Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

For Black families in Phoenix, child welfare investigations are a constant threat

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

 

PHOENIX — In 2015, Nydea Richards decided to move her family to the nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan area, in search of lower crime and better weather than in her hometown of Milwaukee. She was pregnant at the time.

Before arriving here, Richards, like most Americans, never thought of child protective services as having a major presence in people’s lives, unless they’ve committed some sort of clear-cut child abuse. As a Black mother, she was more concerned about her kids encountering the police someday.

But within months, she found herself being investigated by the Arizona Department of Child Safety — based on the initial result of a drug test administered to her newborn daughter at the hospital, according to DCS case records she shared with ProPublica and NBC News.

It is not hospital policy to test for drugs after all births, but staff told her that she and her child were being screened because she was from out of town, she said. Richards, who tested negative for substances herself, believes the reason was the color of her skin.

DCS then prohibited her from being alone with her baby for five days while a caseworker interrogated her about her marital status, whether she received food stamps and how she usually handles stress, the records show. The investigator also inspected her other six children’s bodies and questioned them for hours about their chores, their meals, their mom’s employment and more.

Then, the department learned that there had been a false positive on the test and deemed the case unfounded, according to the records.

“They never explained or apologized,” Richards said.

Just months later, Richards, a case manager for a behavioral health care company, was investigated again, when she sought medical care after her daughter fell off a couch. That allegation of child maltreatment, too, was unfounded, according to a DCS spokesperson.

The department declined to comment further on the two cases.

Richards now feels intense dread when any of her children have even a minor injury or come down sick, fearing that DCS will show up again if she takes them to the doctor.

And in the years since her own experiences with Arizona’s child welfare system, she said, two of her family members in Phoenix, as well as a neighbor and a client at her job, have also endured these investigations of their parenting. All of them are Black.

From 2015 to 2019, the last full year of federal child welfare statistics available before the pandemic, DCS investigated the family lives of 1 of every 3 Black children in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county and home to Phoenix, according to an analysis by ProPublica and NBC News of data obtained from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Last year, a study published by the National Academy of Sciences used similar data to project that by the time Black children in Maricopa County turn 18, there’s a 63% chance that they will see their parents investigated by child services, the highest rate of any of the 20 largest counties in the nation.

Put another way, more Black children in metro Phoenix will go through a child maltreatment investigation than won’t.

That’s significantly more likely than a Black teen being stopped by the police — an issue that has gained far more attention in recent years — according to multiple studies and interviews with criminal justice data experts.

Over the past year, ProPublica and NBC News have interviewed more than 30 Black parents across the Phoenix region who’ve faced a child welfare case, as well as several of their children and an additional nine teenagers who experienced DCS investigations.

Some of the parents were working single dads or moms, like Richards, many of them living in the historically Black neighborhood of South Phoenix. Some were middle-class couples in the cactus-lined gated communities that dot suburbs like Mesa and Glendale. Some were adoptive parents, or extended family members caring for a child.

Almost all described a system so omnipresent among Black families that it has created a kind of communitywide dread: of that next knock on the door, of that next warrantless search of their home. And many expressed disbelief that it was so easy for the state government to enter their family realm and potentially remove their kids from them.

Black families and their advocates said DCS’ ubiquity does not just take the form of unnecessary investigations in which racial bias may have played a role, as Richards believed happened in her case. It’s also a product, in some cases, of public policy choices in Arizona that take a punitive rather than preventative approach toward Black parents, many of whom are struggling under the legacy of racism, a lack of inherited wealth and a slashed social safety net.

The state — the last in the nation to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday, in 1992 — spends a majority of its welfare budget on DCS investigations rather than on direct assistance to families in need, as ProPublica reported last year.

These priorities are borne out in the data.

Only 2% of children in Maricopa County whose families were accused of child maltreatment from 2015 to 2019 were ultimately determined or suspected by caseworkers to be victims of any form of physical or sexual abuse following an investigation, one of the lowest rates among large counties in the U.S.

But 15% allegedly experienced neglect, a term encompassing parenting problems typically associated with poverty, including a lack of decent housing, child care, food, clothing, medical care or mental health treatment. The category also includes alcohol and drug use, which numerous studies have found are more policed but no more common among Black or low-income people than other groups.

Roughly 20% of Black people in Maricopa County are living below the poverty line, compared to about 13% of all county residents, though having money should not be thought of as a requirement for good parenting, family advocates said.

In an interview, the director of DCS, Mike Faust, said the data used for this article is based on a stretch of time, 2015 through 2019, that began with a caseload crisis for the department. Over that period, he said, the agency made sweeping changes, including improving its intake and risk assessment tools in order to reduce subjective decision-making and unnecessary investigations.

“We’ve gone from what I think most people would describe as the worst-performing child protection agency in the country to one that — I don’t know if you’ll ever have a high-performer child protection agency, given the nature of the work we do — but it’s drastically different,” said Faust, who is white and has led the agency since 2019.

Yet the most recent available federal data through September 2020 shows that while it is true that DCS has reduced the overall number of families it looks into statewide, the decline did not improve — and in fact worsened — the racial disparity.

Although 7,400 fewer white children were the subject of investigations completed from the 2016 to 2020 fiscal years, the number of Black kids whose parents were investigated dropped by less than 100. (Some children did not have a race identified.)

“It didn’t have an immediate impact on just African American children,” Faust acknowledged. “The commitment that I make is to continue to stay engaged as an organization. And trust me, these are some challenging conversations to be in. It’s been difficult. But you’ve got to keep coming back to the table regardless of, at times, that people share that raw emotion.”

Faust, a conservative Republican with a private-sector background, may be out of a job by next spring. The election last month of Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, as Arizona governor likely means that DCS will have a new leader and possibly a new approach to racial disproportionality in the coming years.

In a statement, Joe Wolf, a spokesperson for Hobbs’ transition, pointed out that her career has included stints working with homeless youth and helping to run one of the largest domestic violence shelters in the country, giving her perspective on what affects Arizona’s most vulnerable. Wolf also said that as the governor-elect prepares to take office, her team is developing plans to improve the way the state provides social services, including “addressing the racial disparities that have plagued the system for so long.”

Still, Black community leaders in Phoenix continue to have concerns, saying that it has been challenging to effectively advocate for reforms across both Republican and Democratic administrations.

For one thing, the metro area’s Black community — just 7% of its population — is sparse and spread out compared to that of similarly large U.S. cities. That makes it hard to organize around this common experience to make DCS a pressing political issue and hold its officials accountable.

What’s more, sharing that you were investigated by child services remains more stigmatizing in many families than saying you’ve been stopped by the police.

As a result, some local leaders said it took them a while to realize just how pervasive DCS’ presence is.

Janelle Wood, founder and president/CEO of Phoenix’s Black Mothers Forum, said that when she started her community organization in 2016, she thought its members would mainly be focused on police violence and the criminalization of Black youth, which they have been to an extent. “But what kept coming up at meetings was DCS,” she said, noting that the confidentiality of the gatherings allowed for these conversations. “The most heart-wrenching stories — so many mothers had them.”

Kenneth Smith, principal of a Phoenix alternative high school and a community organizer who works with the local chapter of the NAACP and a group of nonprofits in the city, said he doesn’t usually talk about this issue openly due to the stigma, even though he knows of several people who’ve had DCS cases.

The statistics identified by ProPublica and NBC News, he said, are “like turning on the lights, and all of us are now standing in the room together saying, ‘What? You too?'”

“It Becomes a Generational Curse”

This year, ProPublica and NBC News have been investigatingchild welfare in the U.S.

What reporters have found is that child protective services agencies investigate the home lives of roughly 3.5 million American children each year, opening refrigerators and closets and searching kids’ bodies in almost every case. Yet they determine there was physical or sexual abuse in only about 5% of these investigations.

And while Phoenix is an outlier, the racial disproportionality of this system is a national problem.

Matthew Stewart, the son of the longtime senior pastor of Phoenix’s most prominent Black church, First Institutional Baptist, joined DCS as a case manager in 2009. He did so in part because he had an interest in social justice and youth mentorship from his upbringing.

But in 2018, Stewart, by then a training supervisor, came across an internal agency spreadsheet showing a large racial disparity in Arizona’s foster care population, which mainly consists of children removed from their families following investigations. He hadn’t fully absorbed the problem until then.

He was flooded with shame.

Stewart quit two years later, after deciding he couldn’t achieve meaningful change from within the department. He has since founded a community organization, Our Sister Our Brother, which advocates helping families rather than separating them.

Generational poverty and the resulting trauma within families have been “centuries in the making,” he said. Are parents supposed to believe that after DCS takes custody of their children, “these things will be solved?”

“I simply don’t think DCS is the agency to do this,” he said.

One of the parents whom Stewart has partnered with is Tyra Smith, of nearby Mesa, who now works for his growing group as a parent advocate.

In 2020, Smith left her four sons (triplets who were 7 as well as a 4-year-old) in her apartment for roughly 20 minutes, according to a case report. She said she was going for a walk to calm down after a heated argument by phone with her sister, who then called the police on her.

While she was away, a police officer arrived and called DCS because she wasn’t there. Responding to her alleged lack of supervision and her growing anger about the ensuing encounter, the department removed all of her boys that night, agency records show.

As often happens in the child protection system, this temporary removal led to a broader DCS inquiry into Smith’s mental health history, her troubled relationship with her ex, her marijuana use (which is legal in Arizona) and the tidiness of her home, records show. Based on these concerns, the department kept custody of the boys for a year and a half before returning them.

Smith said that when she was growing up, her own mother underwent such an investigation, and that several of her friends from school, all Black, have since endured one as new parents.

Now, she worries about her sons getting arrested or shot when they are older; when that happens to Black men, she pointed out, the news reports often say, “Oh, their childhood, they were ‘in the system.'”

“It becomes a generational curse,” Smith said.

ProPublica and NBC News presented DCS spokesperson Darren DaRonco with the names and anecdotes of the families described in this article, and he checked with agency leadership and case records and said that all of them were indeed investigated and that there was nothing inaccurate in their recounting of events. Arizona law, he noted, would allow him to clarify or correct anything that is factually wrong.

In interviews, Katherine Guffey, executive consultant to DCS’ director, pointed to additional steps that their team has taken to address the disproportionality issue, especially since the racial justice movement following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020.

The department, said Guffey, who is white, has been incorporating the feedback of Black employees who formed a disparity committee, including Stewart before he left, helping them to write a charter and create an action plan. Staff have also taken part in a workshop on the systemic causes of racial inequity, as well as an empathy training developed by Arizona State University professors.

Earlier this year, DCS helped convene a confidential two-hour focus group of a dozen Black people to hear how the department’s frequent involvement with families has affected them. The child welfare consulting firm Casey Family Programs has been brought in to hold continuing discussions.

And the agency plans to start a Cultural Brokers program to ensure that a trusted community member of the same race is present upon parents’ contact with caseworkers.

Critics say that while these are positive moves, no proposals have been made that would rein in the fundamental power of this agency, which has a billion-dollar budget, to remove children from their loved ones.

As Stewart put it, “We have a culture that says Black families need to be watched and if we don’t agree with the things that are going on with them, we are the saviors of these children and are charged with punishing their parents.”

Until that fundamental outlook of the child welfare system changes, he said, some of the well-intended steps being taken may amount to just restating or even perpetuating the problem.

Is This Just Arizona?

Arizona was a Confederate territory, whose early leaders had business ties to and a sense of common cause with the slave states of the Deep South. Its first major wave of Black residents were largely recruited to the Phoenix area from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma starting in the 1910s and ’20s, to work in cotton camps.

These families were soon forced to live in South Phoenix via redlining and racial covenants, which blocked them from renting or owning property anywhere else.

Yet despite the injustice of residential segregation, said Rod Grimes, a scholar of Arizona Black history, it did create a sense of Black density in a town that still had few Black people. Once families were able to move, many heading to the suburbs, he said, some of that strength in numbers fell away.

Today, Black residents of metro Phoenix are geographically and therefore politically diffuse. Without either the powerful voting blocs that exist in some parts of the South or the sense of protection of living in a majority-Black urban neighborhood elsewhere, they are more likely to be surrounded by white neighbors, teachers and health care workers whom they fear could call DCS on them, many said in interviews. They are also less likely to have the legislative representation that could conduct oversight of the department or fight for better social services to help prevent child welfare cases.

Even after the November election, Arizona has just two Black state legislators out of 90 — the same number as in 1950.

The result, said Clottee Hammons, an Arizona history expert and the creative director of Emancipation Arts, is a business-oriented white leadership class whom she and other Black Arizonans feel cannot relate to what it is like to raise a Black child, let alone on a low income.

Due to this experiential gap in the halls of power, critics say, the state Legislature rarely addresses concerns specific to Black families, instead focusing on topics of interest to many white voters, like school choice and border security.

Nor have lawmakers created a well-funded, easily accessible statewide system that parents living in poverty (as well as mandated reporters of child neglect, like teachers) can call to get help. Many other states have invested heavily in such services, but in Arizona the main option is to call DCS, which comes with the possibility of family separation attached.

In a statement, DaRonco, the department spokesperson, said of the parents and community members making this criticism, “We share their desire to reduce DCS presence in their homes by creating access to community-based supports that get them what they need without the stress of a DCS encounter.”

Once DCS is involved, the emphasis is on child safety and possibly child removal rather than addressing problems at their root, as reflected in the agency’s funding structure. In fiscal year 2022, the department spent roughly $90 million on group homes and other congregate facilities for foster youth, $99 million on foster care and $278 million on adoptions, compared to just $15 million on prevention efforts and $29 million on in-home services for families themselves.

DaRonco noted that top-line decisions about how DCS spends its funding are made by the Legislature, not the department. He added that the budget includes additional subsidies for parenting programs and substance use treatment, which can lead to family reunification.

Much of the foster care and adoption money comes from the federal government in the form of annual incentives.

“I’m just telling you, people in the community feel like their babies are being sold and trafficked — that’s how easy it feels, and how profitable,” said Roy Dawson, executive director of the nonprofit Arizona Center for African American Resources and a leading Phoenix advocate for racial equity in the child welfare system.

Dawson also said that all the well-meaning foster care nonprofits in Arizona, which exist in part because there is so much funding available for foster care in the state, help perpetuate the system’s vast size and reach.

It’s unclear whether the election of Hobbs as governor will translate into a realignment of budget priorities at DCS, let alone a shift in the anti-poverty agenda at the Legislature, where Republicans continue to hold a majority.

Many families and experts were also skeptical about the possibility of change because of the agency’s long history of claiming to address its problems with race without making much progress.

In 1995, the Arizona Republic published a story about child protective services with the sub-headline, “Blacks are overrepresented in Arizona’s system, study says.” The article went on to say, “Officials haven’t been able to find out why Arizona’s figures are 2.5 times the national average” and that “the state has formed a task force to examine why Blacks are having difficulty.”

In 2008, Arizona reported to the federal government that it was developing an “Eliminating Racial Disproportionality and Disparity” strategy for its child welfare system, which would include technical assistance to evaluate Maricopa County’s data on race as well as a focus group and a training video.

And in a 2014 DCS report, the agency said it was partnering with local churches as part of a racial “Gap Closing Collaborative.”

“I can say with certainty that many DCS and previous CPS administrations have seen this information and been aware of it,” Guffey acknowledged, referring to the former name of the department.

Dana Burns, a mom, musician and founder of the child welfare advocacy organization A Permanent Voice Foundation in South Phoenix, says that DCS’ pervasiveness in the community feels of a piece with a larger anti-Black attitude that she and other parents face in this state, from officials and neighbors alike.

“It’s Arizona,” she said. “It’s an attitude that we were never supposed to be here.”

A White Idea of Family

For many of the Black families who spoke with ProPublica and NBC News, their first interaction with DCS was when an unfamiliar caseworker arrived at their door.

Department data show that its frontline staff are most often white and disproportionately in their 20s, which reflects national trends. Many said in interviews that this was their first or second job out of college, and a large proportion do not have children themselves. Turnover at the agency has also been notoriously high, further lowering the average experience level.

As a result, the typical scenario is a white person with little or no parenting experience entering a Black home and having minimal time, by the nature of the job, to make a judgment as to whether what is going on there is dangerous for kids.

“It felt like we were on display, like they had a white glove on checking everything. And I had to smile and say good morning,” said Tressie King, who lives with her husband Jamel and their 13-year-old adoptive son in the suburb of Chandler. (King was accused of briefly leaving her child, who is autistic, unattended in her car while she ran in to a store, an allegation that case documents show was ruled unfounded but only after several inspections of their home.)

“It felt like they were checking me out, not my child,” she said. “I said if I am being made to feel ashamed, how is that good for the kid?”

Many Black parents also said that if they get combative, precisely because the most precious thing in their life may be about to be taken from them, their anger is too often interpreted as a potential threat.

Sarah Encarnacion, a DCS child safety specialist from 2019 to 2021, said her goal was always to keep families together and for them to feel she was a trusted presence. But she acknowledged that as “a small, petite white woman,” she was “responsible for preparing and educating myself on how to enter this home where I’m such a foreign entity.”

DaRonco, the spokesperson, said that DCS has several initiatives to “change the power dynamic” between its staff and the families they work with. These include holding “team decision making” meetings near the beginning of an investigation, so that parents — and any friends, neighbors, teachers, clergy or others they want with them in the room — can have more of a say in the process.

There are also differences in cultural attitudes toward corporal punishment, which is more common on average in Black families. Many Black parents and children interviewed for this article distinguished between what they called a whooping and abuse, with some parents saying they would rather spank a child, which is legal in Arizona, than risk the child getting out of line and experiencing something far worse at the hands of a police officer.

“Nine times out of 10, parents raise their kids how their parents raised them,” said Richards, the Phoenix mother accused at the hospital, who has since become an advocate around the child welfare issue. “If the state is not agreeing with that way of raising kids, the solution is just to take the children every time? Every generation?”

Richards and many others said DCS’ prevalence can eventually cause insidious damage to relationships between Black parents and their children, who sometimes threaten to call DCS on each other when they’re in normal family disputes.

“That’s messed up,” she said, but the agency has become “so much a part of our lives that it’s a real thing to say.”

In part because of her struggles with the child welfare system, Richards said that she and her family are planning to relocate again, likely leaving Arizona next year.

Stephan Muhammad, a chef who lives in a suburban development in South Phoenix, agrees that no matter what DCS is now doing to address racial disproportionality, its harms linger in Black families like his.

Muhammad had his children taken from him by the department twice; they were placed in foster care, including group homes where they say they experienced repeated violence, for about two years in each case. The first time was based on a neglect allegation that he left his four youngest at home while he picked up his oldest daughter at kindergarten just across a nearby park. The second was for spanking his son, who was nearly 9 at the time, for getting in trouble at school — which the agency said was child abuse, according to Muhammad, his family members and reporting by the Arizona Republic.

In both cases, a judge ultimately returned them home.

“I missed years of my childhood,” said one of his daughters, Sierra, 12, who was separated from her siblings while in state custody. “If I could talk to the head of DCS, I would say don’t take my father from me ever again.”

In an interview at Muhammad’s house, in front of a wall-sized calendar on which one of his children had written in the square of his birthday, “aka Big Head Day,” he said that he obviously has been overjoyed to have them all back. Still, he said he feels a trepidation that thousands of Black parents across Phoenix must be coping with every day: Is he in fact a bad parent?

“It’s impossible not to internalize,” he said. “It’s an attack on who you are as a parent in every way.”

What is ethical animal research? A scientist and veterinarian explain

A proposed measure in Switzerland would have made that country the first to ban medical and scientific experimentation on animals. It failed to pass in February 2022, with only 21% of voters in favor. Yet globally, including in the United States, there is concern about whether animal research is ethical.

We are scientists who support ethical animal research that reduces suffering of humans and animals alike by helping researchers discover the causes of disease and how to treat it. One of us is a neuroscientist who studies behavioral treatments and medications for people with post-traumatic stress disorder — treatments made possible by research with dogs and rodents. The other is a veterinarian who cares for laboratory animals in research studies and trains researchers on how to interact with their subjects.

We both place high importance on ensuring that animal research is conducted ethically and humanely. But what counts as “ethical” animal research in the first place?

The 4 R’s of animal research

There is no single standard definition of ethical animal research. However, it broadly means the humane care of research animals — from their acquisition and housing to the study experience itself.

Federal research agencies follow guiding principles in evaluating the use and care of animals in research. One is that the research must increase knowledge and, either directly or indirectly, have the potential to benefit the health and welfare of humans and other animals. Another is that only the minimum number of animals required to obtain valid results should be included. Researchers must use procedures that minimize pain and distress and maximize the animals’ welfare. They are also asked to consider whether they could use nonanimal alternatives instead, such as mathematical models or computer simulations.

These principles are summarized by the “3 R’s” of animal research: reduction, refinement and replacement. The 3 R’s encourage scientists to develop new techniques that allow them to replace animals with appropriate alternatives.

Since these guidelines were first disseminated in the early 1960s, new tools have helped to significantly decrease animal research. In fact, since 1985, the number of animals in research has been reduced by half.

A fourth “R” was formalized in the late 1990s: rehabilitation, referring to care for animals after their role in research is complete.

These guidelines are designed to ensure that researchers and regulators consider the costs and benefits of using animals in research, focused on the good it could provide for many more animals and humans. These guidelines also ensure protection of a group — animals — that cannot consent to its own participation in research. There are a number of human groups that cannot consent to research, either, such as infants and young children, but for whom regulated research is still permitted, so that they can gain the potential benefits from discoveries.

Enforcing ethics

Specific guidelines for ethical animal research are typically established by national governments. Independent organizations also provide research standards.

In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act protects all warmblooded animals except rats, mice and birds bred for research. Rats, mice and birds are protected — along with fish, reptiles and all other vertebrates — by the Public Health Service Policy.

Each institution that conducts animal research has an entity called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, or IACUC. The IACUC is composed of veterinarians, scientists, nonscientists and members of the public. Before researchers are allowed to start their studies, the IACUC reviews their research protocols to ensure they follow national standards. The IACUC also oversees studies after approval to continually enforce ethical research practices and animal care. It, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, accreditation agencies and funding entities, may conduct unannounced inspections.

Laboratories that violate standards may be fined, forced to stop their studies, excluded from research funding, ordered to cease and desist, and have their licenses suspended or revoked. Allegations of misconduct are also investigated by the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare.

Above and beyond the basic national standards for humane treatment, research institutions across 47 countries, including the U.S., may seek voluntary accreditation by a nonprofit called the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, or AAALAC International. AAALAC accreditation recognizes the maintenance of high standards of animal care and use. It can also help recruit scientists to accredited institutes, promote scientific validity and demonstrate accountability.

Principles in practice

So what impact do these guidelines actually have on research and animals?

First, they have made sure that scientists create protocols that describe the purpose of their research and why animals are necessary to answer a meaningful question that could benefit health or medical care. While computer models and cell cultures can play an important role in some research, others studies, like those on Alzheimer’s disease, need animal models to better capture the complexities of living organisms. The protocol must outline how animals will be housed and cared for, and who will care for and work with the animals, to ensure that they are trained to treat animals humanely.

During continual study oversight, inspectors look for whether animals are provided with housing specifically designed for their species’ behavioral and social needs. For example, mice are given nesting materials to create a comfortable environment for living and raising pups. When animals don’t have environmental stimulation, it can alter their brain function — harming not only the animal, but also the science.

Monitoring agencies also consider animals’ distress. If something is known to be painful in humans, it is assumed to be painful in animals as well. Sedation, painkillers or anesthesia must be provided when animals experience more than momentary or slight pain.

For some research that requires assessing organs and tissues, such as the study of heart disease, animals must be euthanized. Veterinary professionals perform or oversee the euthanasia process. Methods must be in compliance with guidelines from the American Veterinary Medical Association, which requires rapid and painless techniques in distress-free conditions.

Fortunately, following their time in research, some animals can be adopted into loving homes, and others may be retired to havens and sanctuaries equipped with veterinary care, nutrition and enrichment.

Continuing the conversation

Animal research benefits both humans and animals. Numerous medical advances exist because they were initially studied in animals — from treatments for cancer and neurodegenerative disease to new techniques for surgery, organ transplants and noninvasive imaging and diagnostics.

These advances also benefit zoo animals, wildlife and endangered species. Animal research has allowed for the eradication of certain diseases in cattle, for example, leading not only to reduced farm cattle deaths and human famine, but also to improved health for wild cattle. Health care advances for pets — including cancer treatments, effective vaccines, nutritional prescription diets and flea and tick treatments — are also available thanks to animal research.

People who work with animals in research have attempted to increase public awareness of research standards and the positive effects animal research has had on daily life. However, some have faced harassment and violence from anti-animal research activists. Some of our own colleagues have received death threats.

Those who work in animal research share a deep appreciation for the creatures who make this work possible. For future strides in biomedical care to be possible, we believe that research using animals must be protected, and that animal health and safety must always remain the top priority.


Lana Ruvolo Grasser, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Neuroscience, National Institutes of Health and Rachelle Stammen, Clinical Veterinarian, Emory National Primate Research Center, Emory University

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

Democrats trying a new tactic to pass expanded child tax credit: Threatening GOP corporate tax break

Democrats are pushing to reinstate the pandemic-era expanded child tax credit during the lame-duck session by including it as part of an expected government funding package.

On Wednesday, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Ct., Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., and Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., announced plans to counter Republican demands for corporate research and development (R&D) tax credits by insisting that the expanded child tax credit also be included.

Responding to the new tactic, a spokesperson for the progressive organization Our Revolution told TYT Wednesday night that it’s worth another corporate tax break to lift children out of poverty.

Booker told TYT that the question comes down to “when they come and start demanding those kinds of tax credits or R&D tax credits for the corporations, can we use that as a moment […] to get this done for American families, 90% of American families. That’s the way we see this coming. And it’s coming to a head, we think, in the spending bill.”

The expanded child tax credit was part of Pres. Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan, which cushioned COVID’s economic woes, providing qualifying families tax credits worth up to $300 per child per month.

The expansion, which expired in December 2021, helped to cut child poverty by almost half, according to the Census Bureau. Expanding the child tax credit, or CTC, permanently was part of Biden’s massive Build Back Better package, which failed to pass due to opposition from Republicans and Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

Booker told reporters that expanding the CTC is what’s best for American society. “When you raise a child above the poverty line, you unlock their genius in a profound way,” said Booker.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), reducing child poverty means “better lifetime health, improved educational attainment, and higher earnings and better economic circumstances as adults.”

In order to pass the expanded CTC before the new Congress is sworn in, Brown said, “We need an omnibus [spending bill] to do this, we’d expect,” instead of a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded at its current levels.

During the news conference, Brown blamed Republicans for leaving parents and kids behind while wealthy corporations lobbied for the massive tax cuts that Pres. Donald Trump delivered them in 2017. Brown said, “it’s pretty simple. Again, no corporate tax cuts without the child tax credit. The deal is on the table. It’s on the table for Republicans to take.”

Paco Fabian, communications and campaign director for Our Revolution, told TYT that if corporations are going to get more tax breaks, the least lawmakers can do is look out for poor, working and middle class families.

“Is this an ideal bargain?” Fabian asked. “No. We shouldn’t have to give up more corporate goodies to reinstate the CTC, which never should’ve been allowed to expire to begin with.”

But Fabian says the trade is worth it and would be life-changing for children and parents across the country if lawmakers can pull it off. The expanded CTC is wildly popular, and Fabian said, “Politics is about leverage, and as our movement grows we’ll have more power to force Washington to broker better deals for the American people.”

Diana would “entirely agree with Harry’s assessment of the royal family,” says royals expert

The man is talking about “the pain and suffering of women marrying into this institution.” The man is Prince Harry. The “institution” is his own family. 

It has been a transformative year for the British royals. In the wake of the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the ascension of her 74-year-old son Charles to the throne, the monarchy has entered a new and still undetermined era. But it’s Harry “the spare” and his polarizing American wife Meghan who fascinate most. 

In many ways, the story of the “Harry & Meghan” in the new six-part Netflix documentary series seems to be a continuation of the one Diana left off. It’s about the oppressiveness of family known as “the firm,” about the fickleness of fame and the vicious hounding of the press, about private suffering and loss, and about forging a new path in a new nation.

And on the heels of all this tumult, author Andrew Morton, who has been covering the British royal family for 40 years, is back with a new book, “The Queen: Her Life.” If you watched the new season of “The Crown,” you got a peek into Morton’s storied past as the biographer of “Diana: Her True Story in Her Own Words” — and the writer whom Elizabeth Debicki’s Diana refers to as “Clark Kent.” 

Morton joined me on “Salon Talks” to discuss the legacy of Queen Elizabeth II, the “divisive character” of Meghan and why he thinks Diana “would entirely agree with Harry’s assessment of the royal family.”

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

You have been writing about this family for decades now. What drew you to Elizabeth again for this book, and how did you want this to be that was different from everything else you’ve written about her before?

The idea was sparked by doing the previous book, which is on Elizabeth and Margaret, two sisters, both princesses, one who becomes queen, and their relationship. During the writing and research of that, I kept finding bits and pieces about the queen, and it seemed appropriate to try and look at the whole reign. As you rightly say, I’ve been writing about the royal family for 40 years now. It’s a gig I never expected to do, but here we are. 

I found once you start to strip away the mask and the myth and the image, you find clues as to who the real person is. One of the things which really sucked me in was this sense that when she was Princess Elizabeth, she was a very reluctant future queen. She prayed every night so that her mother would have a baby boy so that he would jump over her in the line of succession. She was a very shy girl, very diffident. She deferred to her younger sister so that it would be Margaret who made the conversation. It was the queen who would stand in the shadows, as it were. 

“The twilight of her reign was, I would say, was probably her best years.”

I found that very interesting, the trajectory of her personality. For this woman who was quite self-effacing to then take on this position as Chief Executive of Great Britain Incorporated in 1952 after her father’s sudden death, was one hell of a burden. The book explores how she gradually changed to become a more relaxed monarch, a more inclusive monarch, listening less to what her mother had to say, less to what her father’s memory had to say, and more about herself and her own instincts. And you see that gradually unfold during the reign. For me, that was the most interesting part, this trying to get a bead on this very difficult target, the queen.

As you point out in the book, this is a woman who was still coming into her own to the very end of her life.

The twilight of her reign was, I would say, probably her best years, where she took the chance to jump out of a helicopter during the London Olympics. She had tea with Paddington Bear. All these things, really truly humanized the queen and made her, made everything, “Oh, she’s a different kind of person to the white gloves, big handbag, her hairstyle, a queen we’ve got used to.”

Certainly her behavior during COVID-19 was true leadership, I felt. Even now when I talk about the queen and her We Will Meet Again speech, you get choked up, because she had made that speech at a critical time in world history, never mind British history, when the world was consumed by this killer pandemic which has claimed millions of lives. And she was there to give support. In a way, she was the only person who could do that. She’d lived this long life, this eventful life, this life full of crises and difficult decisions, and she was there supporting and nurturing her nation.

And also the strength of that speech and the strength of her persona right until the end. 

Right until the end. Two days before she died, she looked like kind of a member of the Hobbit family, didn’t she really? That little elfin grin and walking stick. She looked marvelous, and yet sadly, she passed two days afterwards.

Got one more meeting with a Prime Minister in under her belt though.

Duty ran through her like Canvey Island rock, like a seaside rock. But also divorce ran through her reign, and it’s one of the defining characteristics I think. She’s someone who was very much against divorce, as was her mother and father. Yet she presided over the divorce of three of her children and also her sister in very difficult circumstances.

Let’s talk about that, because this is where you step into the storyline, Andrew. I’ve watched the new season of “The Crown.” It’s a pleasure to be talking to Mr. Clark Kent. 

Yeah, he had more hair then. 

“There was a fairytale surrounding Diana that was wholly false.”

You said that watching the way the Diana biography unfolded on the series gave you chills. Why? What about it brings back so much to you?

There was an intimacy about the scenes between myself and Diana, even though I didn’t meet her during the whole process of writing the book. Famously we use an intermediary, Dr. James Colthurst. But just that interaction and the intonation, the mannerisms, even down to the paper used for the manuscript was so authentic that I felt that I was working with a ghost. I found it very moving. The whole drama is really to unfold Diana’s character. Obviously, it’s a compressed episode, because so many other things, so many dramas happened. But it was compressed in a way that tries to show her character. It was like listening to six hours of the tapes compressed into 10, 15 minutes or so.

There was so much about her not just as the Princess of Wales, but as a woman and as a mother, that was surprising to you. It was an education for you as a man, hearing this woman talking about postpartum issues, depression, suicidal ideation and eating disorders. What was it like for you to be the keeper of a very intimate story of a woman who also happened to be the Princess of Wales?

It was a great honor to be asked. And it was rather overwhelming to a degree, because you knew that this was a dynamite story, but you had to prove it independently of her saying it. So I had to speak to her friends and family and others. 

There wasn’t the literature or the knowledge around in those days about what bulimia nervosa was. When I was researching it, I got a couple of pamphlets and that was it. There wasn’t an awful lot about eating disorders. For me, one of the triumphs of the book is that so many women, some men, who did suffer, went for help. I think that’s one of the things that Diana was delighted with. But there were so many secrets that unfolded. Remember, I had been part of believing in the fairy tale, and this is the whole crux of the whole drama surrounding it. There was a fairy tale surrounding Diana that was wholly false. It was a totally false narrative. We know about false narratives elsewhere, but this was a royal false narrative, and it took a long time psychologically for me to start to appreciate the true nature of her life. 

“This is an inflection point…where we are discussing ideas, concepts and policy that have been set aside for some years out of respect and deference to the queen.”

This was exposed from time to time in real events happening in real time. When, for example, William got his head smacked in with a golf club accidentally and he had a fractured skull, Prince Charles arrived at the hospital along with Diana, and then subsequently Prince Charles went to the opera. Diana had to take comfort using a payphone, because in those days there were no decent mobile phones, to ring James Colthurst for help and advice on what she should do, what would happen if [William’s] temperature rose, and so on and so forth. She didn’t have her husband there. Her husband was off to the opera. This was well noted at the time, but it confirmed what Diana was saying, that her husband would rather do anything, other than spend time alone with her. 

I want to ask you about the king. We look at William and his charisma and the way that he is being groomed for the kingdom. Here’s Charles, a 74-year-old man who is not entirely popular, who doesn’t seem to have that kind of charisma. What do you think happens to him now in this new role as the king? Is there space for him to grow into that role? 

Just look at the history. Edward the Seventh took over from Queen Victoria and made a fist of the job, even though he reigned for a relatively short time, 10 years. He focused on diplomacy. He wasn’t focusing on longevity, because he knew he would never outlast Queen Victoria. We have a similar situation with King Charles, that he’s going to reign for what? Twenty, 25 years and then his son will take over.

That’s a long time, Andrew. You’re talking about a 100-year-old man.

Even if we say it’s the same kind of reign as Edward the Seventh, say 10, 15 years, he’s got time to make his mark in a different way. I would argue that he would probably focus more on cultural events and maybe even religious accord. He’s talked in the past about not being the Head of State or the Defender of the Faith, but Defender of Faith. Even though he may not be able to say that constitutionally, he may try and do that as it were off the scene, so that he’s dealing with Muslims and Jews and various other religions and creeds.

That’s one area that he could well focus on, because the point has been made several times that Britain is a multi-cultural, multi-faith society, and the head of that society is a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant family. So how do they make it so that they would reflect more of modern Britain?

There is this idea that the monarchy is passé. With the death of Elizabeth, this has come up again. What is the role of the monarchy? What is the role of the Commonwealth? How do we reckon with colonialism? Where do you see the monarchy going from here with King Charles?

It’s one of the controversial points in “The Crown,” the first episode where Prince Charles is trying to get the then Prime Minister, John Major, to twist the queen’s arm to get her to abate, conversations that John Major said never happened. Nonetheless, ironically at the time, there was debate about whether the queen should step down now that she’s got to 65. So as you quite rightly say, there’s been debate about the future and the relevance of the monarchy throughout the queen’s reign. I remember after my book on Diana came out in 1992, the Times and The Sunday Times organized a conference on the future of the monarchy, and it wasn’t easy listening for the sovereign.

This is an inflection point. This is a point where we are discussing ideas, concepts and policy that have been set aside for some years out of respect and deference to the queen, and notably that is the commonwealth. Does the commonwealth continue in its present form? How many nations are going to say, “Let’s just get our own head of state from our own country”? Perfectly legitimate ideas. There’s the whole idea of Britain as a colonial power and making reparations. These issues will and have to be addressed, not just by the royal family, but by the government. 

“For Harry, that was the difficulty that he found, that he was incredibly popular, but he didn’t have the position to translate that popularity into influence.”

It is a time when the kind of historical chickens are coming home to roost, and the monarchy is part of that debate. How will it represent a multi-faith, multicultural society? I think that it’s down to King Charles to show a degree of leadership in that.

You talked earlier about this white, Anglo-Saxon family. The king has a biracial daughter-in-law; he has multiracial grandchildren now. I want to ask you about Harry and Meghan and what happens now in this newly realigned, this newly rearranged family.

When I heard the title of Harry’s upcoming memoir [“Spare”], I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. You and I have talked about the sibling dynamics in this family, what that means to be “the heir and the spare.” We saw it with Edward and George, we saw it with Margaret and Elizabeth, we see it with William and Harry. What did you think when you heard about the book?

Exactly as you said, it will be a Cain and Abel story that is essentially the senior brother gets the money, the title, basically the job, that is to say the king. His life is pretty well defined from now until the moment he goes to meet his maker. For the spare, Margaret, George the Sixth and others, they’ve got to make their lives separately and there is no guidance. You’ve got to make your own mistakes. I think that for Harry, that was the difficulty that he found, that he was incredibly popular, but he didn’t have the position, nor would he ever have the position to translate that popularity into influence.

You see in the title of the book, “Spare,” the clue is that he’ll be exploring that, or his ghostwriter will be. The other thing that is worthwhile mentioning, is that the book was written a long time ago before the queen died, and at a time when he was still smarting after the blowback from the Oprah interview.

Before the queen died, Meghan had been carving this individual lane for herself as a personality, appearing on magazine covers, doing her podcast. Now she is also the daughter-in-law of the king. She is also the sister-in-law of the future king. What does that do, particularly in the UK, for her impression there?

She’s a divisive character, there’s no getting away from that. She’s also a divisive character in the U.S. She’s earned the ire of former President Trump and she’s taken what would be considered to be political stances. She’s seen as essentially a progressive Democrat. That is her label. She has, it seems to me, done good work in terms of her Spotify, Archewell business. At the same time they’ve maintained links to the royal family, but not substantive ones. My spies at Hope Ranch, north of Santa Barbara, say that they’ve just bought themselves a new home there, and this is their forever home.

It looks like they’re making their life in California. They don’t use their HRH title, which is important. They’re making a go of it as two individuals not linked to the royal family, just like Harry’s mother did. [Diana] flew the nest and became semi-American in the sense that she spent holidays down here. She was thinking about buying a house here, and would entirely agree with Harry’s assessment of the royal family.

Watching the drama of the Diana biography play out on “The Crown,” I think about what a brave, bold thing it was for a journalist to have done at the time, to be that person who reached out to the Princess of Wales, and was entrusted with her story. What gave you that courage to reach out in that way, and then what it was like to get that response?

Well, just imagine if somebody else had done it and not me. I couldn’t live with myself then. As a journalist, as a writer, it was a great opportunity and a great honor. Taking that on, you weren’t thinking about the wider picture, you were thinking about when she said, “Do you want an interview?” I thought she’d be talking about charity work, her humanitarian mission, and I was totally wrong. The whole process was an education for myself about the nature of the royal family, the nature of the royal marriage, what Diana felt about her childhood, her school days. It was remarkably reckless and courageous of her to entrust her story with somebody that she didn’t know particularly well. I’d met her a few times at cocktail parties, and the conversation had always been light, bright and trite about my ties or something like that.

Any moment I could have said, “Well, she’s behind the book,” but obviously the whole idea was to give her some kind of room to work out her own destiny. I think we did that. I think she did have that wiggle room, and I think that she stepped up to the plate with her husband and with the royal family and said, “Look, this is not working, I think we need to move on.” In a way we’re talking about the queen, her life, and she went back into her normal policy, which was to kick the can down the road and hope for the best, and hope that there could be some kind of reconciliation, as she did with Margaret and Lord Snowden. She urged them to try again, and who wouldn’t do, given the huge responsibilities on her shoulders? But it didn’t work. Looking back, it may well have been more prudent to have just ended the marriage quickly and come to an amicable settlement and move on.

From peppermint mochas to caramel brûlée lattes, Starbucks 2022 holiday drinks ranked

I’m truly a fiend for all things seasonal and holiday coffees and lattes. From pumpkin spice season to the holidays (and all year round — I’ve always been a sucker for the ice cream flavors that Dunkin’ sells in the summertime), I feverishly consume as many of these (overtly sugary) drinks, celebrating the respective season with a beverage in my hand or on my desk. 

This year, I opted to take a more “scientific” (lol) approach and ordered all of the current Starbucks items in their Holiday oeuvre in order to ascertain what the best drinks really are. Of course, Starbucks has a revolving door of drink offerings: some come around year-after-year, while others are one and done, unfortunately. For example, this year’s menu doesn’t include gingerbread or eggnog lattes, much to the dismay of many Starbucks aficionados.

This year, the coffee chain has a list of seven holiday beverages, so I bravely ordered every single one of them and risked stomachaches and jitteriness in order to properly and accurately rank these drinks. 

In order to mitigate ice dilution, variables and biases, I ordered all of these items at the same size and temperature and made no customizations or modification whatsoever to the menu items as is. I’m not a believer in the “secret menu” realm, or in making baristas do inexplicable amounts of work, so I’m not tapping into that landscape here whatsoever. Lastly, the new Irish Cream Whiskey Barrel-Aged Cold Brew was not at my location, so I didn’t get to include that here.

So queue up some of your favorite Christmas tunes and settle in, because without further ado, here is the Starbucks 2022 holiday beverage ranking: 

https://www.instagram.com/p/ClTP2Yhpxaj/?igshid=Nzg3NjI1NGI=

07
White Chocolate Mocha Latte
This drink is not especially a standout. It has a pretty dulled flavor and it’s a bit flat, but it’s not overly sweet. Overall, though, it’s not particularly noteworthy or festive.

https://www.instagram.com/p/ClmGGYwrLbM/?hl=en

06
Sugar Cookie Almond Milk Latte

This drink is thinner than the other drinks and the almond milk notes come through very distinctly, almost to the point that it’s the prominent flavor. It has a very sweet aftertaste. 

 

I think the name and aesthetic is more appealing than the taste itself. I prefer this drink with anything other than almond milk and I think it’s also better iced, but it’s also just generally not the most exciting drink? I have some sort of aversion to the flavor of heated almond milk; to me, it’s just not very appealing. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CkgPAIxL9N8/?hl=am-et

05
Chestnut Praline Latte
Bummer! I’ve always loved this drink, but usually order it iced and sometimes with customizations, but trying it hot amongst the rest of the drinks has rendered it a bit … flat? It’s very, very, very sweet, doesn’t have much distinctive chestnut flavor (or seemingly any praline) and feels somewhat thin and not as rich as the others. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CaDTY1cv7LI/?igshid=Nzg3NjI1NGI

04
Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha Latte
In this case, the white mocha and peppermint don’t blend as well as the standard peppermint mocha, but it’s definitely an improvement on the plain white mocha. The flavor is well-rounded. It’s a bit sweet, but quite rich and it does indeed feel sufficiently celebratory or festive.

 

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

 


https://www.instagram.com/p/ClROcaKqXoj/?hl=en

03
Caramel Brûlée Latte
Typically my #2 behind chestnut praline, this one also was a bit disappointing when enjoyed amongst all of the other drinks. I only got caramel notes towards the end of the sip and in the aftertaste. Otherwise, it really just tastes kind of generic and sweet at first. However, it’s very festive and rich and the trademark Starbucks caramel is always a welcome flavor. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CkvwGb9uHcM/?hl=en

02
Toasted White Chocolate Mocha Latte
This drink was interestingly clean and smooth and the “toasted” notes definitely come through much more than I anticipated. It also really doesn’t taste too similar to the white mocha (which I always assumed it would), but it’s also not especially festive. A very good drink, though! It could also be a good year-round option. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/ClY80AvBTr9/?hl=en

01
Peppermint Mocha Latte

I have a confession. I’ve always thought I wasn’t a big proponent of anything Peppermint Mocha flavored, so this took me by surprise. It was far and away the victor of this taste test: bright, festive, warming, leaves a tingly aftertaste, very rich, not too sweet and it has the perfect blend of chocolate and peppermint.

 

I think this drink is exponentially better when it’s hot, so this may also be a reason for the change of opinion. I find that the iced variation usually results the über-thick mocha sinking to the bottom, barely incorporating into the actual drink itself. This is not an issue whatsoever in the hot iteration. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CkixSmOPfCR/?hl=en

Bonus inclusions:

Cinnamon Dolce Latte: While this is not a “holiday” item per se, this drink has all the warmth and familiarity of the holiday drinks and I think it’s especially terrific when enjoyed during the season. It’s been a favorite of mine for years. 

Sugar Plum Cheese Danish: This is one of Starbucks’s best food options. The fruit jam is has a very fruit-forward flavor and it’s not not overly sweet, there’s a slight “holiday spice” essence coming through, the cheese component is smooth, rich and creamy and the pastry itself is flaky and buttery with a subtle crystallized sugar thing going on. The combination is just stellar (and I’ve always loved the name!)

I will note that sipping all of these drinks and then enjoying the sugar plum danish did leave a bit of a saccharine note in my mouth and it didn’t dissipate after drinking a host of water. I also assume that no one reading this will nonchalantly be ordering seven drinks and then drinking them in succession, though, so I don’t foresee this being an issue for the standard customer.

Philadelphia police have revealed the true name of “The Boy in the Box”

During a news conference held on Thursday, Philadelphia police publicly identified the discarded remains of a young boy known only as “The Boy in the Box” for the past 65 years.

The boy — believed to be between 3 and 7 years old at the time of his death — was found in a small cardboard box off the side of the road in a wooded area of Philadelphia in 1957. After area officials investigated the remains following their discovery it was determined that the boy’s cause of death was blunt force trauma, but a run of the child’s fingerprints came up with no match and a series of phony leads as to where he came from, or who could have ultimately killed him, yielded no concrete evidence.

In late November, Philadelphia police issued an update on the cold case stating that DNA and genealogical information had led to a positive ID on “The Boy in the Box,” and during Thursday’s news conference they revealed the boy’s name to be Joseph Augustus Zarelli. 

According to ABC‘s coverage of the news conference, Joseph was born on January 13, 1953 and was likely from the West Philadelphia area.

“Today, after 65 years, America’s Unknown Child’s name was finally restored,” said Commissioner Danielle Outlaw on Twitter following the news conference. “I want to thank all who have worked tirelessly since 1957 to give Joseph Augustus Zarelli his voice back. However, the search for justice continues.”

Joseph’s remains were laid to rest decades ago at Ivy Hill Cemetery under a donated headstone reading “America’s Unknown Child.” In November, when news first broke that police were nearing the announcement of the boy’s name, workers at the cemetery expressed excitement over finally being able to see his real name etched into the stone.


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


Philadelphia Captain John Smith said during Thursday’s conference that “Joseph has a number of siblings on both the mother and father side who are living and it’s out of respect for them that their parents’ information remain confidential.”

Captain Smith indicated that they do have suspicions as to who may be responsible for the boy’s death, but was unwilling to offer them up as the investigation is still ongoing.

“This announcement only closes one chapter in this little boy’s story while opening up a new one. This is still an active homicide investigation and we still need the public’s help in filling in this child’s life story,” Outlaw furthered. 

“Low-quality candidate”: Expert says election data shows it was GOP voters who sunk Herschel Walker

Runoff elections tend to be races of attrition. Turnout will most likely be lower, as voters are less accustomed to turning out for off-cycle elections. Candidates, then, must try to minimize attrition among their supporters, and the one with the least erosion is most likely to win.

Such was the case in Georgia on Dec. 6, 2022. Fewer people voted for either candidate in the runoff: Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic incumbent, saw the number of people who turned out to vote for him drop by about 131,000 from the November vote; Republican Herschel Walker lost closer to 200,000 voters. This would explain how Warnock was able to grow his lead in the runoff.

On turnouts and turnoffs

Overall, voter turnout in the Georgia Senate runoff election was nearly 90% of the turnout in the November general election. That’s not a huge drop-off and reflects voter interest in the outcome of a race that has been the subject of intense mobilization campaigns by both candidates in the past month.

When looking at the 10 counties with the highest proportional attrition from November to December – that is, counties where runoff turnout was only 83% to 88.1% of general election turnout – one thing stands out: They were all in metro and exurban Atlanta or north Georgia, the counties close to Tennessee and the South Carolina state line near I-85.

While some of these counties are Republican strongholds, many of them are increasingly diverse racially. Some of these counties are also rich with the college-educated white voters whom both parties covet.

Warnock earned a higher percentage of the vote in the runoff compared with November in each of these “high-attrition” counties. Walker, however, lost vote share in three of these counties.

Furthermore, in the seven high-attrition counties where both Warnock and Walker got a larger percentage of the vote than they did in November, Warnock garnered more vote share in all but the three most sparsely populated counties.

This suggests that Warnock may have won the majority of the eliminated Libertarian candidate’s votes that were up for grabs in the runoff.

There was also a nontrivial number of new runoff voters – people who voted in the runoff but not in November. We know that almost 78,000 of these new voters participated in early voting, and that this group was disproportionately voters of color – people who tend to vote Democratic.

Warnock overperformed in the most densely populated counties, too. My analysis shows that in the 10 counties that cast the most ballots in this election cycle, Warnock improved his vote share in the runoff by a range of 1 to 3.2 percentage points in each county. Walker, meanwhile, lost vote share in six of the 10 counties.

There was only one county of the top 10 – Hall County – where Walker’s increase in vote share outpaced Warnock’s increase. With the exception of Chatham County, home of Savannah, all of the vote-rich counties where Warnock gained and Walker tended to lose vote share are in metro or exurban Atlanta.

Deficiencies as a candidate

This raises the necessary but uncomfortable conversation about candidate quality. Pundits and observers had long been concerned that Walker’s deficiencies as a candidate would be a particular turnoff to suburban Republican voters, and that they might register their opposition by not voting at all. That more attrition took place in and around Atlanta suggests that there were grounds for that concern.

Walker was particularly compromised as a candidate. By standard political science measures of candidate quality – such as whether a candidate has relevant prior experience – Walker was a low-quality candidate.

His unintelligible policy pronouncements and bizarre non sequiturs about bulls and werewolves only reinforced the impression among some voters that he was not capable of handling the job of U.S. senator.

And when you compound those problems with the explosive allegations about domestic violence and pressuring girlfriends to get abortions, it looks like a small but significant sliver of likely Republican voters decided to prioritize their concerns about candidate quality over naked partisanship.

Meanwhile, Warnock has nearly two years of Senate experience and was able to draw on a modicum of incumbency advantage to help him in the contest. This was certainly reflected in his prodigious fundraising over the course of this cycle.

Yet Warnock was one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in this midterm election cycle for a reason. Georgia Democrats may be increasing in number and voting power, but other recent elections suggest there are still more Republican than Democratic voters in the state. Other GOP nominees in the state, such as Gov. Brian Kemp, were able to coast on that numerical advantage and Joe Biden’s net negative favorability to win decisive victories in November – without runoffs.

That Walker struggled was a signal of his weaknesses as a candidate. But many of his weaknesses and his lack of experience were known going into the primaries. That should have been enough for Republican leaders to challenge Donald Trump’s insistence that Walker was the best candidate to run against Warnock.

In the future, the Republican Party might think twice about selecting a candidate based on a party leader’s whim and not experience, substance or a demonstration of electability. If there is one lesson we can take from the 2022 Georgia Senate election, it is that candidate quality matters.

Andra Gillespie, Associate Professor, Political Science, Emory University

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

For a certain class of toad venom–smoking purists, synthetic toad venom just won’t cut it

In an unusual turn for an unassuming species, a desert amphibian is at the center of both a potential ecological crisis and an evolving question of drug policy. The creature in question is the Colorado River toad, Incilius alvarius, which lives throughout the American Southwest, and evolved a unique way to deter predators: synthesizing a potent psychedelic venom whose psychoactive ingredient is known as 5-MeO-DMT.

While a coyote or hawk might freak out from ingesting this toxin, allowing the toad to escape, more and more humans are seeking out the powerful drug the toad secretes. 5-MeO-DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) is a psychedelic substance that has been used for centuries in traditional shamanic practices, particularly in the Amazon Basin, where it is found naturally in numerous plants.

In the Sonoran desert, which straddles Arizona and northern Mexico, Colorado River toads (also known by the outdated taxonomic name Bufo alvarius) are the only animal known to science to naturally produce 5-MeO-DMT. Despite the name, it is very different from the drug DMT (dimethyltryptamine), although both substances yield a high that lasts about the same length of time, approximately 20-30 minutes. But while DMT is characterized by bright hallucinations in which encounters with otherworldly beings are a regular occurrence, 5-MeO-DMT drug experiences are often likened to entering a “void” that completely dissolves the self or ego.

Accordingly, the drug has gained a huge number of advocates who champion its therapeutic uses. 

“5-MeO-DMT helps people by allowing them more direct access to their inner workings than any other method or means or substance that I’ve ever seen,” Joël Brierre, the president of Tandava Retreats, told Salon. At Tandava’s center in Tepoztlán, Mexico, Brierre regularly hosts sessions in which participants take 5-MeO-DMT, usually by vaporizing and inhaling the drug.

“It’s almost like throwing a hand grenade into the lake of the subconscious. And it allows everything to come to the surface,” Brierre added. 

Like other psychedelics, including psilocybin and LSD, research into 5-MeO-DMT suggests that it can alleviate symptoms of depression, anxiety, PTSD and addiction. And it usually only takes one experience to enjoy these benefits. Joe Rogan, Mike Tyson and numerous other celebrities have openly expressed how the drug has helped them. Enticed by this promise, treatment centers are popping up across the globe, especially in Mexico, where the drug is not illegal. In the United States, 5-MeO-DMT carries steep legal penalties after it was banned in 2009.

“As we say with most things you come across in a national park, whether it be a banana slug, unfamiliar mushroom, or a large toad with glowing eyes in the dead of night, please refrain from licking. Thank you.” 

But legality isn’t stopping anyone from trying this psychedelic. Yet ethical issues and supply problems are. That’s because most sources of 5-MeO-DMT come from the Colorado River toads, which are increasingly facing stresses that could make their existence more challenging. The toads’ venom must be manually extracted by human hands that the toad perceives of as a threat, enough to emit the venom — an invasive process reminiscent of the extraction of snake venom for use in antivenins

The popularity of the drug has created a cottage industry of hobbyists and psychonauts who venture into the desert in search of these toads. Indeed, the problem of toad poaching has become so severe that in late October, the U.S. National Park Service issued a social media warning to the public telling them to stop “licking” the toads.

“As we say with most things you come across in a national park, whether it be a banana slug, unfamiliar mushroom, or a large toad with glowing eyes in the dead of night, please refrain from licking. Thank you,” the agency wrote.

The toad-poaching situation is a little strange for a few reasons, not least of which is that the toads are not active during October. They only emerge during the summer monsoon rains. And no one is actually licking these amphibians to get high — that wouldn’t really work. Instead, people are “milking” the toads, which involves squeezing their glands until a white, pus-like venom squirts out. This is dried into a crystalized powder, then smoked or vaporized, giving users an intense rush.

If not extracted correctly, the toads can be left defenseless against predators. If too many toads are kept together in a terrarium for periodic milking, their close proximity can also spread fungal diseases. Ecologists have warned that this could have devastating impacts on toad populations. This is why more and more people who tout the benefits of 5-MeO-DMT are insisting that its users use synthetic or plant-derived versions of the psychedelic that don’t involve milking an animal.

To that end, Brierre and others started an educational organization called F.I.V.E, which aims to better educate the public about 5-MeO-DMT. One of F.I.V.E’s tenets is that synthetic 5-MeO-DMT is the “ethical solution” to extracting toad venom. In fact, F.I.V.E. recently announced a research collaboration effort with the University College London to study synthetic 5-MeO-DMT in 32 participants.


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


Yet toad venom “purists,” as they might be called, don’t believe the synthetic stuff is as good as the “real” thing. Evidently, toad venom contains other molecules besides 5-MeO-DMT, including a drug called bufotenine (5-HO-DMT), which also has some psychoactive effects, but are far less intense. The theory is that natural toad venom yields a so-called “entourage effect,” a phenomenon where different chemical compounds within a substance work together to produce a specific effect. In short, the purists say 5-MeO-DMT on its own may just not be as good. Even if they are right, questions abound as to whether it is worth putting the health of a species at risk for this drug.

Dr. Alan Davis, a clinical psychologist and the director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education in the College of Social Work at Ohio State University, says this difference between “natural” and synthetic 5-MeO-DMT is likely minimal.

“We don’t really have enough evidence to know one way or the other,” Davis told Salon. “In the absence of a clear benefit to consuming the natural substance, and there’s a negative impact on a species like Bufo alvarius toad population, then to me the equation equals leave the toads alone. Don’t harm a creature just because you have a desire to consume a natural substance when there is no other evidence that suggests that there’s actually something superior about doing it that way.”

“Yes, there might be some differences between synthetic and toad,” Davis added. “But either one is going to bring you into this level of intense psychedelic experience, so it kind of doesn’t matter.”

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, an international organization that assesses the level of extinction threats to animals, lists the toad as “least concern,” based on a 2019 assessment, but some argue that the threats against toads are still rising.

Psychonauts that are going out and catching toads are a relatively mild threat compared to urbanization, pesticides and street lights, which attract bugs and thus amphibians, which are then easy prey for predators or simply become roadkill. Davis describes these compound threats as a “concomitant trajectory of devastation.”

“So many people are like, ‘oh, you have to do Bufo because synthetic is poison.’ And then people are like, ‘oh no, you have to do synthetic because if you do Bufo, it’s killing 50 toads,'”

But as interest in 5-MeO-DMT grows, underground commercial markets are emerging, with clandestine toad milking farms springing up, some of them with connections to drug cartels.

“Especially the ones that are cartel connected, they’re known for over-milking,” Brierre explained, noting that this not only leaves the toads defenseless but extremely stressed. “You can always tell because there’ll be bits of blood and pus in the in the samples.”

Nonetheless, Brierre said that there are still purportedly “ethical” ways of extracting toad venom, such as wearing gloves and milking the toads infrequently. Still, he gently tries to encourage interested parties to use synthetic versions, which aren’t difficult for underground chemists to cook up.

“So many people are like, ‘oh, you have to do Bufo because synthetic is poison.’ And then people are like, ‘oh no, you have to do synthetic because if you do Bufo, it’s killing 50 toads,'” Brierre said. “And it’s like, there’s room for gray areas everywhere. There’s room for sensibility and balance. Everyone loves to get very up in arms about their beliefs. And when it comes to something that has liberated people emotionally or spiritually, we generally over-identify with that which we’ve experienced to liberate us.”

One of the main benefits of synthetic 5-MeO-DMT is more consistent quality than toad-derived 5-MeO-DMT. Because it is produced in a controlled laboratory environment, the purity and potency of synthetic 5-MeO-DMT can be more accurately measured and controlled. Otherwise, the effects of 5-MeO-DMT can be highly variable depending on the individual and the specific batch of the substance.

If 5-MeO-DMT is ever approved clinically, it is likely that its preferred route of administration will not be smoking. An intramuscular syringe is one option Davis said his team is exploring, while a psychedelic startup called Biomind Labs is developing a thermosensitive nasal gel that can deliver the drug. Clearly, there are therapeutic benefits to 5-MeO-DMT, and it is being touted as an alternative treatment in an era in which a global mental health crisis permeates almost everything. But a “vegan” process that doesn’t involve extracting a drug from an animal may be the preferred method for people who care about toad welfare and conservation.

“Frankly, even if we did have a study that showed that toad was somehow better, it still is an ethical issue,” Davis said. “And I don’t know that like we should harm a species in order to have maybe a slightly better product, when we can still have a good product that still does a lot of the same things, and we don’t have to have the ethical, karmic baggage of decimating a species.”

“We have to stop”: Knives out in GOP after Trump’s attacks on mail voting cost them election

After a poor performance in the midterm elections, Republicans are backtracking on their stance against early voting and mail-in ballots despite supporting previous conspiracy theories pushed by former President Donald Trump.

But restoring voters’ faith in mail-in voting may take years, if the GOP effort is effective at all. Trump and his allies have repeatedly echoed falsehoods about voter fraud and stoked fears around absentee ballots. 

The former president has promoted the widely discredited film “2000 Mules”, which alleged widespread voter fraud in the last presidential election. 

“Republican states are rightly taking steps to ensure elections are safe and secure,” a Republican strategist who worked on the Georgia midterm election told Politico. “Our problem now is a messaging and operational one. We start by throwing out the Trump B.S. lies and telling people the truth about their votes and the power of their vote. Who would have imagined telling people, ‘the election is rigged’ and then asking them to vote wouldn’t work?”

Now, some Republicans are hoping to undo his mess and tout a different message around mail-in voting to restore voters’ trust. 

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., won early voters by about 16 percentage points, entering Election Day with a 300,000 vote lead, CBS News reported. He also earned 64% of the absentee mail vote and almost 58 percent of the early vote, according to the secretary of state’s office.

“Our voters need to vote early,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said on Fox News. “There were many in 2020 saying, ‘don’t vote by mail, don’t vote early’, and we have to stop that, and understand that if Democrats are getting ballots in for a month, we can’t expect to get it all done in one day.”

Republicans had predicted a “red wave” for months before the midterms. But once it failed to materialize, several allies of Trump turned against him and blamed him for candidates underperforming. 

Trump as recently as last week disparaged early voting and voting by mail, posting on Truth Social: “you can never have fair & free elections with mail-in ballots–never, never, never. Won’t and can’t happen!!!”

Herschel Walker’s failure in the pivotal Georgia Senate race came as the last blow, finally convincing Republican operatives and lawmakers to issue a wake-up call to their party persuading them to take early voting seriously.


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


“[P]eople are awakening to it, even the Trumpistas,” GOP strategist Karl Rove, who runs RITE, told Politico. “It’s a sad commentary that we have to do that and there is resistance. He’s creating a class of people who may for a long time believe the elections are stolen as long as there’s a presence of mail-in ballots, and that causes people to say my vote doesn’t count, I don’t need to bother to vote.”

Even Fox News hosts, who have repeatedly echoed Trump’s claims about mail-in and early voting, are shifting their stance. 

When the Georgia runoff elections showed Walker was likely going to lose, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., about the “reluctance some Republicans” have “about voting early and voting by mail,” adding it was “too big of a margin for Republicans to always have to make up”. McCarthy agreed: “You’re exactly right.”

Fellow Fox host Laura Ingraham grew frustrated while interviewing Kellyanne Conway, former counselor to Trump, who said if Republicans don’t “bank ballots early, we’re going to keep losing.”

“How come we didn’t?” Ingraham asked. “We didn’t do it in 2020, because everyone said, ‘Don’t vote early, because that’s corrupt.'” She went on to say that “a lot of people at the top of the Republican Party” echoed this sentiment, which ultimately impacted Republican candidates.

While Trump has been under fire for casting doubt on mail-in voting, others are also blaming him for making poor choices when it came to candidates. 

“Every Republican in this country ought to hold Donald Trump accountable for this,” Geoff Duncan, Georgia’s Republican lieutenant governor, said in an interview with CNN. “The only way to explain this is candidate quality.”

Regardless of the reasons, several of Trump’s allies are abandoning him and his conspiracy theories. Republican operative Scott Jennings warned on Twitter that “Georgia may be remembered as the state that broke Trump once and for all.”

Corruption case against key Mexican official fell apart under Trump — and it was Bill Barr’s call

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

 

On Oct. 15, 2020, federal prosecutors took the remarkable step of arresting former Mexican Defense Minister Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda on charges that he conspired to protect drug traffickers. Even in retirement, Cienfuegos was the most important Mexican official ever charged in a U.S. court. A month later, however, the Justice Department took the even more extraordinary step of dropping the charges.

The U.S. attorney general, William P. Barr, said his chief goal in sending Cienfuegos home was to preserve Mexico’s collaboration with the United States in fighting the drug trade. But the general’s arrest and its aftermath had the opposite effect — all but shutting down counterdrug cooperation between the two countries. Less than two months after his return, Mexican prosecutors exonerated Cienfuegos after a cursory investigation, underscoring the impunity with which the military has operated in the drug fight. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador then began attacking the Drug Enforcement Administration for “fabricating” its charges against Cienfuegos.

Last year, Mexico abandoned the Mérida Initiative, the 2007 landmark agreement by which the United States provided Mexico with more than $3.5 billion in aid and training to fight organized crime. The new pact that replaced Mérida is very much on López Obrador’s terms. Joint operations against big traffickers have been almost an afterthought. Meanwhile, fentanyl from Mexico is fueling the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history.

U.S. investigators believed that with Cienfuegos’ arrest they had finally confronted the high-level corruption that has long sustained organized crime in Mexico. Instead, they now say, the episode is likely to define the limits of U.S. security policy in Mexico for years to come.

The Cienfuegos case emerged from a routine DEA investigation in Las Vegas and a code word: “godfather.”

The agent who drove the investigation was a Las Vegas police detective named Timothy Beck. He spoke almost no Spanish and had never worked in Mexico. But he and other agents built a powerful case against the leaders of a violent drug gang, called “the H’s,” who were based in the small Pacific Coast state of Nayarit.

Using court-authorized wiretaps in the United States, the Las Vegas task force collected years of the gang’s communications. The U.S. agents followed its leader, Juan Francisco Patrón Sánchez, known as H-2, as he worked closely with corrupt officials in Nayarit. The agents watched as H-2 and his lieutenants then sought protection from higher-level officials in Mexico City — one of whom they called their “godfather.” The agents later concluded that the official was Cienfuegos.

(Cienfuegos could not be reached for comment, but in a statement, his lawyer said: “General Cienfuegos never should have been charged. And no dismissed indictment or newspaper story will ever change that. The fact is, General Cienfuegos remains as American jurisprudence presumes him: innocent.”)

A key source in the investigation set off a firestorm within the U.S. government.

In early 2017, H-2 and his lieutenant were killed along with a dozen of their gunmen by a special-operations team of Mexican marines. That unit, led by Adm. Marco Antonio Ortega Siu, had worked closely with the DEA and other U.S. agencies for years. But U.S. officials had no warning that the marine team was going after the H’s.

(Ortega Siu, who is now retired, could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for the Mexican navy declined to answer questions about the marines’ actions in Nayarit, saying that such operations needed to remain confidential for reasons of national security.)

Not long after the H’s were killed, Nayarit’s acting attorney general, Edgar Veytia, was arrested crossing into the United States. He told investigators a shocking story about what he said really happened in the marines’ raid.

Senior Justice Department officials turned confidentially to the Mexican attorney general’s office to investigate the matter. However U.S. officials said the Mexicans appeared to do nothing. The DEA aggressively sought to discredit Veytia, whom they saw as jeopardizing their most important partners in Mexico. However, Justice Department officials said that many of his claims appeared to be true.

The Cienfuegos indictment was part of a broader U.S. effort to take on high-level drug corruption in Mexico.

Behind the general’s indictment in the Eastern District of New York was a new, joint push by DEA agents and prosecutors to take on the high-level corruption that U.S. officials believe has long sustained Mexico’s drug trade. The prosecutors were reacting in large part to embarrassing testimony in the 2018 trial of Mexican drug boss Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as El Chapo, from witnesses who said he paid huge bribes to top Mexican officials with whom the United States had worked closely.

For their part, DEA officials in Mexico were frustrated with constraints imposed on them by the new López Obrador government. After connecting with the Eastern District prosecutors, a team of experienced agents began to dig into the evidence they had on government figures who had protected drug gangs. The effort, which has not been previously reported, eventually identified more than 20 targets for prosecution among current and former Mexican officials.

Returning Cienfuegos to Mexico was William Barr’s call.

After Cienfuegos’ arrest, Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, complained angrily to U.S. officials that they had betrayed Mexico’s trust. Ebrard warned that counterdrug cooperation and even the DEA’s presence in Mexico could be at stake. According to several officials, Barr decided on his own to drop the most significant Mexican corruption case that U.S. prosecutors had ever brought.

The attorney general later said he hadn’t been properly informed about Cienfuegos’ arrest, but current and former Justice Department officials disputed that assertion. They said Barr was briefed at least three times before the general’s arrest. Barr did have doubts about the strength of the evidence against Cienfuegos, department officials said. But he gave the Eastern District prosecutors little opportunity to defend their case, which officials said included some new witnesses who could testify about the gang’s relationship with Cienfuegos and other traffickers who said they met with the general directly. (Through a spokesman, Barr declined to comment on his involvement in the Cienfuegos case.)

Barr did not consult President Donald Trump or senior staff from other national security agencies about his decision, officials said. Nor did he set any conditions for the general’s return, U.S. and Mexican officials said. Instead, Barr emphasized Washington’s interest in a fugitive Mexican drug trafficker, Rafael Caro Quintero, who had been convicted of murdering a DEA agent in 1985. Caro Quintero was arrested earlier this year. Barr also asked the Mexican government to protect confidential evidence that U.S. officials shared in the Cienfuegos case. Instead, López Obrador released the information publicly and later dismissed it as “garbage.”

Ex-White House chef Sam Kass says coffee, wine and more will be “largely unavailable” in 30 years

It’s no surprise that the ongoing climate crisis continues to threaten the production of our foods. But according to former White House chef Sam Kass, those foods in question may actually be gone sooner than we anticipated. 

Kass, who served as the head chef under the Obama administration and as an executive director for Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Campaign, recently told People that many beloved food products — including coffee, wine, rice and chocolate — are at risk of becoming scarce.

“A number of foods that we hold very dear to our hearts and largely take for granted are under a real threat,” Kass said. “And you’re seeing in the future, we’re on track for a lot of those to become quite scarce and some really to be largely unavailable to most people and others just significantly increased in cost.”

He continued, “Food and agriculture is the number two driver of greenhouse gas emissions globally and uses about 70% of the world’s waters. It’s the number one driver of deforestation, land use change. It’s really at the center of a lot of these environmental issues.”

As for combatting these issues, Kass added that the food and agriculture industry is “the only real opportunity that we have to sequester enough carbon on the scale that science is telling us, within the time horizon that the science is saying we have, and that’s really unique to food and agriculture.”


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


Kass also expressed his points last week at the “$500 Dinner” in New York City. The event, which was sponsored by the German food and beverage brand Knorr, spotlighted Kass’ dinner menu consisting of at-risk foods and his $72 meal, which is forecasted to cost an astounding $566 per person to make in 30 years.

“I think the future needs to be that it’s just the normal that foods are grown in a regenerative way. It needs to become the new conventional,” Kass said. “Conventional just means this is just how we’re doing it. And going forward, my hope is…that in 20, 30, 40 years, what we say is conventional will be regenerative.”

Elon Musk’s brain chip company has killed so many animals that the USDA is investigating them

Elon Musk can’t stay out of the headlines. The Silicon Valley tycoon, already under fire for making a series of unpopular changes at Twitter after purchasing the company for a deal in which he admits he overpaid, is embroiled in a new controversy over Neuralink — a smaller company he founded with the express intent to develop implantable brain chips that can interact with computers. In the process of testing brain implants on animals, Neuralink has allegedly killed almost all of them. Now, Musk’s medical device company is being investigated by the federal government for possible animal-welfare violations.

Musk’s company is accused of violating the Animal Welfare Act.

Specifically, Musk’s company is accused of violating the Animal Welfare Act, and is reportedly facing investigation from the United States Department of Agriculture. If an investigation occurs and Neuralink is found to have committed crimes, it would be a significant financial and logistical setback for the company that Musk founded in 2016.

According to the Reuters report that broke the story, Neuralink employees have complained about the company’s supposedly irresponsible approach to animal testing. Neuralink promises to manufacture chips that can be surgically implanted into a person’s brain, with its initial application being to assist individuals with disabilities. Apparently they have struggled to develop this kind of technology in an effective way, and the reported allegations against Neuralink involve the company rushing through animal testing in a way that causes unnecessary suffering and death.

Present and past Neuralink employees claim that Musk demands his employees take on unusually heavy workloads and rush through their research.

Reuters reports that the company has killed roughly 1,500 animals since 2018. Present and past Neuralink employees claim that Musk demands his employees take on unusually heavy workloads and rush through their research, causing needlessly high rates of animal deaths and injuries. Within the last several years, Neuralink has had four experiments that were marred by human errors which compromised the results of the research. Because those initial experiments involved killing 86 pigs and two monkeys, those animal deaths proved to have been in vain, and other animals needed to be killed to complete the research. Because the rushed experiments no longer had enough research value to stand on their own, they needed to be repeated, with more animals dying in the process.

It is also questionable whether these methods even yielded results; Musk is still unable to get FDA approval for human trials of his technology while competitor Synchron, which has only killed 80 sheep for its experiments, was granted human trial approval last year. Despite its many setbacks, Neuralink recently announced that it expected to be granted approval for human testing within 6 months.


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


“Obviously, we want to be extremely careful and certain that it will work well before putting a device in a human, but we have submitted, I think, most of our paperwork to the FDA,” Musk said at a Neuralink “show and tell” event on Wednesday. He promised to have coin-sized implants that can go into a human brain within six months, and showed a video of a monkey seeming to telepathically type with his Neuralink technology. In response to accusations from the animal rights group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine that the company had botched surgeries in a way that killed monkeys, Musk responded that “before we would even think of putting a device in an animal, we do everything possible we with rigorous benchtop testing, We’re not cavalier about putting these devices into animals. We’re extremely careful and we always want the device, whenever we do the implant — whether into a sheep, pig or monkey — to be confirmatory, not exploratory.”

The Neuralink investigation seems in line with Musk’s behavior as a businessman. Musk has reportedly used psychologically abusive tactics on employees, such as asking them to imagine that they were working with bombs strapped to their heads or hinting that he may be shutting down production unless they move at a faster piece. Musk is also notoriously hostile to unions and workers’ rights, engaging in union-busting behavior and refusing to protect his workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (even making a number of scientific misstatements about the pandemic to justify doing so.) These reports are consistent with other accounts of Musk’s notoriously volatile leadership style.

Amy Lowenthal, Assistant Counsel to the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told Salon by email that “USDA OIG neither confirms nor denies the existence of any such investigation. We have no comment.”

Salon reached out to Neuralink for comment and has not received a reply at the time of this writing.

GOP lawyer made big “mistake” in Supreme Court hearing on elections that could backfire: attorney

On Wednesday, following oral arguments in the massive Moore v. Harper Supreme Court case that could dramatically change how U.S. elections are conducted, voting rights attorney Marc Elias analyzed a crucial “mistake” made by the Republican-aligned lawyer on his “Democracy Docket” media platform that might cost them the case.

The case, centering on the decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down a gerrymandered congressional map, seeks to have the Supreme Court adopt “independent state legislature theory” — a radical proposal that state legislatures have unreviewable power to set election law and cannot be overruled by state courts, even when they violate state constitutions. But, wrote Elias, the Republican-aligned counsel went too far, and failed to read the room in the face of skepticism from even conservative justices.

“One of the big questions I had before this argument was how broadly the Moore lawyer would argue the case. And he went very broad, arguing from the start that ‘there can’t be a limit on the [state legislature’s] power’ to regulate congressional elections ‘because it’s a federal function.’ In practice, that would mean that state courts could not strike down state laws pertaining to federal elections for violating their state constitutions,” wrote Elias. “In retrospect, this decision by the Moore lawyer to take an absolutist position against state court review may well prove to be a mistake.”

“From the outset, Chief Justice John Roberts — himself a potential swing vote — questioned how the Moore lawyer’s position could be squared with the Court’s prior case law allowing state courts to review election laws. Roberts also pointed to the 1932 U.S. Supreme Court case, Smiley v. Holm, which held that governors may veto legislative enactments and was referenced many times throughout oral argument,” wrote Elias. “Significantly, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett expressed similar skepticism. Even Justice Clarence Thomas, usually a stalwart conservative, asked tough questions of Moore‘s lawyer. Indeed, one of the most striking takeaways from the argument was how little even the most conservative justices came to the Moore lawyer’s defense.” Even Justice Samuel Alito had doubts, argued Elias, with only Justice Neil Gorsuch appearing to embrace the Moore lawyer completely.

It is likely then, wrote Elias, that if the court adopts independent state legislature theory at all, it will be a highly narrow version — and one brokered with lawyers from the other side.

“If the Court’s ultimate opinion follows the trajectory of the argument, I would expect future voting cases to face additional steps in the legal process but little more,” concluded Elias. “State court election law decisions would be subject to an additional question: Did the opinion fairly reflect state law and the state constitution? While this would create new vehicles to attack pro-democracy court decisions, in practice it would more likely lead to longer, more carefully written state court decisions rather than change the outcome of many cases.”

Jan. 6 as white supremacy: New research on the toxic spread of “great replacement” theory

As we move closer to the two-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol assault, and as the House select committee investigating that event moves toward completing its work, it is worth reflecting on the gravity of Jan. 6 for the future of American democracy. National discourse on the insurrection is notable for omitting a sustained discussion of white supremacy as a primary motive for many Americans who are sympathetic to the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Academics are generally reluctant to describe one of the two major U.S. political parties as being motivated by white supremacy, expressed in the Republican effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

A search of Google Scholar reveals that there has not been a single academic study of the American public at large exploring the proposition that many people, like the Jan. 6 participants themselves, may be embracing the insurrection due to white supremacist concerns. A Nexis Uni review of the nation’s “paper of record” – The New York Times – finds not a single story referencing “white supremacy,” “white nationalism” or “white nationalist” politics and Jan. 6 in relation to mass opinion in the last two years. 

As I document in my book, “Rising Fascism in America: It Can Happen Here,” there is little question that white supremacist politics were a significant factor in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Neofascist, white supremacist and other extremist groups like NSC-131, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, the Groyper Army, QAnon and various neo-Confederates played a visible role in the Capitol attack. The neofascist right is also driven by white supremacist politics in their efforts to mainstream “great replacement theory,” which warns that the U.S. has undertaken a “white genocide” through liberal immigration laws aimed at the eventual replacement or elimination of the country’s white majority.

The Republican Party became increasingly radicalized under Donald Trump. Whether it was his attacks on Muslims and Mexicans or Latin American immigrants, his reference to white supremacists in Charlottesville as “very fine people,” his opposition to the removal of Confederate monuments, his attack on NASCAR for banning the Confederate flag, his not-so-subtle embrace of eugenics, his courting of the Proud Boys, his embrace of QAnon (a conspiracy theory that incorporates antisemitic blood libel propaganda), his support for white supremacists and neofascists on Jan. 6, or his hosting of overt antisemites like Kanye West and Nick Fuentes, Trump routinely normalized white supremacist politics. The fact that academics and journalists have refused to connect the dots by asking how deeply Trump’s white supremacy connects with a larger public in relation to J6 is a stark sign of the denialist impulse in American political culture. We live in a country that has long embraced an American exceptionalist notion that the country is moving beyond or has transcended race, or at the very least that Americans by and large do not indulge in racial hatreds.

But there’s ample reason to suspect that the white supremacy embraced on Jan. 6 resonates with much of the mass public, particularly on the reactionary right. A 2018 University of Virginia poll found that 31 percent of Americans agreed that “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.” A 2019 Associated Press poll found that 22 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans felt that “a culture established by the country’s early European immigrants” is “important” “to the United States identity as a nation.” These sorts of questions serve as proxies for the mainstreaming of white supremacist views, even as the vast majority of Americans do not actively identify with “white nationalism” when asked by pollsters.


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


I wanted to get to the bottom of the white supremacy question as it relates to the mass public and Jan. 6. Working with students in my course at Lehigh University, “The Politics of Rightwing Extremism,” we designed a number of survey questions that were implemented through the Harris polling group. Contacting a nationally representative sample of 2,029 Americans from Oct. 20 to 25 of this year, we were able to gauge mass opinion on attitudes that are relevant to white supremacy and Jan. 6. Americans were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the following assertions.

  • As a proxy for white supremacy: “It is important to protect the culture established by America’s early European immigrants from those who might try and diminish it.”
  • In relation to the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, “Those who occupied the U.S. capitol on January 6th had legitimate concerns about election fraud and about their democracy being stolen from them.”

Neither question is a direct measure of support for extremism. It’s entirely possible that many Americans who support preserving European cultural history also support preserving the historical contributions to American culture from other ethnic groups. Furthermore, there are likely many Americans who fall into “Big Lie” propaganda about imagined voter fraud in 2020 and who are sympathetic to the insurrectionists, but who do not support the violence they committed on Jan. 6. 

Our results are deeply concerning: 66 percent of poll respondents potentially fall within the orbit of white supremacy, and 49 percent agree that Jan. 6 insurrectionists had legitimate grievances.

The above questions are better understood as measuring those who potentially fall into the orbit of defending white supremacy and Jan. 6. Not every person who answers “agree” to these questions will be a white supremacist or an insurrection supporter. But it’s likely that most or all white supremacists will agree with positions advocating the preservation of European culture and expressing sympathy for Jan. 6 rioters and their embrace of white supremacy. 

The results from our survey questions are deeply concerning regarding the charge that white supremacist and insurrectionist politics have been mainstreamed in America via rising acceptance of “great replacement” theory. Sixty-six percent of the Harris poll’s respondents potentially fall within the orbit of white supremacy by agreeing “somewhat” or “strongly” that the U.S. must “protect” the “culture established by America’s early European immigrants” from being assaulted. Forty-nine percent of survey respondents agreed that the Jan. 6 insurrectionists had legitimate grievances about voter fraud and “their democracy being stolen from them.” These results should not be surprising in a nation with a long history of embracing white supremacy, and in which modern leaders like Trump re-mainstream these values.

Our question about protecting American culture “from those who might try to diminish it” represents an important phrasing. It implicitly speaks to an underlying fear on the right that “real” white Americans are being “replaced” by people of color — particularly immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, Africa and Latin America. A connection between susceptibility to white supremacy and susceptibility to support for Jan. 6 would go a long way toward establishing that many Americans are thinking about insurrection politics through the lens of mainstreamed white supremacy and Great Replacement Theory. This is precisely what we found with the Harris survey. Those potentially falling within the orbit of white supremacy were much more likely to think the Jan. 6 insurrectionists had legitimate grievances (62 percent agreed), compared to those who did not demonstrate susceptibility to white supremacist politics (24 percent). This is a large difference of 38 percentage points. 

Utilizing a scientific tool called regression analysis, I measured whether the relationship susceptibility to white supremacy and sympathy with Jan. 6 is statistically significant, after controlling for other factors, including respondents’ gender, age, income, race, education, political partisanship (Democrat vs. Republican), ideology (liberal vs. conservative), geographic location and other measures of economic status, including homeownership and employment status. Including such economic variables in this analysis is important, since commentary and analysis after Jan. 6 was quick to associate insurrectionist politics with feelings of economic insecurity and desperation among the Jan. 6 participants, although academic research also pushed back against this narrative. 

My analysis finds that sympathy for the Jan. 6 insurrection has little to do with economic insecurity. Poorer rural Americans, poorer whites and poorer rural whites are not significantly more likely to sympathize with the Capitol rioters. 

Controlling for all the above factors, my statistical analysis finds that mass sympathy for the Jan. 6 insurrectionists has little to do with economics or insecurity. Lower levels of education, lower incomes, not owning a home and being unemployed are not significantly associated with sympathy toward the Jan. 6 attack. Neither are race, gender or geographic location (for rural Americans). A closer look at intersecting factors also demonstrates that sympathy for Jan. 6 doesn’t appear to be a function of economic insecurity among disadvantaged whites. My analysis shows that poorer rural Americans (making less than $50,000 a year), poorer whites and poorer rural whites are not significantly more likely to sympathize with the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. 

Certain groups of people, however, are significantly more likely to sympathize with Jan. 6. This includes younger Americans, conservatives, Republicans and those who are susceptible to white supremacy via their support for protecting “a culture established by America’s early European immigrants from those who might try to diminish it.” Looking at ideological factors, my statistical analysis reveals that, controlling for all the other factors in this study, being a Republican (as opposed to a Democrat) is associated with an 11 percent increased likelihood of sympathizing with the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, while being a conservative (as opposed to being liberal) is associated with a 14 percent increased probability. The white supremacy question is the most powerful and significant factor in my analysis, with those who are susceptible to white supremacy being 26 percent more likely to identify with the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. 

The simplest explanation for the above findings is that white supremacist attitudes have been mainstreamed in relation to Trump’s effort to implement a coup on Jan. 6, 2021. A plausible interpretation of Jan. 6 is that the insurrection was seen by millions of (mainly) right-wing Americans as a last-ditch effort by the most militant wing of Trump’s base to impose him for a second term, and that people who are sympathetic to that insurrection share the assumption that white America and its “culture” are under threat as the country slowly shifts toward becoming a white-minority nation.

These findings are damning not only because of what they say about the persistence of racism in America, but because they have been so consistently suppressed in an academic and media culture where discussions of white supremacy are almost completely divorced from discussions of public opinion regarding Jan. 6. The second anniversary of the insurrection offers an important opportunity to address this deficiency by acknowledging how far the “great replacement” theory and white supremacy have been mainstreamed in Trump’s America. Until we recognize what is really driving right-wing insurrectionist politics, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to confront it honestly.

New special counsel Jack Smith is not wasting any time issuing subpoenas in Trump investigation

Just a few weeks after his appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland as DOJ special counsel, Jack Smith is making major moves in his role. The former prosecutor and veteran investigator has subpoenaed local election officials in four states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania – all of which were targeted by Trump and his allies during the 2020 election.

Smith was originally hired to conduct the criminal investigation of classified documents Trump retained at his Mar-a-Lago resort and further investigate the January 6 insurrection. The special counsel is requesting “communications with or involving Donald Trump between June 1, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021, to, from, or involving” Trump, his campaign attorneys and aides including John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani.

In addition to Smith’s efforts, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has also been investigating whether Trump and his allies interfered with the 2020 election in Georgia.

So far, Smith has heard from three out of the four states.

George Christenson, a clerk in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said he received a subpoena earlier this week and is working with the county’s attorney to comply with the request as soon as possible. He also says he doesn’t “expect to find any smoking gun.”

Also in Wisconsin, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell received a subpoena and has mentioned he didn’t expect his response to the subpoena to uncover any new information, because he “doesn’t have any stories of Trump calling me at dinner like the other guys.” Trump ordered a recount of ballots cast in both Wisconsin counties.

Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, told Associated Press that Wayne County received a subpoena but didn’t confirm what Smith was asking. She responded, “We welcome and support the work of any law enforcement agency working to ensure full accountability for efforts to illegally overturn the fair and accurate results of Michigan’s 2020 election.”

Wayne County, which is predominantly Black, was accused of “duplicating ballots” by Trump and his allies, for which they filed a lawsuit that failed. However, his efforts did cause the poll workers to pause their count on election day.

Maricopa County, Arizona also received a subpoena. During the 2020 election, Trump and his aides asked Republicans on the county board of supervisors not to certify Biden’s win. It’s also reported that the chairman of the board dodged calls from the White House operator.

Pennsylvania’s second-largest county of Allegheny has not yet responded to the request.

“Management barely budged”: New York Times union workers walk out over pay

Over 1,000 New York Times workers are planning a full-day walkout and afternoon rally on Thursday, December 8 amid ongoing negotiations with newspaper management about pay and healthcare contributions.

Times Guild members, represented by the NewsGuild of New York, are pushing for a $65,000 salary floor and “funding employees’ health insurance sustainably.”

“There was good news and bad news after 12 hours of bargaining yesterday. Our collective action is working: Management backed off its attempt to kill our pension and agreed to expand fertility benefits,” the member-led Times Guild account tweeted Wednesday.

“But management still barely budged on some of our most important priorities. The company is stuck on paltry pay increases, eroding the minimum pay scales for new hires, and contributing less to our healthcare fund than they currently do,” the union added. “That’s why tomorrow’s walkout is, for now, still on.”

“The Times Guild represents journalists, as well as ad sales workers, comment moderators, news assistants, security guards, and staffers at the Times Center, the venue and virtual production studio,” according to a union statement. “All workers who signed the walkout pledge are anticipated to participate in the one-day work stoppage, with some major desks losing 90% of their workforce that day, and other departments being essentially empty of guild employees.”

Times sports reporter Jenny Vrentas said Tuesday that “we know that our readers are best served when our workplace is equitable and the people who make The New York Times are paid fairly.”

“We had hoped to reach a fair deal before our deadline,” Vrentas noted, “but more than 1,100 of us are ready to take a stand together, for each other and for journalists everywhere.”

Chief film critic A.O. Scott explained that “I’ve worked at the New York Times for almost 23 years—most of my adult life. It’s not just my job: the values and principles of the paper are part of who I am, and I know the same is true for many of my co-workers.”

“In hard times, we were willing to sacrifice to ensure the paper’s survival, and we push ourselves and one another every day to make sure the Times lives up to its highest ideals,” Scott continued. “That’s why it’s so dismaying to see our concerns and aspirations treated so dismissively by management, and our contributions disrespected. Stepping away from my work isn’t something I take lightly—I care about it too much for that. But I’d like to believe that the Times cares about it too, and about all the hard work that makes the daily miracle possible.”

NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava highlighted that it has been decades since employees at the U.S. “paper of record” have taken similar action.

“Guild members at The New York Times are determined to ensure that, through collective action, the company lives up to its mission when it comes to all the workers responsible for its meteoric success during the past several years,” said DeCarava. “The New York Times, which has not seen a work stoppage of this scale since the ’70s, is on notice. Our members understand the value of their labor, and it’s time for Times management to demonstrate the same.”

As Shawn McCreesh wrote for Intelligencer earlier this month:

There was a one-hour walkout over a lapsed contract in 2011, and another quick afternoon walkout in 2017 over copy editors being eliminated. But those were mostly shows of solidarity. What the employees are preparing to do next week would be something not seen at the paper of record since 1978. Picture it: a full day without The New York Times. No one covering the tumult in Guangzhou or inside Buckingham Palace or what our president is saying. From midnight to midnight, no reporting, no filing stories, no podcasting, no comment moderating, and definitely no responding to editors’ queries. There would be no live briefings. (You’d be shocked at how many people it takes to produce one of those things.) Even logging into Oak (that’s their CMS) will be seen as scabby. Reporters tell me they’re ready to picket outside the building, too. (“There will be plenty of photo ops,” muses one.) Sure, masthead myrmidons will have enough copy in the hopper to keep that homepage humming for a little while, and it’s not as though the app on your phone will suddenly go blank. But the walkout threat is a marked escalation from an ordinarily fissiparous newsroom. It’s the sort of stunt that precedes an actual sustained strike.

“Obviously the next step, if we can’t get anywhere at the negotiating table, is to consider things like a strike authorization vote,” says reporter Michael Powell, adding that “none of us want to step into the terra incognita if this isn’t seen as a significant warning shot.” Senior staff editor Tom Coffey has been at the Times since 1997 and says, “I think this is the worst I’ve seen it since the staff mutiny that led to Howell Raines being fired.”

Coffey is scheduled to speak Thursday at the 1:00 pm ET rally at the newspaper’s building in New York City, along with Vrentas and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, who both hold union positions.

Hundreds of New York Times Tech Guild members are also planning to join the public event—which comes amid a national resurgence of labor organizing.

“We’ve also experienced a pattern of bad faith tactics since we began bargaining,” the tech union tweeted Tuesday. “We’ve put in countless hours to draft good faith proposals and ensure transparency. Management has responded with the bare minimum and engaged in a pattern of disrespect towards our collective rights.”

“In addition to stalling bargaining, senior leaders have continued to downplay and neglect systemic issues at the [Times] like patterns of discrimination in discipline, pay, remote work, and other policies,” the group continued, adding that the newspaper’s “approach to bargaining is not only disrespectful, it’s illegal” and calling on leadership to “negotiate in good faith.”

In a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, the newspaper said that “while we are disappointed that the NewsGuild is threatening to strike, we are prepared to ensure the Times continues to serve our readers without disruption.”

“We remain committed to working with the NYT NewsGuild to reach a contract that we can all be proud of,” the newspaper continued. “Our current wage proposal offers significant increases. The majority of members of the bargaining unit would earn 50% or more in additional earnings over the life of the new contract than they would have if the old contract had continued. Moreover, our accompanying medical and retirement proposals offer sustainable, best-in-class options for guild members.”

Other journalists, unionized workers, and groups have expressed solidarity with the Times Guild members who plan to walk off the job at midnight—including the Alphabet Workers Union, which said that “we got your back, and won’t dare cross the picket line.”

New York transit reporter Ana Ley said Wednesday that the Times “has chosen to dock our pay for walking out—an act that will mostly hurt the employees that the company pays least. I find that unacceptable, and I hope you’ll join us for this Thursday’s rally.”

Times political reporter Maggie Astor tweeted that “we’re asking readers to stand with us on the digital picket line and not visit any NYT platforms tomorrow. Read local news. Make something from a cookbook. Break your Wordle streak.”

Update:

WNBA star Brittney Griner released from Russian custody in prisoner swap — but Paul Whelan excluded

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

 

U.S basketball star Brittney Griner, a Houston native, has been released from Russian custody in a prisoner exchange swap, President Joe Biden said Thursday morning.

“Moments ago I spoke to Brittney Griner. She is safe. She is on a plane. She is on her way home,” Biden said in a tweet announcing the release.

In a Thursday morning press conference, Biden said he had spoken with Griner on the phone and that she is “in good spirits.”

“She’s relieved to finally be heading home, and the fact remains that she’s lost months of her life, experienced needless trauma,” he said. “She endured mistreatment and a show trial in Russia with characteristic grit and incredible dignity.”

Griner was arrested in a Moscow airport in February after airport officials discovered vape canisters and cannabis oil in her luggage. She was sentenced to nine years in Russian prison for smuggling illegal drugs into that country. The White House called the legal proceedings a “sham.” Griner pleaded guilty to the charges in September and apologized for the incident, calling it an “honest mistake.”

Griner was a star on the Baylor University Lady Bears basketball team from 2009-13. She has played for the Phoenix Mercury since the 2013 draft, but also played basketball in China and Russia during the off-seasons.

Her release was negotiated in exchange for the release of Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, nicknamed “the Merchant of Death,” CBS News first reported Thursday morning.

Griner’s wife Cherelle appeared at the press conference alongside Biden to announce the release.

“Over the last nine months, y’all have been so privy to one of the darkest moments of my life,” she said. “Today I’m just standing here, overwhelmed with emotions. But the most important emotion that I have right now is just sincere gratitude for President Biden and his entire administration.”

Biden said he’d been engaged in “painstaking and intense negotiations” to release Griner from the beginning of her detainment.

Notably, the prisoner swap did not include retired U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who has been in Russian custody for nearly four years on espionage charges that U.S. officials also claim are false.

Biden said Thursday his administration has not “forgotten about Paul Whelan, who has been unjustly detained in Russia for years.”

“This was not a choice of which American to bring home,” he said “Sadly, for totally illegitimate reasons, Russia is treating Paul’s case differently than Brittney’s. And while we have not yet succeeded in securing Paul’s release, we are not giving up.”

In April, Biden negotiated for the release of another Texan — Trevor Reed, a former Marine who had been detained in Russia for more than two years. Reed traveled to Russia in the summer of 2019 with his Russian girlfriend to learn the language. That August, after a party, Russian police took him to a police station to sober up, but he was later accused of assaulting an officer, ABC News reported.

In exchange for Reed’s freedom, Americans released Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was serving a lengthy sentence in the United States on cocaine-trafficking charges.

For decades, the U.S. government has periodically engaged in the diplomatic dance of prisoner exchanges with Russia and the former Soviet Union. But with Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine, the swap comes at the most fraught moment between the two countries since the Cold War.

 

Bobby Blanchard contributed to this story.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/08/brittney-griner-wnba-russia/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

“This reporting is stunning”: Experts say newly found secret Trump docs could trigger new FBI search

Legal experts were stunned after former President Donald Trump’s lawyers found more documents marked classified in his Florida storage facility months after the Justice Department launched its criminal investigation into national security documents Trump kept after leaving the White House.

Lawyers for Trump in recent weeks found at least two items marked classified at a storage unit in West Palm Beach after hiring an outside team to search for additional documents, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The team conducted at least three searches and the items were “immediately turned over to the FBI, sources told the outlet.

Trump’s team misled reporters about the searches, according to The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman.

“People close to the former president had insisted earlier Wednesday that no classified material had been found at any of the facilities,” which turned out to be false, she tweeted. “One person close to Trump previously insisted he didn’t have the storage facility anymore.”

The search came after a federal judge pressed Trump’s lawyers to affirm that he had fully complied with a May grand jury subpoena to turn over all documents marked classified. Trump’s lawyers in June attested that he had returned all of the documents but the FBI learned that still had more documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence and seized a trove of national documents during a court-authorized search in August.

There has been a “lengthy and fierce battle” between Trump’s team and the DOJ in recent weeks that has been kept under seal by a judge, according to the Post, but the issue appears to be the DOJ’s concerns about Trump’s team monthslong failure to comply with the May subpoena.

Emails released by the General Services Administration show that the agency helped rent the storage unit in July 2021 to store items from a Northern Virginia office Trump’s team used after he left office. A source familiar with the contents told the Post it had a mix of boxes, clothes and gifts.

“It was suits and swords and wrestling belts and all sorts of things,” the source said. “To my knowledge, he has never even been to that storage unit. I don’t think anyone in Trump World could tell you what’s in that storage unit.”


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


Trump’s team also hired an outside company to search Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and at least one other property, according to the report. Trump’s lawyers told the DOJ that no other classified items were found at Bedminster or Trump Tower. The search came after Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell told Trump’s team to search for more documents in response to DOJ concerns that Trump was still holding on to classified information even after the August search. The Post also reported that officials at the National Archives have expressed similar concerns.

The searches were carried out after Trump’s lawyers “sought to avert another federal high-profile search of his properties,” a source told the Post.

But legal experts say the discovery of additional documents could prompt additional searches.

“It’s truly mind-boggling that even after all the chances Donald Trump has been given, he still has classified documents in his possession,” former federal prosecutor Elie Honig told CNN. “DOJ has a difficult decision to make here,” he added. “Are we satisfied, after all the misrepresentations, or are we going to have to take even more drastic measures, and perhaps execute search warrants at other properties?”

Some Trump allies believe another search warrant might be executive, according to The New York Times, but a source familiar with discussions among federal officials told the outlet there was “no recent probable cause” to obtain a warrant for Bedminster or Trump Tower.

Legal experts were stunned by the discovery.

“The plot thickens as more criminally mishandled classified documents turn up at yet another venue,” wrote Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe. “Trump’s skeletons seem to be buried in an ever-expanding array of places.”

Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks said Trump “must be held accountable” for failing to comply with the subpoena.

“This reporting is stunning,” she tweeted. “Trump’s lawyer who said there were no more classified documents looks really bad. The danger to our security is evident.”

Former FBI official Peter Strzok wrote that he was “somehow still amazed by Trump’s—and his team’s— reckless disregard for protecting classified info.”

“It appears that Trump’s own team doesn’t have a good handle on all the government documents in his possession, despite a criminal investigation,” added former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. “Astounding.”

Our biggest problem isn’t Trump or Biden: The media is disconnected from reality

On Wednesday morning, I found myself driving down I-270 from my comfortable suburban abode to get to the White House.

It’s a trip I’ve made literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times. This time was different.

It was rainy and foggy, and as I approached the cutoff that led to I-495, I was cruising along at a comfortable 75 mph. It was faster than the speed limit, but was commensurate with traffic flow. As I glanced in my rearview mirror after putting on my turn signal to change into the right exit lane, I saw a white sports car approaching at a high rate of speed. He passed me on the right, almost hitting me, then cut me off, passed another car, cut him off, and then was gone. He passed me as if I were standing still, and I knew he had to be going in excess of 100 mph — way too fast for surface conditions.

“There’s an accident waiting to happen,” I said out loud over the sound of “Kashmir” by Led Zeppelin on my car’s sound system.

Fifteen seconds later the driver who passed me hit the Jersey barrier dividing the lanes of traffic, and spun out after hitting another car, whose driver managed to drive into the access lane only slightly injured — although his car was totaled. The driver of the white sports car who caused the conflagration? His car too was obviously totaled. With plastic, glass and bits of metal beginning to litter all six lanes of traffic, everyone had to slow down. That allowed me to see the driver who had caused all the pain. As I passed within 10 feet of him, his car was smoking, apparently smoldering. He had a gash across his forehead. He was still trying to drive the thing, pushing to get it into an access lane. “Your car is on fire,” I shouted. He ignored me.

As bad as that was, the White House on Wednesday was worse.

It isn’t that Joe Biden did anything wrong. Well, he may have. But what reporters did in the briefing room was far worse than a high-speed car wreck on a crowded highway.

Let’s recap the news of Wednesday morning, shall we? Sen. Raphael Warnock defeated Herschel Walker, thus giving the Democrats a definitive majority in the Senate next year. Ukraine bombed Russian assets deep in Russia. The Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud leading Donald Trump to throw his longtime accountant, Allen Weisselberg, under the bus. (No surprise there. Trump would throw everyone including his own children under the bus to save his hide.) The House Ethics Committee fined outgoing Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., $15,000 over an improper promotion of cryptocurrency. We learned that Jared Kushner is now under  investigation by two congressional committees for “improperly influencing U.S. tax, trade and national security policies” to bail out his family’s real estate business. A case being heard before the Supreme Court that would give state legislatures the de facto right to throw out election results was in the news. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., it was announced, is also under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Oh and, by the way, Thursday is the 42nd anniversary of the murder of John Lennon by a crazed lunatic with a gun.

All of those are important stories. 

What did reporters discuss with each other after press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre conducted her daily briefing? They were consumed with learning why some reporters got invitations to the White House Christmas party while others did not. 

Yes. You read that right. Talk about a fiery car wreck.


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


The general public may well have a hard time understanding why reporters are concerned about going to a White House Christmas party when most Americans have never  been to the White House. At the same time, as a reporter who wasn’t invited, I’m far more concerned about the president showing up and taking questions from the press — which he rarely does — rather than being present for a quick “grip and grin” photo with him at a party. I’m not part of that crowd, and never want to pretend I am. I consider it a compliment that both the Democrats and Republicans apparently think so little of me that neither of them want me at their Christmas party. In short, I don’t care. The only time I want my picture with a president is when I’m either interviewing one or getting them to answer a question in a news conference.

And while I agree with the sentiment that the White House is “our house” and anyone with a press pass should be able to go to the White House Christmas party, I still don’t care. Sure, Biden comes off as condescending to the press. But so has every other president. Trump was far worse than that. At least no one has bashed my windshield in and threatened my life during this administration (knock on wood) so I’m less concerned about the president’s disapproval. Has he been hypocritical about the press? Sure. On the campaign trail he promised retribution for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi Arabia’s rulers. After he was elected, he did nothing. That tells you all you need to know about most presidents, including Biden, and their attitude toward the free press. I don’t care what the president thinks about me. He’s a public employee. He works for me.

I just want him to show up and answer questions about what he’s doing on the job.

And here’s the question I still want answered from him after the Democrats picked up a seat in the Senate, but lost control of the House: “How can you look at the results of the midterm elections and call it a victory?” I’ve heard over and over that the midterm elections were a startling victory for the Democrats. But they lost the House — moreover, to a party that won’t denounce the former president who recently called for the “termination” of the Constitution, a party that for the most part won’t denounce the Jan. 6 insurrection and includes many officeholders who support the “Big Lie” about the November 2020 general election.

Mr. President, you lost to that? We are now, of course, relegated to two years of garbage about Hunter Biden’s laptop, potential impeachment hearings of every Democrat who can be impeached, and endless, mindless criticism of the “evil” and “socialist” Democrats.

In Peru, the president was impeached and arrested after he attempted to dissolve Congress. In the United States? The Republicans who turned their heads away from an insurrection want Donald Trump back in office, while  the Democrats could not field enough viable candidates to keep those same anti-democratic forces in the Republican Party from taking control of the House.

How can Joe Biden look at an election where he lost the House to a party that won’t denounce Trump or the Jan. 6 insurrection or the Big Lie, and call that a victory?

The White House has added to the car wreck by driving fast and playing loose with the press. Press briefings are mostly a joke. For example, the first 40 minutes of the briefing on Wednesday were dedicated to taking questions from just 12 people in the first two rows of the Brady Briefing Room. “I have a thousand questions,” one reporter said. “Just ask two,” shouted another reporter who rarely gets to ask questions. The Biden administration loves to rely on the reporters in the “pool,” who have become so close to the president — by association — that they seldom rock the boat. They get access. They get attention. They get their egos stroked.

On Wednesday there were several questions about a proposed assault weapons ban that seemed to teeter into absurdity. After all, the Republican Party owns the House going forward and will never pass the type of legislation several reporters were intent on quizzing the administration about. It seems as if some of us have no idea how the legislative process works.

This came after a night of television news coverage of the Warnock-Walker runoff election in Georgia, during which some reporters and anchors overestimated Walker’s chances of winning, while underestimating Warnock’s. Reporters have long relegated themselves to covering the “horse race” aspect of politics, and now it is apparent we’re horrible at handicapping the actual results.

There are many more examples of why the press fails us, and why we need to do better. But, since a well-informed electorate is vital to a democracy, that’s all that really needs to be said.

Unless there is a fundamental paradigm shift in American journalism that allows for critical thinking, and unless media literacy becomes part of the curriculum in our public schools, there simply is no way to cure what is wrong with the American press — and that makes it nearly impossible to cure what is wrong with our democracy and, more to the point, that’s why Trumpism will continue long after Donald Trump falls victim to the actuary tables.

As a reporter for the last 38 years, it is more horrifying to see what is happening to the press than to watch an idiot scream down the highway at alarmingly high speed, causing an accident.

Both are horrific. But a blind, ignorant, arrogant and self-absorbed press is far more dangerous.

Air pollution harms the brain and mental health, too

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

People who breathe polluted air experience changes within the brain regions that control emotions, and as a result, they may be more likely to develop anxiety and depression than those who breathe cleaner air. These are the key findings of a systematic review that my colleagues and I recently published in the journal NeuroToxicology.

Our interdisciplinary team reviewed more than 100 research articles from both animal and human studies that focused on the effects of outdoor air pollution on mental health and regions of the brain that regulate emotions. The three main brain regions we focused on were the hippocampus, amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.

In our analysis, 73% of the studies reported higher mental health symptoms and behaviors in humans and animals, such as rats, that were exposed to higher than average levels of air pollution. Some exposures that led to negative effects occurred in air pollution ranges that are currently considered “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards. In addition, we discovered that 95% of studies examining brain effects found significant physical and functional changes within the emotion-regulation brain regions in those exposed to increased levels of air pollution.

Most of these studies found that exposure to elevated levels of air pollution is associated with increased inflammation and changes to the regulation of neurotransmitters, which act as the brain’s chemical messengers.

Why it matters

Research into the physical health effects associated with air pollution exposure, such as asthma and respiratory issues, have been well documented for decades.

But only over the last 10 years or so have researchers begun to understand how air pollution can affect the brain. Studies have shown that small air pollutants, such as ultrafine particles from vehicle exhaust, can affect the brain either directly, by traveling through the nose and into the brain, or indirectly, by causing inflammation and altered immune responses in the body that can then cross into the brain.

At the same time, researchers are increasingly documenting the association between air pollution and its negative effects on mental health.

Unfortunately, research suggests that air pollution will only worsen as climate change intensifies and carbon emissions remain unregulated.

For this reason, more research into the health effects of air pollution exposure that goes beyond respiratory health outcomes into the realm of biological psychiatry is badly needed. For instance, the neurobiological mechanisms through which air pollution increases risk for mental health symptoms are still poorly understood.

What still isn’t known

In addition to our primary findings, our team also identified some notable gaps within the research that need to be addressed in order to paint a fuller picture of the relationship between air pollution and brain health.

Relatively few studies examined the effects of air pollution exposure during early life, such as infancy and toddlerhood, and in childhood and adolescence. This is especially concerning given that the brain continues to develop until young adulthood and therefore may be particularly susceptible to the effects of air pollution.

We also found that within the studies investigating air pollution effects on the brain, only 10 were conducted in humans. While research on animals has extensively shown that air pollution can cause a host of changes within the animal brain, the research on how air pollution affects the human brain is much more limited. What’s more, most of the existing brain studies in humans have focused on physical changes, such as differences in overall brain size. More research is needed that relies on a technique called functional brain imaging, which could enable researchers like us to detect subtle or smaller changes that may occur before physical changes.

In the future, our team plans to use brain imaging methods to study how air pollution increases the risk of anxiety during adolescence. We plan to use a variety of techniques, including personal air monitors that children can wear as they go about their day, allowing us to more accurately assess their exposure.


Clara G. Zundel, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Wayne State University

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

Phony conservative victimhood is more than grating — it fuels a climate of anti-LGBTQ bigotry

How on earth did Anderson Lee Aldrich have a gun? That’s one of the biggest questions lingering in the aftermath of the shooting at Club Q on November 19. On December 6, Aldrich was formally charged on 305 separate criminal counts after a shooting left five people dead and 22 injured, all staff and customers at an establishment that has been characterized as a “sanctuary” for LGBTQ people in the largely conservative community of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Despite conservatives seizing on Aldrich’s lawyers saying the defendant is nonbinary in a court filing, the Republican district attorney, Michael Allen, included 48 counts of bias-motivated crimes in the charges. 

This was not Aldrich’s first brush with the law, though the word “brush” really underplays what allegedly happened in June 2021. Stories have trickled out of Colorado for a couple of weeks now, but on Wednesday the Associated Press released a stunning, in-depth report that should raise the question of why Aldrich had been allowed to own guns. 

“You guys die today and I’m taking you with me,” they quoted Aldrich as saying. “I’m loaded and ready.”

So began a day of terror Aldrich unleashed in June 2021 that, according to sealed law enforcement documents verified by The Associated Press, brought SWAT teams and the bomb squad to a normally quiet Colorado Springs neighborhood, forced the grandparents to flee for their lives and prompted the evacuation of 10 nearby homes to escape a possible bomb blast. It culminated in a standoff that the then-21-year-old livestreamed on Facebook, showing Aldrich in tactical gear inside the mother’s home and threatening officers outside — “If they breach, I’m a f—-ing blow it to holy hell!” — before finally surrendering.


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


An extensive search of the home afterward found bomb-making materials, according to the report. Aldrich, who the report says claimed to want to be “the next mass killer,” was arrested by the El Paso County Sheriff’s office and charged with three felony counts of kidnapping and four other charges. Then, for reasons still unknown, the charges were dropped. According to the AP report, there is no record of law enforcement requesting a court order to seize any guns Aldrich possessed under Colorado’s “red flag” law that allows the sheriff’s office, among others, to do so in the face of a violent threat, even if there are no criminal charges. While those seizures are temporary, the court can be petitioned to extend them, and such a move could have kept Aldrich on the radar of law enforcement.

“Red flag” laws are, in reality, a very modest gun reform. But the NRA has gone out of its way to paint the laws as a liberal conspiracy against gun rights. When Colorado passed its own version of the law in 2020, El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder tried to make himself a face of this narrative, painting gun owners as the “real” victims. Republicans in El Paso County declared themselves a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” and Elder went on “60 Minutes” to brag about how he would not enforce the provision. He has even threatened to challenge “the constitutionality of this law.”

We don’t know why the red flag law was not invoked in Aldrich’s case. But the habit conservatives have of casting themselves as victims and the actual victimization of LGBTQ people are not unrelated. Those who are so caught up in self-pity over imaginary politicized slights often can’t — or won’t — see how they are contributing to a climate conducive to actual violence and abuse directed at queer people. 


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


That’s been most evident in the rise of the despicable “groomer” accusation levied against LGBTQ people and allies. Popular right propagandists like the Libs of TikTok Twitter account and Fox News have equated expression of LGBTQ identities with “grooming” children as if simply being gay and being around kids is the same as manipulating children to make them easier to abuse. False claims that conservatives are trying to “protect” children from “grooming” have been made as grounds for violent protests at drag shows and legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ people. Most notable is the “don’t say gay” law in Florida, in which vague wording about “instruction” on “sexual orientation or gender identity” scares both teachers and students into staying closeted at school.

In the world of psychology, there’s a term for a strategy domestic abusers use against victims: “DARVO,” which is short for “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.” This also describes the rhetorical strategies the right uses when justifying bigoted or dangerous rhetoric or behavior. The “groomer” lie is a classic example. Wallowing in DARVO too long can distort a person’s view of reality. It can even recast a person who allegedly claimed to want to be a mass killer as a potential victim of would-be gun grabbers.

On Monday, the Supreme Court bore witness to how bizarre and delusional this brand of conservative self-pity can get. It started with the case itself, 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which a Colorado website designer is challenging the state’s anti-discrimination law on the grounds that she might want to tell a gay couple she won’t make a wedding website for them. Never mind that no one has actually hired her to do such a thing or complained about her for not doing it. She doesn’t even make wedding websites. Such is the level of anti-LGBTQ victim-tripping — they’re now invoking imaginary gay couples to argue against in fantasy scenarios. (For more on why this case is so stupid it shouldn’t have even gotten to the Supreme Court, read Mark Joseph Stern’s story at Slate.) 

During arguments, Justice Samuel Alito, always eager to troll, started to spool out hypothetical examples of how anti-discrimination laws could harm people he imagines liberals care about, such as, uh, “Black Santa.” 

“If there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who’s dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, that Black Santa has to do that?” Alito asked the Colorado solicitor general. 


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


Any lawyer could tell you the question is painfully stupid. As the Colorado solicitor general reminded Alito, “Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws” while sexual orientation is. Alito tried to cover up his error with a gross joke about “Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits,” but it was too late. He had gone on record equating gay couples planning a wedding with people in KKK outfits harassing a Black Santa. 

Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-LGBTQ group behind this lawsuit, is trying to portray it as a case about harmless protection for “sincerely religious” people. And yet arguments swiftly arrived at a conservative judge equating LGBTQ people simply living their lives with people dressed in white supremacist terrorist group uniforms. Talk about reversing victim and offender.

That’s why the outcome of this case could have dangerous ramifications, well beyond the seemingly narrow question of whether creative professionals can decline to do work for same-sex weddings. It feeds into a larger false Republican narrative casting bigotry as victimhood at the hands of a supposed “woke” conspiracy of overbearing LGBTQ people who are somehow harming conservatives by performing in or hosting drag shows, getting married, or just living out of the closet. And that rhetoric in turn helps to fuel a rising tide of actual victimization of LGBTQ people, allies and bystanders. 

As Vice reports, armed militias like the Proud Boys or Patriot Front “in at least four states mobilized to shut down and intimidate events involving drag queens over the weekend.” In Louisiana, a tipline is open for people to report librarians for having books with LGBTQ characters on the shelves. In California, a gay state senator reported being targeted by a bomb threat by people calling him a “groomer.” 

There’s nothing new about Republicans playing the victim as cover for their own poor behavior, but it’s safe to say the tendency has grown worse in the past few years under the leadership of Donald Trump, who is perhaps the whiniest fake victim in the country. We’re subject to weekly, often daily, rants from Trump about how he’s a victim, often when he’s being criticized or is the subject legal inquiries into his various schemes to victimize others, from election officials to the president of Ukraine. In the era of rising hate crimes against LGBTQ people, phony conservative self-pity is more than just gross. It’s undermining public safety. 

Will Supreme Court aid the far right in enshrining minority rule? Constitution hangs by a thread

A constitutional republic is a precious and often precarious thing. That is as true in the United States today as it has been elsewhere and at other times in history. This week has added new evidence of those realities. 

It began with Donald Trump’s online musings about “terminating” the U.S. Constitution because he didn’t like the results of the November 2020 presidential election. That provoked so much blowback, including from Republicans, that he tried to walk that radical idea back two days after the Dec. 3 Truth Social post in which he first floated it.

Then, on Wednesday, three Supreme Court justices appeared poised to use the case of Moore v. Harper to neuter the scheme of checks and balances around federal election rule-making in America. 

To see the connection between Trump’s willingness to trash the Constitution for his own narrow political purposes and the court’s consideration of the Moore case, we need to look closely at the forces propelling and financing the right’s authoritarian political ambitions. 

Trump’s threat to “terminate” the constitution was more overt and grabbed the headlines, but the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in Moore may prove far more consequential for the demise of democracy.

Moore v. Harper raises a fringe, ultra-conservative legal thesis — the “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT). If adopted, it could grant state legislatures virtually unlimited power to set the rules for federal elections. During the Dec. 7 oral arguments on Moore, questioning from Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas reflected their clear sympathy for the North Carolina legislature’s extremist ISLT position. 

If their position prevails, the American people’s right to choose their representatives could be disastrously compromised.

Moore involves a harshly gerrymandered congressional map that North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature adopted in 2021. The state’s Supreme Court struck it down under the North Carolina constitution. Republican legislators are now asking the Supreme Court to embrace ISLT and rule that state courts have no say over legislative actions in federal election matters. 

None. Nada. Whatever the legislature says is state law, pertaining to federal elections, is the law. Full stop.

Wow. 

First year law students learn that in 1803, in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the power of judicial review — the principle that courts ultimately determine “what the law is.” The judiciary is the central check on renegade politicians wielding raw legislative power. 

Recall the quip attributed to Mark Twain that “No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.”

Or, as James Madison put it in his argument in Federalist 55 about the need to limit legislative power: “In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”


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


While Marbury involved the federal judiciary’s authority to invalidate legislation, the identical role of state courts is embedded in state constitutions across the nation. And those courts frequently invalidate acts of their legislatures on state constitutional grounds.

In North Carolina itself, in fact, the state’s legislature has expressly given state courts the authority to invalidate redistricting maps like the one at issue in Moore.

In other words, legislators in the Tar Heel State were for judicial review of gerrymandered maps before they were against it.

ISLT advocates cite Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” subject to override by Congress. 

The Supreme Court’s activist, conservative majority is untroubled by violating long-established precedents — when they get in the way of its substantive political ends.

Similarly, Article II, Section 1 governs how presidential electors are selected. It  says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” a slate of electors to represent the people of that state and cast their votes in the Electoral College.

But ISLT doesn’t just undermine checks and balances as a fundamental constitutional principle. It also runs squarely into a wall of Supreme Court precedent. 

Long ago, in McPherson v. Blacker, a case involving the means through which a legislature prescribed choosing electors, the high court stated, “The legislative power is the supreme authority except as limited by the constitution of the State.”  

In 2015, the court rejected an ISLT-type claim that only the state legislature — and not voters, through the initiative process — could determine how redistricting maps were drawn.

And consider Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2019 majority opinion in a case on partisan gerrymandering, in which he recognized that legislative gerrymanders did not operate in a vacuum. State constitutions, Roberts said, “can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply” in gerrymandering cases. (Roberts did not tip his hand during Wednesday’s arguments.)

Of course, the Supreme Court’s activist, conservative majority is untroubled by violating long-established precedents when they get in the way of achieving its substantive political ends. In such circumstances, it tosses out precedent like used tissues.

Indeed, the threat to constitutional governance posed by the ISLT and the possibility that the court may disregard its own precedents is so great it has raised alarms even among conservative legal luminaries. Retired appeals court icon J. Michael Luttig‘s commentary on the Moore case is entitled, “There is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature Theory.” 

And as Judge Luttig told the New York Times, Moore is a case “with profound consequences for American democracy.”

Similarly Ben Ginsburg, the Republican election lawyer par excellence, wrote that ISLT threatens to intensify discord and disinformation about elections and whether they can be run fairly. Ginsburg warns that its likely effects include exacerbating “the current moment of political polarization and further undermining confidence in our elections.” 

Similarly, the Conference of Chief Justices, which represents supreme court justices of every state, submitted an amicus brief in Moore renouncing ISLT. 

Who do we find on the other side? Among ISLT supporters is infamous Trump crony and former law professor John Eastman, whose bar license is under investigation in California and Washington, D.C.

So what’s going on with the signals on Wednesday showing three justices leaning into ISLT? Pursuit of right-wing power. 

Just look who’s behind the ISLT claims. According to the nonpartisan watchdog group, Accountable.US, reactionary dark money groups have donated $90 million to advocacy groups supporting the Republican legislators’ claims in Moore. 

Leading the pack with $70 million is Donors’ Trust, a PAC led by Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, who runs another conservative nonprofit that recently attracted an unprecedented $1.6 billion donation from a single ultra-wealthy donor who hoped to enlist Leo to drive the judiciary to the extreme right.

As we know from the decisions that this Supreme Court has already made removing the guardrails on dark money, voter suppression and anti-democracy measures, adopting rules that favor the powerful is high on the conservative justices’ agenda. They plainly hope to use those rules to keep Republicans’ minority party in power indefinitely, if not to help Trump himself.

You don’t need to read the tea leaves to see where the court’s far-right wing wants this to go. Just follow the money.

Why there’s a children’s Tylenol and Motrin shortage — and how we could end it

The COVID-19 pandemic has already claimed millions of lives, but SARS-CoV-2 is not the only respiratory disease spreading rapidly in late 2022. There is also respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza, as well as the soup of other bugs floating around and waiting to be accidentally inhaled. Now, as hospitalizations have increased due to this viral trio, supplies of popular medications like children’s Tylenol and children’s Motrin have sharply plummeted.

The end result is a familiar one for parents: Supply shortages. Only six months after young parents suffered infant formula shortages, now children’s pain medications are in short supply too. This time, the culprit is not war or lockdowns wreaking havoc on supply chains, but rather the simple fact that respiratory diseases are spiking and parents are understandably worried about their children and planning ahead.

“Manufacturers and distributors cannot move in perfect stride with the incredible surge in demand that [the] triple-demic (RSV, flu, Covid) is presenting,” Dr. Thomas Goldsby, a professor of supply chain management at the University of Tennessee — Knoxville’s Haslam College of Business, told Salon by email. “The early flu season, along with RSV, has really advanced demand for respiratory and inflammation treatments.” Exacerbating matters, human beings succumb to some of their own least productive consumption habits when they are frightened.

The economic trauma of the pandemic lockdowns have “trained shoppers to not just buy — but stockpile — when they anticipate future needs.”

“Concerned parents and grandparents have taken the triple-demic warnings to heart and purchased home supplies beyond and in advance of the need,” Goldsby noted. “I must admit that I did this very thing recently – and I’ve been preaching about how panic buying and hoarding behaviors not just contributed to some shortages (infant formula), [but] caused other shortages (toilet paper) the past couple of years.” Until relatively recently, Americans were not used to seeing empty store shelves, and the economic trauma of the pandemic lockdowns have “trained shoppers to not just buy — but stockpile — when they anticipate future needs.”


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


It is impossible to anticipate the future of this problem because information on drug supplies is scant. As the University of Utah’s Drug Information Service Director Erin Fox told The Washington Post, there are too many generic store-brands for different drugs to know with certainty how bad the shortages are. That said, while “there are definitely distribution and supply chain problems that still exist,” Fox believes that “these shortages seem to be mostly a demand spike and should resolve relatively quickly.”

“While it is an unpopular strategy, it helps when retailers place purchase quantity limits on consumers at the store shelf.”

For parents who cannot find medications for their children, doctors are first urging them to avoid hoarding supplies they do not actively need. If the parents’ children are sick, however, they can reach out to local pharmacies and follow practical remedies such as keeping their child hydrated. They are urged to schedule appointments with their pediatricians if they have serious health concerns, and certainly to do so before giving them medications like aspirin which can have side effects on children.

Doctors are also urging patients not to attempt to water down adult medications to make them suitable for children, as there are many variables which impact how a child will interact with that medication which are best determined by a physician.

Most importantly, though, parents need to resist the urge to hoard children’s versions of popular painkilling medications, experts say. 

“While it is an unpopular strategy, it helps when retailers place purchase quantity limits on consumers at the store shelf,” Goldsby wrote to Salon. “In the longer term, state and federal governments can choose to get involved, if they wish, by providing purchase commitments to manufacturers and distributors that would encourage suppliers to make the big investments required to up their capacity.”

While this particular shortage may pass, others are likely to happen going forward. It’s the nature of how the economy is going to self-adjust in the aftermath of the unprecedented disruptions caused by the pandemic.

“Succinctly, we continue to see supply and demand moving in opposite directions in several sectors,” Goldsby explained. “Demand surging for products like cold and flu treatments with supply unable to keep up, and [also] demand for durable products cooling off after 2.5 years of off-the-chart spending while oversupply prevails.”

Kellyanne Conway boasts about being only Trump official with no indictments

Former Trump White House counselor Kellyanne Conway is apparently proud of the fact that she has not been caught up in any potential criminal conspiracies.

While talking with Piers Morgan this week about her cooperation with the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riots, Conway boasted about not being in the kind of legal jeopardy that has befallen so many of her other former colleagues in former President Donald Trump’s White House.

“I’m the one Trump official with no subpoenas, indictments, scandals, and investigations,” Conway said. “And I plan to keep it that way.”

Conway said that this was why she voluntarily talked with the committee, which has made multiple criminal referrals of former Trump officials and allies who have defied subpoenas for testimony.

“I did not take the Fifth for that testimony or any question within that testimony!” Conway asserted proudly.

Morgan then pivoted to grilling Conway about why Trump can’t simply let go of the 2020 election, to which Conway said that she has encouraged him to do so.

“It broke my heart in 2020 that President Trump didn’t get reelected,” she said. “However, elections are about the future and not the past.”

Watch below: