Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“The autopsy was brutal”: Lawsuit claims woman died after jail nurses refused to provide antibiotics

A lawsuit brought by the father of an Alabama woman who died from pneumonia in jail will finally get its day in court, alleging jail nurses never treated his daughter, even as her condition worsened, AL.com reports.

Autumn Harris, 34, died in the Walker County Jail on Dec. 5, 2018 after being incarcerated for three weeks for failing to appear at a hearing in a misdemeanor theft case. Michael Harris, Autumn’s father, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in 2020 against the company that provided health care services in Jail. The suit alleges Harris received no treatment for her pneumonia from health care workers inside the jail, despite disclosing the diagnosis at the time of her arrest.

“Pneumonia is one of the most common respiratory infections in the United States,” Harris’ attorney Justin Jones said. “It is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations. It’s a killer and yet it’s very treatable. In this case, there was a systemic failure from start to finish to apply well-established standard of health care to a patient. Those failures ultimately caused her death.”

Harris was diagnosed with pneumonia on Oct. 31 and was prescribed antibiotics. She was arrested about two weeks later and she gave jail officials her medication when she was booked. Without access to her medication, her condition got worse over the next three weeks. Preemptive Forensic Health Solutions, the company that provided health services for the jail, never documented giving her antibiotics until the final day, after she was misdiagnosed with a urinary tract infection.

“On Dec. 1, 2018, she reported shortness of breath and died four days later after other inmates reported she was unable to sit or stand. She also lost control of her bodily functions and urinated on herself, according to witness statements,” AL.com’s report stated.

At one point, jail nurses treated her with the anxiety protocol when she reported difficulty breathing, giving her suggestions like taking walks and yoga classes.

An autopsy found that Harris died from pneumonia. Her lungs were filled with fluid and infection, Jones said.

“The autopsy was a brutal picture of just how far the disease had progressed over time,” he said.

Read the full report over at AL.com.

Trump allies’ ugly feud devolves into legal threats over accusations of “witchcraft”

Many Never Trump conservatives have lamented that in MAGA World, extremists are quick to turn against other extremists and accuse them of not being MAGA enough. Former Nancy Reagan speechwriter Mona Charen and former GOP strategist Tim Miller both made that argument after “Never Kevin” Republicans voted against making Rep. Kevin McCarthy House speaker on Tuesday, January 3. No matter how much McCarthy pandered to the MAGA movement, Charen and Miller argued in articles published by The Bulwark, it wasn’t enough for the far-right “Never Kevin” Republicans who rejected him as House speaker.

One of the “Never Kevin” Republicans who voted against McCarthy on January 3 was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, a self-described “pro-life extremist” who has promoted the Big Lie and made the false, totally debunked claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump. But as far-right as Luna is, she isn’t without her adversaries in MAGA World. One of them is Michael Tito, an ally of veteran GOP operative and self-described “dirty trickster” Roger Stone who has accused her of practicing witchcraft.

In an article published by the Daily Beast early Wednesday morning, January 4, journalist Zachary Petrizzo describes Luna’s bitter rivalry with Tito and her battle against his accusations.

“Rep. Anna Paulina Luna came to Congress on her first day in office ready to do battle — not just with Democrats, but also, with her own party, as she became one of the 20 Republicans to vote against electing Kevin McCarthy speaker,” Petrizzo explains. “But back home in her conservative Florida district, Luna is waging a very different kind of war: a legal fight with political enemies who say she is a literal witch.”

Petrizzo reports that a letter obtained by the Daily Beast “reveals that” Luna has “retained the high-powered law firm Holland & Knight to go after” Tito because he “leveled a series of outlandish allegations against” her during a fall appearance on the “Bubba the Love Sponge Show.”

According to Petrizzo, “The letter demands that Michael Tito, a pal of Roger Stone who mulled challenging Luna in a primary, apologize on video for his accusations, which include claims that Luna was fired from a job — and that she had a sexual liaison with Rep. Matt Gaetz.”

In that letter, attorney David J. Lisko wrote, “I am sending you this letter because of the defamatory statements you made about Ms. Luna on the Show…. You said that Ms. Luna (a devout Christian) practices witchcraft. You are hereby demanded to publicly and immediately retract each and every defamatory statement you made about Ms. Luna on the show.”

But Tito, according to Petrizzo, has consulted an attorney and has “said he isn’t backing down from any of his claims about” Luna.

Tito told the Beast, “I didn’t wake up one morning when I was going on ‘The Bubba the Love Sponge Show’ and say I am going to pull a bunch of stuff out of my a** and talk about it.”

The Stone ally alleges that it was Paloma Zuniga of Hispanics for Trump who told him that “Luna practices witchcraft.” Tito said, “That is where I heard that from. She puts spells on people.”

Luna has made plenty of accusations herself. In 2021, according to the Tampa Bay Times, she accused her political rivals of plotting to kill her.

The 33-year-old Luna, who is originally from Southern California, first ran for Congress via Florida’s 13th Congressional District in 2020, losing to Democratic then-Rep. Charlie Crist (a former Republican) by 7 percent. In 2022, Crist decided not to seek reelection and ran for governor of Florida instead; incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis defeated Crist by 19 percent.

Luna ran for Congress again in that congressional district in 2022, when she was endorsed by former President Donald Trump. That time, she won, defeating Democratic nominee Eric Lynn by 8 percent and taking over the seat formerly held by Crist.

“First sign of new GOP majority”: Metal detectors installed after Jan. 6 removed after MAGA gripes

As Republicans on Tuesday prepared to formally assume the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and vote on the next speaker amid growing party turmoil, video footage posted to social media showed officials removing metal detectors that were put in place following the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

Just after noon, Rep. Ayanna Pressley’s, D-Mass., chief of staff posted a short clip showing workers carrying a metal detector into a Capitol elevator.

CNN congressional reporter Manu Raju called the move “the first sign of the new GOP majority.”

The metal detectors, put in place just outside of the House chamber as an extra security measure amid concerns about Republicans’ ties to the January 6 attackers, were vocally opposed by GOP lawmakers, some of whom made a show of dodging them.

“Guns and other weapons were already banned from the chamber,” The Washington Post noted Tuesday. “Some Democrats were already anxious about the potential for guns on the House floor after Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., campaigned promising to remain armed as she worked on Capitol Hill. And former congressman Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., told a local paper after the attack that he had been armed when protesters stormed the Capitol.”

In a video posted to Twitter, Boebert celebrated the removal of the magnetometers:

The removal of the metal detectors came shortly before Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., failed to win a majority of House votes on the first ballot for speaker as 19 GOP members opposed him, sending the voting to a second round.

In a rules package unveiled earlier this week, House Republicans propose eliminating “fines for failure of members to comply” with security screenings before reaching the chamber floor.

House members have yet to vote on the proposed rules.

Why the new COVID variant XBB.1.5 is taking over the U.S. so quickly

Here we go again. A new strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is rapidly spreading in the United States — and it has some novel mutations that make it more immune-evasive than most of the strains currently or previously circulating. Once again, hospitals in some regions are witnessing a surge in cases, which may be due to this new variant. The new variant is spreading so fast that it rivals the omicron surge in late 2021 and early 2022 in its ability to cause so much illness so fast.

As we enter the fourth year of the pandemic, recombinants haven’t been a huge deal. But that seems to be changing.

The variant is called XBB.1.5, one of the many offshoots of the omicron lineage, and it is a recombinant variant; that means two different strains of COVID met (most likely in an individual that caught two or more viruses at the same time), traded genetic information and re-combined. Being a recombinant variant also means it gets that weird XBB name; non-recombinant variants — which have straightforward lineages to previous versions of SARS-CoV-2 — are given names like BA.2 and BQ.1.1.

This ability to recombine is actually normal behavior for viruses, but it is still a big problem because these mutations can give the virus sudden advantages — in many cases, the ability to spread more quickly, cause more severe illness and dodge our best defenses against it. So far, as we enter the fourth year of the pandemic, recombinants haven’t been a huge deal. But that seems to be changing.

“XBB is a different ballgame,” Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan, an assistant dean of research and associate professor at the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Arkansas, told Salon. He said the emergence of XBB.1.5 is predictable, as many have been closely watching the evolution of this virus. “With a recombinant, you get mutations that makes it more evasive. And as we expected, [XBB.1.5] changed one small mutation, a V changed to a P at the 486 position. And that’s it. All of a sudden, it binds to the host receptor better than most variants that we know so far.”

To make matters worse, XBB.1.5 is quickly gaining a foothold in the United States, especially in Northeast states like New York and New Jersey. On Friday, December 30th, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated their variant proportion tracker; XBB.1.5 made up an estimated 40.5 percent of cases. For comparison: at the end of November, it was just a mere 1.3 percent of cases. That’s a shockingly fast rise. Indeed, the Northeast is especially overwhelmed with XBB.1.5, where it makes up 75 percent of cases, according to CDC estimates.

Fortunately, our current strategies for fighting this new virus will still work for the most part. Masking with high-quality N-95 masks is still extremely effective at stopping the virus from spreading, as is updated ventilation systems and keeping up with vaccinations. But as pandemic fatigue sets in, these mitigation efforts are being largely abandoned — meaning even an effective strategy is useless if it is not used. And XBB.1.5 could just be getting started with us.

“XBB.1.5 in the northeast USA is right now, going at more than 50 percent of variant proportion … means that it’s probably going to mutate further,” Rajnarayanan said.


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


Further mutations could mean that, as bad as XBB.1.5 may be, what comes down the line could be even worse. We can prevent things from intensifying the same way we should be fighting all versions of the virus: masking, vaccinating and improving indoor ventilation, staying home when sick and continuing to test and monitor for the virus. As Nature editors warned recently, “There’s no room for COVID complacency in 2023.”

XBB.1.5 is different from its parent XBB, a variant that caused alarm from some experts when it came on the scene early last October. XBB was first identified in India in mid-August, and quickly became a top-spreading variant in Singapore and other regions of Asia. Multiple studies showed that XBB and its cousin XBB.1 are among “the most resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants to date,” as researchers writing in the journal Cell put it last December.

Some optimistic data suggests that while XBB and its offspring seem to be more contagious and immune evasive, they don’t seem to be causing more severe disease.

“It is alarming that these newly emerged subvariants could further compromise the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines and result in a surge of breakthrough infections as well as re-infections,” the authors wrote. “However, it is important to emphasize that although infections may now be more likely, COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to remain effective at preventing hospitalization and severe disease.”

What that means is that previous infections and vaccination won’t fully protect you from getting sick from XBB, though vaccines are still statistically likely to prevent serious illness, hospitalization or death. Vaccines also make it less likely for long COVID to develop, a condition in which the symptoms of COVID linger for months or even years.

Other research has similarly raised the alarm about how XBB has essentially evolved around some (but not all) strategies for fighting SARS-CoV-2. Some optimistic data suggests that while XBB and its offspring seem to be more contagious and immune evasive, they don’t seem to be causing more severe disease. There are many metrics for evaluating the harm from a virus and transmissibility is just one of them.

But again, XBB.1.5 is different than its predecessors. While XBB first emerged in Asia, XBB.1.5 was first detected in New York. It’s a home-brewed pathogen. Some recent research suggests that XBB.1.5 isn’t any more immune evasive than XBB. Though it is worse than other variants, it could scale even higher, so that’s a relief.

What makes XBB.1.5 more of a concern is that it has a mutation in the spike protein that has enhanced its binding affinity. While there may be many different versions of SARS-CoV-2 floating around, all of them work essentially the same way: they worm their way into our cells using a blobby arm on the outside of the virus called a spike protein. This is biology, not art, so this technique can work better or worse depending on the binding affinity.

Not only does this variant seem to have all the immune evasive properties of regular XBB, mutations in the spike protein have increased the binding affinity of XBB.1.5. 

The spike protein is the perfect shape to slide into ACE2 receptors, which line many of the cells in our body. ACE2 receptors play many important roles, such as regulating blood pressure. The spike protein fits perfectly into ACE2 like a key into a lock. And then, like a psychopathic burglar, the virus is able to enter the cell and wreak havoc.

There are only slight differences in the genetic codes of these viruses, but the mutations in XBB.1.5 are a big problem. Not only does this variant seem to have all the immune evasive properties of regular XBB, mutations in the spike protein have increased the binding affinity of XBB.1.5. That means it has an even more convincing fake key, so it can enter cells even easier. Instead of a lockpicking kit, XBB.1.5 has a power drill. It kicks the door down way faster.

“So now it’s already immune evasive [like XBB]. So it’s retaining that property and is also binding to the host receptor as well,” Rajnarayanan said. “That means it’s highly accelerated. So currently we are seeing rates very similar to the early days of alpha or delta,” referring to earlier, fast-spreading and extremely contagious strains of SARS-CoV-2.

To summarize, XBB.1.5 is great at evading immunity, but it doesn’t seem to cause more severe hospitalizations or death than other omicron strains. At least, so far. We’ll know more as more data presents itself. The increased binding affinity of XBB.1.5 will likely help it spread much faster than the BQ strains that were dominating just a few weeks ago. And as we saw in January 2022, if a strain like omicron is contagious enough, even a relatively “mild” version of the virus can spread chaos just through sheer volume of cases.

And no one who has struggled with the brain damaging aspects of a serious COVID case or the long-term struggle with something like long COVID would describe Omicron as mild. It’s too early to tell how much damage XBB.1.5 will cause, but we aren’t completely defenseless against this virus either. This is not like January 2020, when we knew relatively little about this virus. As Rajnarayanan noted, experts have predicted from the beginning that virus would keep evolving new ways to keep infecting people. It’s up to us to decide if we want to slow its spread or not.

Matt Gaetz sent letter to Capitol architect accusing Kevin McCarthy of squatting in speaker’s office

With the House GOP still in chaos and the speaker’s chair empty, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz ratcheted up the grade-school melodrama Tuesday night – painting failed speaker candidate and California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy as a “squatter” in a publicity stunt. 

After McCarthy failed to secure enough party support during the first round of votes Tuesday, Gaetz loudly endorsed Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, for House Speaker. Despite previously making significant concessions to the GOP’s pro-Trump faction in a proposed House Rules package, McCarthy struggled to win over a significant chunk of the Freedom Caucus.

Earlier in the day, NBC’s Hayley Talbot posted a video to Twitter showing staff prematurely moving what appeared to be McCarthy’s belongings into the speaker’s suite in the Capitol.

McCarthy went on to suffer a historically humiliating defeat in three rounds of votes before the House adjourned, leaving the speaker’s chair empty but vowing to press on for a fourth vote.

He then retreated behind closed doors – a little red pizza wagon following fast on his heels. 

By 10 p.m., Gaetz had replied with his own bit of pageantry on Twitter, pointing out in a letter to Capitol Architect J. Brett Blanton that McCarthy had moved his staff into – or “occupied,” as Gaetz put it – the House speaker’s suite prematurely.

“How long will he remain there before he is considered a squatter?” Gaetz clucked in the letter. 

Gaetz asked Blanton to respond “promptly.”

“It seems Mr. McCarthy can no longer be considered Speaker-Designate following today’s balloting,” Gaetz added, delivering another petty jab. 


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


McCarthy managed to get just 203 of the necessary 218 votes in the first two rounds of voting on Tuesday, and only 202 in the third and final round of the night after Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., joined the holdout group. Seemingly exhausted and calling for conference, House GOP members retired from the chamber. 

The House GOP is expected to hold a fourth round of votes Wednesday. McCarthy will need to claw back several of the 20 GOP votes he lost during Tuesday’s three rounds. He can only nab the speakership if he loses four or fewer Republican votes, or if Democrats – all 212 of whom thrice voted for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. – lend him a hand by voting for McCarthy in round four. 

Despite some public eyebrow-raising over McCarthy and Gaetz bickering, the two men’s ongoing verbal slap-fight comes as a surprise to few in the Capitol. In the days preceding the vote, heightened tensions between the Freedom Caucus and the broader GOP grew obvious and reportedly culminated in a closed-door, intra-party shouting match. 

As the House GOP’s second-in-command, Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, put it Tuesday night: “Everybody knew this would be going on and we’re going to work through it.” 

“I’m furious”: MTG says MAGA friends “demanding positions for themselves” in McCarthy negotiations

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., is not pleased with her colleagues in the House Freedom Caucus who are refusing to back House Minority Leader Kevin McCarty, R-Calif., as he attempts to secure enough votes to become Speaker of the House.

On Tuesday, January 3, the Georgia lawmaker specifically called out a number of Republican lawmakers including Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Scott Perry, R-Penn., Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Bob Good, R-Va., according to Mediaite.

According to Greene, there were a number of occurrences when the lawmakers allegedly turned their back on Republican voters supporting former President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

“If my friends in the Freedom Caucus, Matt Gaetz, and others will not take the win when they have it, they’re proving to the country that they don’t care about doing the right thing for America,” she began.

“They’re proving to the country that they’re just distractions. And that’s that’s not what we need to do as a party. That’s why Republicans fail. And I’m really tired of it,” Greene concluded.

Greene went on to speak with C-SPAN where she criticized the lawmakers for focusing solely on their self-motivated demands of McCarthy. “We have been negotiating, talking, debating back and forth in our conference, trying to come to a really good rules package. And it’s amazing. As a matter of fact, I’ll quote Matt Gaetz. He said, ‘It’s exquisite,’ Greene said.

The enraged lawmaker added, “That’s what he said on our conference call on Sunday. But in that conference meeting there, we found out that there were several members, three, in fact, that went in last night and were demanding positions for themselves, demanding gavel positions, demanding subcommittees, demanding for people to be taken off committees and people to be put on committees.”

She continued, “Three, three Republicans out of our 222. I want you all to know I have not done that for myself. The only thing I have done is is debate and request and argue among my peers for the right things, for the rules package and for our agenda for the American people. And that’s the only thing I’ve done. I haven’t asked for one thing for my for myself. And I’m the only Republican that has zero committees. So you would think I would be the one in there asking for something. But I haven’t done that. But I find out that it’s my Freedom Caucus colleagues and my supposed friends that went and did that, and they asked nothing for me. Nothing. That’s what I found out in there. I’m furious.”

Greene went on to name the Republican lawmakers she isn’t pleased with. “Well, let me tell you something. While the conservatives that the base supports and believes in, let me let me remind everyone, they’re not perfect either. Scott Perry, before his general election, refuse to vote against the bill. That was all about the gay marriage bill. He didn’t, but he he refused to vote against it. He voted for it. Then when it came back around after his election, he was able to vote against it. Conservatives would not like that.”

According to the news outlet, a clip of her remarks was uploaded to Twitter by Right Side Broadcasting.

Watch the clip below or at this link.

When fishing boats go dark at sea, they’re often committing crimes – we mapped where it happens

In January 2019, the Korean-flagged fishing vessel Oyang 77 sailed south toward international waters off Argentina. The vessel had a known history of nefarious activities, including underreporting its catch and illegally dumping low-value fish to make room in its hold for more lucrative catch.

At 2 a.m. on Jan. 10, the Oyang 77 turned off its location transponder at the edge of Argentina’s exclusive economic zone – a political boundary that divides Argentina’s national waters from international waters, or the high seas. At 9 p.m. on Jan. 11, the Oyang 77 turned its transponder back on and reappeared on the high seas. For the 19 hours when the ship was dark, no information was available about where it had gone or what it did.

In a recent study, I worked with colleagues at Global Fishing Watch, a nonprofit that works to advance ocean governance by increasing transparency of human activity at sea, to show that these periods of missing transponder data actually contain useful information on where ships go and what they do. And authorities like the International Maritime Organization can use this missing data to help combat illegal activities at sea, such as overfishing and exploiting workers on fishing boats.

Illegal fishing causes economic losses estimated at $US10 billion to $25 billion annually. It also has been linked to human rights violations, such as forced labor and human trafficking. Better information about how often boats go dark at sea can help governments figure out where and when these activities may be taking place.

Countries can combat illegal, unreported and unauthorized fishing by checking paperwork, verifying catches and sharing information across borders.

Going dark at sea

The high seas are the modern world’s Wild West – a vast expanse of water far from oversight and authority, where outlaws engage in illegal activities like unauthorized fishing and human trafficking. Surveillance there is aided by location transponders, called the Automatic Identification System, or AIS, which works like the Find My iPhone app.

Just as thieves can turn off phone location tracking, ships can disable their AIS transponders, effectively hiding their activities from oversight. Often it’s unclear whether going dark in this way is legal. AIS requirements are based on many factors, including vessel size, what country the vessel is flagged to, its location in the ocean and what species its crew is trying to catch.

A ship that disables its AIS transponder disappears from the view of whomever may be watching, including authorities, scientists and other vessels. For our study, we reviewed data from two private companies that combine AIS data with other signals to track assets at sea. Spire is a constellation of nanosatellites that pick up AIS signals to increase visibility of vessels in remote areas of the world. Orbcomm tracks ships, trucks and other heavy equipment using internet-enabled devices. Then, we used machine learning models to understand what drove vessels to disable their AIS devices.

Examining where and how often such episodes occurred between 2017 and 2019, we found that ships disabled their transponders for around 1.6 million hours each year. This represented roughly 6% of global fishing vessel activity, which as a result is not reflected in global tallies of what types of fish are being caught where.

World map showing zones where large shares of boats disable their transponders

This map shows the fraction of fishing vessel activity hidden by AIS disabling events from 2017 to 2019. Heavy AIS disabling occurred adjacent to Argentina, West African nations and in the northwest Pacific – three regions where illegal fishing is common. In contrast, the disabling hot spot near Alaska occurs on intensively managed fishing grounds and likely represents vessels going dark to avoid competition with other boats. Global Fishing Watch, CC BY-ND

Vessels frequently went dark on the high-seas edge of exclusive economic zone boundaries, which can obscure illegal fishing in unauthorized locations. That’s what the Oyang 77 was doing in January 2019.

Laundering illegal catch

The AIS data we reviewed showed that the Oyang 77 disabled its AIS transponder a total of nine times during January and February 2019. Each time, it went dark at the edge of Argentinean national waters and reappeared several days later back on the high seas.

During the ninth disabling event, the vessel was spotted fishing without permission in Argentina’s waters, where the Argentinean coast guard intercepted it and escorted it to the port of Comodoro Rivadavia. The vessel’s owners were later fined for illegally fishing in Argentina’s national waters, and their fishing gear was confiscated.

AIS disabling is also strongly correlated with transshipment events – exchanging catch, personnel and supplies between fishing vessels and refrigerated cargo vessels, or “reefers,” at sea. Reefers also have AIS transponders, and researchers can use their data to identify loitering events, when reefers are in one place long enough to receive cargo from a fishing vessel.

It’s not unusual to see fishing vessels disable their AIS transponders near loitering reefers, which suggests that they want to hide these transfers from oversight. While transferring people or cargo can be legal, when it is poorly monitored it can become a means of laundering illegal catch. It has been linked to forced labor and human trafficking.

Valid reasons to turn off transponders

Making it illegal for vessels to disable AIS transponders might seem like an obvious solution to this problem. But just as people may have legitimate reasons for not wanting the government to monitor their phones, fishing vessels may have legitimate reasons not to want their movements monitored.

Many vessels disable their transponders in high-quality fishing grounds to hide their activities from competitors. Although the ocean is huge, certain species and fishing methods are highly concentrated. For example, bottom trawlers fish by dragging nets along the seafloor and can operate only over continental shelves where the bottom is shallow enough for their gear to reach.

Modern-day pirates also use AIS data to intercept and attack vessels. In response, ships frequently disable their transponders in historically dangerous waters of the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Guinea. Making AIS disabling illegal would leave fishing vessels more vulnerable to piracy.

An electronic screen shows triangles, representing nearby ships, within concentric circles.

An AIS-equipped system on board a ship presents the bearing and distance of nearby vessels in a radarlike display format. Clipper/Wikipedia, CC BY

Instead, in my view, researchers and maritime authorities can use these AIS disabling events to make inferences about which vessels are behaving illegally.

Our study reveals that AIS disabling near exclusive economic zones and loitering reefers is a risk factor for unauthorized fishing and transshipments. At sea, real-time data on where vessels disable their AIS transponders or change their apparent position using fake GPS coordinates could be used to focus patrols on illegal activities near political boundaries or in transshipment hot spots. Port authorities could also use this information onshore to target the most suspect vessels for inspection.

President Joe Biden signed a national security memorandum in 2022 pledging U.S. support for combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and associated labor abuses. Our study points toward a strategy for using phases when ships go dark to fight illegal activities at sea.


Heather Welch, Researcher in Ecosystem Dynamics, University of California, Santa Cruz

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

House sh**show has a message for America: GOP can’t govern and doesn’t want to

If anyone still labors under the impression that Donald Trump invented the shitshow that is the modern Republican Party, Tuesday’s performance on Capitol Hill will have disabused them of that notion. It was déjà vu all over again, just like in 2015 when Kevin McCarthy was humiliated by far right bomb-throwers simply because he was so easy to humiliate, thus giving them leverage and pleasure in equal measure. Poor McCarthy spent the next seven years groveling and genuflecting to these extremists under the foolish impression that they would reward him for his fealty. As Salon’s Rae Hodge lays out in detail, on Tuesday afternoon they simply laughed in his face and humiliated him again.

Back in 2015, the newly formed Freedom Caucus, born out of the Tea Party class that came into Congress five years before in the 2010 “shellacking,” managed to force then-Speaker John Boehner to resign for having the temerity to make deals with the Democrats in the Senate and the White House in order to keep the government functioning. They were a rump caucus that didn’t have the power to stop bipartisan legislation, but they had the leverage to both force Boehner out and prevent the ascension of McCarthy, his anointed successor.

At the time, McCarthy made it easier for them by telling the press that the congressional Benghazi hearings were a set-up to destroy Hillary Clinton (which was obviously true, and wouldn’t even raise eyebrows in today’s political environment). He also saw the whip count and knew he didn’t have the votes of all those Freedom Caucus kooks, and abruptly decided to bow out. After all, the superstar GOP dreamboat and former vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan was waiting in the wings and McCarthy knew he couldn’t compete with those baby blues. Ryan took the job for four years but decided not to run for re-election in 2018, largely because those same people made his life as miserable as they’d made his predecessor’s.

So this behavior was going on in the Republican Party before Donald Trump had ever uttered the words “Make America Great Again.” He didn’t invent this lunacy — he just watched it unfold and saw the opportunity to use it. After all, Trump had already done a test run with his birther nonsense, and liked the vibe. In effect, the GOP has been heading down this anarchic path for decades. Trump undoubtedly made it worse, but he didn’t create it. Right now, in fact, he seems almost irrelevant to its descent into further madness.

Donald Trump didn’t invent this lunacy — he just watched it unfold and saw the opportunity to use it. He did a test run with his birther nonsense, and dug the vibe.

Trump supposedly whipped votes for McCarthy and it did no good with the diehards. It remains to be seen if he still has the loyalty of the 30 to 40 percent of Republican voters he will need to remain viable in the presidential race, but he clearly has no pull in Congress. In truth, he didn’t have much when he was president — his personal attacks on the late Sen. John McCain cost Republicans their most cherished policy objective, repealing the Affordable Care Act.

McCarthy’s catering to the far-right faction hasn’t done him a damn good either. In fact, the only people who anyone thinks might have some sway with this group are the real leaders of the Republican Party:

Tuesday night on Fox News, Sean Hannity evoked Ronald Reagan saying something about being loyal to the party, which will have zero effect on people who think of Reagan with the same reverence they have for Grover Cleveland or Calvin Coolidge. They are more likely to pay attention to Tucker Carlson, who had this to say:

That’s paranoid nonsense that even the Republican House majority thinks is nuts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the crazies end up extracting this promise from whoever finally wins the gavel. Carlson is their intellectual guru, after all. And I think we know how this new “Church Committee” (as well as the “Laptop From Hell” committee and the “Lock Up Dr. Fauci” committee and all the rest) will actually unfold. These are not serious people dedicated to good-faith oversight. They’re a nihilistic carnival act run by folks who are desperate for attention. We’re in for a gruesome train wreck of a congressional session.

The problem with having insurrectionists within your own caucus is that they care nothing for the party, much less the country. They looked at the last three losing elections and now feel liberated to do their worst. All the anti-McCarthy members come from deep-red districts that voted for Trump by double digits. They have nothing personally to lose by acting out their darkest political fantasies. They didn’t come to Congress to do anything but wreck the place and if that means taking their own party down with it, they couldn’t care less.


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


As CNN’s Ron Brownstein points out, Republicans consolidated their hold on red states in the last few elections. In 2022 they nailed down places like Florida, Texas, Iowa and Tennessee for the foreseeable future. But they also won 18 seats in districts that voted for Joe Biden, half of which are in New York and California, blue states which will see much higher turnout in a presidential-election year. They can’t afford to lose any of those, but this House circus is going to put every one of those members on the chopping block.

If the last three elections have shown anything, it’s that swing-state voters are decisively rejecting the far-right crusade that has so many people in red states spellbound. According to Brownstein, a new analysis of the midterms shows that “in the key House, Senate and gubernatorial races across the 15 states with the most competitive statewide contests involving candidates clearly identified with a Trump-style agenda, Democrats largely matched or even exceeded their 2020 margins — a remarkable showing during the first midterm election for the party holding the White House.”

It’s not hard to see why. In the last few years we’ve had one “historic” political crisis after another. Just since 2019 there have been two impeachments, a president refusing to honor election results, a violent insurrection and now, on the very first day of the new Congress, clear evidence that the most radical “Trump-style” officials in the GOP are pulling the strings and the larger majority in the party is helpless to stop them.

Let’s hope that all those swing-state voters who came out in 2018, 2020 and again in 2022 will now understand that this isn’t just about stopping Donald Trump, as worthy as that is. They need to make sure that Republicans are kept out of power until they demobilize this destructive faction and reinvent themselves as responsible, patriotic participants in the political process. They certainly aren’t there yet, and maybe it’s just a lost cause. 

Trump makes desperate Truth Social plea to try to save Kevin McCarthy from “embarrassing defeat”

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday pleaded for House Republicans to back leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., after he failed to secure the speaker’s job on three consecutive votes.

McCarthy on Tuesday repeatedly fell short of a majority needed to win the vote as the House failed to elect a speaker on the first ballot for the first time in 100 years. Nineteen right-wing Republicans, including Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, voted against McCarthy twice before Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., became the 20th vote against the GOP leader on the third ballot, backing Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

Trump, who backed McCarthy despite opposition from the MAGA wing of the party, initially declined to say whether he still supported the GOP leader after his historic defeat.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump told NBC News on Tuesday. “I got everybody calling me wanting my support. But let’s see what happens and we’ll go — I got everybody calling, wanting my support. That’s all I can say. But we’ll see what happens. We’ll see how it all works out.”

But Trump appeared to change his tune on Wednesday after negotiations between the GOP holdouts and Republican leaders.

“Some really good conversations took place last night, and it’s now time for all of our GREAT Republican House Members to VOTE FOR KEVIN, CLOSE THE DEAL, TAKE THE VICTORY, & WATCH CRAZY NANCY PELOSI FLY BACK HOME TO A VERY BROKEN CALIFORNIA,THE ONLY SPEAKER IN U.S. HISTORY TO HAVE LOST THE “HOUSE” TWICE! REPUBLICANS, DO NOT TURN A GREAT TRIUMPH INTO A GIANT & EMBARRASSING DEFEAT,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “IT’S TIME TO CELEBRATE, YOU DESERVE IT. Kevin McCarthy will do a good job, and maybe even a GREAT JOB – JUST WATCH!”

Though Pelosi will no longer be House speaker or even the Democratic House leader, she is expected to remain a member after winning re-election in November.

Even as the House GOP infighting has stretched for weeks after the “red wave” predicted by McCarthy failed to materialize, Trump blamed the “unnecessary turmoil” in the party on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a Trump foe that had no reported involvement in the House squabble.

“The 1.7 Trillion Dollar Green New Deal ‘booster’ that McConnell and the RINOS handed to the Dems last week was a real downer and embarrassment to Republicans!” Trump wrote of the omnibus bill passed last month. “If Republicans are going to fight, we ought to be fighting Mitch McConnell and his domineering, China loving BOSS, I mean wife, Coco Chow,” he wrote in a subsequent post, repeating a racist attack on his former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.


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


McCarthy on Tuesday predicted that he would be able to win over enough holdouts to become speaker as a growing number of right-wingers groused at the obstruction of the splinter group.

“If the base only understood that 19 Republicans voting against McCarthy are playing Russian roulette with our hard earned Republican majority right now,” tweeted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. “This is the worst thing that could possibly happen.”

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told Politico that some colleagues have privately branded the group the “Taliban 19,” which Gaetz called “hurtful” and false.”

“This is an all new level of contempt that the conference has for them. They are beyond redemption,” McCarthy ally Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told the outlet. “This is no longer about McCarthy. This is about what they are doing to the conference and the Republican Party,” he added, after threatening to strip McCarthy opponents of committee assignments.

McCarthy on Tuesday reportedly pushed back during a GOP meeting on the opposition group’s demands for committee leadership roles and rules changes that would make it easier to oust the speaker, though GOP leaders continued to negotiate with the group after the failed votes.

“You can’t accommodate a small group that essentially has you hostage, and that’s what’s going on here — we’re not going to do it,” Bacon told NBC News.

Bacon warned that exasperated moderate Republicans could try to work with Democrats to break the logjam and stop delaying House business.

“You can have some folks you can work with, but I think in the end you just go to the top one or two people in the Democratic Party and start making a deal,” he said. “If they prove to themselves that they can’t function as part of a team, then we’re going to make that decision. But we’re not there. I think Kevin still has lots of runway.”

How Putin’s war and small islands are accelerating the global shift to clean energy

The year 2022 was a tough one for the growing number of people living in food insecurity and energy poverty around the world, and the beginning of 2023 is looking bleak.

Russia’s war on Ukraine, one of the world’s largest grain and fertilizer feedstock suppliers, tightened global food and energy supplies, which in turn helped spur inflation.

Drought, exacerbated in some places by warring groups blocking food aid, pushed parts of the Horn of Africa toward famine. Extreme weather disasters have left trails of destruction with mounting costs on nearly every continent. More countries found themselves in debt distress.

But below the surface of almost weekly bad news, significant changes are underway that have the potential to create a more sustainable world – one in which humanity can tackle climate change, species extinction and food and energy insecurity.

I’ve been involved in international sustainable development for most of my career and now teach climate diplomacy. Here’s how two key systems that drive the world’s economy – energy and finance – are starting to shift toward sustainability and what to watch for in 2023.

Ramping up renewable energy growth

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine has reverberated through Europe and spread to other countries that have long been dependent on the region for natural gas. But while oil-producing countries and gas lobbyists are arguing for more drilling, global energy investments reflect a quickening transition to cleaner energy.

Call it the Putin effect – Russia’s war is speeding up the global shift away from fossil fuels.

In December, the International Energy Agency published two important reports that point to the future of renewable energy.

First, the IEA revised its projection of renewable energy growth upward by 30%. It now expects the world to install as much solar and wind power in the next five years as it installed in the past 50 years.

The second report showed that energy use is becoming more efficient globally, with efficiency increasing by about 2% per year. As energy analyst Kingsmill Bond at the energy research group RMI noted, the two reports together suggest that fossil fuel demand may have peaked. While some low-income countries have been eager for deals to tap their fossil fuel resources, the IEA warns that new fossil fuel production risks becoming stranded, or uneconomic, in the next 20 years.

The main obstacles to the exponential growth in renewable energy, IEA points out, are antiquated energy policy frameworks, regulations and subsidies written at a time when energy systems, pricing and utilities were all geared toward fossil fuels.

Look in 2023 for reforms, including countries wrestling with how to permit smart grids and new transmission lines and finding ways to reward consumers for efficiency and clean energy generation.

The year 2023 will also see more focus on developing talent for the clean energy infrastructure build-out. In the U.S., the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will pour hundreds of billions of dollars into clean energy and technology. Europe’s REPowerEU commitments will also boost investment. However, concerns about “buy American” rules within the new U.S. climate laws and an EU plan to launch a carbon border adjustment tax are raising fears that nationalism in trade policy could harm the speed of green growth.

Fixing international climate finance

The second system to watch for reform in 2023 is international finance. It’s also crucial to how low-income countries develop their energy systems, build resilience and recover from climate disasters.

Wealthy nations haven’t moved the energy transition forward quickly enough or provided enough support for emerging markets and developing countries to leapfrog inefficient fossil-fueled energy systems. Debt is ballooning in low-income countries, and climate change and disasters like the devastating flooding in Pakistan wipe out growth and add costs.

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley has brought together international financial institutions with think tanks and philanthropists to push for changes.

Countries like Mottley’s have been frustrated that the current international financial system – primarily the International Monetary Fund and the multilateral development banks, including the World Bank – haven’t adapted to the growing climate challenges.

Mottley’s Bridgetown Initiative proposes a new approach. It calls for countries’ vulnerability to be measured by climate impact, and for funds to be made available on that basis, rather than income. It also urges more risk-taking by the development banks to leverage private investment in vulnerable countries, including climate debt swaps.

The Bridgetown Initiative also calls for countries to reflow their IMF Special Drawing Rights – a reserve available to IMF members – into a proposed fund that vulnerable countries could then use to build resilience to climate change. A working group established by the G-20 points out that the “easiest” trillion dollars to access for urgent climate response is that already in the system.

In early 2023, Mottley and French President Emmanuel Macron, with others, will drive a process to examine the possible measures to improve the current system before the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in April, and then at a June summit called by France.

Watch in 2023 to see if this is the year the G-7 and the G-20 rekindle their global economic leadership roles. Their members are the largest owners of the international financial institutions, and also the largest emitters of carbon dioxide on the planet. India will lead the G-20 in 2023, followed by Brazil in 2024. Their leadership will be critical.

Watch small nations’ leadership in 2023

In 2023, expect to see small nations increasingly push for global transformation, led by the V-20 – the finance ministers of the countries most vulnerable to climate change.

In addition to the Bridgetown Initiative, Barbados has suggested a way to pool new funds working off the model of an oil spill damage fund at the International Maritime Organization. In the IMO fund, big oil importers pay in, and the fund pays out in the event of a spill. Barbados supports creating a similar fund to help countries when a climate event costs more than 5% of a country’s GDP.

This model is potentially a way to pool funds from a levy on the windfall profits of energy companies that saw their profits soar in 2022 while billions of people around the world suffered from energy price inflation.

Finally, the breakthrough agreement on biodiversity reached in December 2022 provides more promise for 2023. Countries agreed to conserve 30% of the world’s biodiversity and restore 30% of the world’s degraded lands. The funding – a $30 billion fund by 2030 – remains to be found, but the plan clarifies the task ahead and nature’s place in it. And we can hope 2023 is a year when signs of peace in our war against nature break out.


Rachel Kyte, Dean of the Fletcher School, Tufts University

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

How the Earth’s tilt creates short, cold January days

Above the equator, winter officially begins in December. But in many areas, January is when it really takes hold. Atmospheric scientist Deanna Hence explains the weather and climate factors that combine to produce wintry conditions at the turn of the year.

How does the Earth’s orbit influence our daylight and temperatures?

As the Earth orbits the sun, it spins around an axis – picture a stick going through the Earth, from the North Pole to the South Pole. During the 24 hours that it takes for the Earth to rotate once around its axis, every point on its surface faces toward the Sun for part of the time and away from it for part of the time. This is what causes daily changes in sunlight and temperature.

There are two other important factors: First, the Earth is round, although it’s not a perfect sphere. Second, its axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees relative to its path around the Sun. As a result, light falls directly on its equator but strikes the North and South poles at angles.

When one of the poles points more toward the Sun than the other pole, that half of the planet gets more sunlight than the other half, and it’s summer in that hemisphere. When that pole tilts away from the Sun, that half of the Earth gets less sunlight and it’s winter there.

Seasonal changes are the most dramatic at the poles, where the changes in light are most extreme. During the summer, a pole receives 24 hours of sunlight and the Sun never sets. In the winter, the Sun never rises at all.

At the equator, which gets consistent direct sunlight, there’s very little change in day length or temperature year-round. People who live in high and middle latitudes, closer to the poles, can have very different ideas about seasons from those who live in the tropics.

As the Earth orbits the Sun, sunlight strikes the surface at varying angles because of the planet’s tilt. This creates seasons.

There’s an old saying, “As the days lengthen, the cold strengthens.” Why does it often get colder in January even though we’re gaining daylight?

It depends on where you are in the world and where your air is coming from.

Earth’s surface constantly absorbs energy from the Sun and stores it as heat. It also emits heat back into space. Whether the surface is warming or cooling depends on the balance between how much solar radiation the planet is absorbing and how much it is radiating away.

But Earth’s surface isn’t uniform. Land typically heats up and cools off much faster than water. Water requires more energy to raise and lower its temperature, so it warms and cools more slowly. Because of this difference, water is a better heat reservoir than land – especially big bodies of water, like oceans. That’s why we tend to see bigger swings between warm and cold inland than in coastal areas.

The farther north you live, the longer it takes for the amount and intensity of daylight to start significantly increasing in midwinter, since your location is tilting away from the Sun. In the meantime, those areas that are getting little sunlight keep radiating heat out to space. As long as they receive less sunlight than the heat they emit, they will keep getting colder. This is especially true over land, which loses heat much more easily than water.

As the Earth rotates, air circulates around it in the atmosphere. If air moving into your area comes largely from places like the Arctic that don’t get much sun in winter, you may be on the receiving end of bitterly cold air for a long time. That happens in the Great Plains and Midwest when cold air swoops down from Canada.

But if your air comes across a body of water that keeps a more even temperature through the year, these swings can be significantly evened out. Seattle is downwind from an ocean, which is why it is many degrees warmer than Boston in the winter even though it’s farther north than Boston.

How quickly do we lose daylight before the solstice and gain it back afterward?

This depends strongly on your location. The closer you are to one of the poles, the faster the rate of change in daylight is. That’s why Alaska can go from having hardly any daylight in the winter to hardly any darkness in the summer.

Even for a particular location, the change is not constant through the year. The rate of change in daylight is slowest at the solstices – December in winter, June in summer – and fastest at the equinoxes, in mid-March and mid-September. This change occurs as the area on Earth receiving direct sunlight swings from 23.5 N latitude – about as far north of the equator as Miami – to 23.5 S latitude, about as far south of the equator as Asunción, Paraguay.

This satellite view captures the four changes of seasons. On the equinoxes, March 20 and Sept. 20, the line between night and day is a straight north-south line, and the sun appears to sit directly above the equator. Earth’s axis is tilted away from the Sun at the December solstice and toward the Sun at the June solstice, spreading more and less light on each hemisphere. At the equinoxes, the tilt is at a right angle to the Sun and the light is spread evenly.

What’s happening on the opposite side of the planet right now?

In terms of daylight, folks on the other side of the planet are seeing the exact opposite of what we’re seeing. Right now, they’re at the peak of their summer and are enjoying the largest amounts of daylight that they’re going to get for the year. I do research on Argentinian hailstorms and Indian Ocean tropical cyclones, and both of those warm-weather storm seasons are well into their peaks right now.

But there’s a key difference: The Southern Hemisphere has a lot less land and a lot more water than the Northern Hemisphere. Thanks to the influence of the southern oceans, land masses in the Southern Hemisphere tend to have fewer very extreme temperatures than land in the Northern Hemisphere does.

So even though a spot on the opposite side of the planet from your location may receive exactly as much sunlight now as your area does in summer, the weather there may be different from the summer conditions you are used to. But it still can be fun to imagine a warm summer breeze on the far side of the Earth – especially in a snowy January.


Deanna Hence, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

“A lot of it was filmed without her consent”: Alexandra Pelosi on the film about her mom

Alexandra Pelosi wants you to know that her new HBO documentary “Pelosi in the House” is not a love letter to the outgoing speaker of the House — who happens to be her mother — as she made clear from the start of our “Salon Talks” conversation. In fact, as Alexandra told me, her mother was not happy with some of the clips in the film. Given that Alexandra had open access unavailable to most other filmmakers and journalists, she was able to film the longtime speaker in her pajamas talking to both Republican and Democratic leaders as she tried to make deals. 

The film vividly shares the backstory of how Nancy Pelosi was “born into politics,” given that her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., served eight years in Congress and then 12 as mayor of Baltimore. In fact, Nancy Pelosi became the first daughter of a member of Congress to be elected to the House in her own right, breaking a glass ceiling years before she became the first female House speaker. “My mother would say public service is a noble calling,” Alexandra told me.

The documentary captures remarkable footage surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, including a very calm Speaker Pelosi on the phone, urging the governor of Virginia and other officials to send National Guard troops to restore order. There’s also never-before-seen footage of Pelosi returning to her office after the attack where we see her reacting to the theft and vandalism, and stories from her staff about hiding on the floor beneath their desks, hoping the Trump-supporting insurrectionists wouldn’t find them.

So it was jaw-dropping to hear Alexandra say that she has spoken on the phone with Jan. 6 attackers who are currently incarcerated. “They call me and then we have these conversations and they say, ‘Oh, I got swept up in the moment,'” Alexandra said. “One of them sent me two books on cults and said, ‘If you read these books, you’ll understand.'” 

Alexandra also talked about the pain of being by the bedside of her father, Paul Pelosi, after an intruder targeting her mother attacked him with a hammer — pain made much worse by the outrageous lies of right-wing conspiracy theorists. Given what her parents have been through, it was not surprising to hear the filmmaker’s advice to others: Don’t go into public service — the price your family will pay is too high. Watch my “Salon Talks” with Alexandra Pelosi here or read a transcript of our conversation below.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

In your documentary you begin by filming your mother and saying, “I’ve spent my entire adult life two paces behind her,” essentially following her. I think you’ve done 14 documentaries now. How different is it when the subject is your mother, but you’re still trying to remain an observer? 

OK, couple things we need to establish. I was never making a movie about Nancy Pelosi. There’s never a microphone. A lot of it was filmed without her consent. She never gave me permission to film her. A lot of it’s filmed on an iPhone. This is what you call vérité, so it’s in the moment. It’s just that over the course of many years, I saw interesting things happening and I turned my phone on. 

It is a look back at decades. We’re talking about decades. So I have to give you that historical context to say, we never sat down and said, “Hey, Mommy?” Yes, Xani?” “Let’s make a movie together.” She calls me Xani because my name’s Alexandra. So if you want to call me Xani, that’s OK too.

“Now that my mother has stepped down and my family is stepping out of all this, I’m worried.”

But anyway, Mommy and Xani did not sit down on the couch and hug it out and decide that we were going to make a propaganda film about Nancy Pelosi. She saw it for the first time at the National Archives last Monday night. I programmed the screening to start at 6:30, when they had votes in the Congress, so she intentionally wouldn’t be able to be there on time. Because I knew I did not want Nancy Pelosi’s review. If you read the worst review you could ever read about any of my films, I promise you it will never be as bad as the review Nancy Pelosi would give me about a film made about her, OK? So just put that context in, about what we’re doing here.

And what was her review?

I think she didn’t understand some of my artistic choices. Like, “Why did you have to have me in my pajamas doing my laundry? Why did you have to record private conversations between me and the vice president, and put that on television? That’s private.” I think the boundaries between public and private were violated. She never signed a release. She never gave me permission. The fact this film even exists is a miracle. But if you think about it, the fact that HBO even agreed to put her on television without having a release from the main character is remarkable.

Anyway, I think that haters are going to hate and they’re going to automatically say, “Nancy Pelosi’s daughter made a film, therefore it must be propaganda for Nancy Pelosi.” And I think they don’t understand. I could never put it out until she stepped down. I had to wait until I didn’t blow up her entire career. I wasn’t interested in blowing up her career. I just wanted to give a little context of what it was like. 

When I say the thing about “growing up two feet behind,” is that I grew up two feet behind Nancy Pelosi, which means I got to see how everyone behaved in front of her face. And then I got to hear everything they said behind her back when she walked away. I live in New York City, I don’t live in Washington. I’m not a creature of the Beltway. I live in my own happy little bubble, totally disconnected from the political-industrial complex. So this film is just sort of, you dip in, you dip out, you dip in, you dip out, over the course of decades.

Should we expect litigation from Nancy Pelosi against you and HBO? Is that in the future? 

She would not. She likes me enough that she wouldn’t sue me. But I’m just trying to make the point that if you think about corporate America, television, industrial, political — think of all the people that work for Nancy Pelosi, and they all have voodoo dolls with my face on it that they’re poking every night right now. Nobody said, “Hey, I got an idea. Why don’t you just film some crappy video with barely any audio when she’s turned around and you can’t even see what she’s saying, and put that on HBO and make a film?” I mean, you have to think about all the players involved in getting something like this made. Plus, I spent four and a half years editing this film.

Whether you like my films or not — and you can hate my films, I don’t care. I’ve made some good ones, I’ve made some bad ones, I get that. But you have to understand that I actually have to do this for a living. This is my 14th HBO film, and I do this for a living. So I have some credibility as an actual working documentary filmmaker. I think that people don’t understand that I have another film right now that I’m making for HBO. Because if you go and make propaganda, you’re never going to get hired again, because you’re going to destroy your credibility. I just want to make that clear.

At no time, let the record reflect, did I accuse Alexandra Pelosi of making a propaganda film about her mom.

OK, but if you go on TV, if you go on the internet — and I don’t recommend you ever go on the internet because all it is, is toxic waste and verbal diarrhea — but if you do, besides all the insane Pizzagate-style things you’ll see, you will see what they did the day the film came out. The right-wing haters just decided they hate Nancy Pelosi so much that without seeing the film, they went right to Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB and all that, and just wrote these terrible reviews so that I would have like a 20 percent rating, which is fine. I consider it a compliment that I even got that much attention to get so many bad reviews. I expected that.

But it just proves that we are so in our own bubbles. You’re going to go on MSNBC and they’re going to say this is such a historic, beautiful piece of art. And you’re going to go on the internet and they’re going to say, “This is propaganda.” You cannot make a film about a political person in 2022 without it being adored by one side, if you agree with the politics of that person. Even if it’s a crappy movie, by the way. I don’t know if this movie’s any good. I don’t know, and I don’t really care. 

What I am amused by is how, before anyone actually saw it with their own two eyes, before it even played on HBO, it had been completely destroyed on the internet by people who hate Nancy Pelosi. And I’m thinking that, ironically, Nancy Pelosi would probably agree with what they call it, “Nancy Pelosi propaganda.” She’d probably say, “I didn’t like this film either, because I didn’t like the fact she filmed me walking around the house in my pajamas all the time. Or having private conversations that were not supposed to be recorded.” Do you see what I’m saying? They have more in common with her than they even know.

You say in the film that when you asked your mom about what it’s like to be the target of the right for years, she literally laughed it off. Are you saying that at no time was your mother upset about the attacks on her? Or by the millions of dollars they spent on ads attacking her?

For decades, I mean since she first ran for leadership, in every district across America, they started running ads demonizing her, making her the target. Fine, it goes with the territory. She signed up for this. That’s what you sign up for. Anyone that’s running for public life, on either side of the aisle, if you are running, you are making yourself a target. Steve Scalise knows that better than anyone, right?

So we take that and we say, “OKI, that’s what she signed up for, and that’s what — she eats nails for breakfast.” She’ll say, “This is not for the faint of heart.” She has made peace with that. Fast forward at least 20 years of them doing this, and the only time I saw her really upset and fazed by any of it was when we were sitting in the ER after they came for her but they got my dad instead.

All this hate that you put out into the universe, all this bad karma you’re putting out there, it didn’t ever really bother her. She just ignored it because she’s a strong-willed woman. That’s fine. But in the end, all that hate trickled down to the unwell people in society. And those are the ones who break into your house and attack your husband in the middle of the night, even though he has nothing to do with any of this. 

I think that week in the ICU was tough for her. I do think that she has so much more faith in humanity than I ever had, and that I ever will. She never thought anyone would actually carry through with it. Now, of course, she has a huge security detail, so she can sleep at night just fine. The rest of us are the ones that are a little bit, shall we say, nervous.

When you talk about the attack on your dad, Paul, is there a line between Donald Trump’s lies about the election and the radicalization of so many people? Why did this attack happen now? Why not years ago? She’s been a target of the GOP for decades. But what happened in this post-Jan. 6 world?

Social media spreads this toxicity. It makes people angry. They spread complete misinformation. And I want to call them conspiracy theories, but that’s sort of writing them off as cute little things, like Pizzagate. My movie came out and I’m not on Twitter, I’m not on any social media whatsoever, I’m going to ignore it. No one in my family’s on it. My sister Christine is on it. My husband, my kids, we boycott all social media. So my son comes in and he goes, “Hey, mom, my friends are showing me these things. It says Nancy Pelosi’s a pedophile.”

“I believe that public service is a sacrifice. My mother would say public service is a noble calling.”

The connection between, “I don’t like this movie,” which you probably haven’t even seen, to “Nancy Pelosi’s a pedophile.” That’s one tweet. You got there in one tweet.” It used to be that you had to make an argument, and you’d have to say, “Here’s how I got from here to here.” Now it’s just as simple as people just inventing insane, toxic — I don’t even want to call it misinformation, there’s no words for what these things are. They’re just very dangerous and very toxic. They spread to people who don’t know any better.

How is your father doing?

He has good days and bad days. I think the hardest thing for him right now is trying to make peace with the fact that OK, you’re an 82-year-old man, you get attacked in your home in the middle of the night. Sad, unfortunate, tragic. But what the people said after, on the internet, Elon Musk and all these crazy conspiracy theories of things… The defendant was in court last week. This is all going to play out in court. They had a body cam, they had a 911 call. They had a confession from the man who broke into the house with a hammer and attacked my father. He used the name “Donald Trump” in his confession. 

I think my father is a decent person. He thought humans were decent. I think he’s having a hard time at 82 years old making peace with, “Really, this is what political dialogue has become?” We’re talking about insane fictions because there are actual facts. There are actual transcripts of 911 calls and body cams. This is all stuff we can document. But I understand that this insane, crazy right-wing hate machine has just decided to make jokes about everything.

Every person in America, no matter who you vote for, no matter who you are, you should lose sleep at night by the fact that this is what democracy has become. I mean, it’s like a Third World country. Jan. 6 was Third World country material. Then we have people breaking into people’s houses, attacking them because they don’t like the wife’s politics and then saying, “I have a hit list of other people I’m going for.” Everybody should be scared of this.

Even if you hate Nancy Pelosi — and I get that Nancy Pelosi hate, I get it, because if I watched Fox News, I would hate Nancy Pelosi too. I totally get it. It’s being fed to you. If you had a steady diet of Nancy Pelosi hate you would want to break into her house and attack her husband with a hammer. I get that.

We never thought, “Hey, those people are going to break windows, storm into the Capitol, and poo in the speaker’s office.”

Now that my mother has stepped down and my family is stepping out of all this, I’m worried. I have teenage sons, I’m worried about the future of democracy and how that looks like. This is what it’s come to. My sons walk into the kitchen today and they’re like, “Oh look, this guy who wanted to hang Nancy Pelosi from a lamppost got convicted.” Now we’re starting the Proud Boys trials and every day it’s a new, “We were coming to hang Nancy Pelosi.” We have to read that on our phones every day. That’s from the mainstream media. I worry about the future. Any decent human being that wants to run for public office, I’m worried for them and their families. I pity anyone who would subject themselves or their families to this.

I appreciate that you share the human side of this. Your family, your mom, these are human beings. There’s a real-world consequence to this. We’re at almost the anniversary of Jan. 6, which plays a big role in your documentary. When you were there with your mom on Jan. 6, was there a time where you or she were actually fearful for your own safety? 

When we looked out the window, we saw normal people. We didn’t see the makeshift gallows where they planning to hang Mike Pence. We saw normal people. When we were driving from my mother’s home to the Capitol that day, we looked out the window. We live in the world, we saw people. They had Trump flags. We never thought, “Hey, those people are going to break windows, storm into the Capitol, and poo in the speaker’s office.” Like no, we never thought that.

It’s hard for people that didn’t walk into the Capitol after this was all over, and see how they broke everything. They shattered mirrors, they broke every glass in the kitchen, they broke everything. So I think it’s hard for people to understand, especially with the Republican rebranding: “Oh, they were just tourists. They deserved to be in the Capitol.” It’s hard to understand.

When we looked out the window, my 16-year-old son was the one who kept saying, “What if they stormed the Capitol?” He called it, he saw it. But I was looking and I thought, “Well, there’s just some people with Trump flags. That’s their First Amendment right.” I never thought they were going to come and make all these staff members who are surrounding us right now hide under a desk for hours in fear. 

That’s what I think is interesting about the whole Jan. 6 postmortem, the idea that it was regular normal people and a switch went off and they just triggered. Who was instigating that? That’s what I think is interesting coming out of these trials and out of the committee. Where do they get these ideas? I think a lot of these people got swept up in the cult, in the moment.

I get calls from jail. I’m a documentary filmmaker, so I get calls. I don’t know if some of this has been reported, that I get calls from these people. I talk to them and I ask them about this stuff. The Jan, 6 insurrectionists who are in jail call me, and they say, “Oh, I got swept up in the moment.” One of them sent me two books on cults and said, “If you read these books, you’ll understand. I just got swept up in the moment.” So there’s this whole idea about what people do in crowds, and how they get carried away and then they go home and they’re really embarrassed and ashamed. They go in front of a judge and they say, “I don’t know how this happened to me. I’m a nice person. It was just this one weird thing that happened that afternoon.” People got swept up, but somebody was stirring the pot.

So you’re telling me that the Jan. 6th defendants, some of them in prison now, get your number. How did they get your number?

Oh, I’m reachable.

They literally called you.

You found me, didn’t you?

I went through a publicist at HBO. Are they going through your publicist at HBO, who says “Oh, you want to speak to Alexandra Pelosi? We can set up some time on Zoom”? So you take their call, and you talk to them because you’re a documentarian? 

To me, all of life is like a documentary. All my films are sort of half my real life, half something I’m filming on purpose. It’s all very organic and vérité. I made a film called “Meet the Donors,” which was having conversations with the billionaires that fund our elections. I went as my mother’s guest to a lot of these parties, and then I filmed it and put it on HBO. Now I’m persona non grata in many homes because I was filming without permission, without location releases and putting it on television. 

I’m never allowed back at the Soros’ household. I promise you that. They don’t appreciate filming in their house and then going on TV without permission. But I think of it all as material. My whole life is material. Nora Ephron said, “Everything’s a copy.” So I think of it all as that everything I film could end up in a documentary film. So don’t invite me to your house if you don’t want me to film you, and you don’t want to see it on HBO.

These conversations with Jan. 6th defendants are civil and fine? Are you just trying to figure out why they did these things? Are they trying to persuade you it was right? I’m really curious about this.

It is a very interesting evolution because two years have passed now since Jan. 6. And I think a lot of the main defendants, some are just leaning in. When they were showing the Jan. 6 committee hearings in prison, they were cheering. The crowds would cheer. I got to hear it in the background while they were on. I got calls from inmates saying, “See, listen to how they’re proud of what they did. They’re applauding and it’s a very big deal to them.” Till the end. 

But the ones that were calling me were the ones that weren’t so proud and didn’t want to spend the rest of their lives in jail. The ones that are saying, “This isn’t who I am. I don’t know how I ended up here.” It’s very complicated.

When you mention the First Amendment and people protesting, in the film you do document a bit of protest. I think it was against the Iraq war, outside your mom’s house. Do peaceful protests sway elected officials? Do members of Congress go, “I saw these protests and you know what? I think this is serious, and maybe we should reconsider our position.” Does it have an impact on their stands on policy?

No. No public official’s going to say, “There’s some people sleeping outside my house right now. I think they have a really good point. I think I’m going to change my position because there’s some people sleeping outside of my house, protesting my position on something.” I would encourage all activists that want to change the world not to go to people’s homes. Because that just makes them turn. It makes them not like you even more. Now at the office, sure, go to the Capitol. Don’t break the windows, and swarm into the Capitol and poop in the Speaker’s office, but go outside and state your piece. That’s in the Constitution. That’s your First Amendment right. I’d encourage that. I would say to anyone on any side of the aisle, don’t ever go to the person’s home because I think you lose them when you show up on their doorstep. The families did not sign up for this.

I’ve had a billion conversations about this over the course of all these years. Thirty-five years that my mother’s been in Congress, and no one has ever said to me, “Yeah, these people are protesting outside my house. I really like it. And I think I’m really going to start to listen to them.” 

Now the one you’re referring to was the CodePink protest during the Iraq war. Even though Nancy Pelosi voted against the Iraq war, the CodePink group of anti-war protesters decided to sleep in front of her house, because they didn’t like the war. Now my objection — speaking only for me, because I do not speak for the Pelosi family. I do not speak for Nancy Pelosi. Nobody in my family would want me speaking for them. Nobody in my family even agrees with me, probably. I’m just saying, as the youngest of five, as the documentary filmmaker, I’m telling you: If you want to protest the Iraq war in front of somebody’s house, God bless you, sister. You go do that. But you know where you do it? You go do it in Washington, D.C., because that’s where Nancy Pelosi is. 

The Jan. 6 insurrectionists that are in jail, they call me, and then we have these conversations and they say, “Oh, I got swept up in the moment.”

She’s not at home in San Francisco. You’re protesting her husband. All those anti-war protesters were protesting either an empty house, or a house with her husband in it. And they’re saying, “I’m at a die-in over at Pelosi’s house.” Well good for you, sister. But if you really cared, you’d be in Washington where Nancy Pelosi is. And they knew that. They’re there just for the show. I don’t have any respect for anyone that protests an empty home, or the home of somebody’s spouse, because that doesn’t take any courage.

You want to have courage? Go to the Capitol in the dead of winter and stand out there. That I would have some respect for. But that’s why you know that a lot of this is just theater. I remember the first time I went to pick up my mother at her office when there was a huge protest, back in the days of the car phone. I called her up, and this was when George H.W. Bush was president, and they were protesting the first Gulf War. So I call her from the car phone and I say, “You might want to come out another entrance because there are all these protesters out front.” And she’s like, “Nah.”

She comes marching right out the front door of the Capitol, and there’s all these people on stilts and waving their bras in the air. She walks straight through them, they don’t even notice her. She gets in the car and she says, “They’re not here for me. They’re here for this.” I turn and I look, and I’m like, “Oh, it’s like a party. There’s some cute girls. You come and burn your bra and it’s a good time.” But they didn’t say a word to her when she walked through the crowd. So I wonder what would have happened if Nancy Pelosi had come home during that Iraq war protest, during George W.’S presidency. I wonder if they would even have said anything. I never saw the confrontation, because it didn’t happen, they were protesting an empty house. If we’re going to learn anything in this conversation today, I’m encouraging all people that want to save the world to go to where your subjects are, not to their empty homes.

I’m not asking to speak for your mother, but you just did a documentary about her and you are her daughter. What do you think would make her proud as a defining moment of her legacy?

Ha ha. You’re talking to the off-message daughter. You’ve got to call my sister Christine for that answer, because she would be able to tell you about the Affordable Care Act. How many people are covered? I don’t know the number off the top of my head. She’d be able to tell you about. how she just made gay marriage legal. That’s very important. My sister would have a laundry list for you. I’m not trying to undermine the entire career of Nancy Pelosi by saying I don’t know what those things are, I’m saying, as the youngest of five and as the one who had to sit in the ER with my father, I don’t really believe in public service. I just don’t believe that any of it amounts to anything. I’m much darker and much more cynical. Maybe that’s just because of what my family’s going through right now. 

“I’m not sure your family wants to pay the price of running for office.”

I’m not the person to ask about accomplishments. Because I believe that public service is a sacrifice. My mother would say public service is a noble calling. Her father was in Congress. She was in Congress. She believes public service is noble. It’s like going into the priesthood or something. Her mother wanted her to become a nun, and she ran for Congress instead. Got it. Well, she had five kids first, so I don’t think she could have qualified to be a nun. But you get my point. 

And so for me, if anyone came to me for a heart-to-heart, like a dear friend, and said, “I’ve been thinking about running for public office,” I would do everything in my soul to dissuade them. I would tell them that would not be a good idea for themselves and for their families. I just don’t believe in it.

Until laws get written to regulate social media, and start to improve the dialogue where people actually have decent conversations, until that time, I would say everyone should just find another way to serve their communities by helping at nonprofits and NGOs and whatever else you can do to save the world. Because I’m not sure your family wants to pay the price of running for office.

In the film, you make a great point when George W. Bush praises your mom when she’s speaker during the State of the Union and then flash forward to how Donald Trump manifests this shift in politics. And it’s not just Trump, the base has gone mean, cruel, violent at times. Things have changed. I think that contrast between George W. Bush and Donald Trump, and how they reacted to your mother, sums it up really well. 

But did you see John Boehner last week at my mother’s portrait unveiling? He was crying like a little girl, and he was saying, “My daughters wanted me to say how much they admire you.” I mean, there is life in the Republican Party out there, if they take their party back. There is a future for a normal, sane dialogue, if they take their party back. And you do need two strong sides in a democracy. If you ask me, you need more than two. But that’s not the conversation we’re having. There’s some crazy out there that needs to be — a lot of education needs to go into the conversation, and they’re not getting a lot of education. It’s really an indictment fo our education system in America.

New Year’s message from Republicans: Yes, the cruelty is still the point

Once again, the cruelty is the whole damn point.

Today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement are committed to what has been described as “sado-politics,” meaning a political worldview and strategy in which causing pain, misery, death and other suffering is both a means to win power and control and also a goal in and of itself. Sado-politics is also an extension and reflection of fascism, authoritarianism and other forms of illiberal and corrupt power.

In my 2018 interview with historian Timothy Snyder for Salon, he offered further context about the role of political sadism in America’s (and the world’s) democracy crisis:

“Sadopopulism” is the notion that you’re doing half of populism. You promise people things, but then when you get power you have no intention of even trying to implement any policy on behalf of the people. Instead, you deliberately make the suffering worse for your critical constituency. The people who got Trump into office, for example, are traditional Republican voters plus people in counties who are doing badly in terms of health care and other measures, and who need help.

Under Trump, of course, things will just get worse in terms of both the opioid addictions and in terms of wealth inequality. But that’s OK, because the logic of sadopopulism is that pain is a resource. Sadopopulist leaders like Trump use that pain to create a story about who’s actually at fault. The way politics works in that model is that government doesn’t solve your problems, it blames your problems on other people — and it creates the cycle that goes around over and over and over again. I started talking about sadopopulism because I got tired of people talking about populism.

The Republican Party and the “conservative” movement are committed to sado-politics, and not as a passing fad, a phase, a “flirtation” or an outlier. Those values and that behavior are now fundamental and foundational for today’s American right. If we consider contemporary conservative politics as a religious movement, cruelty is both a sacrament and a tenet of the faith. 

Even more troubling for people of conscience is the undeniable fact that neofascist and right-wing leaders who engage in sado-politics genuinely believe they are good people doing the right thing. Most of them have even convinced themselves that they are victims of an unfair system and nurse grievances even as they inflict pain on innocent and vulnerable people.

Perhaps the most vivid recent example of the Republican Party’s political sadism came on Christmas Eve, when Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas sent more than 100 migrants to Vice President Kamala Harris’ official residence, on what turned out to be the coldest night Washington has experienced in decades. In a statement, White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said that Abbott had “abandoned children on the side of the road in below freezing temperatures on Christmas Eve without coordinating with any Federal or local authorities,” calling it “a cruel, dangerous and shameful stunt.” Vanity Fair reported:

Late Saturday night [Dec. 24], buses full of migrant families arrived outside the Naval Observatory, where the vice president’s home is located, from Texas. “Volunteers scrambled to meet the asylum seekers after the buses, which were scheduled to arrive in New York on Christmas Day, were rerouted due to the winter weather,” the Washington Post reported. Relief agencies SAMU First Response and the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network were on the ground Saturday evening to help with the arrivals, providing blankets to the migrants — some of whom were “wearing only T-shirts in the freezing weather,” according to CNN — and transporting them to a local church where they were given food and other resources.

Language is critical in making sense of such acts of cruelty. Taking human beings in desperate need, lying to them about offering aid and assistance, and then abandoning them hundreds or thousands of miles away like human garbage is not a “prank,” a “stunt” or an act of “trolling.” Such language minimizes the evil and the human suffering.


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


In reality what Abbott, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republican-fascists have done with their cruelty and violence against immigrants, migrants, and refugees and other targeted groups is to create a spectacle of cruelty, a 21st-century human zoo. Their goal is to construct boundaries that define which types of human bodies can be subjected to violence without consequence by those who hold power and those who serve them. 

Transporting desperate human beings hundreds of miles and abandoning them on Christmas Eve is not a “stunt.” It’s a sadistic and evil spectacle.

To express outrage, disgust and condemnation in response to Abbott’s Christmas Eve cruelty is understandable but insufficient. Such words are easy to use in superficial op-eds, 90-second TV interviews, talking-head hot takes from the commentariat, and obligatory statements from respectable political leaders. But the more difficult and more important kinds of  thinking and truth-telling should focus on the logic and ultimate goal of the American right’s sadism, and its implications and deep historical origins.

Unfortunately, that’s precisely the kind of dangerous thinking that the mainstream media and its gatekeepers, along with the larger political class, are eager to avoid. It risks exposing the country’s deep moral and political crises, which far predate the political ascendancy of Donald Trump.

To paraphrase philosopher Cornel West, Abbott’s acts of cruelty against refugees and immigrants illustrate a larger project by the Republican fascists and the white right, whose goal is to make Black and brown people (and members of other targeted groups) feel unsafe, insecure, subject to arbitrary violence, and hated simply for who they are. The ultimate goal is to turn human beings into objects so that their systematic abuse and mistreatment becomes seen as “legitimate” and “natural.”

Violence and destruction are both the main organizing principles of fascism and other forms of authoritarianism and illiberal politics, and also the logical if not inevitable outcome of such ideologies.

Too many “average” people in “middle America” (thinly veiled code for “white people”) have convinced themselves that the Republican Party’s cruelty and sadism will not hurt them. That is shortsighted and historically ignorant. Forces such as those ultimately spare almost no one, including bystanders who may wish to claim that they are “uninvolved” in politics and hold no particular fixed opinions. Consider the impact of the COVID pandemic that has killed more than a million Americans, or the fact that right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court have taken away women’s reproductive rights. 

In a 2017 essay, Chris Hedges reflected on James Baldwin’s insights into how “whiteness” hurts white people:  

As the white race turns on itself in an age of diminishing resources it is in the vital interest of the white underclass to understand what its elites and its empire are actually about. These lies, Baldwin warned, will ultimately have fatal consequences for America.

“There are days, this is one of them, when you wonder what your role is in this country and what your future is in it,” Baldwin said. “How precisely you’re going to reconcile yourself to your situation here and how you are going to communicate to the vast, heedless, unthinking, cruel white majority that you are here. I’m terrified at the moral apathy — the death of the heart — which is happening in my country. These people have deluded themselves for so long that they really don’t think I’m human.”

When the Republican fascists and their allies engage in acts of political sadism against those deemed not to be “real Americans,” they are actually normalizing the use of such violence and cruelty and death as a weapon against all people. The migrants and refugees who became part of a white supremacist Christmas Eve spectacle are not alien or unknowable. If America’s fascists get their way, all of us could become subject to that kind of treatment, for any reason or none at all. We have been warned. At this point, inaction or passivity in the face of such evil is a choice. Turning away from the politics of cruelty is effectively to endorse it.  

“Tipping point”: Mary Trump expects her uncle to face “death by 1,000 lashes” in 2023

With a new Congress being seated on Tuesday, January 3, 2023, the lame duck period on Capitol Hill is officially coming to an end. And the January 6 Select Committee is now a thing of the past. But the Committee went out with a bang in late 2022, delivering an in-depth 850-page report on the January 6, 2021 insurrection and four federal criminal referrals for former President Donald Trump.

Whether or not the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which has been conducting two Trump-related investigations under special counsel Jack Smith, will follow the Committee’s recommendations remains to be seen; the DOJ has the option of either following them or not following them. But Trump is certainly entering 2023 facing a variety of criminal and civil investigations, from the DOJ to Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis to New York Attorney General Letitia James to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

The former president’s niece, psychologist/author Mary Trump, discussed her uncle’s legal problems during an appearance on the Daily Beast’s first 2023 episode of its podcast “The New Abnormal.” During the interview, Mary Trump expressed optimism that from a legal standpoint, 2023 could be a “tipping point” for her uncle. But it was a very cautious optimism, and she emphasized that the former president still enjoys a great deal of support in the Republican Party.

Mary Trump told host Danielle Moodie, “Although there is some sense of poetic justice that we seem to have reached, you could call it a tipping point. And I said this a long time ago: It’s going to be — and I mean this figuratively, of course — death by 1000 lashes. There will be no one thing. But everything, at some point, will start to add up…. There will be this cumulative sort of density of horrors that will finally catch up with him. And I do think that that’s what’s happening.”

The psychologist/author continued, “So even though it looks bad on paper and isn’t really having much of an impact — I’m sure it’s having a lot of an impact on his mood, but it’s not having any impact on his ability to roam free in the world. I think that’s one of the things 2023 will be for, and that’s accountability.”

The new Congress will consist of a slightly larger majority in the U.S. Senate and a new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mary Trump predicted that the small Republican House majority will “overreach” in 2023, making the GOP look bad in the process.

Mary Trump told Moodie, “I think it’s a good thing that (Republicans) will have the (House) majority in 2023, because it will just continue this trend of overreach and showing your hand in a spectacular way. The American people are going to see what Republicans do with power in isolation because it will just be this one part of one branch of government — very different from Senate Democrats, who I actually do think are going to meet the moment and take over some of what the House was doing.”

Overworked, underpaid and understaffed: EMS in crisis as NYC faces tridemic

New York City’s 911 EMS daily call volume has reached 4,500 on multiple days this month, and FDNY EMS unions warn current staffing is so inadequate three years into the Covid pandemic it puts their members at greater risk while degrading the essential service they provide the public.

Those same EMS labor leaders worry the FDNY’s plans next week to reset how EMS members are scheduled could lead to more mandatory overtime, accelerating member burnout and increasing the odds of medical errors.

Union leaders concede last year’s 49-month contract deal it reached with the outgoing de Blasio administration made some progress in dealing with the wide pay gap between EMS and other first responders. Yet, they note it fell well short of their goal of pay parity and has not remedied the workforce erosion that drives mandatory overtime and canceled ambulance tours.

Also unaddressed was the disparity in paid sick leave policy with police, fire, correction, and sanitation all being entitled to unlimited sick time — but their EMS colleagues limited to just 12 paid sick days.

The issue of unlimited paid sick-time has taken on a greater sense of urgency now that Covid, which has killed nearly 400 New York City civil servants including several FDNY EMTs, has become part of the further notice, day to day risks all first responders are required to endure without hazard pay.

Both DC 37’s Local 2507, representing EMS, paramedics and fire inspectors, as well as DC 37’s Local 3621, representing FDNY EMS officers, have filed lawsuits alleging the pay and benefit disparity between them and the other uniform services is due to the fact their members are mostly people of color and female.

In a response to a query listing the EMS union concerns, a spokesperson for FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh wrote “the Commissioner has been a strong advocate for EMS her entire time with the department, including working tirelessly on the contact that established a significant raise for all EMS members and working closely with union leadership on recruitment and retention of EMS members.”

Earlier this year, Kavanagh went into more detail during a sit-down interview with this reporter for City & State.

“Economic justice to me is a key issue and to see it in the agency in the future is very important to me,” Kavanagh said. “I went to every EMS station at the height of the pandemic in March and April and saw first-hand the impact it was having on EMS – the truly brutal long days, with heart attack after heart attack and seeing so many people pass away. That image stuck with me, and I couldn’t let it go. We have to do something about this. We certainly are not there yet. Parity is my goal. My most recent work with the last contract doesn’t get us there but I hope it shows a down payment on my commitment because it is the largest increase that they have ever seen in their contract. We want people to make EMS a career.”

The Daily News reported on Dec. 31 that the FDNY was promoting Deputy Assistant Chief of EMS Operations Michael Fields effective Jan. 1. Fields, who joined EMS back in 1994, two years before it was merged with the FDNY, will become the first African-American to hold that post previously held by retiring EMS Chief Lillian Bonsignore.

Under that 2021 deal an EMTs’ top pay at $53,437 — earned after 5 1/2 years of service — went to $68,700 — with the top rate now reached after five years, with longevity differentials bringing 20-year veterans to $74,100. Paramedics saw their top pay go from $65,000 to $86,379 — with five years’ service and 20-year vets getting $91,779 a year.

Far less dramatic was the treatment of a starting salary for EMTs which went from $35,254 to $39,386.

The EMS unions helped to fund the portion of their pay hikes beyond the pattern previously agreed to by DC 37 for the rest of its 125,000-plus members by increasing their work schedules. The city also agreed to a 6-percent pay differential as part of its expansion of the mental-health-response pilot program that pairs EMS workers with mental-health professionals in responding to non-violent mental-health calls that have traditionally been handled by the NYPD.

As part of the contract settlement, the EMS unions also opened the door to the FDNY shifting away from a 12-hour shift schedule to a mix that would include 8:45-hour shifts, increasing the flexibility for management to mandate overtime when relief was unavailable. That new schedule mix starts on Jan. 1.

While federal, state, and municipal elected officials have been promoting a so-called return to a ‘post-COVID’ normal, public health experts across the country have been warning about a brewing so-called tridemic — COVID, the flu and pediatric respiratory virus all surging simultaneously.

“More than three-quarters of pediatric hospital beds nationwide are at capacity,” reported PBS. “And some states are reporting that more than 90 percent of pediatric beds are occupied. Seniors are also being hospitalized at a higher rate to respiratory illness. And hospitalizations from the flu are at a decade-level high.”

“I am in the Bronx today and there must have been six or seven fever, cough, cardiac arrests that have come over the radio — the hospitals are just jammed,” said FDNY EMS Lt. Anthony Almajore, the vice-president of DC 37’s Local 3621. “I was at Bronx Lebanon Hospital and there were 23 ambulances sitting there with patients waiting to be triaged.”

A message to the public information desk at the Bronx Lebanon Hospital was not returned on Dec. 30. A spokesperson for Health + Hospitals Corporation, the city’s municipally-owned network of 11 hospitals, said the system was busy, but that it was managing. He referenced a press conference held by city health officials and Mayor Adams back on Dec. 20 at which the tridemic was referenced along with a public health suggestion that New Yorkers mask up and make sure they were up to date with their COVID and flu shots.

“With the holiday season in full swing and cases of COVID-19, flu, and RSV rising, we are asking New Yorkers to protect themselves and their loved ones once again. Mask up, get tested, get treated if you’re eligible, and, if you haven’t gotten your flu shot or your COVID-19 booster, we encourage you to roll up your sleeve,” Adams told reporters five days before Christmas. 

The EMS unions say there’s a disconnect between the tone being set by the Adams administration of business getting back to normal and the actual conditions their members are encountering out on the streets where there’s evidence of a deepening healthcare system crisis where many thousands of people continue to turn to the EMS and the emergency for basic healthcare amidst a tridemic.

DC 37 Local 3621 President Vincent Variale notes the department’s shortage of paramedics and supervising Lieutenants compounds the problem of poor retention in the ranks of the 3,000 EMTs who often see their job as a just steppingstone to the much better paying firefighter title.

The Local 3621 president estimates he’s down around 100 members out of his 500 plus member roster.

“During COVID there have been dozens and dozens of my members who have chosen to retire, and another dozen who just opted to resign and we have had only one class [40 EMS officers] graduate in the last two years — we are grossly understaffed in the Lieutenant rank,” Variale said. “New York City is the best EMS teaching school in the country — they get their experience here and they can be welcomed in places like Colorado, Arizona, Florida, and South Carolina. They get hired right away by other agencies because we are New York City EMS and treated like heroes everywhere but here in New York City.”

In addition to shortage of Lieutenants, FDNY EMS is short of paramedics. A robust private sector job market that promises better pay and more predictable hours is increasingly appealing to EMS veterans.  “If you are a paramedic and a veteran FDNY EMS officer, you can easily work in the urgent care setting anywhere,” Variale said. “We just haven’t taken the proper care to keep and promotes a structure in place to make this a pleasant or quality work environment so people will stay. New York City is falling apart.”

“The EMS staffing is just not there — we are hanging by a thread. I don’t want to sound overly dramatic, but on Jan. 1 the FDNY will be deleting units as they convert” to this mixed 12- and 8-hour shifts system which makes it easier to mandate EMS members work eight hours overtime, according to Almajore.

Mike Greco is the vice president of DC 37’s Local 2507, which represents EMS, paramedics, and fire inspectors. Greco says the recent run up of call volume is more reminiscent of summertime call volume. “It’s absolutely insane,” Greco says of the current pace which also includes almost a 12=percent medical leave rate for EMS during the tridemic.

Local 2507 agreed to the FDNY’s shifting to a schedule that relies on 8:45 hour and 12-hour shifts, but Greco says the union is completely dissatisfied with the implementation of it and has filed a grievance.

Greco estimates that while the FDNY is at its full 3,000 head count of EMTs, its down 100 of the 1,000 paramedics its budgeted for and is also short field supervision as well as EMS 911 operators. “But the reality is, even if we are staffed at what OMB says we are budgeted for, we remain seriously understaffed — we just need more of everything — if you want to properly run the 911 system and properly serve New York City,” Greco said.

EMS union officials also are concerned about the status of the private sector EMS outfits that answer about a third of New York City’s EMS 911 calls. “There are always rumors that hospitals are going to pull out of the system like we saw with Transcare [a private EMS provider that went bankrupt in 2016],” Greco said. “Reliance on these private companies isn’t good. We don’t have a municipal and non-municipal fire apparatus that responds to our fires. We should have a standard of care that’s experienced — and that means training and equipment — and the only way to control that is to have it all be under the umbrella of the FDNY.” 

According to the latest Mayor’s Management Report, the overall incidence of medical emergencies increased between Fiscal 2021 and Fiscal 2022 and includes a 9-percent increase in life-threatening incidents. The end-to-end average response time to life-threatening medical emergencies by EMS went from 9:34 in Fiscal 2021 to 10:17 in Fiscal 2022. The peak number of in-service ambulances also dropped from 516 in Fiscal 2021 to 497 in Fiscal 2022. “Dispatch and travel time by ambulances to life-threatening medical emergencies increased 41 seconds,” according to the latest MMR.

“Our EMS workers have done the equivalent of war-time service over the past three years,” wrote Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine. “And the intensity is not letting up, as covid and other conditions have ensured that demand for emergency medical care remains intense. It’s unacceptable that our EMS heroes are still so underpaid. It’s long past time they are granted the pay parity they deserve.”

Expert: It would take 118 years to reach gender parity in Congress at current pace

When the 118th Congress convenes on Jan. 3, 2023, the number of women among its 535 members will inch up by just two – increasing from 147 in 2022 to 149 in 2023.

Even though more women than men voted in the the 2022 midterm elections, women’s representation in Congress, with a total of 535 members, will then stand at just 27.9%.

At this rate, it will take 118 more years – until 2140 – for there to be an equal number of male and female lawmakers in Congress.

The slow progress of women in elective office is frustrating for some political observers and experts – including myself – who believe that achieving gender equality in Congress is an important goal.

I am a political science scholar who has spent 20 years researching the reasons for women’s underrepresentation in elected office in the United States.

This issue is important because how many women there are in the room when legislative decisions are made has significant consequences for the policies that governments enact. Female legislators are more likely than men to introduce, speak about and work to pass policies that disproportionately affect women and girls, such as paid family leave, pay equity and gender-based violence.

Having more women in Congress also strengthens female voters’ sense of connection with the government. It also bolsters women’s sense that government cares about their concerns and inspires young women to become more politically engaged.

A large group of women wearing jackets stand on a flight of outdoor steps, with two white buildings with pillars behind them.

Sixty-five Democratic female congressional lawmakers stand on the Capitol steps in January 2015. Win McNamee/Getty Images

What’s behind this sluggish pace

While women are underrepresented in governments around the globe, it is a particularly significant problem in the United States. Currently, the U.S. ranks 73rd in the world when it comes to female representation in government.

But the reason women are so dramatically underrepresented in U.S. government is not because they face resistance from voters or struggle to raise money. On the contrary, decades of research shows that when women run, they raise as much money and win as often as similarly qualified men.

In my 2021 book, “The Partisan Gap,” I show that the slow progress of women in politics is a tale of two political parties.

In the next Congress, there will be 107 female Democratic lawmakers and 42 female Republican lawmakers in the Senate and House combined.

In other words, Democrats will compose 72% of the women in Congress. Despite Democrats losing nine congressional seats during the November 2022 midterms, the number of Democratic lawmakers in Congress who are women will remain steady.

The gap between elected Republican and Democratic female lawmakers in Congress has widened over the past four decades.

A divergence

In the 1970s and 1980s, there were few women in Congress, but those trailblazers were equally likely to be Republicans or Democrats. For example, in 1981 there were 25 women in Congress – 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

This shifted, though, as the two political parties moved further apart ideologically, with Democrats becoming more liberal overall – and on women’s issues in particular. Pushed by feminist organizations, the Democratic Party took more steps to increase women’s representation throughout the 1980s. The emergence of EMILY’s List, which seeks to elect pro-choice women, has also proved to be a powerful asset in recruiting and supporting Democratic women candidates.

As more female Democrats gained leadership posts in Congress, starting in earnest in the 1980s and culminating in the election of Nancy Pelosi as the party’s leader in the House in 2004, they were well positioned to translate this rhetoric into reality. Women have more women in their personal and professional networks than men do, and therefore are better positioned to recruit other women to run.

Women from the Democratic party have made steady gains in office since the 1990s and are on a clear trajectory to reach 50% of their party caucus in just a few more election cycles.

When Pelosi announced in November 2022 that she would not run again for the House speaker position, she noted, “When I came to the Congress in 1987, there were 12 Democratic women. Now there are over 90. And we want more.”

Progress for conservative women in politics, however, largely stalled in the 1990s.

Getting more Republican women in office

When I interviewed Republican women in Congress for my book, they agreed that more women representing their party were needed because they bring a different perspective on issues than their male colleagues.

But the Republican Party’s increasing conservatism has made it harder for women running as Republicans to win elections, as it has not made encouraging more women to run for office a priority. This creates additional challenges for potential Republican female candidates, since women typically need to be encouraged by others to consider running for office.

So, what will it take to get more Republican women to run? The Republican Party would need to commit more fully to recruiting and supporting female candidates.

In the 2018 elections, the number of Republican women in the House dropped to a mere 13, the lowest level in two decades. In response, Republican House member Elise Stefanik started the political action group Elevate-PAC to identify, cultivate and support Republican female candidates. Although Stefanik faced criticism from her party for this move, her efforts paid off with 31 Republican women elected in 2020.

In order for women to gain half of the seats in Congress, more women need to run, especially on Republican tickets. I believe that this will require the Republican Party as a whole to prioritize recruiting women – and not just for one election cycle, but in a sustained way.

 

Laurel Elder, Professor of Political Science, Hartwick College

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

McCarthy suffers historic humiliation in House speaker vote — is Steve Scalise up next?

It’s been exactly 100 years since the House of Representatives failed to elect a speaker on the first chamber vote. So much for precedent. On Tuesday, members of the incoming Republican House majority couldn’t elect a speaker after three full rounds of voting, marking a historic humiliation for Rep. Kevin McCarthy, of California, the House GOP leader and to this point the only plausible candidate.

The last time the speaker’s contest required more than one ballot was in 1923, when it took lawmakers nine ballots to seat Rep. Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts. As NBC News’ Allan Smith pointed out Tuesday, contentious speakership elections aren’t unheard of. Even the GOP’s meltdown on Tuesday is no match for the most brutal race for speaker, which spanned two months and 122 votes, with House control ultimately landing in the hands of the Know-Nothing Party in 1856. 

Members are presumably poised for a fourth vote when the return to the Capitol Wednesday and make another effort to launch the 118th session of Congress. Although there’s speculation McCarthy may be forced to withdraw, he vowed Tuesday to continue his fight for the speaker’s gavel. 

“We may have a battle on the floor, but the battle is for the conference and the country,” McCarthy said ahead of the vote. 

House Democrats, on the other hand, voted unanimously all three times on Tuesday to elect Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the party’s new congressional leader. Jeffries actually finished ahead of McCarthy in all three votes, but there is no plausible scenario in which he ends up winning.

With an evident rupture in the Republican Party and the House adjourned until Wednesday, eyes on the Hill may now turn to the House GOP’s second-in-command, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, a staunch conservative who may be acceptable to the McCarthy skeptics.


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


In the first two rounds, McCarthy managed to get just 203 of the 218 votes he needed for a majority, with 19 Republican members voting for other candidates. But the dynamics were slightly different each time. Prompted by McCarthy’s first-round failure — and the challenge from former Freedom Caucus leader Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, who got 10 votes — Freedom Caucus member and staunch Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio rose to call for party-wide McCarthy support. 

“We have to rally around him, come together,” Jordan said. 

That move seemed to backfire after another controversial member, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, rose to nominate Jordan himself, who received six votes in the first round and went on to receive all 19 of the anti-McCarthy GOP votes in the second round.

“Maybe the right person isn’t someone who hasn’t sold shares of himself to get it,” Gaetz said, in an obvious dig at McCarthy’s years-long campaign to become speaker.

The McCarthy backlash among a handful of far-right GOP members came on the heels of a reportedly raucous closed-door caucus meeting between McCarthy and the conservative faction. Remarks from Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., early in the day hinted that there might be rough sailing ahead. 

“Everybody knew this would be going on and we’re going to work through it,” Scalise told reporters, according to The Washington Post

Before the third round of votes, as rumors spread that McCarthy support was trickling away, Scalise took up Jordan’s pleas, begging House members to line up behind McCarthy. There was no Freedom Caucus nomination of Scalise, but Jordan gained one vote (from Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.), receiving 20 votes in the third round to McCarthy’s 202. 

“We all came here to get things done, big things done,” Scalise said Tuesday. “We can’t start fixing these problems until we elect Kevin McCarthy speaker.”

To this point, Scalise has openly backed McCarthy’s bid and avoided any conversations or public remarks about a potential campaign of his own. That hasn’t stopped him from being floated as a potential candidate if McCarthy eventually decides to drop out. 

Scalise controls a well-known Beltway fundraising machine, has formidable vote-whipping experience and ultra-conservative policies, which would seem to position him favorably among most of the GOP’s warring factions. (There may be a few moderates who dislike him, but their power is inconsequential.) He would also be an obvious choice for Republicans eager to avoid a prolonged and embarrassing public battle.

In November, Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich teased the prospect of a Scalise bid on Twitter. 

“I would say it is a fair description to say that Steve Scalise could step up and possibly run for Speaker of the House,” La Politics Weekly editor Jeremy Alford told Radio New Orleans last year.

Asked by reporters whether he would support a Scalise bid if his own fell short, McCarthy reportedly just laughed and kept walking. 

With the Republican Party’s disarray on spectacular display late Tuesday, Freedom Caucus members began throwing in the towel for the day. Congress will reconvene at noon EST on Wednesday. Whether it can actually elect a speaker remains to be seen.

 

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported Gaetz’ caucus membership. The story has been updated.

Weighing risks of a major surgery: 7 questions older Americans should ask their surgeon

Larry McMahon, who turned 80 in December, is weighing whether to undergo a major surgery. Over the past five years, his back pain has intensified. Physical therapy, muscle relaxants, and injections aren’t offering relief.

“It’s a pain that leaves me hardly able to do anything,” he said.

Should McMahon, a retired Virginia state trooper who now lives in Southport, North Carolina, try spinal fusion surgery, a procedure that can take up to six hours? (Eight years ago, he had a lumbar laminectomy, another arduous back surgery.)

“Will I recover in six months — or in a couple of years? Is it safe for a man of my age with various health issues to be put to sleep for a long period of time?” McMahon asked, relaying some of his concerns to me in a phone conversation.

Older adults contemplating major surgery often aren’t sure whether to proceed. In many cases, surgery can be lifesaving or improve a senior’s quality of life. But advanced age puts people at greater risk of unwanted outcomes, including difficulty with daily activities, extended hospitalizations, problems moving around, and the loss of independence.

I wrote in November about a new study that shed light on some risks seniors face when having invasive procedures. But readers wanted to know more. How does one determine if potential benefits from major surgery are worth the risks? And what questions should older adults ask as they try to figure this out? I asked several experts for their recommendations. Here’s some of what they suggested.

What’s the goal of this surgery? Ask your surgeon, “How is this surgery going to make things better for me?” said Margaret “Gretchen” Schwarze, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Will it extend your life by removing a fast-growing tumor? Will your quality of life improve by making it easier to walk? Will it prevent you from becoming disabled, akin to a hip replacement?

If your surgeon says, “We need to remove this growth or clear this blockage,” ask what impact that will have on your daily life. Just because an abnormality such as a hernia has been found doesn’t mean it has to be addressed, especially if you don’t have bothersome symptoms and the procedure comes with complications, said Drs. Robert Becher and Thomas Gill of Yale University, authors of that recent paper on major surgery in older adults.

If things go well, what can I expect? Schwarze, a vascular surgeon, often cares for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, an enlargement in a major blood vessel that can be life-threatening if it bursts.

Here’s how she describes a “best case” surgical scenario for that condition: “Surgery will be about four to five hours. When it’s over, you’ll be in the ICU with a breathing tube overnight for a day or two. Then, you’ll be in the hospital for another week or so. Afterwards, you’ll probably have to go to rehab to get your strength back, but I think you can get back home in three to four weeks, and it’ll probably take you two to three months to feel like you did before surgery.”

Among other things people might ask their surgeon, according to a patient brochure Schwarze’s team has created: What will my daily life look like right after surgery? Three months later? One year later? Will I need help, and for how long? Will tubes or drains be inserted?

If things don’t go well, what can I expect? A “worst case” scenario might look like this, according to Schwarze: “You have surgery, and you go to the ICU, and you have serious complications. You have a heart attack. Three weeks after surgery, you’re still in the ICU with a breathing tube, and you’ve lost most of your strength, and there’s no chance of ever getting home again. Or, the surgery didn’t work, and still you’ve gone through all this.”

“People often think I’ll just die on the operating table if things go wrong,” said Dr. Emily Finlayson, director of the UCSF Center for Surgery in Older Adults in San Francisco. “But we’re very good at rescuing people, and we can keep you alive for a long time. The reality is, there can be a lot of pain and suffering and interventions like feeding tubes and ventilators if things don’t go the way we hope.”

Given my health, age, and functional status, what’s the most likely outcome? Once your surgeon has walked you through various scenarios, ask, “Do I really need to have this surgery, in your opinion?” and “What outcomes do you think are most likely for me?” Finlayson advised. Research suggests that older adults who are frail, have cognitive impairment, or other serious conditions such as heart disease have worse experiences with major surgery. Also, seniors in their 80s and 90s are at higher risk of things going wrong.

“It’s important to have family or friends in the room for these conversations with high-risk patients,” Finlayson said. Many seniors have some level of cognitive difficulties and may need assistance working through complex decisions.

What are the alternatives? Make sure your physician tells you what the nonsurgical options are, Finlayson said. Older men with prostate cancer, for instance, might want to consider “watchful waiting,” ongoing monitoring of their symptoms, rather than risk invasive surgery. Women in their 80s who develop a small breast cancer may opt to leave it alone if removing it poses a risk, given other health factors.

Because of Larry McMahon’s age and underlying medical issues (a 2021 knee replacement that hasn’t healed, arthritis, high blood pressure), his neurosurgeon suggested he explore other interventions, including more injections and physical therapy, before surgery. “He told me, ‘I make my money from surgery, but that’s a last resort,” McMahon said.

What can I do to prepare myself? “Preparing for surgery is really vital for older adults: If patients do a few things that doctors recommend — stop smoking, lose weight, walk more, eat better — they can decrease the likelihood of complications and the number of days spent in the hospital,” said Dr. Sandhya Lagoo-Deenadayalan, a leader in Duke University Medical Center’s Perioperative Optimization of Senior Health program.

When older patients are recommended to POSH, they receive a comprehensive evaluation of their medications, nutritional status, mobility, preexisting conditions, ability to perform daily activities, and support at home. They leave with a “to-do” list of recommended actions, usually starting several weeks before surgery.

If your hospital doesn’t have a program of this kind, ask your physician, “How can I get my body and mind ready” before having surgery, Finlayson said. Also ask: “How can I prepare my home in advance to anticipate what I’ll need during recovery?”

What will recovery look like? There are three levels to consider: What will recovery in the hospital entail? Will you be transferred to a facility for rehabilitation? And what will recovery be like at home?

Ask how long you’re likely to stay in the hospital. Will you have pain, or aftereffects from the anesthesia? Preserving cognition is a concern, and you might want to ask your anesthesiologist what you can do to maintain cognitive functioning following surgery. If you go to a rehab center, you’ll want to know what kind of therapy you’ll need and whether you can expect to return to your baseline level of functioning.

During the covid-19 pandemic, “a lot of older adults have opted to go home instead of to rehab, and it’s really important to make sure they have appropriate support,” said Dr. Rachelle Bernacki, director of care transformation and postoperative services at the Center for Geriatric Surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

For some older adults, a loss of independence after surgery may be permanent. Be sure to inquire what your options are should that occur.


We’re eager to hear from readers about questions you’d like answered, problems you’ve been having with your care, and advice you need in dealing with the health care system. Visit khn.org/columnists to submit your requests or tips.

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.

Want a clue on health care costs in advance? New tools take a crack at it

Need medical treatment this year and want to nail down your out-of-pocket costs before you walk into the doctor’s office? There’s a new tool for that, at least for insured patients.

As of Jan. 1, health insurers and employers that offer health plans must provide online calculators for patients to get detailed estimates of what they will owe — taking into account deductibles and copayments — for a range of services and drugs.

It’s the latest effort in an ongoing movement to make prices and upfront cost comparisons possible in a business known for its opaqueness.

Insurers must make the cost information available for 500 nonemergency services considered “shoppable,” meaning patients generally have time to consider their options. The federal requirement stems from the Transparency in Coverage rule finalized in 2020.

So how will it work?

Patients, knowing they need a specific treatment, drug, or medical service, first log on to the cost estimator on a website offered through their insurer or, for some, their employer. Next, they can search for the care they need by billing code, which many patients may not have; or by a general description, like “repair of knee joint,” or “MRI of abdomen.” They can also enter a hospital’s or physician’s name or the dosage amount of a drug for which they are seeking price information.

Not all drugs or services will be available in the first year of the tools’ rollout, but the required 500-item list covers a wide swath of medical services, from acne surgery to X-rays.

Once the information is entered, the calculators are supposed to produce real-time estimates of a patient’s out-of-pocket cost.

Starting in 2024, the requirement on insurers expands to include all drugs and services.

These estimator-tool requirements come on top of other price information disclosures that became effective during the past two years, which require hospitals and insurers to publicly post their prices, including those negotiated between them, along with the cost for cash-paying or uninsured patients.

Still, some hospitals have not fully complied with this 2021 disclosure directive and the insurer data released in July is so voluminous that even researchers are finding it cumbersome to download and analyze.

The price estimator tools may help fill that gap.

The new estimates are personalized, computing how much of an annual deductible patients still owe and the out-of-pocket limit that applies to their coverage. The amount the insurer would pay if the service were out of network must also be shown. Patients can request to have the information delivered on paper, if they prefer that to online.

Insurers or employers who fail to provide the tool can face penalty fines of at least $100 a day for each person affected, a significant incentive to comply — if enforced.

And there are caveats: Consumers using the tools must be enrolled in the respective health plan, and there’s no guarantee the final cost will be exactly as shown.

That’s because “unforeseen factors during the course of treatment, which may involve additional services or providers, can result in higher actual cost sharing liability,” federal regulators wrote in outlining the rules.

Insurers will not be held liable for incorrect estimates.

Because the cost estimates may well vary from the final price, either because the procedure was more complex than initially expected, or was handled by a different provider at the last minute, one risk is that “I might get a bill for $4,000 and I’m going to be upset because you told me $3,000,” said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management and of international health at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Many insurers have offered versions of cost-estimator tools before, but small percentages of enrollees actually use them, studies have shown.

Federal regulators defended the requirement for estimator tools, writing that even though many insurers had provided them, the new rule sets specific parameters, which may be more detailed than earlier versions.

In outlining the final rule, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pointed out that some previous calculators “on the market only offer wide-range estimates or average estimates of pricing that use historical claims data” and did not always include information about how much the patient had accumulated toward an annual deductible or out-of-pocket limit.

The agency says such price disclosure will help people comparison-shop and may ultimately help slow rising medical costs.

But that isn’t a given.

“CMS has a lot of people who believe this will make a significant impact, but they also have a long time frame,” said David Brueggeman, director of commercial health at the consulting firm Guidehouse.

In the short term, results may be harder to see.

“Most patients are not moving en masse to use these tools,” said Dr. Ateev Mehrotra, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School.

There are many reasons, he said, including little financial incentive if they face the same dollar copayment whether they go to a very expensive facility or a less expensive one. A better way to get patients to switch to lower-cost providers, he said, is to create pricing tiers, rewarding patients who seek the most cost-effective providers with lower copayments.

Mehrotra is skeptical that the cost estimator tools alone will do much to dent rising medical prices. He’s more hopeful that, in time, the requirement that hospitals and insurers post all their negotiated prices will go further to slow costs by showcasing which are the most expensive providers, along with which insurers negotiate the best rates.

Still, the cost-estimator tools could be useful for the increasing number of people with high-deductible health plans who pay directly out-of-pocket for much of their health care before they hit that deductible. During that period, some may save substantially by shopping around.

Those deductibles add “pressure on consumers to shop on price,” said Brueggeman, at Guidehouse. “Whether they are actually doing that is up for debate.”


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.

Despite Pope Benedict XVI’s death, sexual abuse lawsuit will continue

A civil lawsuit against the late Pope Benedict XVI, his fellow church officials and his successor will still be heard despite the pontiff’s death on New Year’s Eve, The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday.

The case and a declaratory action were brought in June by a 38-year-old German man — using the pseudonym Julian Schwarz — who accused the former pope of dismissing complaints about convicted pedophile, Father Peter Hullermann. Schwarz said the priest showed him pornography and forced him to have sexual intercourse and oral sex when he was between 11 and 12 years of age.   

At the time of the abuse, Benedict was Archbishop of Munich and Freising. His successor Cardinal Friedrich Wetter and another anonymous church official were also named in the complaint.

Just a month before his death, Benedict said he would defend himself in the case in front of a German court. He also hired a law firm, which will continue to represent his estate in the subsequent proceedings.

Andrea Titz, spokesperson for the Traunstein Court in Bavaria, said in a statement Monday, “It is true that in principle an interruption occurs with the death of a party. In the present case, however, this does not apply, as the deceased was represented by an attorney of record.”

“The proceeding will continue against the heirs,” Titz added.

Prior to the June case, Benedict was also at the center of scandal after a 1,900-page report found that the pope mishandled four sexual abuse cases between 1977 and 1982, when he served as Archbishop of Munich. Furthermore, the report detailed that 235 people in the Munich diocese were accused of abusing 497 children under the age of 16 from 1954 to 2019.


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


“In a total of four cases, we came to the conclusion that the then-archbishop, Cardinal Ratzinger, can be accused of misconduct,” said Martin Pusch, a lawyer at the Munich firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl and one of the reports’ authors, addressing Benedict by his full name, Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger. Per NBC News, Pusch added that Benedict had also “strictly” denied claims that he knowingly covered up abuse.

In January 2022, Benedict admitted providing false information amid the investigation. In a statement given to the Catholic News Agency, Benedict said he had been informed of the complaints, asserting that the mistake was not “done out of malicious intent, but was the result of an oversight in the editing of his statement.”

“The View” paid tribute to Barbara Walters – here’s what they said and didn’t say

When Barbara Walters died on Friday at the age of 93, she left behind a legacy of broadcast journalism, a career which first started in 1961 on NBC. She also left behind a popular television program she had created, ABC’s long-running talk show “The View,” which first debuted in 1997.

Walters conducted the first interview Monica Lewinsky ever agreed to (and Lewinsky paid tribute to the journalist on Twitter after Walters’ death). She interviewed every sitting president — and first lady — from Richard and Pat Nixon to Barack and Michelle Obama. She was known for being brash, bordering on harsh, with her trademark invasive questions that more than a few times seemed to cross a line. She also co-hosted “The View” from 1997 to 2014, returning even after her official retirement to serve as occasional guest co-host. 

On Tuesday, “The View” dedicated its program to Walters, with co-hosts and guests alike paying tribute to the late journalist. “If not for her,” Whoopi Goldberg said, “I don’t know where most of us would be.”

Here are some of the most revealing moments from their special episode. 

01

Walters had the gossip

Zooming in, former co-host Star Jones praised Walters for introducing her to the East coast social scene. While most of the show’s tributes focused on her professional work, Jones got personal, saying, “The best seat in the house in any social event was next to Barbara Walters because she could tell you everything about everybody in the room.” Armed with her arsenal of former interviews she had conducted — or rumors she had heard — Walters “could dish with the best of them. Going to lunch with BW, baby you would get all the information,” Jones said.

02

“A pioneer”

Current “The View” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said she personally “always saw women in anchor roles . . . because [Walters] opened that door. That didn’t exist before Barbara Walters.” A self-described Republican, Griffin’s addition to “The View” made waves in the summer of 2022. Griffin, whose mother is a journalist, said of Walters, “In every sense of the world, she was a pioneer and broke the original glass ceiling,” a sentiment echoed in many other tributes.

03

She “validated” Sunny Hostin

Another current co-host Sunny Hostin remembered how Walters took a chance on her. Early on in her “The View” tenure, Walters saw Hostin crossing out and rewriting the questions on her cue cards to more accurately capture her own voice. In trademark Walters’ bluntness, the veteran journalist demanded to know what Hostin was doing, then Walters revealed she too rewrote her questions to sound more like herself. After that encounter, Hostin said Walters asked what she thought more often. “She validated my opinion,” Hostin said.

04

She changed Debbie Matenopoulos’ life (and clothes)

“The View” co-host Debbie Matenopoulos credited Walters with altering the course of her life. Matenopoulos viewed Walters as a mother figure, the elder journalist giving the younger one “tough love” that helped Matenopoulos learn and grow. “She single-handedly changed my life,” Matenopoulos said, echoing Hostin’s story of how Walters had taken a chance. In Matenopoulos’ case, she was a 22-year-old journalism student when Walters gave her a shot. Walters also instructed Matenopoulos on how to dress, speak and do her hair, with Matenopoulos describing herself as a like a young Eliza Doolittle, the flower seller who’s “molded” by Professor Henry Higgins in George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion” that was adapted as “My Fair Lady” for the screen. “I owe her everything,” Matenopoulos said, her voice cracking with emotion. “I would not have this career if she did not choose me.”

05

Bonding with Whoopi Goldberg over motherhood 

Matenopoulos may have had a mother-daughter relationship with Walters, but Walters and Whoopi Goldberg first bonded over actual motherhood. Goldberg initially met Walters when appearing on her televised special in Goldberg’s capacity as an actor. Back then, the two shared similar anxieties about the tensions between careers and motherhood, and the pressures placed squarely on women who choose opportunities. “She and I bonded .  . . because she always felt she could have been better. And I always felt I could have been better. But we were who we were,” Goldberg said. About 20 years later, Goldberg joined “The View.”


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


06

Her final words on “The View”

As part of the tribute, “The View” aired vintage clips, including a portion of Walters’ last show before her retirement from the program. Walters asks in the clip, “How do you create a television show called ‘The View’ that puts together these wonderful women?” bringing up the co-hosts’ “contrasting opinions.”

What were her final words as official co-host of the show she created? Walters says with a sigh, “And finally, how proud when I say all the young women who are making and reporting the news, if I did anything to help that happen, that’s my legacy . . . Maybe instead of goodbye, I should take a deep breath and enjoy my view.”

07

What wasn’t mentioned

On the special episode, Joy Behar said of herself and her fellow co-hosts and former co-hosts, “We knew her better than anyone, I think.” But “The View” episode was careful to remain a tribute, staying overwhelmingly positive, and shying away from criticism of Walters, including the fact that Walters asked the child Brooke Shields her body measurements on live TV and asked Ricky Martin if he was gay before he felt safe enough to come out publicly. Martin said Walters made him feel “violated . . . I was very afraid.” Drew Barrymore shared similar stories, before Walters’ death, of an interview where Walters would not stop asking Barrymore about former drug use and bisexuality. Advice columnist Amy Dickinson of “Ask Amy” shared on Twitter that Walters had told her backstage “You’re no Ann Landers” when Dickinson was a guest on “The View.”

But on “The View” episode, things stayed rosy and inspirational. Walters “defied sexism and ageism,” Behar said. “She was the original role model.” 

“This must be stopped”: Kevin McCarthy’s first move is to “gut” congressional ethics watchdog

As a new session of Congress begins Tuesday, Republicans have already unveiled plans to change how Capitol ethics complaints can be independently investigated. One measure tucked into House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., proposed House Rules package would impose limits on the non-partisan Office of Congressional Ethics.

The proposal comes as the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) — which independently vets and refers misconduct allegations to the House Ethics Committee — faces calls to investigate Congress members who may have participated Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The GOP’s rule would muzzle the OCE’s staffing and investigative authority, treating the office as a standing House Committee. The rule also directs the House Ethics Committee to begin accepting complaints from the public directly, potentially offering lawmakers an end-run around the OCE.  

Ethics advocates decried the proposal on social media early in the week. 

“It’s bad enough that the GOP is going to seat (GOP Representative-elect George) Santos,” tweeted Senior Brookings Fellow Norm Eisen. “But at the same time they’re also going to move a rules package that will insulate him from a major avenue of ethics oversight!”

While the OCE’s eight-member board is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, McCarthy’s proposal would impose a term-limit cap that would immediately force out three Democrats. The OCE would only have 30 days to fill those seats — a difficult deadline for federal appointments with traditionally lengthy vetting requirements, made harder by a rule requiring four OCE board members to approve the new appointee. 


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


Public Citizen Executive Vice President Lisa Gilbert said the GOP’s rules package “guts the Office of Congressional Ethics.” 

“This must be stopped,” she tweeted Monday. 

As previously reported by The Wall Street Journal, House Republicans last attempted to restrict the OCE in 2017. The effort to dismantle the OCE was abandoned following bipartisan backlash — a backlash that McCarthy himself joined.

But in December 2022, McCarthy ignored a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee, leaving him vulnerable at the time for referral to the House Ethics Committee. Now he’s seeking House Speakership. His bid faces its loudest in-party opposition from the sitting members of Congress whose actions during the Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol have since spurred public calls for an OCE investigation — and who may stand to benefit from a toothless watchdog in a half-empty office.

Boebert curses at McCarthy during tense meeting after he insists “I’ve earned this job”: report

According to a report from CNN’s Manu Raju, current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy can be overheard yelling and cursing at caucus members in a closed-door meeting before they are supposed to head to the floor to vote on a new speaker.

With doubts growing the embattled Republican leader has the votes to win the gavel on the first ballot, CNN’s Raju claimed the California Republican insisted to his colleagues, “I’ve earned this job!”

Speaking with hosts Jim Sciutto and Erica Hill, Raju stated, “We’re hearing things are getting very heated behind closed doors. Kevin McCarthy is essentially done with negotiating with this block of conservatives who are seeking a number of concessions to weaken the speakership, to empower them, and he said he’s gone so far and they have refused to get to yes and he’s raising his voice and detailing everything that he’s done and said, quote, ‘I’ve earned this job.'”

“Now he is also getting some pushback in the room” Raju continued. “Our sources are telling our Capitol Hill team that [Rep.] Lauren Boebert said ‘bullshit’ in response to what Kevin McCarthy said.”

Watch video below or at this link.

Childhood diabetes is expected to rise by more than 60% in less than 40 years: Study

As public health issues go, diabetes is both one of the most common and most costly to our medical system: 11.3 percent of Americans are diabetic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Regulators, and the largely private American health care system, have been incapable of controlling the costs of insulin, particularly for people under 65. Diabetes’ toll on American lifespans and quality of life is staggering, and despite hopes that the crisis is treatable, data shows things trending in the opposite direction. In fact, a recent report from the CDC reveals that childhood diabetes rates are rising so fast that they are expected to increase by 60% by 2060.

According to a mathematical model created by the CDC, the number of youths who have diabetes will increase from 213,000 in 2017 to 239,000 in 2060 as long as current trends continue. The incidence remains constant as observed in 2017. This includes a 3 percent increase for type 1 diabetes and a 69 percent increase for type 2 diabetes. They also projected that, if the trends observed within the period from 2002 to 2017 continue, the growth will be even greater: 526,000 youths will have diabetes, including 306,000 with type 1 diabetes and 220,000 with type 2 diabetes.

“In both scenarios, substantial widening of racial and ethnic disparities in type 2 diabetes prevalence are expected, with the highest prevalence among non-Hispanic Black youth,” the authors add.


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


According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there were 422 million people with diabetes in 2014, nearly quadruple the 108 million people diagnosed with the condition in 1980. When the pancreas does not produce enough insulin, or the blood is unable to properly use the insulin, people develop high blood sugar level with a disease known as hyperglycemia. It remains one of the chief causes today of heart attacks, kidney failure, strokes, blindness and lower limb amputation.

Dr. Sheldon Zablow, a nutritional psychiatrist from San Diego, said this is a serious concern because it puts additional stress on young people’s future physical and mental health, as well as the additional health costs to their families and society.

It is important to understand that parents are not to blame for the limited choices available to them and their children,” Zablow told Salon in an email. “For all parents, it is a struggle to make it through their day just caring for one or more children while working and completing all the other daily personal and emotional requirements.”

Zablow added that affordable daycare could make a huge difference for families.

Just a few hours, at least one day per week to allow for food shopping and preparation,” Zablow said. “Parent (and grandparent) cooperatives could be started with minimal financial support for mutual cooperation of healthier food purchase and preparation while other parents are caring for the children.

“The ‘Diabesity’ epidemic (obesity and type 2 diabetes) is likely to be the biggest epidemic in human history.”

“One important technique parents should be taught is how to implement limiting the hours of food intake to allow blood sugar levels to normalize,” Zablow added. “Snacking with high glycemic foods that raise blood sugar levels quickly should be limited and parents taught where foods fall on the glycemic load scale.”

Of course, Zablow noted, socio-economic factors play a big role in all of this.

The best interventions to reduce weight gain and the complications of diabetes are the development of programs that improve access to health care, mental health treatment, a greater variety of food choices, and B vitamin supplementation,” Zablow said. “Processed foods are inexpensive with mass production removing natural nutrients and substituting them back in with artificial ones that cannot be utilized efficiently. A specific low-cost intervention to reduce the hazards of weight gain and diabetes should be made available to every child with the minimum daily requirements of B12 and folate to compensate for the lack of nutrients in processed food diets.”

A 2017 article in the journal Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology declared that “the ‘Diabesity’ epidemic (obesity and type 2 diabetes) is likely to be the biggest epidemic in human history.” Adding that “diabetes has been seriously underrated as a global public health issue and the world can no longer ignore ‘the rise and rise’ of type 2 diabetes,” the authors argued that there needs to be a better understanding of the factors driving the rise in diabetes. In addition to encouraging healthy lifestyle choices, scientists are examining genetic predispositions, the role played by the intra-uterine environment and breaking inter-generational cycles that fuel the diabetes epidemic.

“History provides important lessons and there are lessons to learn from major catastrophic events such as the Dutch Winter Hunger and Chinese famines,” the authors write. “The Chinese famine may have been the trigger for what may be viewed as a diabetes ‘avalanche’ many decades later. The drivers of the epidemic are indeed genes and environment but they are now joined by deleterious early life events.”