out at his kids’ sports games and leaving the dinner table to respond to calls. The culture of medicine assumed that doctors always had the answers and could never make mistakes. But Grimm felt helpless and wrestled with feelings of shame. In his darkest moments, he wondered if a different doctor would have somehow done better by her.

Grimm had always stayed out of politics. But in conversations with family and friends, he began to share more about his work for the first time. Many in his circle abhorred abortion and thought they supported the idea of a ban. He tried to explain that it was more complex. “If this was your wife or my wife in these really intense situations, they’d be fine, because you have the resources,” he told them. “But some people don’t. And they’re going to be forced into these impossible situations where they could die.”

He knew of doctors who had left the profession after losing a pregnant patient. He wondered if this would be his quitting moment.

On Dec. 8, Hollis started bleeding. She was nearly 26 weeks pregnant. She insisted on driving herself to Vanderbilt, an hour away from her home; her husband joined her in the passenger seat and panicked when she started to pass out. They called 911, and an ambulance drove her the rest of the way.

Dr. Sarah Osmundson, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, was on call that day. She worked exclusively with the most difficult pregnancies, where every decision was a calculation between a pregnant patient’s health and the chances of delivering a healthy baby. It was her job to help patients make an informed decision. Over the years, she said, she had seen some women choose to accept the risks of a dangerous diagnosis and die as a result. But since the law went into effect, patients were arriving at her office asking why they were being counseled all: “It doesn’t matter,” they told her. “I don’t have a choice.”

She could tell Hollis was scared; she felt afraid as well. While she and her colleagues worked to help patients go out of state, she knew of some with cancer, heart conditions, preeclampsia or fatal fetal anomalies who felt forced to continue their pregnancies under the law. She feared it was only a matter of time until one of them died from the complications. She hoped it would not be Hollis.

She wanted Hollis to stay in the hospital for monitoring, but Hollis begged to go home. Zooey’s child welfare case had been closed in October, and she didn’t want to be away from her baby any longer than necessary. She had Christmas presents to wrap, bills to pay and a nursery to set up before her new baby arrived. On top of everything, her fridge was empty and her washer and dryer had stopped working.

Osmundson gave Hollis her phone number, and the hospital released her after three days, planning for her to return in two weeks, when her pregnancy had reached seven months.

But less than two days later, in the early morning hours of Dec. 13, Hollis’ husband woke to screaming. He ran to her and slipped in her blood, which was pooling on the ground. Hollis had bled through her pants, soaking her socks and the rug by the front door. She and her husband texted photos to Osmundson, who became convinced an emergency cesarean needed to happen as soon as possible.

As soon as Grimm’s phone rang, he was wide awake. He lay in bed in the dark, calling the hospital and refreshing his phone for updates. At any moment, he knew, Hollis could bleed to death.

Hollis’ husband called an ambulance, and they took her to a local hospital to be stabilized and airlifted. But bad weather meant the helicopter couldn’t fly. Finally, two hours later, they returned to the ambulance, which drove her to Vanderbilt.

Hollis was relieved to see Grimm waiting in his scrubs. He held her hand as they wheeled her into the operating room, which was filled with a surgery team of nearly 20 doctors. She looked pale and petrified. “We will be right there with you the whole time,” he told her.

To Hollis, the doctors around her looked as scared as she was. The anesthesiologist told Hollis to count backwards from 10, but instead she prayed.

Once Hollis was under, Grimm helped make the incision. Typically, patients emerge from a C-section with a small, horizontal cut below their bikini line. But this delivery called for a vertical gash that stretched up past her navel so doctors could have full exposure to her uterus. It allowed them to see where the bleeding was coming from and gave them the best chance to control it.

Careful not to disrupt the placenta, which was attached to the bladder and ballooning outward, Grimm gently removed a baby girl. She emerged weighing one pound and 15 ounces, limp and unable to breathe on her own. Doctors dried and intubated her, wrapped her and placed her under a radiant warmer to try to keep her organs from shutting down. No one knew if she would survive.

Then, Dr. Marta Crispens, a gynecological oncologist trained to deal with big tumors, began work on removing the uterus. The placenta started gushing blood again. This was what made the condition so frightening: There was no predicting the level of bleeding and whether it could be contained in time. The intensity in the room ratcheted up. It seemed to Grimm like hours passed as he helped Crispens stanch the bleeding, though it was only minutes.

Hollis was given a blood transfusion. Finally, the operation ended. Hollis and her daughter had made it through alive.

As the doctors cleaned up, there were the usual back pats and shared congratulations between a team that had united to make it through a life-saving surgery. But they could all recall similar cases where things didn’t end as well.

“I’m glad she’s OK,” Osmundson recalled saying in the moment. “But it’s a tragedy that this happened — this is not a win.”

Crispens felt everyone in the room was traumatized. “This is going to drive people out of the medical profession,” she thought. “We took an oath — we have to be able to take care of these women before they get to this point.”

Grimm left the room, peeled off his scrubs and wept.

When Hollis awoke from surgery, he was holding her hand.

Baby Elayna spent the first week of her life in the neonatal intensive care unit, enclosed in a plastic crib that resembled an aquarium. Nurses bustled in and out to the sound of beeping that monitored the baby’s fluctuating breathing and heart rates.

Her skin was pink and translucent, wires and patches poked out from all over her body, and her tiny face was covered with a breathing machine. Nurses told Hollis that Elayna was too fragile to be held. Hollis could only stick a latex-gloved hand through a hole in the crib to feel Elayna’s penny-sized grip on the tip of her finger. Over that first week, doctors monitored Elayna’s brain for bleeding and poured a protein into her breathing tube to help her lungs open and close.

Though Elayna’s survival seemed assured, she faced significant hurdles. About 80% to 90% of babies born at 26 weeks survive. Of those, about 40% end up with brain injuries. Over the first two years of life, 12% may develop cerebral palsy, and some have vision, hearing and intellectual development issues. Elayna would be particularly vulnerable to flu and other respiratory illnesses. About half of babies born prematurely get readmitted to the hospital within the first two years. The cost of her care, which included more than two months in the NICU, would come out of the taxpayer-funded state Medicaid program.

After four days, Hollis had to leave Elayna in the hospital and go home. There was no availability in charity housing for parents of NICU babies, and she needed to take care of Zooey.

Then, three days later, sheriff’s deputies showed up at Hollis’ door and took her to jail.

Though the child welfare case had been closed, now prosecutors were charging her with a felony over the same allegation that she left Zooey unattended in a car. She faced eight to 30 years in prison. She paid $6,000 in bail, erasing the savings she and her husband had hoped to use for parental leave. A judge’s order prohibited her from having any contact with Zooey, so her husband took over child care. With nowhere to go, Hollis spent the night in her car outside the hospital, going inside for Elayna’s feedings.

As Elayna’s lungs developed, her breathing improved. Every time Hollis managed to hold her daughter to her skin, her heart practically burst. She marveled at the fight inside such a small being and scribbled notes in a NICU progress book.

But her unrelenting challenges kept pulling her away. She and her husband quickly maxed out their $400 credit card limit on new legal fees and were down to a few dollars to pay for gas. Hollis knew she needed to get back to work.

Three weeks after Elayna’s birth, she returned to her job as an insulator apprentice and a punishing new routine: waking up at 4 a.m. to drive to the construction site an hour away, where she worked a 10-hour day for $16 an hour. Some evenings she went to school for her apprenticeship. Other nights she led an online Alcoholics Anonymous meeting to bolster her application for a peer recovery specialist certificate. She had finally been approved for housing near the hospital. Every chance she could, she ended the day with Elayna, but often she just had to catch up on sleep.

Then she got a call from the Department of Children’s Services. They were opening a new case because THC had been detected in Elayna’s umbilical cord. Hollis believed it was due to delta-8, a synthetic THC legal in Tennessee that doctors recommend avoiding during pregnancy. Hollis said she took it after the stress of her first hospitalization to help her sleep; she considered it less dangerous than the heavy antidepressant drugs her doctors had prescribed. Grimm wrote a letter to the department in her defense; he saw THC as a minor issue and emphasized her consistent negative tests for deadly drugs.

Sometimes, Hollis felt gripped with anger over her situation. The way she saw it, the same system that had forced her to risk her life offered little support to help her family stabilize in the aftermath. She wasn’t sure where to direct the blame, letting it spill out on her husband, other relatives and sometimes Grimm. She resented that she hadn’t understood enough about the law early enough to make a different decision. If she had been able to get an abortion, she thought, “my life could be so different right now.”

She heard that lawmakers were considering a change to the abortion law, to make it clear it was not a crime for doctors to provide abortion care in order to prevent life-threatening emergencies. “I’m so glad I have my baby,” she wished she could tell them. “But this was a risk I didn’t have any choice in taking.” She knew others wouldn’t be as lucky. On Tuesday, the state legislature is scheduled to consider bills aimed at creating clear medical exceptions. Tennessee Right to Life has strongly opposed it.

Elayna grew bigger and passed new milestones: Doctors found no bleeding in her brain. She began to breathe on her own and take in small amounts of milk. She was moved to a private room, where Hollis could sleep on a cot.

One night in early February, Hollis kissed Elayna, stretched out on the cot and tried to sleep amid the beeping, whirring and cries of babies in other rooms. Her mind was filled with worries about what life would look like once they left the safety net of the hospital, with its around-the-clock care and endless supply of formula and miniature diapers. She worried about managing it all, and about what could happen if she made another small mistake. She couldn’t bear losing either of her daughters and hadn’t even had a moment to process the loss of her uterus.

She drifted off and slept as the nurse fed the baby at midnight. Her iPhone alarm barely roused her at 3:30 a.m., time to get up for work.

On Feb. 23, the hospital told Hollis she could take her daughter home.

Elayna weighed four pounds and 12 ounces, still the size of one of Zooey’s dolls. Nurses removed all the wires attached to her and tested her to make sure she could keep her head up in her car seat. A nurse handed Hollis a stack of papers that contained instructions on feeding and bathing a premature baby and appointments for eye doctors, heart and liver specialists and neurological providers.

Hollis gently placed Elayna in her car seat and buckled her in. She tried to focus on today. It was Zooey’s first birthday, and the court had allowed them to live together again. Her husband was bringing home a cake and Hollis was desperate to have a moment to celebrate with her family. That night, relatives stopped by to greet the baby.

But about a week later, Elayna began showing signs of respiratory distress. One night, she suddenly stopped breathing. Hollis performed CPR until police officers arrived and saved Elayna’s life.

Two ambulance rides later, Elayna was airlifted to Vanderbilt. Over the following days, doctors found she had rhinovirus and outfitted her with a breathing machine. They told Hollis it was possible Elayna could have a bacterial infection, such as meningitis, in the fluid around her brain. To find out, they would need to do a spinal tap, but they worried it would destabilize her further. As Elayna’s condition worsened, Hollis wasn’t able to hold her because it might deplete her energy.

Hollis stayed as long as she could, but too much was waiting for her back home and she hated seeing her baby suffering. She whispered a quiet blessing and left Elayna in the pediatric intensive care unit, cocooned under the glow of a warming lamp.

COVID isn’t over, even if Tilda Swinton and other celebrities say so

Tilda Swinton has joined the likes of Woody Harrelson in publicly expressing her dislike of COVID precautions and her belief that it’s time for the deadly pandemic to be over. Speaking at SXSW, the British actor told the crowd, “It’s a new world,” as soon as she came onstage. Swinton was referring specifically to the Oscars and to films like “Everything Everywhere All At Once,” but the conversation soon changed to COVID. And Swinton’s attitude? It remained firmly dismissive of the virus that has killed millions and continues to disable millions more.

Swinton expressed her delight that the audience was largely not wearing masks, apparently, and volunteered the information, “I’m just about to start shooting a picture in Ireland, and I was told . . . to wear a mask at all times, and I’m not.” The SXSW interviewer, who was visibly ill, did not challenge her — but Swinton wasn’t done talking about COVID and talking about it as if it’s all over (and good riddance), becoming only the latest celebrity to misuse a powerful platform in order to spread disinformation. In Swinton’s case, that multiple infections and faith will protect her.

Swinton described COVID “challenges” to film and filmmaking, including the issues “lingering around people’s belief in sitting in big spaces.” She made jokes about Texas, where SXSW takes place, asking, “In Texas, did people wear masks? . . . I don’t know. It’s a wide world.”

But her most damning statements came next. “I’m not wearing a mask,” Swinton said, “because I’m super healthy and I’ve had COVID so many times. And I’m so full of antibodies and I have faith.”

Only one year ago, Swinton spoke candidly with W Magazine about her struggles with long COVID, the lingering and often worsening symptoms triggered by a COVID infection which continue to impact an estimated 1 out of every 5 COVID cases. Yes, COVID is still out there and yes, it’s still terrible. When W Magazine interviewed Swinton in 2022, she was “still in recovery” six months after her symptoms started, “when she was unable to get out of bed for three weeks.” She described coughing, intense vertigo and brain fog. “The actor is still having issues with her memory,” W Magazine wrote. 

Like Swinton, actor Harrelson railed against COVID protocols on movie sets during an interview with The New York Times last month, saying, “I don’t think that anybody should have the right to demand that you’re forced to do the testing, forced to wear the mask and forced to get vaccinated three years on. I’m just like, let’s be done with this nonsense . . .  How’s that not up to the individual? I shouldn’t be talking about this [expletive].”

Soon after, Harrelson made an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory joke while hosting “Saturday Night Live” — which did not go over well with the live studio audience, but did go over well with anti-vaxxers on social media


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


Swinton, who is 62, may now believe she’s invincible, or that prayer will see her through, but one and only one COVID infection can lead to lifelong health consequences (or death). And Swinton has already had, by her own account, “many” infections. It’s one thing to dislike wearing a mask on set, but it’s another to advocate for ignoring COVID protocols loudly and publicly — protocols established not just for one’s personal safety, but for the health of very large film crews made up of many people. 

The comments on the SXSW interview posted on YouTube seem to suggest Swinton has lost some fans with her remarks. And her statements about how “the one good thing about the pandemic” is that it shattered the beliefs of those “who said cinema was on the way out” ring hollow and false. Swinton described COVID as a “booster jet” for cinema. But it won’t be if those who make movies (and those who watch them) keep on getting sick.

“Another massive climate disappointment”: Biden slammed for oil project approval

Climate justice advocates are condemning President Joe Biden for approving a massive oil drilling proposal in northern Alaska known as Willow, which will now be one of the largest new drilling projects in the U.S.

The $8 billion project, proposed by ConocoPhillips, will be located in Alaska’s North Slope, a majority-Native American area. The drilling will take place over the next few decades on pristine land in the petroleum reserve across three drilling pads, and will involve the building of hundreds of wells and hundreds of miles of pipelines. The company would, ironically, be required to refreeze permafrost that’s been melting due to global warming caused by companies like ConocoPhillips and others in the fossil fuel industry.

Willow is expected to worsen the climate crisis and even further entrench the fossil fuel industry’s grip over the energy market, and has been condemned by Al Gore as “recklessly irresponsible.” It would release a “carbon bomb” of nearly 260 million metric tons of carbon emissions, amounting to double the amount of carbon dioxide saved from current Biden administration climate projects, or the annual output of nearly a third of all U.S. coal power plants.

The approval of the project goes directly against Biden’s campaign trail promise of “no more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.”

Earthjustice has pledged to challenge the approval in court, and says that the administration had the authority to stop the project or at least substantially reduce its carbon output but chose not to do either.

“We are too late in the climate crisis to approve massive oil and gas projects that directly undermine the new clean economy that the Biden Administration committed to advancing,” Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen said in a statement. “We know President Biden understands the existential threat of climate, but he is approving a project that derails his own climate goals.”

On top of the climate impacts of the project, local Indigenous communities have warned that the project would endanger their health. The plans for Willow put it just 36 miles away from Nuiqsut, a community made up of largely Native Americans who worry that, between Willow and the other oil and gas infrastructure surrounding the community, cancer caused by air and other pollution is not just a possibility, but an inevitability, as Atmos Magazine reported.

Many prominent climate and justice organizations decried Biden’s decision.

“President Biden claims to prioritize climate justice, yet today’s decision reveals that he is quick to cater to pressure from Big Oil over the needs of the people,” said 350.org North America director Jeff Ordower. “Biden absolutely has the power to reject ALL new fossil fuel projects, declare a climate emergency, and truly fight for both our people and our planet. Frontline communities and scientists have been clear that that is the only way forward.”

Food & Water Watch called the approval “another massive climate disappointment from Biden.”

“There is simply no justification for President Biden’s decision to approve a massive new oil drilling scheme that will lead to decades of air and climate pollution,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “This decision is part of a disturbing and disappointing trend with this White House. President Biden refuses to take the necessary actions to rein in climate catastrophe, while issuing rhetoric that professes concern for the existential threat that we all face.”

The decision was also criticized by lawmakers like Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), who said that the “disastrous decision” is “an environmental injustice.”

The administration is also expected to announce new restrictions on Arctic Ocean offshore oil leasing and on drilling elsewhere in the North Slope, but advocates say that that wouldn’t justify approving the Willow project.

“It’s insulting that Biden thinks this will change our minds about the Willow project,” Kristen Monsell, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, told The New York Times. “Protecting one area of the Arctic so you can destroy another doesn’t make sense, and it won’t help the people and wildlife who will be upended by the Willow project.”

Frustration has only mounted for climate advocates throughout Biden’s presidency. Though Biden pledged to end new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, his administration has been approving permits at a breakneck pace; federal data has shown that, in Biden’s first two years, he has approved even more permits for oil and gas drilling than Donald Trump did in the same amount of time.

Fox News anchor unimpressed with Republican’s Hunter Biden hype: “Five years investigating, nothing”

Fox News host Bill Hemmer seemed less than impressed with recent information regarding the House GOP probe into Hunter Biden’s business dealings. 

During a Tuesday interview with House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., Hemmer pressed the Republican for information related to the findings of the long-running investigation, including a supposed $3 million dollar wire transfer sent to Joe Biden following his departure from the Obama administration.

“What was the purpose of that $3 million wire? Now that’s just the first wire that we’ve actually been able to obtain bank records on. There are many, many more,” Comer said. 

“You put your finger on it a second there. You said what were they doing in return for that money. Do you have an answer?” Hemmer asked.

“I do not. The media says this is a Hunter Biden investigation. This is an investigation of Joe Biden and we’re investigating the Biden family,” Comer replied.

“It’s been five years and what do we have for it? Five years is a long time to be investigating,” Hemmer acknowledged.

Comer also spoke about Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, who recently sent Comer a letter accusing the GOP of acting “in league with attorneys for former President Donald Trump to block the committee from receiving documents subpoenaed in its investigation of unauthorized, unreported and unlawful payments by foreign governments and others to then-President Trump.”

“I’m very disappointed that Raskin would issue that letter,” Comer said. “He issued it late Sunday night. Obviously he was working in conjunction with the White House.”

Hemmer concluded the news segment by once again underscoring that five years of inquiries have yet to prove fruitful, saying, “We will see if you are onto something. Again, five years investigating, nothing just yet.”

Comer said in a Tuesday statement that the Treasury Department will permit him to review Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) pertaining to bank accounts of the Biden family and its associates.


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


“After two months of dragging their feet, the Treasury Department is finally providing us with access to the suspicious activity reports for the Biden family and their associates’ business transactions,” he said.

“We are going to continue to use bank documents and suspicious activity reports to follow the money trail to determine the extent of the Biden family’s business schemes, if Joe Biden is compromised by these deals, and if there is a national security threat,” Comer added. “If Treasury tries to stonewall our investigation again, we will continue to use tools at our disposal to compel compliance.”

Hunter Biden’s attorney dismissed the statement.

“After five years of the same old, disproven conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden and his family, Rep. Comer’s political obsession comes at the high cost of time and money that could be spent actually improving the lives of Americans,” attorney Abbe Lowell said in a statement. “Rep. Comer knows all too well that SARs reports are not uncommon.”

A French treat with a classified recipe: How the canelé evolved throughout history

Originally called cannelé Bordelaise, these small, baked, custard pastries are temperamental and time-consuming, requiring skill to make — but so very worth it. In the U.S., these complicated yet ever-so-simple treats are a dying breed, which is a real shame because they are so satisfying and unique when prepared properly.

As with most classic French pastries (and food in general), these delicacies come with a varied and diverse history depending on what you read, and like most great recipes and dishes from France, they have not changed for generations — the authentic, original recipes are guarded under lock and key. These are classically baked in fluted copper tins, which give the canelé its signature shape.

The name canelé comes from the French word for “fluted.” According to cookbooks, the cannelés Bordelaise could date back to anywhere between the 15th and 18th centuries, and most history books concur that the pastry originated in various convents around the winemaking regions of Bordeaux in Southern France. Winemakers used egg whites to clarify wine and would give the excess egg yolks to nuns to make food for poor children. With the addition of a few other ingredients, the canelé was born.

Many revolutions and battles happened within this time period, which would explain the lack of more precise history (as many books were destroyed), but it appears that these cakes have come and gone numerous times in the Bordeaux area, until around 1985 when a group of patissiers (88 to be exact) came together to protect and cement the recipe and standard of the cakes and make them the property of Bordeaux. These chefs took an oath to uphold this standard and use a secret recipe, which is kept in a vault and hopefully will be passed down to future generations. To confirm their authority, they dropped one “n” to create “canelé,” which has been seen around the globe.

These chefs took an oath to uphold this standard and use a secret recipe, which is kept in a vault and hopefully will be passed down to future generations.

To have countries like France protect their heritage and maintain their standards is important in a world of food trends, fads and pure desperation to create something “new” and different, often regardless of authenticity, integrity or flavor. French food may not change but what French chefs do, they do perfectly.

Like with most great pastry items, the ingredients are relatively simple, and the technique and execution are key. Egg yolks, flour, butter, salt and milk are mixed together in a very specific order and left overnight so the flour can absorb the milk and hydrate before baking. (I like to leave it for 48 hours, which gives a deeper, better flavor, allows the gluten to hydrate and results in a smoother texture.) The ratio of these ingredients is very similar to that of a basic crêpe, but with a totally different execution — and the results couldn’t be further apart. As Bordeaux is a port city, this recipe naturally evolved into having rum and vanilla added to it, key components adding distinct flavor profiles.

Ingredients for making caneléIngredients for making canelé (Courtesy of the Institute of Culinary Education)

The main variation among canelés can be the color from baking. Pastry chefs such as Pierre Hermé have asserted that a canelé should be black in order to get that bittersweet flavor and crunchy outer texture. In France, going that dark is totally acceptable and really at the discretion of the chef; however, having lived in the U.S. for a long time, I don’t think this would work here. Customers will either think the pastry is burnt or has a chocolate flavor. Either way, it has to be baked lighter for this market, which is actually my preference also.

There are many variables when making the mix, from the method of mixing the batter, to the length of time it rests, to what you use to grease the molds. Below are my suggestions, but there are many other variations I am sure produce the same, if not better results. However, one non-variable is the copper tins.

Are they expensive? Yes.

Can you use a silicone mold? No.

That’s it.

There are many other variations I am sure produce the same, if not better results. However, one non-variable is the copper tins.

Why? Copper is a great conductor of heat and allows the molds to get really hot, which helps create the crust and crispy shell. Silicone molds do not reach that heat, so they will always come out pale (with less flavor), soft and stodgy.

There are also many renditions of greasing the molds: nonstick spray, melted butter, clarified butter, beeswax or “white oil” (a mix of oil and beeswax).

The most classic method is using beeswax and butter, which stops the batter from sticking and gives the canelé a nice gloss when it’s turned out. Using pure beeswax is expensive and can give the pastry a dull appearance.

To grease the molds, warm the copper tins slightly in the oven just so they are warm, not cold. Fill one mold to the top with the beeswax-butter mixture and then immediately pour out and leave to drip on a cooling rack. It’s really important to get as much excess out, especially at the bottom of the mold. If there is excess, you have what the French call white bottoms at the top of the canelé. Although this does not really affect the flavor, it would not be acceptable in many French patisseries.

Chef Rory's canelé mixture and the final product, matcha canelésChef Rory’s canelé mixture and the final product, matcha canelés (Courtesy of the Institute of Culinary Education)

Canelés should ideally be eaten an hour after coming out of the oven. Anything after that can be salvaged by flashing in a very hot oven for less than a minute.

As we are not in France, we are allowed to experiment with different flavors, either added to the mix or filled after baking. Some of my favorite flavors are matcha, coffee and Earl Grey. Some filled canelés taste great with dulce de leche and lemon curd, but my favorite is still the classic vanilla.

By Chef Rory Macdonald, Institute of Culinary Education

Legal experts: “Damning evidence” in Dominion case threatens Fox as court greenlights second lawsuit

Fox News faces a second defamation lawsuit from another voting technology company over its coverage of TrumpWorld’s false claims about the 2020 election amid damning revelations in Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion lawsuit against the network.

Voting technology company Smartmatic sued Fox News and its anchors in February 2021 for falsely accusing the company of helping rig the 2020 presidential election to favor President Joe Biden over former President Donald Trump. Last week, the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan gave the green light for the case to proceed against Fox News, its anchors, and former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Smartmatic is seeking $2.7 billion in damages, claiming Fox News, anchor Maria Bartiromo and ex-host Lou Dobbs knowingly lied about the company in an effort to boost ratings and keep Trump supporters from turning to other right-wing networks.

“The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four,” Smartmatic’s complaint says. “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged, or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable.”

The complaint argued that the news channel “knowingly and intentionally” broadcast a series of lies in support of Trump’s stolen election conspiracy theory. 

“Defendants did not want Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to win the election,” the filing said. “They wanted President Donald Trump and Vice President Michael Pence to win re-election. Defendants were disappointed. But they also saw an opportunity to capitalize on President Trump’s popularity by inventing a story.”

These “lies” led to people threatening Smartmatic Elections and its personnel, making the company incur significant costs to increase physical security for its offices and key employees, the filing added. 

Now, Smartmatic is taking action to hold Fox accountable for spreading more than 100 false statements and “for the damage that their lies have caused.” But unlike Delaware, where Dominion’s suit is proceeding, Smartmatic’s suit was filed in New York – where the company has a very high bar to meet if it is to win the defamation suit at trial, according to The Guardian

“Much of the most damning evidence surfaced in Dominion’s case is now in the public domain and will be both relevant and admissible against Fox News in Smartmatic’s case because it will help establish the reckless indifference to truth (or worse) on the part of the defendants and will help Smartmatic prove that Fox News had a business model that deliberately suppressed facts whose broadcast seemed likely to displease its audience, reduce its market share, and thus cut into the advertising revenues that keep its profits high,” longtime Harvard Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe told Salon.

The evidence from Dominion’s case will also help with showing “actual malice,” added Catherine Ross, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

To establish “actual malice,” Smartmatic would have to prove that Fox either knew it was peddling a lie and reported it anyway, or show a reckless disregard for the truth.


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


Fox has denied wrongdoing in both cases. The company accused Dominion of taking an “extreme” view of defamation law and infringing on the network’s First Amendment rights while “cherry-picking” quotes to publicly “smear” Fox in the media. The network likewise disputed Smartmatic’s claims and questioned the company’s estimate of its losses.

“Freedom of the press is foundational to our democracy and must be protected, in addition to the damages claims being outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis, serving as nothing more than a flagrant attempt to deter our journalists from doing their jobs,” a Fox News spokesperson told The Guardian. “There is nothing more newsworthy than covering the president of the US and his lawyers making allegations.”

While the two cases are similar and both focus on highlighting Fox executives’ awareness that hosts were making false claims, Smartmatic also claims that its software for the election was only used in Los Angeles County.

Fox News employees and guests made claims that Smartmatic was a Venezuelan company under the control of corrupt dictators from socialist and communist countries and its election technology was used in six “swing” or “battleground” states with close outcomes including Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, according to the filing. 

But Smartmatic only provided services to Los Angeles County where Biden’s victory was never in doubt.

“It could make the defamation even worse or you could say, ‘well, it was only used [in] one place,” Ross said.

Either way, the case could play out in a number of different ways, Ross added. The jury could award multiple billions in punitive damages, which would be “a big enough award to get even Fox News’ attention.”

The reputational harm could also lead to some programs going off the air because advertisers may not want to be associated with Fox after the court has found enough evidence of “malicious lies”.

Dominion’s lawsuit has already led to significant revelations about Fox’s coverage of baseless election fraud claims pertaining to its voting machines. Now, Smartmatic has to prove that the right-wing network also “engaged in a conspiracy to spread disinformation about Smartmatic.”

“If Fox were a normal or, dare I say it, an actual news organization, they would have some top-to-bottom reassessments,” Ross said, “but if they were a normal news organization, they would be unlikely to be in this position.”

Social media “pantry porn” becomes all the rage in home kitchens

Neatly aligned glass spice jars tagged with printed white labels. Wicker baskets filled with packages of pasta, crackers and snacks. Rows of flavored seltzer water stacked in double-decker plastic bins.

In today’s consumer culture, “a place for everything and everything in its place” isn’t just a mantra; it’s big business. Nowhere is this more evident than the kitchen pantry.

Most people can relate to finding half-empty cereal boxes squirreled away in the cupboard or letting produce sit just a bit too long in a refrigerator drawer.

But for a subset of social media denizens, such sacrileges would never grace their feeds.

As someone who studies digital consumer culture, I’ve noticed an uptick in glamorized, stylized and fully stocked pantries on TikTok and Instagram, giving rise to a content genre I dub “pantry porn.”

How did the perfectly organized pantry become so ubiquitous in the digital age? And what does it say about the expectations of being a good homemaker?

When pantries became pretty

The pantry — derived from the Latin word for bread, “panis” — was originally a hidden space for storing food. It was purely functional, not a place to show off to others. In the late 1800s, the butler’s pantry emerged as an architectural trend among high society. This small space, tucked between the kitchen and dining room, was a marker of status — an area to hide both the food and the people who prepared it.

Throughout the next century, pantries started being built in middle-class homes. As open floor plans became popular in the 1950s, kitchens emerged into plain view. This design shift paved the way for many modern American pantries to feature sweeping floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall cabinetry and walk-in storage spaces.

Today, over 85% of new homes built in America that are over 3,500 square feet feature a walk-in pantry, reportedly the most desirable kitchen feature for new homebuyers, according to a 2019 report.

Celebrities can be credited — at least, in part — for making the pantry a modern-day status symbol. The Kardashian-Jenner family has long been an exemplar for #pantrygoals and former “Real Housewives” star Yolanda Hadid has social media fan pages dedicated to her fridge.

In the digital age, social media influencers have stepped in as trickle-down tastemakers who translate symbols of celebrity culture into accessible markers of status for the rest of us.

Meticulously arranged pantries appeal to middle-class sensibilities: Maybe you can’t have a designer kitchen, but you can beautify your bulk food storage.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CmZRpRWp5vq

Move over food porn — make way for pantry porn

Throughout the 2010s, food porn dominated social media. The so-called “camera eats first” phenomenon introduced user-generated images of cooking, eating and staging food.

Consumers’ controversial obsession with food photography resulted in some restaurants banning smartphone photography while other businesses created veritable wonderlands for food-inspired selfies such as the Museum of Ice Cream and The Egg House.

New technology did not invent food porn, but it did catalyze it in new ways. Consumers armed with camera phones could suddenly fetishize meals for the voyeuristic pleasure of their friends and followers. This dynamic of watching and being watched is a hallmark of modern digital consumer culture where nonsexual things are linguistically tethered to porn: food porn, travel porn, book porn, real estate porn. Coupling social media content with the “porn” descriptor acts as shorthand for desirability, gratification and gawking.

Pantry porn is a mashup of infotainment, how-to, lifestyle content and ASMR, a form of sound-driven content intended to relax viewers.

Influencers film themselves shopping for supplies, prepping food, refilling containers and organizing their pantries — often coupled with hashtags like #pantryrestock, #pantryASMR and #pantrygoals. They transfer dry goods from the store-bought bags into matching glassware; they stock the home coffee bar with coffee pods and flavored syrups; they refill stackable bins with single-serving snacks; they create multiple types of ice cubes — each with its own dedicated freezer section. Much of this pantry porn is performed against a backdrop of rhythmic ASMR-inspired clinks, glugs, snaps, rips and thunks that appeal to viewers’ pleasure centers.

Screenshots of snack drawer restock videos on TikTok. TikTok

Like its food porn predecessor, pantry porn thrives on stylizing everyday life in exaggerated ways. But where food porn elicits a desire for gluttonous indulgence, pantry porn taps into a different cultural desire: the orderly arrangement of abundance.

Excess is bad, but organized excess is good

The past decade has ushered in a home organizing revolution.

An entire cottage industry of blogs, books and television shows have introduced people to terms like “decluttering,” “minimalism” and “simple living.”

Minimalism once represented a countercultural lifestyle rooted in anti-consumption: Use less, buy less, have less.

But if pantry porn is any indication, the new minimalism means more is more, as long as the more is not messy. Consumers don’t need less, they need more: more containers, more labels, more storage space.

Storing spices in coordinated glass jars and color coordinating dozens of sprinkles containers may seem trivial. But tidiness is tangled up with status and messiness is loaded with assumptions about personal responsibility and respectability.

Cleanliness has historically been used as a cultural gatekeeping mechanism to reinforce status distinctions based on a vague understanding of “niceness”: Nice people, with nice yards, in nice houses, make for nice neighborhoods.

What lies beneath the surface of this anti-messiness, pro-niceness stance is a history of classist, racist and sexist social structures. In my research, influencers who produce pantry porn are predominantly white women who demonstrate what it looks like to maintain a “nice” home by creating a new status symbol: the perfectly organized, fully stocked pantry.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoGkz58oWXp/

Perhaps it’s not surprising that pantry porn found its foothold during the COVID-19 pandemic, when shortages in the supply chain surged. Keeping stuff on hand became a symbol of resilience for those with the money and space to do so. This allure of strategic stockpiling is evident in other collector subcultures like doomsday preppers and extreme couponers.

The pressure of the perfect kitchen

The work required to restock, refill and reset the kitchen is a central element in producing everyday pantry porn.

In my research, I’ve found that this work often falls to women in the household. One TikTok mom goes on a “snack strike,” stating she will not restock the pantry until her children and husband eat what they already have.

Magazines like Good Housekeeping were once the brokers of idealized domestic work. Now online pantry porn sets the aspirational standard for becoming an ideal mom, ideal wife and ideal woman. This grew out of a shift toward an intensive mothering ideology that equates being a good mom with time-intensive, labor-intensive, financially expensive care work.

Sure, all of those baskets and bins serve a functional purpose in the home: seeing what you need, when you need it. But the social pressure to curate a perfect pantry might make some women work overtime. They can’t just shove store-bought boxes of snacks into a cupboard; they must neatly place the grab-and-go snacks into a fully stocked pantry that rivals a boutique corner store.

Pantry porn, as a status symbol, relies on the promise of making daily domestic work easier. But if women are largely responsible for the work required to maintain the perfectly organized pantry, it’s critical to ask: easier for whom?

Jenna Drenten, Associate Professor of Marketing, Loyola University Chicago

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

“They’re still doing his bidding”: GOP caught working with Trump lawyer to kill tax probe, Dems say

The House Oversight Committee quietly dropped an investigation into whether former President Donald Trump improperly profited while in the White House.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told The New York Times on Tuesday that the committee won’t enforce a court-supervised settlement that required Trump’s former accounting firm Mazars USA to turn over his financial records to Congress.

“I honestly didn’t even know who or what Mazars was,” Comer, who spent years in the minority on the committee as it investigated Trump’s finances, claimed in a statement to the outlet. “What exactly are they looking for? They’ve been ‘investigating’ Trump for six years. I know exactly what I’m investigating: money the Bidens received from China.”

Documents produced by Mazars while the House was controlled by Democrats indicated that foreign governments spent large sums on visits to Trump’s Washington hotel in efforts to sway the former president’s foreign policy dealings, Forbes reported.

Comer’s statement came after Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the committee, in a letter to Comer sounded the alarm over the move and accused the Republicans of acting “in league with attorneys for former President Donald Trump to block the committee from receiving documents subpoenaed in its investigation of unauthorized, unreported and unlawful payments by foreign governments and others to then-President Trump.”

Raskin added that he had reviewed correspondence between a lawyer for Mazars and Patrick Strawbridge, a Trump attorney, detailing how Strawbridge was aware that House GOP members were to cease procuring further document production. 

“In the face of mounting evidence that foreign governments sought to influence the Trump administration by playing to President Trump’s financial interests, you and President Trump’s representatives appear to have acted in coordination to bury evidence of such misconduct,” Raskin wrote.


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


Comer denied knowledge of any attempt to coordinate with Trump’s attorneys to block the probe but Republicans drew widespread criticism over the report.

Republicans spent four years “looking the other way while Trump used his businesses as a vehicle for special interests and foreign [governments] to enrich him personally while trying to curry favor with his administration,” tweeted Robert Maguire, an investigator at the D.C. watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Back in power, they’re still doing his bidding.”

Trump’s tax returns, which he fought for years to shield in court, show that he had a Chinese bank account for the first two years he was in office, Maguire noted.

“Republicans didn’t say a word, but Comer wants to investigate Biden for some amorphous conflict he has with China,” he wrote, adding that “Trump channeled millions in taxpayer money to his businesses, gave special treatment to paying customers and foreign govts, paid tens of millions in fraud settlements, and spent decades defrauding the IRS, but the GOP is focused like a laser on the true culprit: Joseph Biden.”

EPA proposes first-ever limits on PFAS in drinking water

The Environmental Protection Agency released long-awaited proposed standards for cancer-causing “forever chemicals” in drinking water on Tuesday. Once finalized, the standards will force states to begin the arduous and expensive process of cleaning their water supplies of some of the class of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. This marks the first time the EPA has proposed enforceable drinking water limits for PFAS, which are commonly known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down over time and can remain in the environment for years on end. 

The proposed limits would cap two common types of PFAS contamination — the chemicals PFOA and PFOS — in drinking water at just 4 parts per trillion. That’s a significant reduction from the level the EPA suggested was safe as recently as 2016, when the agency put out a health advisory that suggested 70 parts per trillion as a maximum level for those types of PFAS in drinking water. This week’s announcement signals that federal regulators’ understanding of the health impacts of exposure to these chemicals is rapidly evolving and that the EPA now appears to believe that virtually no quantity of the chemicals is safe for human consumption. 

There are more than 12,000 chemicals under the PFAS umbrella, some used more widely than others. In total, the rule would apply to six commonly used types: PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFBS, PFHxS, and GenX. Besides limiting PFOA and PFOS to 4 parts per trillion, the remaining four types of chemicals would be restricted based on their combined effects. The agency is now soliciting feedback from the public on the proposed rule and aims to finalize it by the end of the year.  

In recent years, as the EPA mulled over how strict to make its PFAS standard, some states — including Alaska, Massachusetts, and Vermont — chose to move forward without the agency and propose or set their own limits on forever chemicals. The federal rule would supersede any state limits that clock in above 4 parts per trillion. 

PFAS have been used in firefighting foam, rain jackets, pizza boxes, popcorn bags, nonstick pans, couches, and other industrial and consumer products for decades. While their water-resistant properties are convenient, the chemicals have been linked to adverse health effects in humans, such as compromised immune systems, thyroid disorders, and kidney and testicular cancers, among other issues. 

Chemical companies in the United States, which knew in the 1970s that PFAS were building up in Americans’ bloodstreams and that the chemicals could have serious health consequences in humans, manufactured PFAS for decades without alerting the public to the potential consequences. The cost of ridding the nation’s water supplies of PFAS could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Water utilities will have to spend big on new technologies that are sensitive enough to filter out the tiny chemicals. 

A number of affected utilities are taking the chemical company 3M, a major manufacturer of PFAS, to court this summer in an effort to force the company to pay for the cost of cleanup. Their lawsuit alleges that 3M and other chemical companies knew about the negative health impacts of forever chemicals decades ago and chose not to tell federal regulators about it in order to continue turning a profit. 3M announced last year that it will stop manufacturing PFAS by 2025, but the company still does not publicly admit that its products have caused or could cause harm to humans. 

Advocates celebrated the EPA’s new standards on Tuesday. “It has taken far too long to get to this point, but the scientific facts and truth about the health threat posed by these man-made poisons have finally prevailed over the decades of corporate cover-ups and misinformation campaigns designed to mislead the public and delay action,” Robert Bilott, the attorney who successfully sued DuPont in 1999 for poisoning communities in West Virginia with the forever chemical PFOA, said in a statement provided to Grist. In 2018, he filed a lawsuit against PFAS manufacturers on behalf of everyone in the U.S. with forever chemicals in their blood (that is, virtually all of us). The litigation is ongoing. 

“Today’s proposal is a necessary and long overdue step towards addressing the nation’s PFAS crisis,” Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz said in a statement. “EPA must resist efforts to weaken this proposal, move quickly to finalize health-protective limits on these six chemicals, and address the remaining PFAS that continue to poison drinking water supplies and harm communities across the country.”

 Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/epa-proposes-first-ever-limits-on-pfas-in-drinking-water/.

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

How free-range eggs became the norm in supermarkets — and sold customers a lie

The UK is in the grip of its largest ever outbreak of bird flu. As its name suggests, avian influenza primarily affects birds, but it can also infect humans and other mammals. The virus first emerged in China in 1996 and the highly pathogenic H5N1 is the predominant variant causing havoc at the moment.

The cramped housing and unrestricted transportation of farmed birds has allowed H5N1 to spread rapidly, leaving devastation in its wake. It is not just poultry that is affected. The current outbreak is killing wildlife on an unprecedented scale, from seabirds in the UK to sea lions in Peru.

Though the UK government currently assesses the risk to the wider public as very low, some strains of bird flu can pass to humans after sustained close contact. The producers of David Attenborough’s latest television series had to pull plans for him to film close to seabirds on the island of Skomer for fears he might catch the disease.

As a result of the outbreak, mandatory housing of chickens has been in place in England since November 2022. This means that no eggs produced in England are currently “free-range”. There is no defined end to this situation and as of February, all free-range eggs have been relabelled.

Some customers are unhappy with buying eggs from chickens without access to the outdoors. But exploring the history of free-range eggs in the UK reveals why their preferred purchases may never have been that safe or ethical in the first place.

The fall and rise of free-range

The RSPCA defines free-range eggs as those coming “from birds that, during the daytime, enjoy unlimited access to outdoor pastures“. Before the mid-20th century, almost all eggs in the UK were free-range. Aside from some semi-intensive systems, where chickens were kept permanently in sheds, there were no alternatives.

The mass adoption of battery cages from the 1950s onwards transformed the egg industry. Battery farming sees hens packed into cages to control their environment and increase the number of eggs they lay. In the UK, free-range eggs accounted for 80% of all eggs produced in 1951. By 1980, the figure was 1%.

The welfare of chickens kept in battery farms naturally suffered. Ruth Harrison’s 1964 book Animal Machines was among the first to reveal the cruelty of modern poultry production.

In it, she described the “miserable and debilitated” life of battery hens. This became a focal point of activism and sparked a government investigation into farm animal welfare just a year later.

But it was not until a panic over the alleged presence of salmonella in eggs in 1988 that public opinion began to change. Thanks to that and other scares, such as the outbreak of “mad cow” disease on beef farms in the 1990s, the public perception of intensively farmed food shifted from safe to risky.

Alternative systems for producing eggs became more popular as a result. From their 1981 nadir, free-range eggs now constitute over 60% of the 11.3 billion eggs produced in the UK annually, according to a 2021 industry estimate.

Safe and ethical?

Free-range eggs are perceived as safer by consumers and an easier ethical choice. Supermarkets offer an abundance of free-range products and there is no great difference in price compared with eggs from caged hens.

However, free-range egg farms differ from the advertised scenes of chickens roaming free in open fields. In fact, free-range flocks can reach up to 16,000 hens a shed, with daytime access to the outside provided by holes in the perimeter.

Beaks are trimmed to prevent the fighting that arises as a result of stress in this unnatural environment. More expensive organic eggs, produced by much smaller flocks on farms where beak trimming is banned, are a minority of those eaten in the UK.

Free-range egg farming is seen as both safer and more ethical than other forms of production. Though free from the worst excesses of battery farming, eggs with the free-range label are still produced on densely packed farms. Large, intensive systems such as these are implicated in the spread of bird flu, devastating poultry and wildlife alike.

Along with salad shortages and “milkflation“, the disappearance of free-range eggs from English supermarkets is symptomatic of a food system responding to environmental stresses. The risks to animal welfare and the environment inherent in this system will remain without more radical changes to the scale and density of animal agriculture.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter

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

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


Joel Mead, PhD Candidate in History, University of Liverpool

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

21 “pro-life” South Carolina Republicans sign onto bill to execute people who get abortions

A new pro-forced pregnancy proposal in the South Carolina General Assembly that would make people who obtain abortion care eligible for the death penalty was portrayed as coming from the fringes of the Republican Party by one GOP lawmaker—but with 21 state Republicans backing the legislation, critics said the idea is representative of the party’s anti-choice agenda.

Proposed by state Rep. Rob Harris, the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023 would amend the state’s criminal code to give a zygote, or fertilized egg, “equal protection under the homicide laws of the state”—meaning obtaining an abortion could be punishable by the death penalty.

The bill does not include an exception for people whose pregnancies result from rape or incest, and political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen noted its language is vague enough to suggest that some people who suffer miscarriages could become eligible for the death penalty.

The exceptions provided by Harris include only people who are “compelled” by others to have an abortion against their will or people whose continued pregnancies carry the threat of “imminent death or great bodily injury,” although numerous cases since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade have demonstrated how exceptions to protect a pregnant person’s life often put their safety at risk.

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., a rape survivor, spoke on the House floor last Friday about the bill and warned that its lack of exceptions for rape survivors was part of a “deeply disturbing” trend.

“To see this debate go to the dark places, the dark edges,” said Mace, “has been deeply disturbing to me as a woman, as a female legislator, as a mom, and as a victim of rape.”

But with nearly two dozen co-sponsors, said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid, the proposal appears to come from the “horrifically mainstream ‘pro-life’ GOP.”

“It’s not just one lone extremist,” wrote Tessa Stuart at Rolling Stone.

Harris and his co-sponsors—seven of whom have requested to have their names removed from the legislation as it’s garnered national attention—are just the latest policymakers to propose punishments for people who obtain abortions. Alabama’s attorney general said in January that residents should be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, and former President Donald Trump said as a presidential candidate in 2016 that “there has to be some form of punishment” for abortion patients before walking back the statement.

A number of Texas lawmakers have proposed making people who obtain abortions eligible for capital punishment in recent years.

“If this surprises you,” said historian Diana Butler Bass of the South Carolina proposal, “you haven’t been paying attention.”

Trump’s attempt to blame Jan. 6 violence on Mike Pence implicates him in a crime: ex-GOP strategist

Former President Donald Trump on Monday tried to blame the violence he incited on Jan. 6 on former Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence called out Trump’s role in the Capitol riot on Saturday, declaring that “history will hold him accountable” even as Pence himself tries to fight a subpoena to testify in the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation.

“President Trump was wrong,” Pence said at the annual Gridiron dinner in D.C. “I had no right to overturn the election. And his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day. And I know that history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”

Trump fired back at Pence ahead of a rally in Iowa on Monday.

“Had he sent the votes back to the legislatures, they wouldn’t have had a problem with Jan. 6, so in many ways you can blame him for Jan. 6,” Trump told reporters, according to The Washington Post, referring to Pence’s refusal to reject electoral votes in Congress. “Had he sent them back to Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, the states, I believe, number one, you would have had a different outcome. But I also believe you wouldn’t have had ‘Jan. 6’ as we call it.”

Trump’s attempt to blame Pence for the violence from Trump supporters who chanted “Hang Mike Pence” in the Capitol fell flat.

Even Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade openly laughed at Trump’s claim.

“You cannot blame Mike Pence for what happened on January 6th,” Kilmeade said Tuesday

“Well, Donald Trump did yesterday,” co-host Steve Doocy replied. 

Former Republican strategist Tara Setmayer, who is now an advisor to the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, suggested that Trump’s attempt to deflect blame may have further implicated him in a crime.


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


“He always admits to the crime,” Setmayer said on MSNBC. “And he turns it around and blames everybody else. It’s always about projection.”

MSNBC contributor Steve Benen called Trump’s “blame-the-victim” argument “utterly bonkers.” He added that it could also pose legal risks.

“The former vice president is a critically important witness, with unique insights, but he’s currently fighting the subpoena, trying his best not to cooperate with law enforcement. In the process, Pence is also shielding Trump from accountability,” Benen wrote, predicting that it’s possible that Pence could reverse course in response to Trump’s accusation.

“But in practice, Trump apparently believes that Pence is so docile, he can blame his former vice president for the violence Trump created — the violence that put Pence’s own family in danger,” Benen added, “confident in the knowledge that Pence won’t do anything provocative in response.”

Struggling with long COVID? You may find yourself in “Return to Oz”

A few weekends ago, everyone in my household was gone and I had a couple nights alone. Ordinarily when I have the house to myself, I cook a nice dinner, write and then watch my guilty pleasure: cheap horror films, the more over-the-top the better, the kind no one else will sit through with me (OK, my son usually will, having inherited my love for the genre). But I was sick. Sick again. Sick still.

Like millions of people worldwide, I contracted COVID. And like an estimated 1 in 5 Americans, I don’t seem to be getting much better. The weeks have stretched on and on with a headache, brain fog and insomnia due to the pain. I needed a comfort watch and was delighted to discover Disney+ and other streaming services had “Return to Oz” available, a favorite from childhood.

I put it on, the cat settled in next to me in bed – and I was shocked to see myself on the small laptop screen, to recognize my own struggles again and again in this campy classic from 1985. “Return to Oz” speaks to long COVID the way few films have since or even before the pandemic, its characters, fantastical though they may be, struggling with cognitive issues like memory and speech, wrestling with forgiving themselves and most of all, being believed. 

The Walter Murch-directed film is an unlikely classic. A dark fantasy along the lines of “Labyrinth,” another longtime personal favorite, it uses L. Frank Baum’s books “The Marvelous Land of Oz” and “Ozma of Oz” as its source material. Billed as an “unofficial sequel” to that most classic of films, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s 1939 sweeping “The Wizard of Oz,” “Return” introduces a young Fairuza Balk in her first film role as Dorothy Gale.

Set a short time after the tornado in the original story that upended life in Kansas and destroyed the Gale’s farm, sending young Dorothy to Oz (or so she thought), “Return to Oz” finds Dorothy unable to forget her magical adventures or friends. Her Auntie Em (Piper Laurie) is concerned, more than borderline annoyed, that the girl keeps having these daydreams — and meanwhile, is unable to sleep through the night.

Here’s where I first sat up in bed. My insomnia, caused by COVID, has been so bad and so utterly strange to me, my doctor prescribed a prescription sleeping pill at night, the first such medication I’ve taken. I’ve spent hours staring up at the ceiling, begging my body to just go to sleep. So has Dorothy, apparently.

On many levels, “Return to Oz” is first and foremost, a film about gaslighting. Dorothy is disbelieved by the medical establishment. 

Aunt Em is fed up and decides to take the child to a distant town to try an experimental medical procedure designed to end Dorothy’s “bad dreams” once and for all. That procedure seems pretty much to be electroshock therapy, utilizing this newfangled thing called electricity. On many levels, “Return to Oz” is first and foremost, a film about gaslighting. Dorothy is disbelieved by the medical establishment — including an arrogant doctor and a sadistic nurse (Jean Marsh, who in “Oz”-style also plays Princess Mombi) — and by her own beloved family. No one in the real world trusts the girl, that she experienced what she swears she did. 

Fairuza Balk poses atop the Cowardly Lion in a publicity still for the film “Return to Oz,” 1985 (Richard Blanshard/Getty Images)Sounds an awfully lot like the ongoing stories of many people with long COVID who must fight a battle even to be diagnosed, let alone attempt to be treated. My symptoms were first thought to be that of a stroke (which can be caused by COVID, even in young people), but at least they weren’t brushed aside as “just a cold,” which has happened to many. The dismissal of people with long COVID has been called  “The great gaslighting” by The Guardian, and some believe it’s bringing medical gaslighting and ableism into greater public awareness and conversation. 

The parallels continue between long COVID and “Return to Oz.” Dorothy escapes the grim hospital and finds herself in Oz again, the land much changed. The yellow brick road is ripped up, and the city of Oz is in ruins with its citizens turned to stone. (Me too, Dorothy.) One of the first characters the girl encounters is Tik-Tok (voiced by Seán Barrett), a roly-poly mechanical man. Tik-Tok, once a defender of Oz, is frozen in place because his action has wound down. Dorothy winds him back up again. He has thinking, speaking and walking/action keys.

Both Tik-Tok and Jack say the wrong words. They struggle to understand and to be understood.

This may be the best metaphor I’ve seen for long COVID, or any chronic illness, in a long time. Tik-Tok is strong and smart, but his gears wind down. He can’t move if his walking/action is depleted. He can’t think or speak clearly if those actions have run out. He has limited “energy” which must be conserved and protected and the others must remember to help him.

My headaches worsen in the evening, as many illnesses do, and I’ve learned I have to do my best thinking in the morning (so much for my former habit of writing late at night). Anyone with chronic illness is likely familiar with spoon theory, the idea that one only has so many spoons per day and once you use them up, they’re gone until you can rest again, recover and get some spoons back. 

American actor and puppeteer Pons Maar (left) as the Lead Wheeler with the metallic Tik-Tok in the film “Return to Oz,” 1985 (Richard Blanshard/Getty Images)But Tik-Tok isn’t the only character with cognitive issues. Jack Pumpkinhead also struggles. Jack, voiced by the great Brian Henson, is an awkward stick figure with, as expected, a jack-o-lantern for a head who was brought to existence thanks to the evil Princess Mombi’s Powder of Life. 

Both Tik-Tok and Jack say the wrong words. They struggle to understand and to be understood. At multiple times in the film, when Tik-Tok’s speaking action has run out, he speaks in gibberish, then stops speaking at all. I never thought something even remotely like that would happen to me and I never thought I would witness it reflected onscreen so achingly realistically. Long COVID brain fog has caused me, and millions of others, to fight to find the right word sometimes, to fight to find any word. It’s a battle to remember, a war some days even to reach out and communicate. 

One of the most powerful lessons of the film is to forgive ourselves and whatever may have happened to us. 

Bodies fail in “Return to Oz.” Bodies break down. Bodies are brittle sticks and rusty, neglected, cobwebbed metal and in the case of the Gump (voiced by Lyle Conway): a moose-like trophy head lashed to mismatched furniture with ropes that don’t hold. He can’t keep himself together. His character ends the film being carried, but people are there to support him. Like the original “Wizard of Oz,” friends are the backbone of the film. So is knowing you’re not alone even or especially in your most difficult times.


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


If you are experiencing long COVID, I do think “Return to Oz,” is a comfort, not just a reminder or a strange case of prophetic storytelling. Because Dorothy is wise beyond her years and the number one thing she urges her friends is patience, understanding. One of the most powerful lessons of the film is to forgive ourselves and whatever may have happened to us. “It’s OK, Jack,” she says soothingly as the ragtag group is literally falling out of the sky. “It can’t be helped now.”

And when Dorothy is finally reunited with those magical ruby slippers, one of her last wishes is a wish not for herself, but unselfishly for all of us — a wish I wish now too, “for the Emerald City and all the people in it to be restored to life.”

Bank bill author under fire for pushing to weaken his own law while being paid by Signature Bank

Barney Frank, a former House Democrat from Massachusetts, has been the subject of criticism since federal regulators took over Signature Bank on Sunday.

That’s because Frank, architect of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations implemented in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, played a key role in whitewashing the bipartisan effort to weaken those rules in 2018—after he had received more than $1 million while serving on Signature’s board following his departure from Congress.

Since federal regulators seized Signature’s assets on Sunday—two days after they intervened to protect depositors amid the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)—progressive critics have been quick to blame a deregulatory measure approved five years ago by the then-Republican-controlled Congress for engendering two of the three largest bank failures in U.S. history.

The GOP, however, wasn’t alone in supporting Sen. Mike Crapo’s, R-Idaho, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a trenchant critic of the legislation, observed when it was moving through Congress, several Democrats—including Sens. Mark Warner (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Jon Tester (Mont.)—were integral to its passage.

To justify their decision, many of them pointed to Frank. The originator of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act used his cachet as a presumed banking expert to legitimize a rollback of the very framework he helped enact in 2010 as chair of the House Financial Services Committee. But the ex-lawmaker wasn’t merely an uninterested bystander. In 2015, he joined the board of directors at Signature, a crypto-friendly bank that was poised to benefit from less stringent oversight.

Frank said Crapo’s Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act “would not help the biggest Wall Street banks and denied it would increase the risks of another financial crisis,” The Washington Post reported when then-President Donald Trump signed the bill into law in May 2018. “Some Democrats leaned heavily on those words as they pushed back against the plan’s liberal critics.”

However, the newspaper noted, “proponents of the law rarely, if ever, mentioned that Frank is not just the author of the 2010 law, but also sits on the board of New York-based Signature Bank.”

In the wake of Signature’s collapse on Sunday night, Frank’s role in downplaying the risks of deregulation—while being paid by a bank that stood to gain from it—has received fresh light.

As the Post reported in May 2018: “Dodd-Frank imposed additional regulatory safeguards on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, but the rollback that passed this week, among other things, raises that threshold to $250 billion. Signature Bank has more than $40 billion in assets and can now grow significantly without automatically facing additional regulation.”

But the bank’s growth over the past half-decade came to a screeching halt over the weekend when its customers, alarmed by the failure of SVB, quickly withdrew $10 billion.

“Frank acknowledged that Signature stood to benefit, but he said his role on the bank’s board did not influence his thinking,” the Post reported five years ago. “Frank said his position on the threshold predates his compensation from the financial sector.”

As Politico reported on Monday, Frank disputes that Trump-era deregulation “had anything to do with” Signature’s failure, even though it weakened oversight of “mid-size and regional banks like his own.”

“I don’t think that had any impact,” Frank told the outlet. “They hadn’t stopped examining banks.”

Frank went so far as to tell CNBC that there was “no real objective reason” that Signature had to enter federal receivership.

“I think part of what happened was that regulators wanted to send a very strong anti-crypto message,” Frank argued. “We became the poster boy because there was no insolvency based on the fundamentals.”

Warren, by contrast, has focused her ire directly on the deregulatory moves minimized by Frank.

“Had Congress and the Federal Reserve not rolled back the stricter oversight, SVB and Signature would have been subject to stronger liquidity and capital requirements to withstand financial shocks,” Warren wrote Monday in a New York Times opinion piece.

“They would have been required to conduct regular stress tests to expose their vulnerabilities and shore up their businesses,” the lawmaker continued. “But because those requirements were repealed, when an old-fashioned bank run hit SVB, the bank couldn’t withstand the pressure—and Signature’s collapse was close behind.”

“These bank failures were entirely avoidable if Congress and the Fed had done their jobs and kept strong banking regulations in place since 2018,” she added. “SVB and Signature are gone, and now Washington must act quickly to prevent the next crisis.”

Like Warren, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has called for fully repealing “the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law.”

Chasten Buttigieg fires back at Mike Pence for “homophobic joke” about their children

Former Vice President Mike Pence drew swift blowback after mocking Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg over the weekend. 

Pence on Sunday spoke at the annual Gridiron Dinner, a white-tie event for journalists and politicians in Washington, D.C., took a shot at Buttigieg, mocking him for taking “maternity leave” after he and husband Chasten adopted twins in 2021.

“When Pete’s two children were born, he took two months maternity leave, where upon thousands of travelers were stranded in airports, the air traffic system shut down, airplanes nearly collided in midair,” Pence said. “I mean, Pete Buttigieg is the only person in human history to have a child and all the rest of us get postpartum depression.”

The White House slammed Pence’s “homophobic joke” about the Cabinet official.

“The former vice president’s homophobic joke about Secretary Buttigieg was offensive and inappropriate, all the more so because he treated women suffering from postpartum depression as a punchline,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “He should apologize to women and LGBTQ people, who are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect.”

Buttigieg’s twins suffered from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as premature newborns, only one month after the couple adopted them. “Penelope developed severe reflux, terrifying us when she would stop breathing and turn purple in a matter of seconds,” Pete Buttigieg wrote in an essay published on Medium in August 2022. “More than once, it happened in the car, prompting Chasten to hurriedly pull over so we could unbuckle her from her seat and help get her breathing back into rhythm while standing on the side of the road.” Both children had to be hospitalized at different times after they developed severe complications from RSV.

Buttigieg at the time faced on onslaught of vitriol from right-wing critics. Fox News host Tucker Carlson mocked the former South Bend mayor for going on “paternity leave, they call it, trying to figure out how to breastfeed.”


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


Chasten Buttigieg responded to Pence’s dig on Twitter Monday. 

“An honest question for you, @Mike_Pence, after your attempted joke this weekend,” he wrote. “If your grandchild was born prematurely and placed on a ventilator at two months old – their tiny fingers wrapped around yours as the monitors beep in the background – where would you be?”

“I’ll leave this here for you should you want to know more about the kids you are so eager to use as a punchline,” Chasten added in a subsequent tweet, linking to his husband’s essay. 

Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, accused the White House of “faux outrage” over the incident. 

“The White House would be wise to focus less on placating the woke police and focus more on bank failures, planes nearly colliding in mid-air, train derailments, and the continued supply chain crisis,” he tweeted.

Jim Jordan has found no “weaponization” of government — and no actual whistleblowers

The new Republican House majority has promised historic oversight, anchored by Rep. Jim Jordan’s subcommittee hunting for “whistleblowers” on the supposed “weaponization” of government. So far, Jordan’s efforts have been a bust — he’s failed to produce a single true whistleblower.

To the three of us — veterans of prior Capitol Hill investigations who have worked for Republicans and Democrats on the Church Committee, the first Trump impeachment and the Jan. 6 select committee — Jordan’s whole “weaponization”  effort is an embarrassment. There is a right way to do oversight and to work with real whistleblowers, and this isn’t it.

In Jordan’s telling, the Department of Justice and the FBI are targeting ordinary Americans solely because they hold conservative political beliefs.  He claims that “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers” have come forward to expose government malfeasance. 

But neither weaponization nor whistleblowers were to be found last Thursday, when the subcommittee held its second hearing, focusing on the “Twitter Files.” Jordan returned to one of his favorite complaints: Twitter’s decision to suppress a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop for 48 hours in mid-October 2020. But Twitter’s employees have previously testified that the FBI did not tell them to take it down. Jordan’s witnesses during the hearing — Matt Taibbi (a journalist) and Michael Shellenberger (an author) — did not offer any evidence to contradict that, and moreover are not whistleblowers. They received files from Twitter’s new management highlighting what they claimed was unjust censorship. But Americans are still waiting to hear from a true government insider on this score. 

The prior “weaponization” subcommittee hearing on Feb. 9 was also a sprawling, disconnected dud. No whistleblowers testified there either. Where are Jordan’s witnesses with inside knowledge of the government’s bad acts?   

The Democrats serving on Jordan’s subcommittee have provided an answer. Three witnesses — two former FBI special agents and a retired FBI intelligence analyst — have been interviewed behind closed doors. None of them qualifies as a government whistleblower either, and none has claimed credible knowledge of any alleged wrongdoing. Instead, they have criticized the FBI for investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection

One of the witnesses, former FBI intelligence analyst George Hill, apparently raised concerns over a financial institution providing law enforcement officials with evidence that was potentially relevant to the Jan. 6 investigation. It is not clear why this would be problematic. Financial records are routinely utilized in criminal investigations, and Hill reportedly never actually used or even looked at the underlying evidence himself. Furthermore, according to Hill, the FBI apparently didn’t even take any action based on this evidence

Hill has also claimed that Jan. 6 was “a set up” and part of “a larger #Democrat plan using their enforcement arm, the #FBI.” This accusation, without a shred of evidence, hardly helps his credibility — or Jordan’s.


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


A second witness, former special agent Garret O’Boyle, was apparently asked by his higher-ups “to consider taking a particular investigative step with respect to a Jan. 6 matter,” declined, and “suffered no professional repercussions” as a result. It is hard to see how this is scandalous.

Stephen Friend, a third former FBI man, claimed that the Bureau deviated from the practices outlined in its “internal operations manual” while investigating hundreds of Jan. 6-related cases. Friend objected to the FBI using a SWAT team to arrest some of the members of a Three Percenter militia group, even though those individuals were known “to be armed and dangerous” and the group believes the U.S. government should be overthrown. Again, there is no scandal here.  

Jordan claims that his efforts are modeled after the ground-breaking Church Committee, led by the late Sen. Frank Church of Idaho. One of us (Michel) served as counsel on that bipartisan body. 

Whistleblowers have played an important role in uncovering genuine executive branch abuses, including the Ukraine scandal that led to Donald Trump’s first impeachment.

But Jim Jordan and his witnesses are not exposing real wrongdoing by government agencies. Instead, Jordan and the committee majority seek to justify the far right’s imaginary grievances and conspiracy theories. 

Rep. Jim Jordan claims that “dozens and dozens of whistleblowers” have come forward to expose government malfeasance. After two hearings, he has yet to produce even one.

The subpoenas issued by the subcommittee recently, calling on members of the National School Board Association and the former head of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Board, exemplify Jordan’s abuse of power. Jordan is attempting to show that the FBI’s “special threat” tag regarding threats against school board members, along with the creation of a Disinformation Board, are examples of the government targeting conservative speech. Instead they only reveal how readily he abuses his subpoena power. 

Considering who Jordan and his congressional allies are, we should not be surprised. Democrats on the subcommittee warn in a minority staff report that “nearly all of the Republicans involved in” one of the subcommittee’s investigations —  “the witnesses, some of the Members, and certainly their outside operators — are tied together by the attacks of January 6, 2021.” As documented in the Jan. 6 select committee’s final report, Jordan was a “significant player” in then-President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Some of the “outside operators” assisting Jordan belong to the Center for Renewing America. One of that group’s members is Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who was central to Trump’s effort to corruptly abuse the DOJ’s power to steal the presidency. According to Democratic members of the “weaponization” subcommittee, some of the witnesses on deck may have been actual participants in the Jan. 6 riot.  

Real whistleblowers play a crucial role in oversight efforts. They are heroes for doing so in light of the risks they face when they expose abuses of power. But Jordan and his colleagues risk making a mockery of whistleblower status. Their witnesses aren’t legally recognized whistleblowers, and the “weaponization” subcommittee isn’t genuine oversight.

Trump lawyer floats “Melania defense” in Stormy Daniels case — and claims he’s the real “victim”

Former President Donald Trump’s attorney claimed that the $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign was not related to the campaign ahead of possible criminal charges in Manhattan.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is reportedly inching closer to indicting Trump in the case after interviewing a growing list of witnesses before a grand jury, including former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, who testified that the former president reimbursed him for the payment to Daniels.

Trump attorney Joe Tacopina claimed in an interview with ABC News on Monday that the former president was the victim of an extortion attempt and that the payment was not directly related to his presidential bid.

“I don’t know since when we’ve decided to start prosecuting extortion victims,” Tacopina said. “He’s vehemently denied this affair, but he had to pay money because there was going to be an allegation that was going to be publicly embarrassing, regardless of the campaign.”

Tacopina said the payment was “not directly related” to the campaign.

“He made this with personal funds to prevent something coming out [that was] false but embarrassing to himself, his family, his young son,” Tacopina said.

Bragg’s office is reportedly considering charging Trump over financial records that falsely reported the payment as a legal expense to Cohen, which is a misdemeanor in New York. But prosecutors could charge him with a felony if they show an “intent to commit or conceal a second crime,” which in this case would be a violation of state campaign finance laws.

“There was absolutely no false records made, to my knowledge,” Tacopina told ABC News.

Tacopina’s argument that the payment was to avoid embarrassment rather than to protect his political aspirations, which Vice News’ Greg Walters dubbed the “Melania defense,” has been repeatedly floated by Trump’s inner circle to beat back the potential criminal liability but has been shut down by the former president in the past.


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


Trump pushed back on the advice before because such a claim would force him to have to explain why he was willing to spend so much money to prevent his wife from learning about a sexual tryst that he has claimed for years never happened, Rolling Stone reported last month.

Tacopina denied the alleged affair but argued that Trump was so concerned by the false allegation that he spent personal funds to make it go away.

“The DA is going to have to prove that the payment was in furtherance of the campaign, and that Trump did have criminal intent,” New York election lawyer Jerry Goldfeder told Vice News.

Independent legal experts have said for years that Trump’s best defense in the case would be to frame the payment as unrelated to the campaign.

 “Trump’s best strategy would be to say that he routinely paid off women and that the purpose of paying them was to avoid the embarrassment it would cause for his wife and the rest of his family,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told Law & Crime in 2018 after Trump’s pushback on the defense strategy was first reported.

But a recording of Trump and Cohen discussing a separate payment to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, in which the pair discuss financing and the former president floats paying the women in “cash” to keep quiet about an alleged affair, could complicate the defense.

“The Cohen tape tells a different story. It was very campaign orientated and the shell game to finance it, and lies that repayment were for legal fees, are a problem,” former prosecutor Bob Bianchi told Law & Crime at the time. “To me, the evidence is compelling he knew what he was doing was illegal.”

Bianchi added that Trump’s best course of action is to stay quiet about the matter.

“In the end, the sage legal advice is always (innocent, or not) to remain silent,” he said. “It is about as ‘golden’ a rule as there is in the law. I would advise the President to follow it.”

Trump, who has repeatedly denied both affairs and any wrongdoing, lashed out after Bragg restarted the years-long probe into the hush money payments last month.

“With respect to the ‘Stormy’ nonsense, it is VERY OLD & happened a long time ago, long past the very publicly known & accepted deadline of the Statute of Limitations,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Daniels cited the post as an admission of guilt.

“Thanks for just admitting that I was telling the truth about EVERYTHING,” she wrote.

What dogs do when humans are not around, according to experts

The human-dog bond is ancient: we have co-evolved together since before writing even existed. Our long cohabitation with dogs has granted both species a unique insight into the other’s feelings: dogs, for instance, know when you are looking into their eyes, unlike wolves and other animals. And, dogs can understand human language to some extent: one “Guiness”-worthy dog knows over 1,000 nouns

Yet for all our mutual insights, we can’t truly see inside the mind of a dog — nor can we know for sure what they’re thinking, or what they do when we’re not looking. And while cameras that watch our pets can reveal what they are doing, it’s harder to know what they’re thinking in private. What can dog owners know for sure?

When they are not peacefully snoozing, dogs may also engage in what is known as “vigilant behavior” — performing their self-assigned duty of guarding your home.

First, we know that they do indeed miss their humans. MRI tests of dogs’ brains confirm that dogs associate the sounds and smells of their preferred humans with positive rewards. Because dogs are intelligent and perceptive about their environment, they quickly figure out patterns that indicate a human is about to leave — e.g., picking up their keys, walking toward the door — and clearly communicate feelings of distress when that happens. When secretly recorded, dogs who are alone in their homes often spend time at the door where their preferred human left, quite likely hoping they will soon return.

Yet if your heart aches at the thought that your dog does nothing but emotionally suffer while you are gone, rest at ease. There is plenty of research on domestic canine behavior and we know that, in addition to missing you, dogs routinely take naps.

“Previous research has demonstrated that dogs mostly spend their time resting when the owner is gone,” Dr. Erica N. Feuerbacher, an Associate Professor at Virginia Tech’s Department of Animal & Poultry Science, told Salon by email. When they are not peacefully snoozing, dogs may also engage in what is known as “vigilant behavior” — performing their self-assigned duty of guarding your home “likely when they hear or see something outside, like a car or someone walking down the sidewalk.”

When they are neither tired nor on alert, dogs may occupy themselves with play. This is why humans may return home to find their property damaged.


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


“Of course some dogs engage in behaviors that are probably less desirable to their owners, like counter surfing or getting into the trash or vocalizing,” Feuerbacher explained. “Some dogs do develop separation anxiety which is a severe behavioral issue; other dogs are simply bored or take advantage of the owner not being there to explore places (like the counter) where they are usually forbidden from. But if they find something good up there to eat, that behavior will continue to happen.”

It is important to remember that dogs, like humans, have quirks specific to their individual personalities. As such, anticipating their solitary behavior can be unpredictable.

“What dogs do when we are not around also depends on the individual, age, location and even the quality of relationship we share with them,” Dr. Monique Udell, an associate professor who specializes in human-animal bonding at Oregon State University, told Salon by email. Puppies, for instance, are more likely to get into mischief because they are biologically programmed to spend more of their time in activities like exploring and teething. Younger dogs can also experience more frequent bathroom problems, similar to older dogs.

“Puppies, whose bodies are still developing, as well as older dogs who may be experiencing health problems or cognitive decline, are often less likely to be able to avoid urinating or defecating when left alone for longer periods of alone time,” Udell pointed out. “Dogs with separation anxiety experience greater than normal distress when left alone, and may panic or try to escape, which can result in injury or damage to property.” Like Feuerbacher, however, Udell emphasized that dogs spend most of their solitary time sleeping, and that this is healthy as long as the rest of their environment is sufficiently stimulating.

“Owners who have high expectations of their dogs and are highly responsive to their dog’s needs are more likely to raise secure dogs.”

“One important thing concerned humans can do, is make sure that the time they do spend with their dogs is quality time,” Udell explained. “Dogs with secure attachment bonds to their owner are also less likely to display separation anxiety when their owner is away. Owners who have high expectations of their dogs (engage in positive reinforcement training, have consistent rules) and are highly responsive to their dog’s needs (provide attention, recognize and respond when their dog is scared or sick) are more likely to raise secure dogs.”

While dogs need their rest and therefore benefit from some time away from their humans, that does not mean all dogs will naturally accept that isolation. Fortunately, as Feuerbacher tells Salon, there are ways to train dogs to be as okay with temporary separation from you as you are from them.

“First, owners should work on their dog tolerating being left alone,” Feuerbacher explained. “Dogs are social animals so the owner leaving can be upsetting to the dog. You can do this by practicing lots of short departures, like running out to check the mail and coming back in, gardening for a few minutes and coming back in, taking a quick trip to the grocery store. This is especially useful when you bring a new dog home.”

It can also be helpful to leave dogs with toys and other enrichment items — bones, stuffed animals, chew devices, and so on. Finally, one should make sure to either paper train dogs or ask someone to take your dog out for a walk periodically if their humans will be gone for a while. It is cruel to expect the dog to hold in their excrement for too long. After all, while “The Secret Life of Pets” is not scientifically accurate, the essential point of the story — that dogs lead rich lives separate from their humans, and should be respected as such — is certainly true.

“While [the movie] might be fictional, I hope it does help folks recognize that their animals lead very rich lives, with their own interests — like smelling certain smells, or getting to visit a dog friend,” Feuerbacher told Salon. “This also comes into play when we are interacting with our dogs — we might want them to sit or do some other behavior we want, but it’s worth remembering they have their own interests (such as smelling a certain patch of grass!) that doesn’t align with what I want them to do.”

Rich countries export twice as much plastic waste to the developing world as previously thought

High-income countries have long sent their waste abroad to be thrown away or recycled — and an independent team of experts says they’re inundating the developing world with much more plastic than previously estimated.

According to a new analysis published last week, United Nations data on the global waste trade fails to account for “hidden” plastics in textiles, contaminated paper bales, and other categories, leading to a dramatic, 1.8-million-metric-ton annual underestimate of the amount of plastic that makes its way from the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States to poor countries. The authors highlight the public health and environmental risks that plastic exports pose in the developing world, where importers often dump or incinerate an unmanageable glut of plastic waste.

“Toxic chemicals from these plastics are poisoning communities,” said Therese Karlsson, a science and technical adviser for the nonprofit International Pollutant Elimination Network, or IPEN. IPEN helped coordinate the analysis along with an international team of researchers from Sweden, Turkey, and the U.S.

Many estimates of the scale of the plastic waste trade make use of a U.N. database that tracks different types of products through a “harmonized commodity description and coding system,” which assigns each product category a code starting with the letters HS. HS 3915 — “waste, parings, and scrap” of plastics — is often assumed by researchers and policymakers to describe the total volume of plastic that’s traded globally. But the new analysis argues this is only “the tip of the plastic waste iceberg,” since HS 3915 misses large quantities of plastic that are included in other product categories.

Discarded clothing, for example, may be tracked as HS 5505 and not counted as plastic waste, even though 60 to 70 percent of all textiles are made of some kind of plastic. And another category called HS 6309 — used clothing and accessories — is assumed by the U.N. to be reused or recycled and is therefore not considered waste at all, even though an estimated 40 percent of these exported clothes are deemed unsalvageable and end up dumped in landfills.

Plastic contamination in paper bales — the huge stacks of unsorted paper that are shipped abroad to be recycled — also tends to be overlooked in estimates of the international plastic waste trade, even though these bales may contain 5 to 30 percent plastic that must be removed and discarded.

Accounting for plastic from just these two product categories increases plastic waste exports from all the regions analyzed by as much as 1.8 million metric tons per year — 1.3 million from paper bales and half a million from textiles. That’s more than double the plastic that’s counted when only plastic “waste, parings, and scrap” are analyzed.

Additional product categories like electronics and rubber add even more to the global plastic waste trade, although Karlsson said a lack of data makes it hard to quantify their exact contribution. All this plastic strains developing countries’ waste management infrastructure, leading to large quantities of plastic waste ending up in dumps, landfills, or incinerators. Burning this waste causes hazardous air pollution for nearby communities, and dumps and landfills can leach chemicals like PCBs — a group of compounds that can cause cancer in humans — into soil and water supplies.

More than 10,000 chemicals are used in the production of plastic, and one-fourth of them have been flagged by researchers for their toxicity and potential to build up in the environment and in people’s bodies. The report calls for greater transparency from plastic and petrochemical industries about the chemicals they put in their plastic products, and for regulators to require them to use fewer, nontoxic chemicals.

Karlsson also called for a total ban on the global plastic waste trade, along with enforceable limits on the amount of plastics the world makes in the first place. “Regardless of what way we’re handling plastic waste, we need to decrease the amount of plastics that we generate,” she told Grist, “because the amount of plastic waste being produced today will never be sustainable.”

Without aggressive action to phase down plastic production, the world is on track to have produced a cumulative 26 billion metric tons of plastic waste by 2050, most of which will be incinerated, dumped, or sent to landfills.


This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/equity/rich-countries-export-twice-as-much-plastic-waste-to-the-developing-world-as-previously-thought/.

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

This is no culture war: Republicans are waging a war on democracy

America is not mired in a culture war. In reality, today’s Republican Party and larger “conservative” movement are waging a fascist war against multiracial pluralist democracy and human freedom. Ultimately, to not understand how the so-called culture war is actually a fascist war against American democracy is to almost ensure being rolled over by those evil forces.

Many political observers point to Pat Buchanan’s infamous 1992 speech at the GOP national convention as the beginning of the so-called culture war in America. However, the roots of this fascist and authoritarian campaign are much older: Jim and Jane Crow and white-on-black chattel slavery, genocide against First Nations peoples and white settler colonialism are America’s native forms of fascism. When located in the proper historical context, neofascism and the Age of Trump are properly understood as being but the most current manifestation of much older birth defects in American democracy and society.

The fascist project is fundamentally a cultural project.

In a very important recent essay in the Guardian, Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley highlights how the Republican fascist thought crime laws in Florida and other parts of the country targeting the teaching of African-American history (and the country’s real history more generally) are examples of a much larger Orwellian project:

These laws have been represented by many as a “culture war”. This framing is a dangerous falsification of reality. A culture war is a conflict of values between different groups. In a diverse, pluralistic democracy, one should expect frequent conflicts. Yet laws criminalizing educators’ speech are no such thing – unlike a culture war, the GOP’s recent turn has no place in a democracy. To understand why, consider their consequences. 

Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis and the other Republican-fascists are using the myth of American Exceptionalism and what sociologists describe as “the white racial frame” to erase the country’s real history and its challenges and complexities to advance an anti-democracy project that eliminates critical thinking and free speech.

Stanley continues:

It is frequently claimed by proponents of such laws that banning discussion of structural racism and intersectionality is freeing schools of indoctrination. And yet indoctrination rarely takes place by allowing the free flow of ideas. Indoctrination instead rather takes places by banning ideas. Celebrating the banning of authors and concepts as “freedom from indoctrination” is as Orwellian as politics gets.….

Most frighteningly, these laws are meant to intimidate educators, to punish them for speaking freely by threatening their jobs, their teaching licenses, and more. The passing of these laws signals the dawn of a new authoritarian age in the United States, where the state uses laws restricting speech to intimidate, bully and punish educators, forcing them to submit to the ideology of the dominant majority or lose their livelihoods, and even their freedom.

So why have the mainstream news media and political class been so wrong in their understanding of this true nature of the “culture war”?

The American political class and mainstream news media — even seven years into the Age of Trump and a coup attempt on Jan. 6 — still have a normalcy bias. As institutions and individuals, they have convinced themselves that American neofascism is a blip on the radar, an aberration, that will inevitably be replaced by a return to “normal” and “the good old days.” The American news media and political class are psychologically, emotionally, and financially committed to that narrative even if the facts do not support it.

Moreover, the idea that America is experiencing a culture war instead of a fascist war on democracy and freedom fits neatly into a narrative framework of momentary troubles that will soon pass and not an existential crisis that will fundamentally change the order of things in the country.

The American political class and mainstream news media are self-limiting: they enforce their own formal and informal rules and norms about how they conceptualize and work through political questions and what are considered “realistic” and “reasonable” answers. Admitting that the Republican Party and “conservative” movement are neofascists who reject multiracial democracy would involve a type of paradigm shift that the news media and political class would a priori reject. Careerists and others who are successful in those spheres of influence know what the rules are and adhere to them closely lest they be punished or perhaps even exiled.

The American news media and political class are emotionally and financially committed to that narrative even if the facts do not support it.

In total, the American mainstream news media and political class are possessed by a type of inertia, intellectual laziness and incurious behavior where it is easier to go along with the herd and hive mind about America’s democratic institutions and culture as being enduring and permanent than to confront the epistemic crisis that ascendant neofascism represents.

The American mainstream news media and political class are also limited in their ability to properly respond to the country’s democracy crisis because of a failure of imagination. It is a type of common sense among the Democrats and mainstream centrist liberals and progressives that “real politics” (economic and other material concerns about the country’s “institutions” and society more broadly) are somehow separate and distinct from “culture war” issues.

By comparison, and like other more sophisticated thinkers on the left, the Republican fascists and other members of the global right correctly understand that culture, emotions, material concerns and “serious politics” are all part of a larger struggle to win and keep political power across society. In this framework, culture, emotions and material realities are all interconnected. While too many Democrats and mainstream liberals and progressives (and others committed to the liberal democratic project in America) tend to silo off questions of politics and culture, the neofascists are engaged in a revolutionary project that does not make that error in thinking.

The fascist project is fundamentally a cultural project. As a first step in adapting to the reality that the culture war is actually a fascist war on democracy and freedom, the news media and political class need to change their language and political grammar. As commonly used, “culture war” is empty language. It is vague and imprecise.

A war is waged by one group of people against another. In the context of “the culture wars,” this means war by the Republican fascists and their forces against Black and brown people, women, the LGBTQ community, and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups. What are the lived consequences of this fascist “culture war”? People’s lives are literally being imperiled, be it from direct violence such as hate crimes or taking away civil and human rights and bodily autonomy. In the example of how gun rights are now treated as a culture war issue, this translates into how gun violence is a public health crisis that needlessly kills tens of thousands of people each year in the United States.

Channeling the literary theorist and philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, the American mainstream news media and political class cannot understand the true nature and scope of the country’s democracy crisis because “culture war” is language that limits their capacity to fully understand political reality.

On this, Stanley concludes and warns in his Guardian essay that:

It is clear that the chief agenda of the GOP is to advance a set of speech laws that criminalize discussion in schools of anything but the white heterosexual majority’s perspective. The media’s portrayal of these laws as moves in the “culture wars” is an unconscionable misrepresentation of fascism.

The American mainstream news media and political class must recalibrate and rethink their approach to conceptualizing, theorizing, communicating, and responding to the country’s democracy crisis and its deep origins. The crisis is widespread and cultural, as opposed to something temporary and caused by one person or a party that has temporarily lost its way.

But that will take hard work and require jettisoning obsolete norms and beliefs about American politics and society. There are few material incentives in terms of one’s career or prestige for doing that type of difficult and risky work. Confronting a democracy crisis (or other such serious troubles) demands boldness but the institutions, almost by definition, are created and maintained by professional centrists and wish-casters who cling to “the normal” and a lost past when the latter are mostly poisonous lies — and even more so — in the Age of Trump and ascendant neofascism.

Silicon Valley Bank wasn’t “woke”: Tech billionaires are just as bad as Wall Street bros

After the banking crash of 2008, there was a brief moment when progressives could hope that the American cult of billionaire worship would end. It’s been hard to shake those paternalistic fantasies that the rich are better than the rest of us: Smarter, more industrious, more prudent. Donald Trump, for instance, benefited from this assumption, allowing the millions of viewers of “The Apprentice” to ignore telltale signs that he’s a barking moron. But the Great Recession rattled faith in the economic elite, brought on as it was by a bunch of very rich people making very stupid decisions. The popularity of the Occupy Wall Street movement, for instance, suggested that Americans were finally ready to question the stranglehold on our culture enjoyed by the ridiculously wealthy.

Americans may still have no love of bankers, but alas, the myth of the genius billionaire came roaring back, stronger than ever, thanks to the tech industry. For years, Americans have been served up one celebrity tech billionaire after another, complete with reassurances that these titans of the digital industry are too smart to bog down with government regulation. We were told that this new class of pampered white men was different than the old: younger, more down-to-earth and more civic-minded. They wear hoodies! They sometimes give to Democrats! They have a surface-level social liberalism, in that they’re fine with gay marriage and abortion! Republicans are always raving about how “woke” they supposedly are! You can trust these guys, right? 

There were always hints that the myth of “progressive” Silicon Valley was way overblown, at least when it comes to the venture capitalist class. (The actual workers, as is true in most industries, lean more left than management.) One red flag:  All these tech CEOs are buddies with major investor Peter Thiel, a sniveling Trump supporter who once questioned whether women’s suffrage was a good idea. But in the past year, the fable of the benevolent tech billionaire has really taken a beating. The collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which appears to be due to the same deregulation mania and rich guy hubris that led to the 2008 collapse, may be the final nail in the coffin of the hero worship of tech billionaires. 


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


The story of the rapid disintegration of this bank, which has been a mainstay of the computer industry for years now, has been rife with 2008-level details of rich people’s egos and entitlement. Even as depositors were panicking after a run on the bank, Axios reported, annual bonuses were being paid out to bank executives. Sure enough, it was quickly revealed that SVB’s CEO, Greg Becker, dumped stock two weeks ago, netting a cool $3.6 million. 

Peter Thiel’s fingers are, unsurprisingly, all over this situation.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., reminded the public in the New York Times Monday, Becker “was one of the ‌many high-powered executives who lobbied Congress to weaken” the banking regulations that had been passed in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. Trump signed a big rollback of those regulations in 2018. Alas, the blame for this can’t just be pinned on Republicans. As Warren notes, some Democrats ignored her warnings and backed the deregulation scheme. The faith that these Silicon Valley types were somehow “different” than the greedy bankers of old likely helped some Democrats talk themselves into playing along. 

The greed spilled way beyond those directly employed by SVB. The entire tech industry investor class showed levels of entitlement to rival that of the finance bros of the early 2000s. “[A] group of extremely online venture capitalists spent four days emoting on Twitter, ginning up confusion and hysteria about the threat of a systemic risk if depositors didn’t get all their money back, pronto,” Edward Ongweso Jr. of Slate explained. Their expectation of an immediate taxpayer bailout is only rivaled by their longstanding contempt for government oversight. 

Thiel’s fingers are, unsurprisingly, all over this situation. His Founder’s Fund helped kickstart the SVB bank run, by pulling millions out rather suddenly, right before things went straight to hell. Now there’s speculation about which vulture in the venture capitalist world is going to take advantage to buy the bank at cut rate prices. No surprise that Tesla CEO Elon Musk stuck his hand up, saying he’s “open to the idea” of buying SVB, even as his reputation as a businessman is getting wrecked by his mismanagement of both his car company and his newest acquisition, Twitter. 


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


Beyond the thin veneer of social liberalism, Silicon Valley libertarians have the same ugly views about the economy that old school Republicans have: The government has no role in regulating business but the taxpayers should be on the hook for bailing out rich people from their own mistakes. It also, as the fallout from the 2008 banking crisis shows, is a wildly unpopular attitude with said taxpaying voters. After all, we do not have the government swooping in to save us when we gamble and lose.

So President Joe Biden is trying a balancing act where he’s reassuring depositors they’ll get their money while letting the bank’s investors take the loss for their poor choices. But considering how many of the depositors were also spoiled rich boys complaining that the FDIC’s insurance limit of $250,000 is “too low,” the class distinction between depositors and investors might not be super obvious. Most people don’t have $25,000 in a bank account, much less a quarter of a million. Biden is now boxed into working overtime to reassure people that making such huge depositors whole will not come out of the taxpayer wallet

The disintegration of the esteem of tech bros is perhaps best illustrated by the reputational destruction that Elon Musk has delivered unto himself.

On its own, the collapse of SVB would probably not have done a whole bunch to dismantle the idealized image of tech billionaires as bounteous stewards of American society. But this is coming on the heels of what has truly been a series of devastating series of splashy stories showing exposing both the audacity and the stupidity of this new, tech-centric group of “smartest guys in the room.”

A year and a half ago, former Facebook executive Frances Haugen made a big splash with a series of whistleblowing releases showing how predatory and irresponsible the company is towards its users. Then Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was convicted of fraud, in a trial that dramatically illustrated how much tech investing is fueled by people who have no idea what their money is going towards. Then there was the collapse of FTX, a much-hyped cryptocurrency exchange that is looking like it was also fraudulent. This only reinforced what many have been saying for a long time, which is that cryptocurrency isn’t a hot new financial instrument, but a scam that exists to evade traditional banking regulations. Even the current hysteria over chatbots — which aren’t actually “artificial intelligence” so much just really well-programmed software — is sympathetic in this light. It at least demonstrates that the public, thankfully, no longer trusts our tech overlords, even to the point where skepticism is shading into paranoia. 

The disintegration of the esteem of tech bros is perhaps best illustrated by the reputational destruction that Musk has delivered unto himself. His “brilliance” was always overrated, to be clear. This is a guy who literally accused a man of pedophilia for nothing more than knowing better than Musk how to rescue Thai children trapped in a cave. But somehow the myth of rich tech bro superiority helped shove that particular incident down the memory hole. Musk was coasting along on a wave of undeserved adulation, at least until he bought Twitter. Since then, Musk has not let anyone forget that he is actually a pea-brained reactionary. He tweets unhinged conspiracy theories and juvenile, alt-right memes. His ego is so big and so fragile that he forced the Twitter staff to rewrite the algorithm to foist his non-entertaining tweets into people’s feeds. His public psychology feels like an alarming mix of the worst drunk uncle on Facebook and a high school troll who frequents “incel” message boards. 

Hopefully, people are starting to see that Musk isn’t an outlier. He exists precisely because the Silicon Valley economy is corrupted by libertarian ideology. Republicans are trying to distract from this fact, making silly claims that SVB was a “woke” bank, whatever that means. It’s all a ruse to confuse the public about the fundamental reality of this situation: Conservative economic theories don’t work.

Tech billionaires, like banking billionaires before them, pushed this notion that deregulation spurs innovation and wealth-building for everyone. But all that it actually does is allow robber barons to swoop in and steal everything while leaving ordinary working people holding an empty bag. You can call it Republicanism or libertarianism or even Silicon Valley-style euphemisms like “effective altruism,” but it’s all the same thing: A con that an elite class of hyper-wealthy people is playing on the rest of the nation.