Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Why people who experience severe nausea during pregnancy often go untreated

Mineka Furtch wasn’t bothered by the idea of morning sickness after going through a miscarriage and the roller coaster of fertility medication before she finally became pregnant with her son.

But when the 29-year-old from suburban Atlanta was five weeks pregnant in 2020, she started throwing up and couldn’t stop. Some days she kept down an orange; other days, nothing. Furtch used up her paid time off at work with sick days, eventually having to rely on unpaid medical leave. She remembered her doctor telling her it was just morning sickness and things would get better.

By the time Furtch was 13 weeks pregnant, she had lost more than 20 pounds.

“I fought so hard to have this baby, and I was fighting so hard to keep this baby,” Furtch said. “I was like ‘OK, something is not right here.'”

Now, Furtch’s son is 18 months old, and she is suffering again from severe nausea and vomiting well into the second trimester of a new, unplanned pregnancy.

The nausea that comes with morning sickness is common in the first trimester of pregnancy, but some women, like Furtch, experience symptoms that linger much longer and require medical attention. However, those often go untreated or undertreated because the condition is misunderstood or downplayed by their doctors or the patients themselves.

Mothers have said they went without care for fear that medicine would hurt their fetus, because they couldn’t afford it, or because their doctor didn’t take them seriously. Left alone, symptoms get more difficult to control, and such delays can become medical emergencies. Extreme cases are called hyperemesis gravidarum and may last throughout a pregnancy, even with treatment.

“For most women, it’s not until they end up in the ER and go, ‘Well, most of my friends haven’t been to an ER,’ they realize this isn’t normal,” said Kimber MacGibbon, executive director of the Her Foundation, which researches and raises awareness of hyperemesis gravidarum.

There are a lot of unknowns around the cause of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Research has indicated genetics plays a role in its severity, and hyperemesis is estimated to occur in up to 3% of pregnancies. But there’s no clear line differentiating morning sickness from hyperemesis or consistent criteria to diagnose the condition, which MacGibbon said results in underestimating its impact.

Wide-ranging estimates suggest at least 60,000 peoplepossibly 300,000 or more — go to a hospital in the U.S. each year with pregnancy-related dehydration or malnourishment. An untold number go to walk-in clinics or don’t seek medical care.

The effects ripple into every aspect of a person’s life and the economy. One study estimated the total annual economic burden of severe morning sickness and hyperemesis in the U.S. in 2012 amounted to more than $1.7 billion in lost work, caregiver time, and the cost of treatment.

Research for this article was personal. I’m pregnant, and by the fifth week I was vomiting five to seven times a day. My primary care doctor in Missoula, Montana, directed pregnancy-related questions to my obstetrician’s medical team, whom I wouldn’t see until my first prenatal appointment, more than a month later. Taking advice from an on-call nurse, I tried over-the-counter supplements and medication to ease the nausea.

It didn’t stop the vomiting. Nearly a month after my symptoms began, all I could keep down was brown rice. My husband and I had hoped for this pregnancy, but at that point, part of me thought a miscarriage would at least end the retching.

The next week, a remote on-call doctor prescribed anti-nausea medication after I went 24 hours without food. Now, well into my second trimester, the nausea remains but my symptoms are manageable and continue to improve.

For this story, I spoke with women who went weeks without being able to keep solids down and could no longer take in water before they received IVs for hydration. For many, it can be difficult to know when to seek medical attention.

“There’s not a number, like, ‘OK, you vomited five times, so now you meet the criteria,'” said Dr. Manisha Gandhi, an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists vice chair who helps determine clinical practice guidelines for obstetrics. “The key is, ‘Are you keeping liquids down? Are you tolerating anything by mouth?'”

Gandhi said, in her experience, a small segment of patients experience severe symptoms, which for the majority peak around the eighth or 10th week of pregnancy. She said it’s standard for doctors to ask during a first prenatal visit whether a patient has felt nauseated, and patients should call if issues arise before then. Treatment is gradual — changing the diet or taking a natural supplement like vitamin B6 — before considering an anti-nausea prescription medication.

First prenatal visits vary but can happen as late as 10 to 12 weeks into the pregnancy, once it’s possible to confirm the fetus’s heartbeat. JaNeen Cross, a perinatal social worker and assistant professor at Howard University in Washington, D.C., said that leaves a gap in care for women early in pregnancy.

“That’s a lot of time for nausea, sickness, bleeding to go on as they think ‘Is this normal?'” Cross said. “And we’re assuming people have access to providers.”

Barriers to care include whether someone has insurance or can afford their copays, or if they have child care and paid time off work to go to the doctor.

About two-thirds of Black patients in the U.S. saw a doctor in their first trimester in 2016, compared with 82% of white patients, according to a report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall, roughly half of people who have to pay out-of-pocket went without that first-trimester checkup.

Cross said she’d like to see more services and resources built into communities, so that as soon as someone finds out they’re pregnant, they’re linked to support groups, community health workers, or programs that make home visits. That could help with another hurdle for care: trust that treatment is safe.

Some of that mistrust may be rooted in the 1950s and ’60s, when the morning sickness drug thalidomide led to thousands of babies being born with severe birth defects. Research has found today’s anti-nausea medications used in pregnancy pose little if any risk to the fetus.

By her sixth week of pregnancy with her first child, Helena Schwartz, 33, of Brooklyn, New York, was on at-home IVs because she couldn’t keep food down. That helped for about two days; then her body began rejecting food again. Schwartz said her doctor, who had been quick to help her, prescribed anti-nausea medication. She left the medicine untouched for three weeks as her symptoms got worse.

“I was scared it would hurt the baby,” Schwartz said. “I waited until it was impossible.”

Even with a diagnosis and supportive medical team, people like Schwartz have experienced extreme symptoms throughout their pregnancies, and healing is slow.

As for Furtch, the prescription medication she used in her first pregnancy didn’t do enough this time around to ease her symptoms.

Her new obstetrician takes her symptoms seriously, but at times she has still faced roadblocks to care. At first, she couldn’t afford thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a medical device that would constantly pump anti-nausea medication through her system. When her doctor prescribed a series of drugs as a backup plan, her insurance initially refused to cover the cost. She went days without medicine, which meant throwing up about eight times a day.

Since she started the prescription medicines, she typically can keep some food down. But she still has her bad days, and had to go to the hospital again in late December to get IVs.

Her baby girl is due this spring. After that, she plans to see her doctor again to have her tubes tied.

“Giving birth is nothing compared to 10 months of hell,” Furtch said.


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Proud Boys are right about one thing: It’s ridiculous that Trump’s not in prison

“President Trump told these people that the election was stolen,” declared the lawyer for Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio last week, during opening remarks for his client’s trial on charges of seditious conspiracy. Tarrio and other Proud Boys who believed they were acting on Trump’s wishes when they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are merely “scapegoats” for the government, he continued, because it would be too hard to put the ex-president on the witness stand, “with his army of lawyers.”

Tarrio and four other Proud Boys are currently standing trial for attempting to overthrow the government. Most media coverage of their attorneys has been of a “get a load of these toolbags” variety. Joe Biggs, the Proud Boy whose pre-Jan. 6 activities included “jokingly” advocating using roofies to rape women, had a particularly high-drama defense team. One of his lawyers had his law license suspended right before trial, thanks to misconduct in defending another insurrection sympathizer, Alex Jones of Infowars. Another got into an ugly shouting match with the judge. Another lawyer for a different defendant, Zachary Rehl, has been late to court so often that she got scolded by the judge. 


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


So maybe it’s surprising that any defense attorneys for the Proud Boys have said anything coherent, let alone incisive. Yet right there in the opening arguments, Sabino Jauregui, who is defending Tarrio, went straight at the prosecution’s weak spot: The government is putting the insurrection’s foot soldiers on trial, while leaving the man who led and directed them, Donald Trump, not just untouched by the law but running for president again. (Supposedly.)

As defense strategies go, mind you, that’s fairly weak. Even if we accept, as indeed we should, that Trump is the guiltiest of all people who were involved in Jan. 6, that doesn’t mean the thousands of other people who were part of the insurrection are innocent. Those who acted on Trump’s implicit orders are full-grown adults who had every opportunity to say no, as evidenced by the 258 million adult Americans who also heard the Big Lie but did not attempt the violent overthrow of democracy. “Trump made me do it” is a pathetic excuse. 

But even more than the Oath Keepers convicted last year for their role in the insurrection, the Proud Boys now on trial face a likely insurmountable pile of evidence of their guilt. Not only is there photo and video evidence of most of them committing crimes during the riot, there’s also an extensive catalog of text messages and other communications showing how much planning and intent there was before it all happened. So trying to blame Trump’s incitement, and making the implausible claim that the Proud Boys just got swept up in the moment, is all they’ve got. 

Notably, the Oath Keepers tried a similar defense last year: All their online chatter about insurrection was just macho bluster, and when they acted on those urges, it was a spontaneous impulse. But despite reports suggesting their defense team might try to pin the blame on Trump, at trial, their lawyers stepped carefully around the argument that maybe the ringleader should face harsher punishment than his minions. 


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


What has changed to make the defense team for the Proud Boys speak out against Trump? It may just be a reaction to the outcome in the Oath Keepers trial, where all five defendants now facing serious prison sentences. It might also be because the judge in this trial is allowing the prosecution to play the famous video clip of Trump calling on the Proud Boys to “stand by,” implying that orders for violent action would soon be coming. With that in evidence, the defense may feel they have no choice but to redirect attention from those who followed the order to the man who gave it. 

Ultimately, however, I suspect this shift in tactics between the two cases reflects a growing sense of frustration in the larger public over the continuing failure of Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice to hold Trump accountable for leading, quite literally, an attempted fascist coup. 

Since the Oath Keepers trial ended, for instance, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack has issued its final report, which did not shy away from imploring the DOJ to prosecute Trump. “The central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump,” reads the committee’s executive summary. Accountability for this “can only be found in the criminal justice system,” committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said during the panel’s final public meeting

While this is purely anecdotal, I’ve noticed an uptick in the past month of cable-news talking heads insisting that Trump must be indicted. Some of this is likely driven by hope, as Garland finally — arguably months too late — appointed special prosecutor Jack Smith, to deal with the Trump situation. But it’s also driven by how effective the House committee was in showing not just that Trump incited and directed the insurrection, but that evidence of his guilt was always there, for those willing to look for it. 

Polling data shows that 64% of Americans — basically anyone who isn’t a Fox News junkie — put “a lot” or “some” responsibility for the events of Jan. 6 on Trump. That percentage is almost certainly higher in and around Washington, D.C., where this trial is being held. It’s less clear whether that translates into sympathy for the peons who raided the Capitol at Trump’s bidding. Certainly, the Jan. 6 committee, likely due to the influence of vice chair Liz Cheney, presented at least some of the insurrectionists as being gullible victims of Trump’s machinations. 

“They put their faith, their trust, in Donald Trump,” Cheney said during a July committee hearing, in which one convicted rioter gave testimony expressing remorse for his role in the insurrection. 

Ultimately, I’d be surprised if the “innocent dupes” argument gets much traction with a D.C. jury, whose members were close to the action and probably understand that the destruction was the result of people choosing to believe Trump’s lies. Still there’s some validity to the idea that it’s unfair to convict the Proud Boys while Trump plays golf in Palm Beach. It will certainly make things uncomfortable for the prosecutors, who work for the same DOJ that has yet to file a single charge against the former president. That’s likely not enough to lead to acquittals for the Proud Boys, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some jurors flinch at convicting these nimrods on the most serious charges, while Trump plays his “Get out of Jail Free” card.

Of course, if Merrick Garland wants to relieve the tension created by this contradiction, I hear he manages law enforcement officers who have handcuffs and guns and all that stuff, and who arrest people all the time. “Why are you going after the little guys and not the boss?” suddenly loses all merit if Donald Trump is actually arrested. The Proud Boys trial is expected to last for several weeks. That’s plenty of time for the defense to taunt the prosecution about the government’s cowardice — and plenty of time for Garland to file an indictment against Trump and take that argument away for good. 

The ocean’s temperature was hotter than ever in 2022, scientists say

As time progressed from 2021 to 2022, climate scientists remarked on what a banner year it had been for global warming. Among other records, experts noted that the Earth’s oceans were hotter in 2021 than at any other time in the planet’s history.

Yet now that 2022 has drawn to a close, climate scientists must be feeling déjà vu all over again — as 2022 marked another alarming year of climate records being broken. The most ominous, perhaps, relates (again) to the temperatures of the world’s oceans. 

In the year 2022, the top 2,000 meters of Earth’s oceans acquired roughly 14 zettajoules of heat — roughly 145 times the amount of energy generated by humans for electricity on this planet over the same period of time.

“In 2022, the world’s oceans, as given by OHC, were again the hottest in the historical record and exceeded the previous 2021 record maximum,” a group of global warming experts wrote in a new report for the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. The term “OHC” is short for “ocean heat contact,” a catch-all term for the saltiness (or salinity), different layers of temperatures and other factors that ultimately contribute to global oceanic temperatures.

As the Earth warms and the oceans warm along with it, scientists expect to see a domino effect of weather-related crises. The temperature of the oceans affects weather patterns, sea life, and in turn, ecosystems that humans depend on for survival. 

Over the course of the 365 days in the year 2022, the top 2,000 meters of Earth’s oceans acquired roughly 14 zettajoules of heat, or 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules. For comparison, this is roughly 145 times the amount of energy generated by humans for electricity on this planet over the same period of time. Because oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess heat caused by global warming, that number is expected to go up even further unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

The authors also noted that one of the year’s most notable developments, rampant wildfires, could plausibly be explained by the ocean’s overheating. As droughts worsen due to the oceans overheating, the affected regions will be at an increased risk of experiencing wildfires. In addition, as the warm water in the ocean evaporates at higher quantities, there will be increased flooding due to the more voluminous rainfall.


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


Another consequence of the ocean’s warming — and perhaps the biggest direct consequence — will be the destabilization of important current systems. In particular, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is already showing signs of destabilization. The conveyor belt of ocean currents is essential to the fishing industry and maintaining stable weather. If it radically changes it will cause more frequent and more severe hurricanes, alter the tides, annihilate ocean life, spread pollution and cause sea levels to rise.

Speaking to Salon in September about the sea level rise caused when warming oceans melt glaciers, Dr. William Sweet — a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — observed that this particular symptom of climate change is already upon us. He referred specifically to a pair of studies that analyzed melting of the Thwaites Glacier and Greeland’s ice sheet. Just as a a glass window develops cracks if there are structural problems near its base, the spiderwebs of growing and criss-crossing fractures along the Thwaites Glacier by the warming ocean are at risk of eventually causing the whole pane to shatter. A similar process is at work with the Greenland ice shelf. The two studies in question addressed those phenomena.

 “Sea level rise is already affecting us, here and now, and will continue to grow in severity during the coming decades.”

“These studies provide additional evidence about future-possible rises in sea level that the public needs to be aware of,” Sweet wrote to Salon. “Sea level rise is already affecting us, here and now, and will continue to grow in severity during the coming decades.”

In order for the planet to be saved, carbon emissions need to be reduced to zero as quickly as possible. Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) told Salon last year that “we really need to get to net-zero [emissions], and many countries have plans but not enough actions to support those.” (Trenberth also contributed to the recent report.)

In the meantime, the group behind this report will continue to monitor the temperature of the world’s oceans.

“In the future, the group will focus on understanding the changes of the earth’s major cycles and improve the future projections of earth’s heat, water and carbon changes,” study second author Dr. John Abraham from the University of St. Thomas said in a statement. “This is the basis for human[s] to prepare for the future changes and risks.”

Killing the messenger: Joe Biden’s disturbing hypocrisy on Julian Assange

It is time for President Biden to live up to his rhetoric on press freedom.

As a candidate in 2020, Biden released a powerful statement on the importance of press freedom, writing:

Reporters Without Borders tells us that at least 360 people worldwide are currently imprisoned for their work in journalism. We all stand in solidarity with these journalists for, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Biden left out the fact that one of those imprisoned people is WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, and that he is languishing in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison in London because the U.S. government wants to make an example of him.

Assange was indicted by the Trump administration in an aggressive, precedent-shattering move that was widely condemned by journalists and human rights groups. President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland have had almost two years to do the right thing and drop this dangerous prosecution.

They have failed to deliver.

Instead, the Biden administration continues to lecture the world about press freedom and disinformation. Biden and his allies rightly chastise authoritarian regimes for censoring the press, cracking down on dissent and even criminalizing publishing the truth. Reporters Without Borders condemns violations of press freedom in places like Iran, China and Myanmar. But they also note that press freedom violations are not unique to such regimes. They condemn the persecution of Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa in the Philippines, and they lead a coalition of 16 journalism advocacy groups calling on the British government to free Assange.

These reports underscore the importance of a free and independent press that can expose wrongdoing, inform the public of uncomfortable realities and push back on government propaganda. In other words, a free press protects our access to the truth when the government deceives us.


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


I am proud to know Julian Assange. When I met with him at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, I was most impressed by his intelligence, compassion, and his belief in truth as an antidote to the poison of lies and war propaganda. As Assange said, “if wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”

For more than three years, Assange has been held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison known as “England’s Guantánamo” — much of that during a COVID outbreak at the jail that posed a threat to his life. As I write this, he is in 24-hour isolation with COVID. Last year, he suffered a mini-stroke. UN Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer has determined that the conditions of Assange’s confinement constitute torture.

Prior to being held in a maximum-security prison with murderers, Assange spent years confined in the Ecuadorian embassy, without access to adequate medical care. During that time, the U.S. government spied on his lawyers, his visitors (including me), his family and his doctors. They even seized his files and legal notes when he was arrested. Why? Because Assange’s work with WikiLeaks had embarrassed the government on the world stage

Barack Obama refused to indict Assange because of the “New York Times problem”: If Obama were to indict Assange for publishing truthful information, he’d have to indict the New York Times as well. But Biden has now affirmed Trump’s contention that publishing the truth is a crime. Assange is being charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. That law is controversial enough when prosecutors use it to target whistleblowers, but it has never been used successfully against a publisher. What Biden is really saying by indicting Assange is that the U.S. government can lie to the public, conceal its criminal behavior and then destroy those who would dare seek the truth.

The Justice Department has charged Assange for receiving and publishing truthful, newsworthy information leaked by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, but has never charged any of the military or government officials whose wrongdoing was exposed.

It is the 21st-century version of killing the messenger.

No one was harmed by Assange’s reporting, unless you count the bruised reputations of politicians who were caught breaking the law, lying or concealing misconduct. Experts testified in British court proceedings that Assange went to extreme lengths to help protect both his sources and people who might be harmed by the disclosure of sensitive information. Instead of investigating the wrongdoing that WikiLeaks exposed and punishing those who broke the law or covered it up, the government has focused on attacking whistleblowers and the journalists who work with them.

Why? Because it sends a message to others who might be tempted to inform the public about government misconduct: We can destroy your life.

Thomas Jefferson was right, and as a candidate Joe Biden was right to cite his words. There is no democracy without a free press to hold the government accountable. And Reporters Without Borders is right to be concerned about press freedom in the United States. Its fact sheet begins with the ominous line: “In the United States, once considered a model for press freedom and free speech, press freedom violations are increasing at a troubling rate.”

There is no free press without a free Julian Assange. As long as the government can prosecute Assange for publishing truthful information in the public interest, the Biden administration’s pontifications about human rights, “fake news” and propaganda are the epitome of hypocrisy.

New Israeli power broker seeks to rewrite history to justify violence against Palestinians

A right-wing Israeli politician is trying to recast a key part of American history.

That’s not a usual subject for an Israeli Cabinet member. But Itamar Ben-Gvir is trying to make his anti-Palestinian movement seem less extremist and more appealing to Jews and the international community. A rewrite of American history could help him do it.

In a November 2022 speech in Jerusalem after the recent Israeli elections, Ben-Gvir memorialized Rabbi Meir Kahane, an ultranationalist leader from the U.S. who moved to Israel and was both elected to Israel’s Parliament and convicted of terrorism before being assassinated in 1990. Ben-Gvir declared that Kahane and his followers saved Jews from the Soviet Union’s antisemitism during the 1970s and 1980s.

Kahane is best known in the U.S. as the founder of the Jewish Defense League, which was originally headquartered in New York City. From the 1960s through about 2001, this group was responsible for numerous terrorist and racist attacks against African Americans, Muslims, Jewish academics and public figures, as well as foreign diplomats.

The Conversation U.S. asked Curtis Hutt, the executive director of the Leonard and Shirley Goldstein Center for Human Rights at the University of Nebraska Omaha – an academic unit supported by donors who fought to free Soviet Jewry – to review Ben-Gvir’s claim and his motivations.

Who is this person?

Itamar Ben-Gvir is a newly elected member of the Knesset, Israel’s national legislature. He has also been appointed national security minister in the right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who in December 2022 again became Israel’s prime minister, a post he previously held from 1996 to 1999 and again from 2009 to 2021.

Ben-Gvir is a longtime supporter of Israeli Kahanist movements fighting for a theocratic Jewish state. The members of those movements support Israeli dominion over the territory they call “greater Israel,” which includes not only present-day Israel but also the Palestinian territories.

What role and power does he have in the Israeli government?

Ben-Gvir is a critical part of the Knesset’s majority coalition led by Netanyahu. As the new minister of national security with an expanded portfolio, he is now in charge of Israel’s police and border police in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Other members of the political party he leads, Otzma Yehudit, or “Jewish Power,” now hold ministry positions charged with expanding Jewish development in the Galilee and Negev regions, as well as overseeing cultural and religious heritage.

What constituencies does he represent?

In 1971, Kahane came to Israel from the U.S. and founded the Kach Party to bring his views to the voting public, but it was disqualified from participating in electoral politics in 1987 when changes to Israeli law banned groups that incited racism.

In 1994, Kach member Baruch Goldstein, who had also been a member of the Jewish Defense League, massacred 29 Muslim worshippers in a mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, part of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. As a result, both Israel and the U.S. declared Kach to be a terrorist organization.

In 2007, Ben-Gvir was convicted of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization – Kach. He also once had a portrait of Goldstein hanging in his living room.

In the 2009 election that brought Netanyahu back into power from the opposition, Kahanist disciple Michael Ben-Ari was elected to the Knesset for the first time. Four years later, he formed a new Kahanist party, Otzma Yehudit, which didn’t win any Knesset seats in the 2013 elections. In 2019, Ben-Ari was banned from running for public office because of his alleged extremist activity.

A man points toward another man as they are separated by police officers.

In the Palestinian-dominated Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem, Itamar Ben-Gvir, center, with arm extended, argues with demonstrators objecting to forced evictions of Palestinian residents. Ilia Yefimovich/picture alliance via Getty Images

At that time, Ben-Gvir, who was seen as being more moderate and more politically skilled than Ben-Ari, took over party leadership.

In 2022, an alliance between Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit Party and Bezalel Smotrich‘s messianic Religious Nationalists resulted in their candidates’ winning 15 Knesset seats, becoming the third-largest political bloc in Israel and Netanyahu’s primary coalition partner.

Ben-Gvir’s position as co-leader of this extreme right-wing alliance is so strong that his agreement to join Netanyahu’s coalition government includes a commitment to remove the clause in Israel’s Basic Law disqualifying a person from serving in the Knesset for inciting racism – for which Kahane was first banned, and of which Ben-Gvir has also been convicted.

What is Ben-Gvir saying about Rabbi Kahane and his activity?

In his November 2022 speech in honor of Kahane, Ben-Gvir credited Kahane and the Jewish Defense League for leading the successful fight against antisemitism and, specifically, in freeing Jews from the USSR.

During the Cold War, it was extremely difficult for Soviet citizens to leave the country. This put religious minorities like Jews, Protestants and Roman Catholics – all of whom were persecuted by the atheist regime – at great risk. In the 1970s and 1980s, Jewish communities across the U.S. mobilized on behalf of Soviet Jews, seeking to get them safely out of the country, often to Israel.

Throughout this period, the Jewish Defense League repeatedly physically attacked Soviet officials and cultural figures in the U.S. The group took over a New York City synagogue to demonstrate against Soviet diplomats whose offices were across the street.

Members poured blood on a Soviet official in Washington, D.C. They also set off an explosive device during a performance by a Soviet dance troupe. A bomb planted in the office of an agent finding work for Soviet entertainers killed the secretary, Iris Kones.

In my view – and the views of many Jewish leaders at the time – these efforts did not encourage the Soviet Union to change its policies or to release imprisoned dissidents. They were also exclusively focused on Russian Jews, rather than other religious minorities in the USSR, who were in a similar position as Roman Catholics and evangelicals. For the Jewish Defense League and others in Israel like new Israeli Cabinet member Avi Maoz, it was a battle to protect Jews from threats, not a struggle to improve human rights for all.

At the same time, the human rights aspect of the struggle in the USSR was a central focus of a U.S. political movement. A wide range of groups, including the Jewish community and its allies, but also Christians in the United States who were likewise aware of abuses against their own churches in the USSR, pushed Congress to act.

In 1975, that effort – not the work of the Jewish Defense League – achieved the enactment of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which curbed U.S. trade with countries that restricted freedom of movement and other basic human rights. As a result of Jackson-Vanik, by the year 2000, 573,000 refugees, including large numbers of Jews, were able to come to the U.S. Another million Jews made their way to Israel.

What is Ben-Gvir trying to claim credit for?

Ben-Gvir wants to rehabilitate Kahane’s terrorist legacy to gain support among the larger Jewish public in Israel and the U.S. For Ben-Gvir, Kahane’s so-called past successes – as exemplified in the fight to free Soviet Jewry – justify contemporary violent Kahanist tactics on behalf of Israeli Jews against Palestinians, political and religious opposition, the LGBTQ community and others.

He claims that the Jewish Defense League’s violence, even against innocent people, freed the Soviet Jews. In doing so, he is seeking to take credit for what was really a human rights effort. In the meantime, Ben-Gvir and his allies claim that human rights organizations and activists are a danger to Israel because of their advocacy for Palestinian rights.

Ben-Gvir wants people to think that Kahanists were responsible for rescuing Jews from the USSR. History shows that this is not true. Kahanists acted at odds with the human rights activists and politicians responsible for the victory. Ben-Gvir and his allies act to only protect the rights of those they consider to be observant Jews in Israel. In my view, Ben-Gvir, as Israel’s new national security minister, sees Kahane-style aggressions as the best way to protect the Jewish nation-state.

Just as Kahane was uninterested in advocating for the rights of non-Jews in the USSR or elsewhere, I see Ben-Gvir promising aggressive “Jews First” governance for Israel, and a Jewish state expanded at the expense of Palestinians.

 

Curtis Hutt, Executive Director, Leonard and Shirley Goldstein Center for Human Rights, University of Nebraska Omaha

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

Why California’s climate change and housing crises hit women hardest

While Californians are well aware that the Golden State is struggling to solve its affordable housing crisis and mitigate the impacts of climate change, most are unlikely to think of these battles as gender equality problems. But that would be a mistake, says Nancy Cohen, the president and founder of the Gender Equity Policy Institute, an organization launched in 2021 to study how policy proposals would affect women and others systematically disadvantaged by discrimination and structural inequality. 

Cohen, a commissioner for the California Democratic Party’s Conduct Commission who previously served on the Los Angeles County Commission for Women, spoke to Capital & Main about the connection between housing, the environment and women’s quality of life.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Capital & Main: Climate change and housing aren’t traditionally described as gender equity issues. Why do you see them that way?

Nancy Cohen: The issue with gender inequality is that people tend to think of a couple of core issues that are unbelievably important: equal pay and reproductive freedom. We are appalled at the retrogression on women’s rights initiated by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. But when we see every other issue as neutral, we end up perpetuating inequalities. 

Male is really the default in our tax, immigration and just about any other system you look at. We’re built for the male breadwinner. 

We all know at a certain level that we are unequal in American society, because of various economic and social factors. There are gender and race differences in all areas of life. What’s stunning is, when you really dig down in the numbers, how dramatic those inequalities really are. 

We know, for example, that women are more debt ridden and struggle more to pay for housing, because they typically earn less. But when you see how stark the differences are, I do think that it becomes a wake-up call to action. 

Why do women struggle more to secure housing?

Historically, housing has been designed to meet the needs of the traditional nuclear family or self-sufficient individuals living alone or in couples, with little consideration given to elderly or disabled people, or the needs of caregivers or multigenerational families.

More than half of Californians face unaffordable rents, but women are at the extremely low end of the income scale. Women tend to be paid less for the same work, so they accumulate less wealth. When you add racial discrimination and systemic racism on top of that, the starkest differences are for Black and Native American women. 

In public housing or very tight rental markets, sexual harassment is a tool frequently used by landlords, which further constrains women’s choices in where they live.

California has historically dealt with its lack of affordable housing by encouraging people to move as far away as necessary to afford a house, leading to very long commute times. When women commute, they have less time to work and to care for children and the elderly. Women also tend to be more dependent on public transportation, and the way California has built for decades is very inhospitable to that. 

How could California change its approach to housing to reduce these gender disparities?

There needs to be more affordable housing built in California in the cities that are already developed and have access to public transportation, good child care and quality food stores, which are all more important for people taking care of their family members. 

Solving California’s housing crisis is key to working families having a sustainable life. It’s part of creating healthy, secure, sustainable communities for all Californians. More housing built means more money for education, for health care, for leisure, to not work two or three jobs. A lot of the impact is going to be for individual people’s lives. 

Are there any policies already headed in that direction?

The Gender Equity Policy Institute put out two reports this past summer on the housing affordability issue in California and Los Angeles County

Los Angeles has a history of racial segregation. A number of cities in the county were expressly designed to keep people of color out. So Black women are the most impacted by the housing crisis. 

California recently passed a controversial bill, SB 679, that created a new regional government entity called the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency to increase affordable housing access. By creating a countywide authority that can overcome resistance in areas that have been historically hostile to multi-unit housing, for example, it should help start to ease the crisis. 

It’s very encouraging that policymakers and advocates have been receptive to listening, and really absorbing, the lessons of our reports in quantifying gender inequalities, not just when it comes to housing, but with other issues like climate change too.

How is climate change connected to gender equality?

Women are disproportionately impacted by climate change, mainly because women have fewer economic resources and greater responsibility for family care. 

In California there is, fortunately, a lot of money and investment going into addressing climate change, creating a clean energy future, decarbonizing the economy and creating resilient communities. In California, communities of color and women have been disproportionately burdened or discriminated against and have particular need for these investments. 

The federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Biden administration’s Justice40 Initiative dedicates a portion of federal investment for historically disadvantaged communities, for example, for cleaning up pollution and building energy infrastructure. 

Last year, a Gender Equity Policy Institute report showed really deep, egregious inequalities in California’s climate funding on the basis of race and gender. Money was going to be spent in a part of the state that is disproportionately white and male. And the Southern California region, which is disproportionately female and people of color, was really shortchanged. 

The funding had been overwhelmingly dedicated to conservation and wildfire control, but not toward extreme heat and associated pollution, which mainly affect farm workers, as well as low income people and communities of color in urban areas. 

Our report helped unlock hundreds of millions of dollars to be redirected toward low income communities of color, who are suffering different kinds of climate impacts than the state was focused on.

What else do you hope to see from California’s climate change mitigation investment? 

We want progress in tackling climate change because that will be better for women’s health, security and wellbeing. But we also want to make sure that women aren’t cut out of all the opportunities that this investment provides. 

These investments are going to create millions of jobs. With labor standards put into place in California and through federal bills, these should be good paying, often union jobs, with pathways to middle class careers. The problem is that these jobs are overwhelmingly held by men – most [climate investment jobs] are over 90% and some 100% male. 

One of the most important ways to level the economic playing field for women is to start breaking down occupational segregation, particularly in construction and trade jobs. 

Our systems need to be rebalanced in California and the United States. The idea would be a society where women have equal pay, wealth, housing and leadership opportunities as men.

Expert: George Santos’ alleged fake charity shows how scams divert money from worthy causes

Rep. George Santos, the New York Republican whose 2022 election to the House of Representatives flipped a seat previously held by a Democrat, faces pressure to resign for having reportedly lied extensively about his education, employment history and religious heritage. He also faces allegations that he may have participated in financial fraud.

When Santos apologized for having “embellishedhis resume, he also said, “We do stupid things in life.”

Because I’m a nonprofit accounting scholar, what has really caught my eye are the reports that Santos fabricated a charity. On an early version of his campaign website, the freshman lawmaker claimed to have founded and run what has been alleged to be a fake nonprofit animal rescue group called Friends of Pets United.

Santos says the group rescued 2,400 dogs and 280 cats and that it trapped, neutered and released over 3,000 cats from 2013 to 2018. Trouble is, there’s no evidence that has been presented publicly showing the charity ever existed.

As media outlets have reported, Friends of Pets United has no website. There’s no record of the Internal Revenue Service granting the organization nonprofit status or of a group by that name annually filing the required paperwork with the IRS. And it is further alleged that a fundraising event he held with another New Jersey animal rescue group never received any of the funds it was promised.

Fake charities are a real problem

If Santos’ animal rescue turns out to be the scam it is alleged to be, it’s unlikely to be his biggest legal or political liability.

Regardless of what the stakes are in Santos’ case, fake charities are a serious problem. Their scams divert donations that would probably otherwise support legitimate causes that benefit society in one way or another. And they can undercut donors’ confidence, discouraging charitable giving overall.

The term “fake charity” encompasses a lot of different schemes.

In one common scenario, someone pretends to represent a real charity and pockets money that should have gone to that organization. The fake charity in this case is the fraudster posing as someone authorized to raise money on behalf of the legitimate charity. The fraudster will ask deceived donors to give them money directly or to make a payment through a separate website that turns out to have no ties with the valid charity.

It’s also not unusual for someone to set up a fictitious charity – often with a name that sounds much like a legitimate cause – to fool donors into thinking they are giving to another, valid, organization. Some of these impersonators go to elaborate lengths to develop their scheme, perhaps building a website or even establishing a social media presence.

Sometimes charitable fraud is committed by the donors themselves. When that happens, the donor seeks out illegitimate tax deductions by donating to groups they know are fake nonprofits.

Role of the IRS

All fake charities have one thing in common: They aren’t registered and approved by the IRS.

The IRS regulates charities and evaluates and approves requests for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

This status provides two benefits. The roughly 1.5 million groups in this category – ranging from Planned Parenthood to your local food pantry and neighborhood church – generally don’t have to pay taxes on their income.

In addition, some of their donors can deduct any donations they make from their taxable income through the charitable deduction, which is an incentive to support those groups.

Charities must first register within their state and then apply with the IRS for recognition.

To be a valid charity, the organization must pay a fee to have its charitable application reviewed and must declare its intended charitable purpose. The application process can take as little as four weeks or over six months for more complex applications.

The IRS maintains a list of valid charities. Charities must comply with tax return filing requirements to stay on the approved list. If not, the charitable status will be revoked, although the charity may submit an application for reinstatement.

If a charity does not appear in the IRS database, it could simply be that it’s still being launched and awaiting approval. Charities can begin operating while their IRS application is pending and have their charitable status retroactively recognized.

‘Saturday Night Live’ lampooned fake charities by concocting an imaginary group that gives men’s sweatshirts to chilly, single women.

Don’t be fooled

Nonprofit fraud constituted about 9% of all fraud cases reported in 2022, the Association of Fraud Examiners said in its annual international report.

Nowadays, fake donation requests also occur with crowdfunding platforms, when people pretend to raise fund-raise informally to exploit the public. In one prominent example, three people have been found guilty of orchestrating a GoFundMe scam that raised more than US$400,000 in 2017 from 14,000 donors who were duped into believing they were helping a homeless veteran.

The news media and charity monitoring websites, such as Charity Navigator, try to keep track of these scams.

But the public has a role to play too. If you suspect that a charity asking you for donations is a fake, you can help stop them by reporting any suspected fraud to the FBI or local law enforcement.

 

Sarah Webber, Associate Professor of Accounting, University of Dayton

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

“Free press supports tribal sovereignty”: The Muscogee reporter fight against tyranny in “Bad Press”

Freedom of the press is not guaranteed for most Native American tribes. As sovereign nations, they create their own laws. In fact, only a handful of tribes have freedom of the press, one of them being the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. Well, until 2018, when the Free Press Act is repealed. It turns out that while Muscogee citizens appreciate getting information about the tribal government from the local media outlets, the tribe’s elected officials do not want reporting to include their embezzlement schemes or sexual harassment accusations.

“Bad Press,” codirected by Rebecca Landsberry-Baker (Muscogee) and Joe Peeler is a cogent documentary that chronicles over the course of several years the efforts of the members of Mvskoke Media — journalists Angel Ellis, Jerrad Moore, and Liz Gray among them — to fight for a free press and transparency and against tyranny by getting an amendment passed to change the constitution. (Something that has never before happened.) The impact of this can change tribal history; the Muscogee would be a role model for all tribes.

But the process is not easy. It requires nail-biting elections to ensure a candidate that supports a free press will be elected Chief — and that, if elected, the new administration will enact the necessary changes.

Landsberry-Baker and Peeler chatted with Salon about their film in advance of its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival.

Why did you decide to make a feature documentary about this topic of freedom of the press in Indian country? 

Rebecca Landsberry-Baker: I am a first-time filmmaker, but I am a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. I actually worked with Angel, Jerrad, and the staff of Mvskoke Media as a journalist. Now I work for the Native American Journalist Association. I am very plugged into journalism in Indian country, and one of the issues we tackle is free press in Indian country. It is a rare issue that a lot of people are unaware of outside of this small circle and community of Native journalists. These are my people. I was serving on the Mvskoke Media editorial board at the time when free press repealed. I can’t let this be swept under the rug and let the tribal government win by squashing the story. I wanted to do something so that the journalists’ side of the story was told. Having tribal administrators yank your funding if they don’t like your coverage is unique to Indian country. My husband, who is a producer on the film, and I talked with Joe and asked is this something doable as a doc? Luckily, he wanted to get involved. I’m excited to feature these subjects and to feature a community that folks have not experienced before. 

Joe Peeler: Becca and Garrett our producer came to me on a Monday, and on Friday I was meeting with Angel to start filming. When I met her, it was clear she’s the person to fight this fight. She is passionate and intelligent, and funny and snarky and really had the drive to win and try to fix this problem.  She really cares about her fellow citizens. Meeting her, it was automatically apparent that this needs to be a film and she can take us through it. Neither Becca nor I had any clue it would last as long as it did. We were on the ride, and ready to film. But we had no clue if they would win, lose, or how long battle would go on. 

I found the intricacies of the tribal laws fascinating. What can you say about the telling the story and making some of the tribal laws clear for non-Indigenous viewers?

Peeler: Working with Becca, we made a good team because she had such a deep, intricate knowledge of free press in Indian country, tribal law, and tribal journalism and how those issues affect citizens. I’m a complete outsider and knew nothing about this topic before I was contacted about this film. I have the filmmaking background, and that combination is helpful for audiences, because If I don’t understand the issues, no one will. The process of filming was the process of learning for me. Becca acts as the fact checker. I’m asking her questions as we’re interviewing subjects.

Landsberry-Baker: I don’t think either one of us, solo, could have made this movie. I had access to the community, but Joe is bringing technical expertise and making a film that was cinematic and exciting. He was often, when we were doing interviews, saying, “I have a white man question to ask,” which was helpful. I often speak about the issues with my fellow natives, but to have someone outside the community — because many viewers will be that — was helpful to help clarify things.

Angel was a target for speaking out and lobbying for a free press. Her livelihood was certainly threatened — which has ramifications for her life and family. Can you talk about these issues? 

Landsberry-Baker: There were no violent threats, thankfully, but there was political pushback. She was thrown out of a meeting. One of the tribal council representatives said, “You don’t belong here.” As a journalist and as a citizen of that tribal community, for her to get kicked out of meetings by tribal leadership — that is crazy that it’s happening in the U.S. Another tribal council member said, “Report this or else,” and she mentions that in the film.

Peeler: We heard from many tribal media journalists in Mvskoke Media and outside of the tribe, that they were genuinely worried about being arrested for doing their jobs. That hangs over journalists’ heads in Indian country. Part of the film is a portrait of the paranoia that this situation creates. If the tribal government can step in, what can they do to me? That creates this panic and paranoia that weighs on you. The emotional weight of staying and trying to do your job, and fight the fight — even if they are not busting down your door with guns, or coming in to arrest you at work. For you, and all of the people you work with, that’s a possibility. 

This is a follow-the-money film as the most powerful men — and they are all men — have the money and influence to affect change with little to no accountability. What can you say about money as a motivating factor in this story? 

Landsberry-Baker: You mention threats, and Lighthorse, our tribal police department, are controlled by the chief. If they are told to arrest the journalists at Mvskoke Media, they would do it. Thinking about funding, another looming threat is that if the tribal administration didn’t like what the newspaper was reporting, they could pull their funding and say, “Your budget is $1.” How do you report on the news with no budget? In Indian country, we’re a small community, so it’s more important that you have accountability through your tribal media department, so your citizens are aware of what money is coming into the tribe. That is the citizen’s money and how money is spent and if citizens are demanding that free press and good journalism and news about their tribal government is essential to them as a service, then they should have every right to that. We have to be able to fund that. It’s accountability to how funds from different economic development efforts, including gaming funds from casinos, how are they being spent? The press serves that function. People don’t make the connection that free press supports tribal sovereignty. But it does. It provides accountability between the government and the citizens. 

I appreciate how the efforts to overturn the repeal prompted citizens to register to vote. What observations do you have about the grassroots mobilization of citizens and the support of the community?

Landsberry-Baker: Our film highlights how important voter engagement in tribal communities can be. Ten votes separate someone from being in a runoff. Being engaged as a citizen and voter is super important; you are part of democratic process and decision-making when you go to the polls. I wish there was greater voter engagement, and I hope our film will showcase that as well, that Indians should participate in their tribal government. It’s wild to think that a handful of votes can make all the difference, but they absolutely do in Indian country.

Peeler: One way I look at the film is that it’s a portrait of young government that is young enough that one person can change it. Angel is pushing for that change, so when she stands up and speaks out, she creates a palpable ripple effect that you don’t necessarily see in a whistleblower situation on the national level. The response from community is immediate and present. Her bravery and putting herself at risk to tell this story that creates waves in this community, and the film tracks how there is backlash and how things change and get more complicated. That lens was fascinating to watch as a filmmaker, seeing that happen in real time.

Landsberry-Baker One more point to add is that Muscogee citizens live in the tribal boundaries, but also all across the nation and around the world. The Mvskoke Media is likely the only tie to or way they are getting information about tribe in California or overseas. The tribal media feel this responsibility to be one of the most important sources to educate Creek voters living in the state of Oklahoma or at large. The printed paper is sent out for free, but they are tuned into social media, the YouTube channel, the radio show, and all of the other avenues.


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


Do you feel Mvskoke Media has built a bigger, more loyal audience as a result of this battle for freedom of the press? 

Landsberry-Baker: I wonder what Mvskoke Media would say, but I think the fact that the tribal government wanted to repeal free press in a lead-up to an election, to me, points to this is an important source of information and news for citizens. The tribal politicians know people are reading it as a primary source about elections and their tribal government. I would love to hear Mvskoke Media’s response to hear if they have gained more subscriptions or grown their audience? We might see uptick after the movie.

Peeler: On the ground, I saw that the repeal split some of the electorate. People rallied around the press, but I thought the Muscogee citizens hold their newspaper to a high standard. Jerrad says the repeal decimated trust in the citizens because they are not seeing news stories they know are going on and want to see in the paper. Unfortunately, Mvskoke Media’s hands were tied, and they were unable to print those stories. There was tension — will the citizens rally around them or turn on them? We watched that play out in real time which was exciting.  

“Bad Press” premieres at the Sundance Film Festival in person on Jan. 22, with encore screenings Jan. 24-27. The documentary will also be available for viewing online Jan. 24-30. Visit the Sundance site for tickets and more information.

The real reason Prince Harry spilled his dark secrets in “Spare” – whether you want to know or not

Virginity lost behind a pub to an older woman. Drug use, including cocaine. A frozen “todger,” a word many Americans had to look up. 

These are only some of the tidbits revealed in “Spare,” the memoir from Prince Harry, which released earlier in January, selling millions and smashing records, including becoming the fastest selling nonfiction book since the United Kingdom started keeping track of such information. 

There are over 15 references Harry makes to his penis in “Spare;” Fox News counted. 

Many readers and critics expressed surprise, disappointment, even disgust that Harry would go so far, tell so much in his book. “Prince Harry’s Memoir Triggers Feelings of Betrayal” was an early headline on ET about the book. The article was about Harry’s family, but could have been describing readers who didn’t appreciate learning quite so many details about this prince they had put on a pedestal. One writer described Harry’s book as “premium mess.” Another tweeted that the Duke of Sussex should be “ashamed of himself,” a sentiment echoed throughout social media. “The monarchy is becoming a laughing stock,” one woman told The Guardian.

People had a hunger for knowing about Harry’s life — but knowing about his experience trying magic mushrooms and believing a toilet was talking to him? Perhaps that was a step too far. Yet toilet and all, these are Harry’s stories to tell. Even more importantly, essentially: if he tells them first, no one else can. 

There are over 15 references Harry makes to his penis in “Spare”; Fox News counted. At least some of these references, however, are to counter a narrative that has already been told by others, including details about his and his brother Prince William’s bodies. “All the stories were false,” Harry writes in his book. 

Harry’s entire life has been spent in the media’s harsh spotlight — one of the first parts of having a royal child is parading the newborn before cameras at the hospital – and a central aspect of his story has been dealing with the press, from his mother Princess Diana’s death to the racist treatment his wife, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, received and continues to receive from British tabloids. Harry treats the press warily and expertly. He’s media savvy enough, trained to be, to know what he’s doing. And if he breaks a story, as “Spare” did, including about unfortunate frostbite, no other media outlet can claim an exclusive exposé. No one else can profit off his story except him (and the charities to which he will allegedly donate the book’s proceeds).

Heavy-hitting and potentially embarrassing secrets, like drug use and sex, are out of the way. And out of the control of his family.

That “no one else” includes the royal family. Harry appears to have left no stone unturned in his book, although he promises there is more, enough for a possible second memoir, as he told The Telegraph. But heavy-hitting and potentially embarrassing secrets, like drug use and sex, are out of the way. And out of the control of his family. Secrets can rule us. In the right or wrong hands, they can be a weapon, and fear of them getting out, being revealed, can rein someone in as sure as an electric fence.

Blackmail is a form of abuse in that a person or group uses the threat of revealing information as a means of control. If you don’t do what I want, I’ll tell. It’s a common tactic of coercion used by groups from Scientology to NXIVM, where women in a subgroup within the organization had to put forth collateral, including personal secrets and nude pictures.

Fear often keeps people in such groups, including fear of having intimate details revealed. What defines a cult? Definitions vary, but most commonly include a group of people held together by a commitment to a leader or shared ideology, which doesn’t sound . . . totally dissimilar from the royal family. 


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


Harry and Meghan stepped back from official royal duties in January of 2020, and show no sign of returning. Every media appearance they coordinate, from “Harry & Meghan,”  the slick Netflix docuseries about their lives, to “Spare,” is both a step even further away and another secret (or five . . . or 15) out of the royal family’s control. There is power in telling one’s story, and there is even more power in being the source.

That’s also what memoirs do. They tell an author’s story, perhaps not the whole part (that’s autobiography), but the parts the writer deems important, necessary to get down, to get out in this telling. A whole subset of memoir exists devoted to the unfortunately yet popularly named “misery memoir,” telling especially difficult or traumatic stories. Memoirs are flawed, as memory is flawed, but they are a kind of a record, told by the one who was there.

Harry chose to tell it. We can choose to read it or not. But the important thing is, when it comes to relating many of his own experiences, he got there first. 

 

Stop hating on pasta — it actually has a healthy ratio of carbs, protein and fat

New year, new you, new diet. It’s a familiar refrain. One popular dieting technique is to create a food blacklist. Quitting “carbs” or packaged foods is common, which can mean avoiding supermarket staples like pasta.

But do we really need to ban pasta to improve our diets?

This is what we call a reductionist approach to nutrition, where we describe a food based on just one of its key components. Pasta isn’t just carbohydrates. One cup (about 145 grams) of cooked pasta has about 38 grams of carbohydrates, 7.7 grams of protein and 0.6 grams of fats. Plus, there’s all the water that is absorbed from cooking and lots of vitamins and minerals.

“But pasta is mostly carbs!” I hear you cry. This is true, but it’s not the whole story. We need to think about context.

Your day on a plate

You probably know there are recommendations for how much energy (kilojoules or calories) we should eat in a day. These recommendations are based on body size, sex and physical activity. But you might not realize there are also recommendations about the profile of macronutrients — or types of food — that supply this energy.

Fats, carbs and proteins are macronutrients. Macronutrients are broken down in the body to produce energy for our bodies.

Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges describe the ratio or percentage of macronutrients that should provide this energy. These ranges are set by experts based on health outcomes and models of healthy eating. They aim to make sure we get enough, but not too much, of each macro. Consuming too much or too little of any type of food can have consequences for health.

The ratios are also designed to make sure we get enough of the vitamins and minerals that come with the energy in the foods we typically eat. We should get 45-65% of our energy from carbohydrates, 10-30% from proteins and 20-35% from fats.

Mangia pasta

Macronutrient ratios mean it can be healthy to eat up to between 1.2 and 6.5 times more carbohydrates in a day than protein since each gram of protein has the same amount of energy as a gram of carbohydrates.

The ratio of carbs to protein in pasta is 38 grams to 7.7 grams, which equates to roughly a 5:1 ratio, well within the acceptable macronutrient distribution range. Meaning pasta actually has enough protein to balance with the carbohydrates. This isn’t just because of the eggs in pasta either. Wheat is another source of protein, making up about 20% of the proteins eaten globally.

If you are worried about the calorie levels and weight gain, that’s not so simple either.

In the context of an otherwise healthy diet, people have been shown to lose more weight when their diet includes pasta regularly. And a systematic review of 10 different studies found pasta was better for post-meal blood glucose levels than bread or potatoes.

Instead of quitting spaghetti, consider reducing portion sizes or switching to wholegrain pasta, which has a higher fiber content, which has benefits for gut health and can help you feel fuller longer.

Gluten-free pasta has slightly less protein than wheat pasta. So, despite being healthier for people with gluten intolerance, there are no increased health benefits in switching to gluten-free pasta for most of us.

Pass the pesto and the leftover bolognese

Pasta is also not typically eaten alone. So, while some warn about the dangers of blood sugar spikes when eating “naked carbs” (meaning just carbs with no other foods), this typically isn’t a risk for pasta.

When pasta provides the base of a meal, it can be a vehicle to help people eat more vegetables in smooth or chunky vegetable sauces. For kids (or fussy adults), pasta sauce can be a great place to hide pureed or grated vegetables.

Not eating pasta alone is also important for the protein profile. Plant foods are typically not complete proteins, which means we need to eat combinations of them to get all the different types of amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) we need to survive.

But pasta, even though we often focus on the carbs and energy, packs a good nutritional punch. Like most foods, it isn’t just macronutrients it also has micronutrients.

One cup of cooked pasta has about a quarter of our daily recommended intakes of vitamins B1 and B9, half the recommended intake of selenium and 10% of our iron needs.

The news for pasta gets even better when we eat it as leftovers. When pasta is cooked and cooled, some of the carbohydrates convert to resistant starch. This starch gets its name from being resistant to digestion, so it contributes less energy and is better for blood sugar levels. So, your leftover pasta, even if you reheat it, is lower in calories than the night before.

Look a little closer at “carb” choices

There is a lot of talk about reducing intakes of carbohydrates for weight loss, but remember carbs come in different forms and in different foods.

Some of them, like pasta, bring other benefits. Others, like cakes and lollies, add very little else. When we talk about reducing intake of refined carbohydrates, think first of sweets that are eaten alone before you cut the staple carbohydrates that are often served with vegetables, arguably the healthiest core food group.

Emma Beckett, Senior Lecturer (Food Science and Human Nutrition), School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

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

This New York crypto lawsuit aims to settle a key climate law loophole

The environmental group Earthjustice has filed suit against New York state regulators, arguing that their decision to let a Canadian cryptocurrency mine take over a natural gas power plant violates the state’s climate protection law. 

The lawsuit, filed Friday with the Supreme Court of Albany County, says allowing Digitech to take over the plant near Buffalo would cause greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution to skyrocket. But the suit centers on a separate, yet related issue: settling a key debate over whether the Public Service Commission, a state body that regulates utilities, must consider emissions in its decision making.

Canadian blockchain technology company Digihost filed a petition with the New York Public Service Commission in early 2021 to purchase the Fortistar plant in the town of North Tonawanda. The facility had been operating as a peaker plant, providing electricity on the handful of days each year when demand spiked. It has released between 3,000 and 43,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually since 2016, according to Environmental Protection Agency data analyzed by Earthjustice. But Fortistar estimates that the plant will release more than 300,000 metric tons each year once it begins powering Digihost’s crypto mining facility. Emissions of harmful pollutants like particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides will also increase.

“The Public Service Commission can no longer ignore the impacts of its decisions,” said Roger Downs, conservation director for the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, which is a plaintiff in the suit. “Especially when they run counter to public benefit and endanger the air quality for communities already burdened with a disproportionate amount of pollution.”

Under New York’s Climate and Community Protection Act, which former governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law in 2019, the state must get 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and 100 percent from emissions-free sources by 2050. The law also dictates that state permitting, licensing, and other administrative approvals or appeals, “shall not disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities.” Just how those communities will be identified has yet to be finalized, but a mapping tool that uses criteria under consideration shows that several census tracts near the Fortistar plant could qualify. The area already grapples with a number of environmental burdens, including a high concentration of chemical facilities and industrially zoned land, flood risks, and pollution. 

Crypto operations requires large numbers of computers that suck up an enormous amount of energy. The resulting emissions have made crypto mining a contentious issue in New York. Governor Kathy Hochul cracked down on cryptocurrency mining last year, temporarily banning environmental permits for fossil fuel plants that power crypto operations. But the two-year moratorium does not apply to those that already filed their paperwork — including the Fortistar plant, which filed to renew its air permits last year.

The decision to approve those permits falls to the Department of Environmental Conservation, which has a clear mandate to consider the state’s climate law. The agency has already made several high profile decisions to deny permits for fossil fuel plants and even rejected an application to renew the air permit for a similar crypto mining facility, the Greenidge natural gas power plant, because its “continued operations would be inconsistent with the statewide greenhouse gas emission limits established in the Climate Act.”

The Public Service Commission, on the other hand, has contested its role in helping the state meet its emissions goals. Its seven members are appointed by the governor to regulate gas and electric utilities with the goal of ensuring “access to safe, reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates.” When utilities want to raise customer rates to invest in new infrastructure, they must get the commission’s approval. But despite its power over the buildout of natural gas pipelines, power plants, and other long-lived fossil fuel assets, the panel has repeatedly rejected the idea that it must consider emissions in its decision making. 

In approving Digihost’s acquisition of the Fortistar plant, the commission said the emissions question was beyond the purview of the proceeding, which was limited to examining whether the transfer would harm ratepayers. (Commissioners determined it would not.) However, environmental groups point to a section of the law which states, “In considering and issuing permits, licenses, and other administrative approvals and decisions …all state agencies, offices, authorities, and divisions shall consider whether such decisions are inconsistent with or will interfere with the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits.”

If the court agrees, the decision would have implications not only for Digihost but for utility regulation going forward: It could force the Public Service Commission to consider how allowing utilities to spend money on fossil fuel projects might hinder the state’s emission reduction goals.  

The biggest, buzziest conference for health care investors convenes amid fears the bubble will burst

SAN FRANCISCO — Health care’s business class returned to its San Francisco sanctuary last week for JPMorgan’s annual health care confab, at the gilded Westin St. Francis hotel on Union Square. After a two-year pandemic pause, the mood among the executives, bankers, and startup founders in attendance had the aura of a reunion — as they gossiped about promotions, work-from-home routines, who’s getting what investments. Dressed in their capitalist best — ranging from brilliant-blue or pastel-purple blazers to puffy-coat chic — they thronged to big parties, housed in art galleries or restaurants.

But the party was tinged with new anxiety: Would the big money invested in health care due to covid-19 continue to flow? Would investors ask to see results — meaning profits — rather than just cool ideas?

The buzzy conference had just as many words about profits as about patients. The mostly maskless crowd spoke English, French, Japanese — and, of course, money.

Besides the corporate and investment types, attendees routinely saw surprising characters — like celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, fresh off a Senate run, holding court in the lobby on Jan. 10.

If the vibe in the hotel’s congested halls was upbeat — or, at least, cheery — underneath there was a frisson of anxiety as all were aware that the health care business bonanza looked to be slowing down.

The conference started with a sidewalk protest of pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, whose drugs combating HIV and hepatitis C are fabulously effective — and fabulously expensive. During the pandemic, Congress for the first time has set up a plan to allow Medicare to negotiate U.S. drug prices, which are by far the highest in the world. In a statement, company spokesperson Catherine Cantone said Gilead is the largest private funder of HIV programs in the U.S., adding, “Gilead’s role in ending the HIV and hepatitis epidemics is to discover, develop, and ensure access to our life-saving medicines.”

Then there’s the economic environment, which is turning treacherous. Journalists at financial publication Bloomberg diagnosed a lack of exciting deals. Startup executives — who previously found millions of dollars in investments easy to come by — seemed obligated to show results in their impromptu pitches in bars and coffee shops. Business executives of all stripes promised they either currently made profits or were about to, soon.

“I think this is a tricky year,” said Hemant Taneja, CEO of the venture capital firm General Catalyst, during one panel. He suggested that large swaths of health tech startups were overvalued and that their clients will be more interested in whether they’re actually providing useful services.

The new message from potential investors was clear. “The idea you could grow and not be profitable is dead, gone,” said Dr. Jon Cohen, CEO of the mental health startup Talkspace, in an interview.

There was some cognitive dissonance at the conference. Take, for example, BioNTech, the vaccine developer whose mRNA vaccine, created with Pfizer, provides powerful protection for covid. Company co-founder Uğur Şahin was interrupted by applause during a presentation recounting its role in fighting the pandemic — and that’s before he touted his company’s role in reducing infectious disease, saving lives, and meeting global health needs for tuberculosis and malaria.

The conversation later turned to the pricing of his company’s flagship vaccine — which it’s jockeying to set at more than $100 a dose, up from an average government purchase price of $20.69. It was a fair price considering the “health economics,” BioNTech’s chief strategy officer, Ryan Richardson, explained: the hospitalizations and serious outcomes averted.

Or take drugstore giant CVS — which is steadily expanding beyond its retail roots into health insurance and primary care. CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch said that as part of its health business the company is looking at all the factors that underlie being well. “Health isn’t just about the engagement with the provider; it’s about all the other factors — including housing and nutrition,” she said. Left unaddressed was the sight often greeting CVS customers upon entering a store: candy, chips, and other processed foods.

For critics, it was a mind-bending comment. “The last I heard, CVS was a for-profit company, not a social welfare agency,” said Marion Nestle, a researcher who is a longtime critic of the food industry. “It sells junk foods that make people sick and drugs to treat those illnesses. How’s that for a nifty business model!”

CVS spokesperson Ethan Slavin offered a very different vision, one in which CVS is seeking to be a premier health and wellness destination. “We’re always evolving our food and beverage assortment to provide healthier, on-trend products.” It is also supporting programs to bolster food availability in underserved areas, he added.

Some techies encountered new skepticism about “artificial intelligence.” Ginkgo Bioworks co-founder Jason Kelly noted during his presentation that people at the conference heard so much about artificial intelligence during the meetings, “they want to stop hearing it.” (Ginkgo’s AI, used to support pharmaceutical and biotech research, he said, was different than the rest.)

One surgeon, Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal, found conversations with financiers about the stealth startup he founded, which focuses on metabolic health, were focused on silver bullets. “Tell me if I invest in this, I’ll 10x” the outlay, he said, paraphrasing the bankers. Many, he said, wanted to “do some good as well” for patients.

Aggarwal felt the investors were looking for simple solutions to health problems. And one item fit that bill: a new class of drugs — GLP-1 agonists, a type of medication that aids in weight loss but will likely have to be taken for long periods. Some analysts are projecting these drugs will be worth $50 billion. The bankers, Aggarwal felt, aren’t “thinking about health care,” they’re “thinking about the dollars attached to the pill.”


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Will your smartphone be the next doctor’s office?

he same devices used to take selfies and type out tweets are being repurposed and commercialized for quick access to information needed for monitoring a patient’s health. A fingertip pressed against a phone’s camera lens can measure a heart rate. The microphone, kept by the bedside, can screen for sleep apnea. Even the speaker is being tapped, to monitor breathing using sonar technology.

In the best of this new world, the data is conveyed remotely to a medical professional for the convenience and comfort of the patient or, in some cases, to support a clinician without the need for costly hardware.

But using smartphones as diagnostic tools is a work in progress, experts say. Although doctors and their patients have found some real-world success in deploying the phone as a medical device, the overall potential remains unfulfilled and uncertain.

Smartphones come packed with sensors capable of monitoring a patient’s vital signs. They can help assess people for concussions, watch for atrial fibrillation, and conduct mental health wellness checks, to name the uses of a few nascent applications.

Companies and researchers eager to find medical applications for smartphone technology are tapping into modern phones’ built-in cameras and light sensors; microphones; accelerometers, which detect body movements; gyroscopes; and even speakers. The apps then use artificial intelligence software to analyze the collected sights and sounds to create an easy connection between patients and physicians. Earning potential and marketability are evidenced by the more than 350,000 digital health products available in app stores, according to a Grand View Research report.

“It’s very hard to put devices into the patient home or in the hospital, but everybody is just walking around with a cellphone that has a network connection,” said Dr. Andrew Gostine, CEO of the sensor network company Artisight. Most Americans own a smartphone, including more than 60% of people 65 and over, an increase from just 13% a decade ago, according the Pew Research Center. The covid-19 pandemic has also pushed people to become more comfortable with virtual care.

Some of these products have sought FDA clearance to be marketed as a medical device. That way, if patients must pay to use the software, health insurers are more likely to cover at least part of the cost. Other products are designated as exempt from this regulatory process, placed in the same clinical classification as a Band-Aid. But how the agency handles AI and machine learning-based medical devices is still being adjusted to reflect software’s adaptive nature.

Ensuring accuracy and clinical validation is crucial to securing buy-in from health care providers. And many tools still need fine-tuning, said Dr. Eugene Yang, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington. Currently, Yang is testing contactless measurement of blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation gleaned remotely via Zoom camera footage of a patient’s face.

Judging these new technologies is difficult because they rely on algorithms built by machine learning and artificial intelligence to collect data, rather than the physical tools typically used in hospitals. So researchers cannot “compare apples to apples” with medical industry standards, Yang said. Failure to build in such assurances undermines the technology’s ultimate goals of easing costs and access because a doctor still must verify results.

“False positives and false negatives lead to more testing and more cost to the health care system,” he said.

Big tech companies like Google have heavily invested in researching this kind of technology, catering to clinicians and in-home caregivers, as well as consumers. Currently, in the Google Fit app, users can check their heart rate by placing their finger on the rear-facing camera lens or track their breathing rate using the front-facing camera.

“If you took the sensor out of the phone and out of a clinical device, they are probably the same thing,” said Shwetak Patel, director of health technologies at Google and a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Washington.

Google’s research uses machine learning and computer vision, a field within AI based on information from visual inputs like videos or images. So instead of using a blood pressure cuff, for example, the algorithm can interpret slight visual changes to the body that serve as proxies and biosignals for a patient’s blood pressure, Patel said.

Google is also investigating the effectiveness of the built-in microphone for detecting heartbeats and murmurs and using the camera to preserve eyesight by screening for diabetic eye disease, according to information the company published last year.

The tech giant recently purchased Sound Life Sciences, a Seattle startup with an FDA-cleared sonar technology app. It uses a smart device’s speaker to bounce inaudible pulses off a patient’s body to identify movement and monitor breathing.

Binah.ai, based in Israel, is another company using the smartphone camera to calculate vital signs. Its software looks at the region around the eyes, where the skin is a bit thinner, and analyzes the light reflecting off blood vessels back to the lens. The company is wrapping up a U.S. clinical trial and marketing its wellness app directly to insurers and other health companies, said company spokesperson Mona Popilian-Yona.

The applications even reach into disciplines such as optometry and mental health:

  • With the microphone, Canary Speech uses the same underlying technology as Amazon’s Alexa to analyze patients’ voices for mental health conditions. The software can integrate with telemedicine appointments and allow clinicians to screen for anxiety and depression using a library of vocal biomarkers and predictive analytics, said Henry O’Connell, the company’s CEO.
  • Australia-based ResApp Health got FDA clearance last year for its iPhone app that screens for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea by listening to breathing and snoring. SleepCheckRx, which will require a prescription, is minimally invasive compared with sleep studies currently used to diagnose sleep apnea. Those can cost thousands of dollars and require an array of tests.
  • Brightlamp’s Reflex app is a clinical decision support tool for helping manage concussions and vision rehabilitation, among other things. Using an iPad’s or iPhone’s camera, the mobile app measures how a person’s pupils react to changes in light. Through machine learning analysis, the imagery gives practitioners data points for evaluating patients. Brightlamp sells directly to health care providers and is being used in more than 230 clinics. Clinicians pay a $400 standard annual fee per account, which is currently not covered by insurance. The Department of Defense has an ongoing clinical trial using Reflex.

In some cases, such as with the Reflex app, the data is processed directly on the phone — rather than in the cloud, Brightlamp CEO Kurtis Sluss said. By processing everything on the device, the app avoids running into privacy issues, as streaming data elsewhere requires patient consent.

But algorithms need to be trained and tested by collecting reams of data, and that is an ongoing process.

Researchers, for example, have found that some computer vision applications, like heart rate or blood pressure monitoring, can be less accurate for darker skin. Studies are underway to find better solutions.

Small algorithm glitches can also produce false alarms and frighten patients enough to keep widespread adoption out of reach. For example, Apple’s new car-crash detection feature, available on both the latest iPhone and Apple Watch, was set off when people were riding roller coasters and automatically dialed 911.

“We’re not there yet,” Yang said. “That’s the bottom line.”


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

The secretive legal weapon that fossil fuel interests use against climate-conscious countries

For over a decade, debate has raged over the Keystone XL pipeline project, which aimed to transport Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. After approving the project’s initial stages, the Obama administration rejected a permit allowing the pipeline to cross the national border in 2015.

However, the energy company backing the project didn’t take no for an answer: TransCanada soon sued the U.S. for $15 billion dollars — the future expected profits it claimed the pipeline would have earned, in addition to the $3.1 billion it had already invested in the project. The company was able to do so because the North American Free Trade Agreement, the treaty known as NAFTA that the U.S. signed with Canada and Mexico in 1994, included a clause about something called an investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS — a closed-door legal process that’s an often overlooked, but increasingly urgent, hurdle to addressing climate change. ISDS mechanisms are included in many other bilateral and international trade agreements, allowing a country to be sued by investors from other member countries if it takes any subsequent actions that adversely affect those investments.

The threat of this liability has hung over the pipeline conflict ever since: When President Trump signed an executive order in 2017 reversing course and allowing Keystone XL to move forward, TransCanada announced that it would suspend its ISDS case against the U.S. for 30 days — exactly the deadline for the decision on their new permit application. In March of that year, the new permit was approved, and TransCanada dropped its ISDS claim. 

Corporations’ ability to threaten this kind of financial liability is creating growing problems for countries looking to tackle climate change and restrict fossil fuel extraction, says Kyla Tienhaara, the Canada Research Chair in Economy and Environment at Queen’s University in Ontario. It’s far from the only recent example: Take Italy, which banned oil drilling within 12 nautical miles of its coast only to be sued by the UK-based oil company Rockhopper, which had hoped to develop a near-shore oilfield at Ombrina Mare, off the coast of Abruzzo. This summer, an international tribunal authorized to adjudicate investor-state disputes ordered the Italian government to compensate the firm $210 million pounds.

Tienhaara and her colleagues recently published a study in the peer-reviewed academic journal Science finding that global efforts to limit new oil and gas developments could generate as much as $340 billion in legal claims from fossil fuel investors seeking to recoup their losses. (To put this in perspective, the Green Climate Fund, an international mechanism established to help developing countries adapt to climate change, has a portfolio valued at $11.3 billion.) Already, fossil fuel industries represent a large and growing number of the plaintiffs in these kinds of disputes: In 2020, around 20 percent of ISDS cases were brought by oil and gas companies. 

These settlements are decided in a private legal process. Unlike public judicial systems, these tribunals are typically run by three arbitrators chosen jointly by the disputing parties. These people tend to be repeatedly selected from a small group of experts in corporate law, and at times they act as lawyers for an investor in one case and arbitrators deciding the case in another, though the cases may be similar or even simultaneous — a practice known as “double hatting.”

Because ISDS systems are written into thousands of different treaties, each with different wording, there’s also no system of precedence. Just because arbitrators decide something in one case doesn’t mean that logic has to be applied to another. Proceedings can be kept confidential, and there is no way to appeal a tribunal’s decision.

Tieenhaara argues that the specter of being sued for making decisions that inhibit the profits of companies and investors has a chilling effect on countries’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand, for example, recently said that it could not join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, an international consortium of governments working to phase out fossil fuels, because doing so “would have run afoul of investor-state settlements.” Countries in the developing world are even less able to afford the fiscal risk of being on the hook for lost profits.

As of 2017, the average amount awarded in an ISDS case was $504 million. Recently, however, there have been some exorbitant outliers, like a 2019 case in which Pakistan was ordered to pay $5.9 billion to the Australian Tethyan Copper Company for lost future profits after the country denied its lease. (The company had only invested about $150 million in the project to date.) The decision, which came down just one week after the International Monetary Fund approved a loan of almost exactly the $6 billion Pakistan was about to lose, represented the equivalent of 40 percent of the country’s cash reserves in foreign currency. 

The annual United Nations conference COP27 concluded in November with a broad agreement that wealthy, developed countries have a financial obligation to support poorer countries that have contributed relatively little to causing climate change as they adapt to its consequences. Yet those latter countries also bear the majority of the financial risk stemming from potential ISDS claims. Tienhaara recently worked on an analysis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Policy in December, which found that the developing world faces enormous liabilities if it cancels potential fossil fuel projects. Mozambique, for instance, which has substantial offshore gas reserves, currently has an ISDS risk of $29 billion — nearly twice its annual national income. 

“The system is unbalanced toward investors,” said Lea Di Salvatore, a legal researcher at the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, affiliated with Columbia University. Di Salvatore recently analyzed 29 of Mozambique’s gas, coal, and oil projects and found the majority are protected by ISDS clauses. “Are we really expecting Mozambique to take action against TotalEnergies or ExxonMobil, who have all the political and economic power?” Tienhaara added that many other African countries are in a similarly precarious position, forced to choose between climate action and expensive payouts.

There are at least 2,500 investment treaties globally, many written with decades-old policy priorities in mind. Supporters of these international agreements suggest that they provide legal stability that can spur investors to commit to useful projects that might not otherwise find funding — including those critical to renewable energy development. But the Columbia Center on Sustainable Development argued in a December report that investment treaties “are neither effective nor decisive in attracting investment in renewables to developing countries.”

Instead, the authors recommend governments focus on establishing internal regulatory frameworks and strengthening domestic judicial systems to protect investors. Tienhaara believes that states should go further by taking steps to terminate existing treaties and developing binding rules to limit the amount of compensation that can be awarded to investors. 

The Energy Charter Treaty, or ECT, which has been ratified by over 50 primarily European countries, is the international agreement that’s the largest hurdle to enacting policies to combat climate change. Signed in 1993, it explicitly aims to protect the energy investments of its members. Historically, many investor-state disputes resulted in rulings favoring companies based in rich countries. But thanks to the ECT, European countries have recently found themselves on the receiving end of ISDS claims more frequently.

This year, many appeared to reach a breaking point. Poland announced this fall that it would withdraw from the ECT; Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovenia followed. In late November, the Council of the European Union failed to reach an agreement on modifications to the treaty to bring it into alignment with Paris Agreement climate targets that came into force in 2016. Instead, the European Parliament called for a coordinated European Union departure from the treaty altogether. 

Yet these countries may still be on the hook for claims under the ECT for another 20 years. That’s because the treaty, like many agreements with ISDS provisions, includes a “sunset clause” that extends its protections long after a state’s withdrawal. The United States is facing just such an issue currently: Though NAFTA expired in 2020, it included a sunset clause allowing investors to file disputes for three additional years. When the Biden administration canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline once again in 2021, the company behind the pipeline brought back its ISDS claim. A tribunal to settle the matter was recently appointed, and the process is ongoing even as the pipe system the project would have extended gushes tens of thousands of barrels of oil into a creek in Kansas.

Advocates like Tienhaara say the recent signs of movement away from agreements like the ECT are promising, but many ISDS cases stem from countless other bilateral treaties, which likely need to be addressed individually. 

Ultimately, Tienhaara argues that investor certainty should not be prioritized above climate action. “Climate change is a global problem,” she said. “We need to care about everyone, everywhere — and have policies that aren’t just about defending our own interests.”

Black, LGBTQ+, and religious groups ask Biden to drop the National Prayer Breakfast

A coalition of religious and secular groups is calling on Pres. Joe Biden and Congress to end their involvement with the National Prayer Breakfast, a private event used by its secretive sponsor to foster right-wing networking around the globe.

The ask – in the form of a letter signed by numerous organizations and individuals – represents a significant escalation in the number and scope of people opposed to political participation in the annual event. The letter was expected to go out Tuesday, according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which spearheaded it.

Based on the signatories, past opposition to the breakfast by secular groups is now growing to include organizations representing religious leaders, the LGBTQ+ community, and Black organizations. More than one leader cited historic public pressure on Black politicians to engage in public displays of religiosity.

In addition to Biden and the Congress generally, some of the letter’s signatories told TYT they would like to see public support from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Freethought Caucus. The FFRF last month told TYT it was lobbying members of Congress to drop the breakfast, and some of those signing on to the new letter said they’re doing similar lobbying, as well.

Signatories include the Council for Global Equality, the Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative, Black Nonbelievers, American Atheists, and the American Humanist Association. Organization leaders who spoke to TYT about their reasons for signing the leader included four Black leaders, two of them gay men of the cloth.

Some cited TYT’s reporting about the National Prayer Breakfast sponsor, a private and secretive Christian group called the Fellowship Foundation and known popularly as The Family. Some cited journalist Jeff Sharlet’s definitive book, “The Family,” and his revelations about The Family’s ties to anti-LGBTQ death-penalty legislation in Uganda.

Others took issue with the fundamental conflict of official involvement in a prayer breakfast, a longstanding issue for secular groups. Recent revelations about The Family’s work – and how it uses prayer breakfasts – have expanded such historic concerns beyond the secular world to include racism, anti-LGBTQ bias, anti-choice bias, and misogyny, igniting activism against the breakfast from a broader coalition of groups.

The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and mounting awareness of white Christian nationalism has also swelled the ranks of those willing to call out proponents of theocracy, even those clad in benign vestments. A Council for Global Equality representative called the breakfast “a playground for white Christian nationalists.”

The National Prayer Breakfast is traditionally staged in Washington the first Thursday of each February. While the main event is streamed live, the Family also holds four days of ancillary, closed-door events at which the religious and political leanings of its leaders are more openly indulged.

TYT previously revealed that The Family used such side events to radicalize MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and to protect Guatemala’s evangelical, anti-LGBTQ president from prosecutors. The “Take Care, Tim” blog surfaced video of Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., at the Ukrainian National Prayer Breakfast praising such events for steeling then-Pres. Donald Trump’s opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

With fewer Democrats willing to associate themselves with the event every year, The Family’s most prominent Democratic advocate, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., has become increasingly isolated in his defense of the event. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a past headliner, did not attend in 2022. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told TYT in a statement beforehand that he wouldn’t be a part of it.

Coons reportedly claimed that the 2022 National Prayer Breakfast (NPB) would represent a “reset” of the event. But this year’s NPB shows every sign of maintaining the Family’s secrecy. The event has not been publicly announced and The Family has never disclosed the guest list nor who compiles it.

Last year, the White House kept Biden’s participation low-key, withholding details and rationales about his planned participation beforehand. The White House only revealed his involvement four days before, in its weekly planning itinerary for the media.

Similarly, this year the White House has not responded to TYT’s request for comment about Biden’s potential participation, or about the FFRF letter. Biden reportedly is close to Coons, a fellow Delawarean.

More breakfast opponents, however, are speaking openly about the role that a dwindling handful of Democrats plays facilitating The Family’s work.

Democratic participation, American Atheists Vice President Alison Gill said, “gives a false legitimacy” to the private event. She said, “We’ve been working with partner organizations at the national level to be clear and to ask Democrats not to participate so that they don’t legitimize this organization or this message as being bipartisan, as being American policy.”

Gill added that the breakfast is not the only instance of putatively bipartisan prayer events roping in Democrats to the benefit of right-wing causes. American Atheists is focusing on state-level issues, and Gill said some states have prayer caucuses “furthering this specific Christian nationalist agenda. And Democrats that participate really help to legitimize that.”

As with the breakfasts, Gill said, the state-level caucuses go beyond prayer to policy. “What they do, we’ve seen as a tactic, is get like the one Democrat participant to introduce pretty extreme legislation … to make it seem like it’s mainstream.”

American Humanist Association (AHA) Executive Director Nadya Dutchin told TYT that the “conflation” of church and state at the breakfast is “antithetical to everything that we stand for and, I think, that most American people stand for.” But Dutchin also said the “really insidious nature of the prayer breakfast” has “start[ed] to materialize.”


During the Obama administration, Sharlet’s reporting revealed The Family’s role in the genesis of Ugandan legislation that included capital punishment for LGBTQ+ people. More recently, TYT has revealed how Democratic participation in the breakfast and its overseas affiliates has helped bolster and build anti-LGBTQ networks in Ukraine and Guatemala, among other places.

But for one opponent of political participation in the breakfast, the history goes back further. And it’s personal.

The Rev. Jason Carson Wilson, founder of the Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative, says he was six years old when he first got his call to the ministry, and first knew he was gay.

Not many years later, the young Wilson – raised in a conservative evangelical church – encountered coverage of the National Prayer Breakfast on television. He was also watching reports about the start of the AIDS crisis. But not just on TV news. On “things like the 700 Club, I was really exposed to those types of views.”

And so, Wilson says, “For me, it’s always been, frankly, as a gay man, a triggering event, even watching it on TV, particularly because of its connection with really stirring, or fomenting the demonization of LGBTQ people, particularly during this moment at which they were the most targeted, already being tormented by watching people die.”

The FFRF’s organizing of the letter is the first time the Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative has taken a public stand on the National Prayer Breakfast. “Those feelings that I had as a young person have stuck with me,” Wilson said. “And I think that is what drives me to take this opportunity to speak out against this.”

Another Black, gay man of faith opposing the breakfast is Bishop Joseph Tolton of The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, also the founder of Interconnected Justice and the faith engagement coordinator for the Council for Global Equality, a coalition of LGBTI human rights organizations that focuses on U.S. foreign policy. The CGE is a signatory to the letter.

Tolton called the breakfast “a playground for white Christian nationalists to connect and to further promote their agenda, which makes it such a dangerous event because they lure members of Congress into the event.”

Tolton said, “there’s a global economy of highly conservative Christianity sliding toward dominionist ideology [and] it is financed mostly by folks from the United States and from the West.” (As TYT revealed, the breakfast’s predominant donor is anti-LGBTQ evangelist Franklin Graham.)

Tolton called this “a diabolical effort to create nations that adopt the law of God, or the law of Christ, as the law of the nation.”

Here in the U.S. Tolton said, conservatives are “saying out loud the parts they used to whisper, which is that they do want to see the country really establish Christianity as our national religion.”

He said, “That platform is anti-gay, it’s anti-woman, it’s anti-black. They certainly also want to have an economic system that reinforces our continuation of drifting toward being a clear oligarchy.”

Tolton also said that anti-LGBTQ tactics nurtured in the friendly soil of countries like Uganda, where he oversees a ministry, are now taking root here in the U.S. The U.S., in other words, is not immune from the actions its Christian nationalist financiers fund overseas.

In Uganda, for instance, Tolton said, “the [way] to push back against and to crush LGBTQ advocacy is to suggest that gay folks are in the business of recruiting children into homosexuality.”

He said that, “Over the last two years, the community has been terrorized and threatened.”

Despite the absurdity of homosexual recruitment, Tolton said, that idea “got lots of traction in Uganda, but now it’s happening in America, where they’re not calling them recruiters, but it’s the same idea of the language that they use in America … grooming.”

Tolton said, “These things are deeply connected and the prayer breakfast is a real vehicle that reinforces these connections, which is a terrible thing.” (As TYT reported last year, the 2022 Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast was an open rally, including Family allies, to resist western pressure for LGBTQ+ tolerance.)

While European LGTBQ+ organizations have been openly critical of prayer breakfasts in the past, this year marks the first since the Ugandan scandal that the breakfast’s anti-LGBTQ+ component is also driving domestic U.S. opposition.

The AHA’s Dutchin said, “The prayer breakfast has a huge and strong anti-LGBTQ component.”

Gill said, “It’s leading to the export of Christian nationalism across the world: An anti-LGBTQ and anti-civil rights agenda… And I think that’s been further exposed.”

Wilson, who’s also a minister with the United Church of Christ, says he founded the Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative to advocate for LGTBQ+ people of color, with a focus on economic justice. According to Wilson, “This breakfast has served as a space that has connected certain, shall we say, power brokers here in the United States with, for example, homophobic lawmakers.”

Wilson said he joined the coalition signing the letter because, “in the context of this breakfast, [prayer] is a sacred act that has become weaponized.” In addition to LGBTQ+ issues, Wilson also tied the National Prayer Breakfast to rhetoric about “individuals who need a helping hand from safety-net programs that are demonized because they need that help.”


Several signatories told TYT that the prayer breakfast has specific political implications for the Black community, and that Black members of Congress are more vulnerable to pressure to attend.

Mandisa Thomas, founder and president of Black Nonbelievers, told TYT that although Black members of Congress “are very well educated [and] are very intelligent, they can still be swayed by either their constituency or by their own personal belief into thinking that this prayer breakfast is something that is just, not necessarily harmless, but that brings people together.”

She added, “So, yes, I do think that there are extenuating circumstances that could influence Black legislators to go along with it, and, yes, we do have to talk about that.”

Thomas said that this was the first year that Black Nonbelievers has been involved in opposing the breakfast. “This is very important to us,” she said. The breakfast “basically embodies white supremacy, especially from a religious perspective, which does impact racial justice.”

Separation of church and state, Thomas said, impacts not only racial but economic justice, which “people of color, particularly Black communities, are disproportionately affected by.”

She said, “It is important for us to discuss from our perspective how the National Prayer Breakfast is…problematic, and also the initiatives [of] the sponsor organization and the harm that they have caused around the world, even on the continent of Africa.”

Dutchin, who is not only Black but the first woman and the first person of color to lead the AHA, said she sees pressure on Black politicians to exhibit religiosity. She said, “The outcomes of the breakfast and of other engagement like that are absolutely antithetical and harmful to the well-being of Black people and Brown people and other marginalized communities.”

Addressing claims that the breakfast is a unifying event, Tolton pointed to the fact that the breakfast has virtually no presence in the black church. “The black church at large is not particularly connected to the fellowship or the prayer breakfast,” Tolton said. “And I think that there’s a real reason for that that should make someone very curious and suspicious.” (TYT previously revealed that even nationally known Black religious leaders on the left were not invited.)


A number of signatories said the Jan. 6 attack has raised the stakes for opposing anything inclined toward theocracy or white Christian nationalism. (TYT previously reported that some leaders of The Family backed the Big Lie.)

Dutchin said the breakfast conflates Christian beliefs with constitutional values “and contributes to growing Christian nationalistic sentiment.” Referring to Christians, religious minorities, and secular people, Dutchin said, “We all need to be banding together in this moment and working against this rising wave of toxic Christian nationalism.”

Today, Gill said, “People are more willing to call out when people move beyond just conservative Christianity into this type of ideological, Christian nationalism.”

According to Wilson, “This prayer breakfast on such a national stage really flies against our constitutional commitment to the separation of church and state.”

Dutchin said she hopes to get public statements from Congressional Freethought Caucus members to raise awareness about the nature of the breakfast. She said AHA will likely talk to caucus co-founders Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., or Jamie Raskin, D-Md. “We’re hoping that one of them will weigh in,” she said.

Gill said that American Atheists and the FFRF, as well as “several” other partners, within the last year or so began discussing “how we could take a more active stance in opposing” the breakfast.

“It’s become more and more evident, as years go by, what this actually is,” Gill said. “The fact that this is an organization running it that has an agenda, and it’s spreading a message, was cloaked by the fact that it was more bipartisan” in previous years.

It’s not just reporting by TYT and others that has helped clarify the breakfast’s nature, Gill said. “Also it was the fact that we’re seeing more Democrats withdraw from it.”

She said, “Now it’s sort of become synonymous with this Christian nationalist agenda, so it becomes easier and more important that we unmask it.” And the mounting evidence of anti-LGBTQ+ work, she said, might make opponents of the breakfast “more willing to speak out and less fearful that they’ll be branded as anti-religious.”

Wilson, with the Bayard Rustin Liberation Initiative, said it’s been well-documented that the breakfast is “predominantly” a space for political networking. He said he would invite breakfast participants to “ponder, or – frankly, pun intended – pray about whether or not the act of prayer should be connected to or used to build political power.”

Tolton said the Council for Global Equality has the U.S. government’s ear and is working to educate lawmakers “on a case by case basis” about the dynamic between global LGBTQ+ rights and the prayer breakfast. “They perceive that it’s benign and – particularly as Democrats, I think – that it’s a good way to establish, you know, credibility with some of your religious constituents.”

Much like Dutchin hopes to get the Congressional Freethought Caucus involved, Tolton has his eye on another group of members. “One of the entities that I think could really play an interesting role here is the Congressional Black Caucus, because for years they have been pro-LGBTQ, they’ve been far ahead of their constituents and certainly the black church.”

He said, “I think that there’s a real opportunity for the Congressional Black Caucus to be in conversation with black pastors and black leaders about why [the National Prayer Breakfast] is such a dangerous initiative.”

The danger, Tolton said, is that “it is the intention of those that facilitate the prayer breakfast to ultimately move us toward establishment” of a religious state. “Our opponents mean business,” he said. “And, obviously, so do we.”

“Don’t be ugly”: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert get into loud argument in House restroom

The mounting tension between Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga, and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., reached its boiling point when the pair got into a heated exchange in the women’s bathroom during the House floor vote on January 3, according to The Daily Beast.

The two women were “nearly in a screaming match” over Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., candidacy for House speaker, multiple sources told The Beast.

One source said that Greene confronted Boebert as she came out of a bathroom stall. 

Another source said that Greene asked Boebert, “You were OK taking millions of dollars from McCarthy but you refuse to vote for him for Speaker, Lauren?”

“That’s when Lauren said, ‘Don’t be ugly,'” the first source said, adding that she “ran out like a little schoolgirl.”

While Greene has made an effort to cozy up to McCarthy, Boebert has remained a leading opponent of his candidacy and leaned into her MAGA firebrand status.

Their differing views were on display during the speaker vote, when the two weren’t seated next to each other on the House floor as they had done so regularly before. Instead, Boebert sat in the middle section of the House chamber and Greene sat near the front of the chamber in a section of leadership loyalists. 

Once McCarthy took the speaker’s gavel after 15 rounds of voting and only after making sizable concessions to GOP hardliners, Greene grabbed a selfie with him to commemorate his victory. 

The tension between Greene and Boebert has been brewing for some time. 

The two had publicly feuded over McCarthy’s bid for the House speakership, which Greene fervently backed. But their aversion to one another became more prominent after Boebert criticized the Georgia lawmaker in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this year.

“I have been asked to explain MTG’s beliefs on Jewish space lasers, on why she showed up to a white supremacist conference. … I’m just not going to go there,” Boebert said. “She wants to say all these things and seem unhinged on Twitter, so be it.”


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


The two Republicans have been on opposing sides of different issues, including lending aid to Ukraine, with Boebert introducing a House bill this past March calling for financial assistance to be sent to Ukraine and Greene opposing additional aid.

“We serve AMERICA NOT UKRAINE!” Greene tweeted earlier this year. 

The lawmakers have also seemed to remain on opposite sides when it comes to showing their enthusiasm in backing Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

Greene has issued an early endorsement of the former president while Boebert has suggested she may be open to backing another candidate. 

Their falling-out became more noticeable when the Colorado Republican didn’t come to Greene’s defense after she spoke at a conference hosted by the white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes.

“I do not apologize for other members and what they say or what they do, Boebert told Politico. “I do not support white supremacists, like Nick Fuentes, period.”

The two also reportedly got into a confrontation so heated about Greene’s attendance that they almost entered into a physical altercation at a House Freedom Caucus meeting.

The Republican lawmakers, who were often lumped together as prominent Trump supporters representing the right-wing faction of the party, are no longer a duo. Instead, Boebert detests being associated with Greene, according to reports.

In her interview with AP, Boebert said her “slim victory” has opened her eyes to “another chance to do everything that [she has] been promising to do.”

She added, she hopes “to bring the temperature down, to bring unity.”

The House GOP just inadvertently admitted that “tax cuts don’t pay for themselves”: Columnist

Over the years, one of the GOP’s favorite economic talking points has been that “tax cuts pay for themselves.” The argument is that when the wealthy are given tax cuts, they create new jobs and stimulate growth — and the growth makes up for a decrease in tax revenue. That argument was used when Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 during Donald Trump’s presidency.

But Washington Post opinion writer Catherine Rampell, in her recent column, argues that some House Republicans have unintentionally “admitted” that “tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.”

“The House rules package recently passed by the newly GOP-controlled House included some notable, occasionally troubling things,” Rampell explains. “For example, one set of measures would kneecap congressional ethics probes. Another provision would make it harder to swiftly raise the debt ceiling. But also tucked into the rules package, and attracting somewhat less attention, was a change to how lawmakers treat changes to tax law.”

Rampell continues, “Specifically, they’ve rigged the system so that tax cuts will be much easier to pass, and tax rate increases harder to pass. On the other hand, investments in the poor and various other kinds of spending increases — on so-called mandatory programs, such as Medicare or food stamps — would be more challenging to get through.”

House Republicans, according to Rampell, have found “ways to stack the deck against raising taxes.”

“Under the new rules package,” Rampell observes, “the budgetary requirements are more one-sided — in favor of tax cuts. Going forward, tax cuts do not need to be offset with any sort of savings elsewhere in the budget. They can add trillions to the debt. No problem. But this is not true of spending programs. Spending program increases still have to be paid for.”

Rampell continues, “Not only that, but the savings to offset expansions of mandatory programs have to come from cuts to other spending programs. They cannot be offset by tax revenue increases. In practical terms: An expansion of food stamps can’t be paid for by raising taxes on the rich — only by cutting, say, Medicaid or disability benefits. So basically, any attempt to provide more support for poor or middle-income people is likely to come from other programs that help those same group. A separate portion of the House’s rules package says that any increase in tax rates would require a three-fifths vote rather than a simple majority, as in years past.”

On Friday, January 13, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned, in a letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, that she expects the U.S. to reach its $31.4 borrowing limit on Thursday, January 19. Yellen noted that there is a “limited amount of time” and urged Congress to “act in a timely matter.”

Rampell argues, “If you read between the lines, you’ll learn that even Republicans don’t believe their own longstanding promise that tax cuts will pay for themselves. After all, if the GOP genuinely believed this, they wouldn’t need to make it easier to pass tax cuts that don’t pay for themselves. Because such tax cuts would not exist.”

Justifying attack on Social Security, House Republican claims people “want to work longer”

Republican Rep. Rick Allen of Georgia suggested last week that he would support raising the Social Security retirement age—a policy change that would slash benefits across the board—because people have approached him and said they “actually want to work longer.”

Confronted by an advocate in the Capitol Building and asked how the GOP plans to cut Social Security, the congressman responded, “We’re not going to cut Social Security.”

But seconds later, Allen contradicted himself by expressing support for raising the retirement age, saying the move would “solve every one of these problems”—not specifying what the “problems” are from his perspective.

Watch:

Allen is a member of the Republican Study Committee, a House GOP panel that released a policy agenda last year calling for gradually raising the “full retirement age” from 67 to 70, partially privatizing the New Deal program, and mean-testing benefits.

As Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, has explained, raising the Social Security retirement age is “just a straightforward benefit reduction being expressed in an opaque way.”

“Social Security does not have one retirement age. It has 96 retirement ages, one for each month between age 62 and 70,” Bruenig wrote in October. “What people call the ‘full retirement age’ (FRA) is just a placeholder in a formula that determines the benefit level at all 96 retirement ages.”

“When someone proposes increasing the retirement age to 68,” he continued, “all they are really proposing is to cut monthly Social Security benefits by around 7% at all 96 retirement ages. A proposal to raise the retirement age to 70 is just a proposal to cut monthly benefits by around 23% at all 96 retirement ages.”

House Republicans have repeatedly signaled in recent months that they will exploit every point of leverage they have—including a fast-approaching showdown over the debt ceiling—to pursue long-sought cuts to Social Security under the guise of “saving” the program from a non-existent financial crisis.

During a House Republican conference meeting last week, a slide presentation indicated that the GOP intends to use its narrow majority in the lower chamber to push for “reforms” to “mandatory spending programs”—a category that includes Social Security and Medicare.

“Republicans want you to work until you die,” the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works tweeted Sunday. “Shameful.”

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill last week that “America’s seniors cannot afford benefit cuts, including raising the eligibility ages for future Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.”

“Of course, the public is not demanding that Social Security and Medicare be cut. Quite the opposite: both programs remain overwhelmingly popular. A large majority of voters (83 percent) across party lines say they want to see Social Security expanded, not slashed, with the wealthy contributing their fair share in payroll taxes,” Richtman continued. “Nevertheless, McCarthy has empowered a handful of ultra-MAGA members to dictate policy for the new House majority.”

Drinking culture: Why some thinkers believe human civilization owes its existence to alcohol

To some people, alcohol is a scourge on humanity that can do no good. It’s true that booze is directly and indirectly responsible for many pitfalls in society, from drunk driving to increased risk for cancer. But what if alcohol was not merely a vice, but one of the triggers that sparked the dawn of human civilization — in essence, the very thing that shifted us from hunter-gatherers to agrarians? 

This is a provocative thesis, and one that might upset Puritans. Yet it has some serious adherents, including philosopher Edward Slingerland. Singerland believes alcohol may have helped shaped human evolution from the very beginning, and continues to have positive benefits for society — beyond providing a socially acceptable form of euphoria.

In his 2021 book, “Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization,” Slingerland lays out the case that alcohol may have even been the impetus for humans developing agriculture and complex societies. Slingerland, who is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia, has mostly written books on Chinese history and culture.

But this idea so intrigued him that he delved in, finding evidence that, as he writes, “various forms of alcohol were not merely a by-product of the invention of agriculture, but actually a motivation for it — that the first farmers were driven by a desire for beer, not bread.” Salon spoke to Slingerland about some of the misconceptions about alcohol’s place in human evolution.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

There’s seemingly a lot of interest in civilization sort of being formulated from different intoxicants, especially psychedelics. But I think alcohol can kind of be overlooked in that equation. It was sort of there, at the dawn of history, but we don’t talk about that. It’s not a good thing.

Well, alcohol’s not cool right now. Psychedelics are super cool. Cannabis is pretty cool. So I just think alcohol has kind of been overlooked or even devalued, because it’s kind of the drug your uncle uses, right? And alcohol has a lot of problems.

I think one of the more justified reasons that people are worried about alcohol is that it has some negatives that drugs like cannabis and psychedelics don’t have. It’s much more physiologically harmful than either one of those drugs and it’s physically addictive in a way that those drugs aren’t. There are some justifications for it, but I think it’s primarily fashion. Especially among younger generations, alcohol doesn’t have as cool a reputation as these other drugs.

Can we discuss a couple examples of how alcohol played a positive role in the evolution of human civilization? You’ve talked about how fermentation, brewing and that kind of thing are these chemical processes that predate agriculture, and maybe even predate organized religion.

We’ve known for a really long time about natural fermentation with yeast. The standard story that I always assumed before I started doing research for the book, and that I think most people learn, is that humans invented agriculture, we settled down into large scale societies, we’ve grown crops. And then at some point, we figured out by accident that if we left our sourdough starter out too long, it will bubble and something interesting would result. And so we kind of discovered fermentation by accident after we had agriculture.

When I started doing the research, I encountered this movement in archaeology that I think is gaining adherence and seems quite plausible. That’s called the Beer Before Bread hypothesis. So 13,000 years ago or so, we’re coming together, building these monumental religious sites and feasting. And feasting involved eating meat and other kind of high value items, but also drinking beer. Sites like Gobekli Tepe, [the world’s oldest surviving permanent human settlement], we don’t have direct chemical evidence, but we have these big vats. They were drinking some kind of liquid. And we know from other sites in the area, they were making beer at this time. In some cases beer, probably laced with psychedelics.

So in that respect, the desire to get intoxicated actually directly led to civilization. It’s what motivated hunter gatherers to start cultivating crops and settling down. And you see this pattern around the world, not just in the Fertile Crescent but also Mideast, which is now the modern Turkey area, where agriculture first got started.


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


But if you look around the world, the first cultivated crops tend to be plants that must have been chosen for their psychoactive properties, not for their nutrition properties. And so that’s behind this idea that it’s this desire to get cognitively altered that motivated hunter gatherers to settle down and start living in these large-scale societies. [Getting intoxicated] is an ancient behavior. And it actually is, is probably one of the motivations for us creating civilization in the first place.

It’s really fascinating to think about this. I like to put myself back in that time period and think: why would people start planting plants on purpose? And how do they figure out “oh, this is the seed that’s responsible for this behavior. If I put this in the ground, I can expect this later.” That whole cognitive development of cause and effect there. There’s a sort of pop science belief — I don’t know if it has a lot of credibility — but the idea is that wheat domesticated humans, not the other way around.

Yeah, that’s Michael Pollan’s argument. If you take a plant-eye view of it, you see humans, serving plants and kind of eliminating their enemies and giving them nutrition. One way to look at it is that these plants domesticated us. I think that it’s rhetorically kind of a great conceptual turn.

“If humans were motivated to settle down and start agriculture by the desire to get intoxicated, the act of getting intoxicated also helped them to adapt to this new lifestyle.”

There is a sense in which we domesticated ourselves in the process of domesticating plants. Hunter gatherers lived pretty varied lifestyles. Geographically they’d wander around, they ate really varied diets. As a member of a group, you would typically engage in a lot of different activities. You would forage, you’d hunt, you’d be cooking. Once you move into an agricultural community, your life often turns takes a turn for the worst.

Your diet gets more monotonous. Your life probably gets more monotonous. You’re stuck in the field, sticking little seeds in the ground instead of wandering around, hunting things. You are crowded together with other people in a way that humans never were before. So you’re living in much denser communities.

So if we want to talk about the role of alcohol in domesticating humans, one of the ways that it helped us make this transition is that it helps relieve anxiety and stress. If humans were motivated to settle down and start agriculture by the desire to get intoxicated, the act of getting intoxicated also helped them to adapt to this new lifestyle.

Alcohol also helped create group bonds. Another crucial function of alcohol, in my view, is to help humans overcome these cooperation dilemmas we have. When we’re cooperating with strangers, which we do all the time in large scale societies, one of the main functions of alcohol is to downregulate our prefrontal cortex [PFC], the very important part of our brain.

This is also the part of the brain that you need in perfect working order if you’re going to deceive someone, fake sincerity or try to trick someone. And that’s a problem, these cooperation dilemmas, like the prisoner’s dilemma, where to succeed, to get the best payoff, you need to trust another person. But in doing that you make yourself vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

“Alcohol played a role in help[ing] us genuinely create new bonds with strangers and other people in a way that was important for us to cooperate on large scales.”

We face these type of cooperation dilemmas all the time in everyday life, on large scales and small scales. And one of the ways alcohol helps with these cooperation dilemmas is it makes us both more trusting and more trustworthy. If you drink some alcohol, you downregulate your prefrontal cortex, you’re less able to lie.

Lying is a really cognitively complex activity and the PFC is the center of self-control, focus, suppression of emotions and expressions and desires, delayed gratification. You need to have all that in top shape to deceive someone. If I take a couple of shots of tequila, I’m less able to do that. And so you’re more likely to trust me and for good reason.

At the same time, alcohol is boosting the production of these chemicals that make us like other people more and make us feel more bonded to other people. So things like serotonin and endorphins. Alcohol played a role in decreasing our stress, in the face of shifting to this very dense agricultural lifestyle, but also helped us genuinely create new bonds with strangers and other people in a way that was important for us to cooperate on large scales.

It’s not an accident that anytime you’re getting people together who have potentially differing interests or potentially hostile parties get together, the intoxicants come out. Most of the time, it’s alcohol. In places where they don’t have alcohol, for whatever reason, it’s some other intoxicant that has very similar effects. And that’s because people have learned that it’s a tool that you can use to lower people’s cognitive defenses.

I compare it to how we shake hands to show we’re not carrying a weapon. In the same way, when you sit down at a negotiating table with somebody and you eat a meal and you drink, you start drinking alcohol. You’re basically taking out your prefrontal cortex and putting it on the table and saying, I’m cognitively disarmed. You can trust what I’m saying, it’s more likely to be true. It’s not an accident that cross-culturally around the world, you see intoxicants coming out in these social situations. People know consciously or not that it’s an important tool.

I kind of want to go back even further in human history and evolution, I’ve heard that something like 10 million years ago, it’s theorized that the planet was warming and that was causing a lot of fruit to fall off and ferment. And that it was actually protective that as human primates, we have the enzymes to metabolize alcohol. A lot of mammals don’t have that. To them, ethanol is just complete poison. So the fact that we can eat this fruit that was fermenting was a protective factor that enhanced evolution.

So it’s certainly the case that we are part of a group of animals that can metabolize [alcohol’s main ingredient], ethanol. And not just primates, but birds as well. And the thing that they all have in common is they eat fruit. If you’re a fruit eater, you’re gonna need to develop these enzymes, because fruit ripens and starts to ferment, and it’s going to have some amount of ethanol in it.

We’re part of a lineage of primates that adapted to eating fruit that contained ethanol. And there’s some theories that there’s increased pressure on us to do this once we moved out of trees. And we were living on the floor of these jungles or in scattered grassland and trees. Now we were eating fallen fruit on the ground that’s got a lot more ethanol in it.

One of the things about alcohol, that makes it special is that we’ve got a dedicated machinery in our body to get it out of us as quickly as possible. Part of its usefulness as a drug is that it has a pretty short half-life in our body.

The drunken monkey hypothesis tries to explain why we have a taste for alcohol. Why do we like it? Robert Dudley at University of Berkeley, this is his thesis, that in our evolutionary past, there was an advantage to being able to detect ethanol.

Ethanol is a pretty volatile chemical — it travels long distances, so you can smell alcohol from pretty far away. His theory is that the smell of ethanol was like a dinner gong. We developed this ability to detect ethanol from long distances, we could follow the smell and find this ripe fruit that was a really big calorie package. And that was adaptive and that’s why we have a taste for alcohol.

“My conclusion in ‘Drunk’ is that I think alcohol still has positive roles to play if it’s used carefully.”

One of the main purposes of my book “Drunk” is to explain why we like to drink. Alcohol is a really harmful substance, it can lead to all these social and physical problems. In Dudley’s case, he thinks that in our evolutionary past, it was good to like alcohol because calories were in short supply. If we can find fermented fruit, we should eat it right away. But this taste becomes maladaptive in our modern environment.

The problem with [this theory] is that there are substances that aren’t carcinogenic and aren’t going to hurt your liver and cause you to fall off a cliff because you’re drunk. But we chose alcohol. So there’s got to be something special, something else going on there.

The Lancet and many other medical journals have come out with these papers stating “There’s no safe amount of alcohol to ever be consumed.” So where does alcohol fit into our present day?

There’s the infamous Lancet study and other similar studies that argue that the net effect physiologically of alcohol is, at best, zero, neutral and probably negative. And there’s debate about this. But in a way, I don’t really care.

Maybe it is the case that it’s a net physiological negative. I think what’s really stunted our conversations about this is that we’re looking at it purely through this medicalized lens and only in terms of physiological impact. And I think that’s just the wrong way to look at it.

My conclusion in “Drunk” is that I think alcohol still has positive roles to play if it’s used carefully. But that said, I do argue in the book that alcohol is much more dangerous now than it has been for almost all of our evolutionary history.

Alcohol, for almost all of our history, has come with this built-in safety feature, which is that natural fermentation can only get you so far. Alcohol is actually the result of this biological warfare between yeast and bacteria, who are both trying to get these nutrients. So the yeast kill off the bacteria with ethanol. But eventually they shut themselves down, because they’re not infinitely resistant to ethanol, they’re just more resistant than the bacteria are. That means that fermentation stops and whatever it is, a beer or fruit wine, doesn’t get any stronger.

“Right now from my apartment in Vancouver, I can call my local liquor store and have them deliver a case of tequila to my house. And that is evolutionarily unprecedented.”

Historically, yeast kind of pooped out pretty early in that process. So grain-based beers would only get to about 2 percent to 3 percent ABV, alcohol by volume. Fruit wines maybe would get a bit stronger. We’ve been breeding yeast for thousands of years to make them more tolerant of alcohol, so that we could get stronger and stronger beers and wines. But even with all that effort, we haven’t gotten that much farther. Some craft beers can get up into the double digits now, wines tend to max out at about 17 percent ABV [alcohol by volume]. But that’s still not that strong.

Then, we figured out how to do distillation on a large scale. Distillation is a trick for getting around this natural limitation of fermentation. You take the alcohol that’s produced and you refine it, get rid of as much water as possible and you can get to like 90 something percent ABV. You have vodkas that are that strong. Distilled liquors are still just ethanol, but I think it should really be considered a completely different drug. It’s so much wildly stronger than naturally fermented beverages, that our bodies are not equipped to handle that. You start doing shots of 90 something proof vodka or tequila, and our physiology is completely overwhelmed. That’s more dangerous.

Traditionally, alcohol was always consumed in communal, social, ritual contexts, with built-in rules about drinking, ways to kind of regulate people’s consumption rates, ways to stop people when they’ve had too much. That’s another safety feature that’s been disabled. Right now from my apartment in Vancouver, I can call my local liquor store and have them deliver a case of tequila to my house. And then I can sit here alone in my house in front of the TV and drink as much of it as I want.

That is also evolutionarily unprecedented. Private access to alcohol is unprecedented. So you combine the two, now we have private access to alcohol, and we have private access to this super powerful, very dangerous form of alcohol. Alcohol has become a more dangerous tool. And so we have to be even more careful about using it than we have been historically.

“I have info on everyone”: Trump’s rant about Mar-a-Lago visitors sounds like a blackmail threat

Former President Donald Trump lashed out for the second day in a row about the classified documents that were found inside President Joe Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware home.

The latest revelation arrived over the weekend that five additional pages were discovered by Biden’s personal lawyer and immediately handed over to United States Justice Department officials, according to NBC News. Special Counsel Robert Hur was appointed last week by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the probe into how the materials, dating from Biden’s tenure as vice president, ended up at his house and offices. So far, no formal allegations of wrongdoing have been directed toward Biden, who maintains that the boxes in which the papers were stored were packed by campaign aides.

Trump has claimed the same thing while admitting that he intentionally took super-sensitive texts from the White House and stored them at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, insisting that they were his. Mar-a-Lago was subjected to a Federal Bureau of Investigation search warrant in August because Trump failed to return all of the items that the Archives had requested, despite ongoing negotiations. Trump is facing a federal criminal investigation led by Special Counsel Jack Smith into the matter.

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Republicans in the House of Representatives requested access to Biden’s visitor logs. On Monday, the White House Counsel’s office informed Fox News that no such records were kept.

“Like every President in decades of modern history, his personal residence is personal,” the White House Counsel’s Office said in a statement. “But upon taking office, President Biden restored the norm and tradition of keeping White House visitors logs, including publishing them regularly, after the previous administration ended them.”

Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi also explained to reporters that “we don’t independently maintain our own visitor logs because it’s a private residence.”

Shortly after this development, Trump took to his Truth Social app to accuse Biden of sloppily stashing classified documents in his home and issue a thinly-veiled, albeit vague, threat of blackmail.

9:34 a.m.:

The White House just announced that there are no LOGS or information of any kind on visitors to the Wilmington house and flimsy, unlocked, and unsecured, but now very famous, garage. Maybe they are smarter than we think! This is one of seemingly many places where HIGHLY CLASSIFIED documents are stored (in a big pile on the damp floor). Mar-a-Lago is a highly secured facility, with Security Cameras all over the place, and watched over by staff & our great Secret Service. I have INFO on everyone

Reporting by The New York Times in December revealed that it was actually Trump who casually left classified documents strewn throughout Mar-a-Lago.

“Most of the classified documents in August were found in a storage area, which is accessible through two sets of arched doors, people familiar with the property told theTimes. The doors are near the pool area, a popular event space,” the Times wrote. “Highly sensitive materials like the documents found at Mar-a-Lago are usually viewed inside a secure, enclosed area with a safe built to meet strict guidelines. Periodic inspection is also required. But the Justice Department had noted that Mar-a-Lago did not have a ‘secure location authorized for the storage of classified information.'”

The Times recalled that “Trump has said that before leaving office he had declared the documents declassified, but so far, no credible evidence was found to support this,” later adding that “just outside the arched doors leading to the storage area, there were many large-scale gatherings near the pool area and outdoor patio, during the time the documents were on the property.”

Court proceedings reveal MBS paid Trump “millions in the past two years”: Human rights group

A human rights organization founded by slain journalist Jamal Khashoggi is calling on Congress and the Justice Department to investigate former President Donald Trump’s business deals with a controversial golf company owned by the Saudi Arabian government and controlled by Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman. 

Nonprofit Democracy for the Arab World Now said LIV Golf, a tournament franchise and PGA Golf rival, paid Trump-owned golf resorts “unknown millions of dollars” to host events. Recent court proceedings revealed that Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund — chaired by bin Salman — owns 93% of LIV Golf, and pays “100 percent of the costs associated with the events.”

“The revelation that a fund controlled by Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman actually owns almost all of LIV Golf means that MBS has been paying Donald Trump unknown millions for the past two years, via their mutual corporate covers,” said DAWN Executive Director Sarah Leah Whitson in a Sunday statement

“If Trump or his agents discussed any deals with LIV Golf or PIF while Trump was still in office, a criminal investigation would also be in order because federal law strictly prohibits this sort of business dealing by sitting federal officials with foreign governments.”


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


DAWN pointed to previous PIF investments in Trump-adjacent business dealings which have drawn scrutiny over potential ethics law violations — including PIF’s $2 billion investment in Affinity Partners, the hedge fund owned by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and a $1 billion PIF investment in a private equity fund owned by former Trump Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

“The Justice Department and Congress have a responsibility to investigate exactly when and to whom and under what terms Trump has obtained unknown millions from Saudi government coffers controlled by Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, which may well violate even our existing, weak ethics laws,” said Whitson. 

“Given that Trump is also planning to run again for president, his business ties to Mohamed bin Salman are a national security emergency.”

Legal expert stunned after Trump “steps in it over and over” in newly-released deposition

Former President Donald Trump gave a taped deposition in a defamation lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll, who alleged that the former president sexually assaulted her. Trump has attempted to get the case thrown out, but it was denied.

Speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, legal analyst and host Katie Phang made it clear that the released transcripts show Trump continuously shooting himself in the foot and she pointed to his personal attacks on Carroll during his deposition as evidence.

Trump, who has denied Carroll’s allegations, told the lawyers in the newly unsealed Oct. 2022 deposition that her claims are “a big, fat hoax.”

“She’s a liar and she’s a sick person in my opinion,” Trump said. “Really sick. Something wrong with her.”

Carroll’s attorney continued: “Okay. In addition to the … Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, isn’t it true you also referred to the use of mail ballots as a hoax?”

Trump proclaimed: “Yeah, I do. Sure… I do. I think they’re very dishonest. Mail-in ballots. Very dishonest.”

Carroll’s lawyer asked if it was true Trump voted using a mail-in ballot. Trump’s attorney objected, but Trump continued, “I do. I do.”

The timing of this is important, said Phang, because it came amid Trump’s attacks on E. Jean Carroll on his social media platform Truth Social after he had left office. So, while involved in a lawsuit for attacking Carroll, he attacked Carroll again.

At issue in the case is whether Trump could be charged for something like this because he claimed he was making the attack in the context of his role as the president of the United States. The new comments from Trump, attacking Carroll, came after he was no longer in office, lending themselves to another potential defamation case if courts decide Trump can be sued for behavior while president.

“So the reason why that’s important is as you mentioned, Nicolle, there’s a trial that’s going to happen and this deposition was taken as a part of the discovery process for that trial that’s going to happen in April,” explained Phang. “So no matter what happens in that appellate court for that original defamation case that was brought by E. Jean, because Donald Trump was stupid enough to defame her again on Truth Social and because he was stupid enough to step in it repeatedly at his deposition, he’s going to go to trial in April and he is more likely than not going to be found liable for the claims that are brought by E. Jean. and that is why this videotaped deposition is so important.”

She went on to explain that the bigger picture shows that Trump continues to “step in it over, and over, and over again.”

“He basically denies flat out that he’s ever touched a woman in any part of her body — specifically it’s denying touching a woman on her breasts or buttocks or any other sexual part without her consent,” said Phang. “He says ‘no’ under oath. You and I both know, the whole world knows that on that ‘Access Hollywood’ tape he boasted about he would grab them by the blank and he could do it when you’re a star.”

Phang explained that it’s more and more examples of Trump being caught repeating lies while under oath.

“We all think — and we all know his credibility is suspect, but when it comes to the particular facts of this case the more that you’re painted as a liar the more that you are a liar and the jury’s going to determine that,” she continued. “And it’s ridiculous that he wants to call E. Jean a liar when the facts militate toward the truth, which is what she said happened.”

Watch the story below or at this link.

The health and value of PBS in 2023: “People need access to information”

PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger has held her position since 2006, making her the longest-serving president and CEO in public television’s history. That also means she’s led the Public Broadcasting Service to the other side of several existential battles, first during George W. Bush’s presidency and again through Donald Trump’s administration.

One would assume that with a Democrat in the Oval Office whose party holds the Senate, Kerger can relax. But that is never the case.

“Every time there’s a change in Congress, we always try to imagine what will be the conversations that take place as legislators really balance a lot of funding requests,” Kerger told reporters covering PBS’ press conferences at the Television Critics Association’s Winter Press Tour.

PBS’ cost to the American taxpayer has skyrocketed from $1.35 per citizen, per year, in 2017 to $1.40 today.

She went on to point out that with the number of newly minted state representatives joining the House, “making sure that as new members come in, they’re aware of the work that is underway within their stations is a big priority. And stations have been thinking about this, as they prepare for this new season.”

Kerger is accustomed to expecting PBS to become a political football during Republican administrations. And while the GOP has a slim majority in the House, one can’t rule out the possibility of a congressional official training its sights on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

At the moment, however, funding for the public trust that is the home of “Masterpiece,” “American Experience,” “PBS NewsHour” and “Great Performances” is secure. Kerger reminded reporters that PBS is forward-funded, meaning that the $475 million the CPB was granted for 2023 is already in place, with another $525 million pending for 2024.

That said, inflation has hit public broadcasting in the same way it’s impacted everyone else. So PBS’ cost to the American taxpayer has skyrocketed from $1.35 per citizen, per year, in 2017 to $1.40 today.

“It’s a really small amount of money that has such a tremendous impact in communities,” Kerger pointed out. “We saw that during COVID when our stations stepped up their work in classrooms to support at-home learning both through broadcast as well as through digital.”

All Creatures Great and SmallNicholas Ralph as James Herriot in “All Creatures Great and Small”on PBS’ “Masterpiece” (PBS/Playground Television Ltd.)As always, most of these funds stream directly to PBS member stations in markets across the country. Out of that larger pot, $282.86 million is allocated for direct station grants to be used “for purposes related primarily to the production or acquisition of programming,” according to the CPB’s Federal Appropriation Request and Justification document. $94.28 million is earmarked for national public television programming.

This is why Kerger stresses that the best conversations about the future of public television should happen in local districts.

“As I visit more and more communities, the last remaining locally owned, operated . . . media organizations, radio, and television, in a lot of communities [are] the public stations,” she said. “They’re very focused on local journalism and local stories. And again, that’s something that I think that it would be helpful for legislators to really understand: how the stations clearly play a role in making sure that local stories are being told.”

The other lesson Kerger says she and her team learned during the pandemic – the “biggest learning,” she says – is the number of children who have been educationally and functionally left behind because of a lack of broadband access.

“I think we are aware as a country that, again, not everyone has access,” she said. “Sometimes I am surprised when I talk about things like broadcast television that there are still a lot of people that live in homes where broad broadband is not really a possibility, maybe for economic reasons, or geographic reasons, or whatever. And I think that’s why now what we’re seeing is this focus on the rollout of broadband.

“Broadcast … is the central way that we reach a lot of people.”

“This is not a political statement,” Kerger added. “This is just an observation that, you know, people need access to information. Think about the number of job applications and other things that you have to do online. And so the same commitment that fired up the rural electrification program across the country, I think, is really needed to run broadband.”

Teenage boy in the libraryTeenage boy in the library (Getty Images/Mayur Kakade)Simultaneously, Kerger concedes that PBS still has work to do in terms of smoothing out its streaming experience in an environment where the linear broadcast audience is declining. PBS content is available on Prime Video thanks to a partnership with Amazon. However, as one reporter pointed out, access to its content via PBS Passport, the online premium it offers to viewers who financially support their local stations, is inconsistent.


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


“What we’re hoping to do is really look at other ways that we can help our stations as the technology continues to evolve and to be more omnipresent with where our content is, so it’s easier to find and accessible,” Kerger said.

PBS has other priorities to tackle. Part of the CPB’s current appropriation will be used to modernize public media’s interconnection system, the distribution network that enables PBS content to broadcast through local stations. This enables public television programming to reach 98% of the United States audience for free.

“Obviously broadcast for us continues to be really strong and important,” said Kerger. “I always feel like I have to say that because I think people have suddenly moved past broadcast. But it is the central way that we reach a lot of people, including a lot of people that frankly, that is their only access.”

Heroes and villains: Fascists now control Congress — we can’t afford to pretend otherwise

Just over two years ago, on Jan. 6, 2021, thousands of Donald Trump’s followers attacked the U.S. Capitol as part of his coup attempt aimed not just at nullifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election but ending multiracial democracy in America.

Vastly outnumbered, lacking reinforcements, failed by their leaders and with limited resources overall, the Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers bravely fought back against Trump’s mob. Beyond the physical stress and violence, Black and brown officers were also assaulted by Trump’s followers with racial slurs and symbols and acts of white supremacist hatred.

After hours of hand-to-hand medieval style combat that one police officer said was more intense than what he experienced in Iraq, Trump’s attack force overran the defenders and rampaged throughout the Capitol, eager to hunt, kidnap and kill Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats and Republicans alike who refused to participate in Trump’s coup plot.

Infamously, Trump’s attack force carried the Confederate battle flag inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, something that never happened during the Civil War as hundreds of thousands of Americans died in the struggle over the “right” to keep Black people as slaves.

New Yorker editor David Remnick offers this context in his essay “The Devastating New History of the January 6th Insurrection”:

The insurrection at the Capitol was of such grave consequence for liberal democracy and the rule of law that commentators have struggled ever since to find some historical precedent to provide context and understanding to a nation in a state of continuing crisis. Some thought immediately of the sack of the Capitol, in 1814, though the perpetrators then were foreign, soldiers of the British crown. Others have pointed to contested Presidential elections of the past — 1824, 1876, 1960, 2000 — but those ballots were certified, peacefully and lawfully, by Congress. None of the losers sought to foment an uprising or create a national insurgency. Compare Trump’s self-absorption and rage with Al Gore’s graceful acceptance of the Supreme Court’s decision handing the election to George W. Bush: “Tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”…

For Trump, the choice was simple. The insurrectionists were his people, his shock troops, there to do his bidding. Nothing about the spectacle seemed to disturb him: not the gallows erected outside the building, not the savage beatings, not threats to Pence and Pelosi, not graffiti like “Murder the Media,” not the chants of “1776! 1776!” And so he ignored calls to action even from his own party. At 3:11 P.M., Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin, tweeted, “We are witnessing absolute banana republic crap in the United States Capitol right now. @realdonaldtrump you need to call this off.” Trump would not tell his supporters to go home until the early evening, when the damage had been done….

What happened on Jan. 6, Remnick observes, was “rooted both in the degraded era of Trump and in the radicalization of a major political party during the past generation.” The net effect, he continues, is that many people will approach the Jan. 6 select committee’s final report “with a sense of fatigue, even denial.” One of Trump’s most important accomplishments “has been to bludgeon the political attention of the country into submission.”

Although the Capitol’s defenders could not keep the mob out of the building on that fateful afternoon, they succeeded in protecting the lives of the vice president, all the members of Congress and others who were in the Capitol for the certification of the Electoral College vote. Several Capitol police officers subsequently died, at least partly because of the physical and emotional injuries they suffered on Jan. 6. Many more members of both the Capitol Police and the Washington Metro Police were forced to retire and will suffer the physical and emotional effects of that day for the rest of their lives.


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


Ten days ago, on the two-year anniversary of the attack, President Biden honored 14 people — a group that included law enforcement officers and election workers — with the Presidential Citizens Medal for their service to the nation on Jan. 6 and during the 2020 election. In his speech during the White House ceremony, Biden said that “on this day two years ago our democracy held because ‘We the People’ … did not flinch. … History will remember your names. They’ll remember your courage. They’ll remember your bravery. They’ll remember your extraordinary commitments to your fellow Americans. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact.”

The president offered special praise to election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss — who were important witnesses before the Jan. 6 committee — for their courage, dignity, self-sacrifice and service to American democracy:

Both of them were just doing their jobs until they were targeted and threatened by the same predators and peddlers of lies that would fuel the insurrection. They were literally forced from their homes, facing despicable racist taunts.

But despite it all, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss found the courage to testify openly and honestly … to the whole country and the world about their experience to set the record straight about the lies and defend the integrity of our elections.

Ruby and Shaye, you don’t deserve what happened to you, but you do deserve the nation’s eternal thanks for showing the dignity and grace of We the People. Presumptuous of me, but I’m so proud of you both. 

Watching this, I felt a solitary tear run down my cheek. These men and women are among the best of us, the “real Americans.” I would include Joe Biden allowing for all his flaws, among that group.

I am committed to critical patriotism — and that means telling the truth about America, be it good or bad, and then working to force the nation and its people to live up to their full potential.

Critical patriots have a deep love of America. We are passionately committed to truth-telling even if it makes us unpopular with those who want simple answers and happy narratives of American exceptionalism, those who believe that “patriotism” consists of whitewashing history and reality rather than confronting the sometimes-ugly truths and complexities of who we are as a nation and people.

On that same Friday I also felt my blood pressure go up as I confronted an ugly juxtaposition. While President Biden was honoring those true heroes of democracy, the Republican insurrectionists who attempted to end American democracy on Jan. 6 were taking control of the House of Representatives and installing Kevin McCarthy — an especially craven minion of Donald Trump — as speaker. 

While Joe Biden honored the heroes of democracy for their sacrifices, the Republican insurrectionists who tried to overthrow democracy were taking control of the House of Representatives.

McCarthy and his party will now do everything they can to sabotage any and all investigations into the crimes of Jan. 6. Even worse, the Republicans in Congress will work to remove any oversights or other guardrails that could limit their corrupt behavior and fend off attempts to end American democracy. They will launch “investigations” into nonexistent “abuses” by the federal government, including the Department of Justice and FBI, for daring to investigate Trump and his allies’ blatant criminal conspiracy. 

In short, Kevin McCarthy and the other Republican insurrectionists — especially the right-wing shock troops of the so-called  Freedom Caucus — are working to make the crimes against democracy committed by Donald Trump and his allies and followers appear to be normal, “legal” and even noble conduct. This corrosion and inversion of the rule of law as part of a larger assault on reality is one of the distinguishing features of fascist and authoritarian movements.

Writing at the Bulwark, Mona Charen focuses on one of the most dangerous figures of the new Congress, and what she embodies within the Republican Party and current “conservative” movement:

During one of Kevin McCarthy’s gauntlet of punishing votes, it was striking to see with whom he passed the time. There she was, dressed in sophisticated black, the member hailed as a “key ally” to the new Speaker of the House: Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Her choice of color (in the past she has donned stark reds, whites, or blues — get it?) is perhaps a signal of the new Greene — a mainstream figure, a serious politician. Her status was signaled by a respectful, not to say softball interview with Howard Kurtz on Fox News.

Doubtless Fox would like to sanitize her since she played a significant role in elevating McCarthy to the speakership. She must be a changed person or the GOP will have to ask itself some uncomfortable questions.

Things move fast, so cast your minds back only to 2021 when Mitch McConnell described Greene as a “cancer” on the Republican party and John Thune warned that the party had to draw some lines: “They have to decide who they want to be. Do they want to be the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, free markets, peace through strength, and pro life, or do they want to be the party of conspiracy theories and QAnon?”…

Greene’s “makeover,”  Charen observes, has been an extended process. She denounced Nick Fuentes (but not Trump) after the infamous Mar-a-Lago dinner, and has tried to create some distance between herself and her former friends Rep. Lauren Boebert, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Alex Jones. “But this is not a case of a politician who misspeaks or commits a gaffe and must make amends,” Charen writes. “She has a disordered personality. …  She is drawn to hatred as a moth to a flame. She is the poison that courses through the veins of parts of the right — the vicious, reality-challenged right. If she is to be normalized by the GOP, it is the party, not she, that is changed.”

This stomach-churning contrast between Joe Biden’s tribute to the heroes of Jan. 6 and the Republican fascists in Congress points to fundamental questions that must be answered if American democracy is to survive the Age of Trump. What does justice mean in America when Donald Trump and his allies and acolytes not only go unpunished for their evident crimes but now control one house of Congress? What does it mean that Kevin McCarthy, who flew to Florida only weeks after the Jan. 6 insurrection to kiss the ring at Mar-a-Lago, is now second in the presidential line of succession?

David Remnick notes in his New Yorker essay that it’s urgent for us to find out “whether a two-and-a-half-century-old republic will resist future efforts to undercut its foundations — to steal, through concerted deception, the essential legitimacy of its constitutional order.” These next two years, with insurrectionists holding what is supposed to be the “people’s house” in Washington, will put that question to the test.