Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Sex Lives” star Pauline Chalamet on civic duty: “We have to pay attention to our democracy”

The girls of the fictional Essex College are still freshmen, but the acclaimed HBO Max series “The Sex Lives of College Girls” is already deep into a strong sophomore season.

“There’s a realness to it,” says Pauline Chalamet of the appeal of the ensemble comedy, and her fish-out-of-water character Kimberly. “There were very many ways I could relate to Kimberly’s college experience.”

The actor, director and newly registered California voter joined me on “Salon Talks” to talk about becoming part of “the Mindy Kaling universe,” why she worked as a poll worker this past election, and how her own millennial college experience was different from Kimberly’s extremely Gen Z one. Watch our conversation here or read it below.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Talk to me about where we’re going to see Kimberly go this season — how she’s figuring things out moving forward, and who she’s evolving into.

Kimberly was left at the end of Season 1 with a huge predicament, a predicament that is so expensive, for lack of a better word. She’s faced with an issue that many people will have to reckon with later on in life. Most people have to reckon with paying for something that’s more than they can afford or wanting to do something that just is so exorbitantly expensive — buying a house or a car, taking out loans, all these adult money things. Kimberly’s thrust into that at the age of 18. So when we pick up with Kimberly, we see her start to address this issue. 

“I’m very grateful for the opportunity to play a character who can be awkward and is figuring out who she is.”

What I love about this season is that we really see Kimberly forced to reckon with this problem, an emphasis on the word “reckon” with it. It’s not just like, “OK we have a solution and it’s done,” she goes somewhere over Thanksgiving and then she comes back like, “Gosh, my parents have all this money now. We’re fine.” It’s not a solution like that. It’s a character-building experience for Kimberly to have to face the fact that she doesn’t have the money to continue at school. 

We get to also see Kimberly start to feel like she fits in a little more at school. What does she do with that power? Because that’s a really empowering moment where all of a sudden you start to feel like, “OK I was an outsider, but now I’m starting to know the lay of the land.” What does that do to someone? And how do you develop in good ways, and how do you develop in maybe questionable ways?

People love Kimberly. When you talk to people about this show, there is such deep affection for this character. What do you think that is about her that makes that connection with people?

Kimberly grounds the show in a way. Every character has their moments of bringing reality to this 30-minute comedy. Leighton has another big one of coming out and what the coming-out journey is like. All the characters do. But Kimberly’s life story, her 18-year-old life story, has made for very real predicaments to be addressed in a comedic fashion. I’m very grateful for the opportunity to play a character who can be awkward and is figuring out who she is and how she fits in and all the normal things of college and the ways in which that can be very funny. But on top of that, there’s a realness to it.

There are dire predicaments that she has to come to terms with and predicaments that she can’t even envision beyond the scholarship even as it relates to friends and friendship. What is it like coming from a small town where you did so well and were salutatorian, and you then enter this elite institution where you’re going to be surrounded by other people who come from small towns, but you’re also going to be surrounded by people who already grew up in these cities where they’re light years ahead of your age?

You learn some of the rules about the world when you grow up in some of these cosmopolitan cities, or you learn them when you’re in college for people who maybe didn’t grow up in these places. I think that Kimberly brings that to the show. You learn very quickly. She’s starting to fit in, and what does that do to her? And I think that’s a very relatable experience.

You are one of those people who grew up in a city. You grew up in an environment where you were surrounded by artists and performers and people who were in that world of culture. What was it about this character then that attracted you, that you wanted to play someone who doesn’t have that skill set that New York City kids practically have from the time they’re born? 

What attracted me was that this is the majority experience. Growing up in a New York or in LA or in Chicago or Boston, that’s not the majority experience. The majority experience is living in the suburb of sorts and coming from routines that you understand and are quite structured and are less influenced by the place itself. They’re much more influenced by the way you grew up or the school you went to. That’s what really interested me.

There were very many ways I could relate to Kimberly’s college experience. Having to work in school, being in a new environment, being around new people, the whole roommate thing, that I could really understand. But what is it like to come from a world that is so different than my own? Not so different from Essex per se, but just so different from where, but end up in such a similar situation. 

You mentioned you’re playing this girl who is 18, who is at this moment in her life where everything is new. You are not 18. As a millennial, do you notice a generational difference when you’re in this world of Essex? Do you notice something about the world of 18-year-olds now that seems different than when you were a college student?

Phones play an even bigger role. I was already on my phone a lot, but I think I had a Blackberry when I got to college. It was all about BBM-ing. The connectedness to phones and definitely the apps. The prevalence of apps in the social scene, DM-ing.

“I’ve started to learn that it’s very important to be connected to your community, to know where it is you’re living and how things work there.”

Otherwise, things seem pretty similar, I think, because we’re staying within the structure of a university, so it doesn’t feel that foreign to me. But I definitely will say, behind the scenes, there’s so much to be learned from Alyah [Chanelle Scott] and Reneé [Rapp] who are these TikTok queens and showing me all the dances and stuff that are so fun to do. But there are so many apps. That’s the big thing, all of the apps, there are just too many.

I’ve read that one of the hardest challenges for you playing this role was speaking French with a bad French accent. I want to know how you prepared for that, being that you’ve lived in Paris, you grew up in a French-American household. How did you learn to speak French badly, and what did your dad think of that?

I actually haven’t asked my dad what he thought of that. That’s going to be my first phone call after this interview. My mom speaks perfect French, but with a really thick accent, so I kind of grew up knowing what that accent was like. I just put that on. 

It was funny because we had an accent coach on set to help the good French speakers. Gavin Leatherwood, who was playing Nico, his character is supposed to be really good at French in Season 1, so she was there to help him. During that scene, she was there to help the people who were supposed to speak good French. We had crossed paths before, obviously, and then she came in after a take and was just like, “You’re speaking too well. You’re just putting on an accent. You wouldn’t say the ending of a word like this. You wouldn’t say the beginning of a word like this. You’re not able to pronounce this.” Then I got really self-conscious about the bad accent, which I thought was going to be super easy.

One of the things I love best about this show is the universal appeal of a group of women and friendship. I know you’re a big film fan. You were just at the Criterion Collection recently. You’re a big reader. When you were looking at this story and looking at this show, were there other touchstones, culturally, that you were thinking about in those dynamics of female friendship?

The obvious ones come to mind. For me at least, “Girls” and “Sex in the City.” What really drew me into this more than the female friendship part, which is a big backbone of the show, but it was more the Mindy Kaling universe, the quick-witted jokes and the situations that the characters were finding themselves in. I remember the first time I read the pilot, there was at least one scene of every character where I was like, “Oh, I want to play that scene. I want to play that scene.” Definitely [with] Kimberly, I was like, “OK, this is who I want to play, absolutely.” But I remember reading scenes between Whitney and Dalton and being like, “That’s a really cool, sexy romance thing that would be really fun to play.” And Leighton, the appeal of playing the bitchy New Yorker, so make my “Gossip Girl” dreams come true. 

I know you’re a big “O.C.” fan too. 

Huge “O.C.” fan. Huge “O.C.” fan. Had all of Mrs. Atwood attire when I was younger and notebooks and all that. 

Much like for people going off to college for the first time, you started this show not really knowing your castmates because of COVID. You were just thrown in basically as strangers. Returning to the show, what’s different this season now that you have worked as an ensemble together? 

We know each other better. We were all moving to LA for the show. It was pre-vaccines, so the protocols were super strict, and people were really afraid. It’s interesting to look back on that peak COVID time now and be like, “My God, that was crazy. What we were doing?” All we needed to do was wear masks, but we could hug. We could do this. And if you were tested and you were negative, then you could hang out. But it was like that wasn’t quite how people were thinking. I think it created barriers, but it made it for interesting first scenes together because we were really discovering each other. 

“I just value what public school outside of the education, which was great, I value what it gave me as a human.”

Season 2, the protocols were much more lax. You were required to be vaccinated, which was great because it allowed for the protocols to be more relaxed. We just understood each other better, knew how we worked, and so our characters were able to meet at that level too.

Now that you are a Californian, one of the first things you did was register to vote and work as a poll worker. I want to know how that came about, why you wanted to do that and participate in the recent election like that.

California’s new to me. I’ve always lived in places like New York or Paris, where I already had community. It’s interesting as an adult moving to a city and having to create community. The world I work in, especially when I’m shooting the show, revolves around the show. It’s driving to the Warner Bros. lot every day. It’s seeing the same people. It’s being in this industry. I’m very grateful for that. I also really value things that are outside of it. I’ve started to learn that it’s very important to be connected to your community, to know where it is you’re living and how things work there.

When I got my California driver’s license, you could check to do automatic registration. I was like, “You know what? Now that I’m splitting my time more between California and France, it’s important to be in the place where you are.” So for me, I was like, “I think working the polls would be a great experience because I’ll meet people who have nothing to do with where I work, and I’ll get to talk to them and just see it.” 

“Having to work in school, being in a new environment, being around new people, the whole roommate thing, that I could really understand.”

I wanted to know how California voting worked, and I wanted to help the voting process because I do think that we have to pay attention to the state of our democracy. I’m so lucky to drive and go to work, but because we live in a country where we’re able to do so. I think it’s also just, I’m a human being and I’m living in this country, I’m living in this state, and I felt like it was my responsibility. We had a civic duty to do so. I was happy to fulfill it. I had such a great time. I met some of the loveliest people. I learned a lot. Many of the people who worked for the county in all different departments — public health, social services. Someone worked for the district attorney.

California has crazy ballots, and I just learned there were 50 things to vote for. I was like, “What is this? New York is not like that.” Also, New York has a really outdated voting system. California was so modern. So I learned how to vote, and I had really interesting discussions with people who worked for the county. I really enjoyed it. I learned a lot about how this city functions, this weird city that has other cities in it.


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


Even though millennials and Gen Z really turned the tide in this recent election, and it was the highest engagement of people 18 to 29 ever, it was also still only 30% of eligible voters in that age group. What you were talking about is a great example that we need to be engaged, not just on election day.

Right. Just know who’s on the school board. I’m such a public school advocate, and I’ve been told, “Well, you don’t have kids. You don’t know.” It’s true. You’re put in situations when you’re a parent that I don’t know because I’m not a parent, and there are other things to factor in. But the thing that public school gave me is, you’re a part of your community. You’re a part of where you’re living. I did three years in private school. Private school felt like you were going somewhere.

I value what public school, outside of the education, gave me as a human. Meeting the friends I met and the relationships I still have to this day, which are the most important in my life, what that was like being a child in that environment. That also comes down to volunteering to work at the polls, where everybody has a job. You should never have a job that excludes you from being a part of society. That’s just something I think about a lot, about the power that money has, especially in this country and especially in this state, to kind of make you able to look at society as opposed to live in it.

“Very loud message”: Ex-FBI official says Oath Keepers verdict makes Trump prosecution more likely

On Wednesday’s edition of CNN’s “The Lead,” former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe argued that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s speech, in the wake of top Oath Keepers’ conviction for seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, is a direct message to other people who were involved in carrying out, organizing, or inciting the attack.

One of those people, McCabe continued, could be former President Donald Trump himself.

“Let me ask you about what we saw in the trial,” said anchor Kasie Hunt. “Do you think the events of the last 24 hours have changed the calculation for the Justice Department in terms of whether or not to prosecute the former president, since they were able to secure this conviction?”

“No question, in a couple of ways,” said McCabe. “The comments about the Oath Keeper verdict by the AG is a little more than just a chest-pounding session. He is sending a message to the attorneys representing the other Oath Keepers, whose trial is coming up, and the Proud Boys and whoever might be in the wings later that we can do this. We can put on these complicated, high-stakes political cases and get verdicts. Rethink whether you want to cooperate, provide evidence and seek an easier path.”

“I think that’s a — it’s a very loud message to those folks who were in leadership positions, who may be being looked at for their role in organizing and instigating the attack,” said McCabe. “And first and foremost among those is, of course, the former president.”

Top members of the far-right group the Proud Boys are also scheduled to stand trial for seditious conspiracy, with one leader already pleading guilty and cooperating. Meanwhile, the former president is in the crosshairs of multiple federal investigations, which are folded up into the purview of newly appointed special counsel.

Watch below or at this link.

“Donald Trump has finally run out of places to hide” as House Dems get tax returns

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday received six years of former President Donald Trump’s federal tax returns, ending a three-year battle in which the 2024 Republican presidential candidate fought fiercely against sharing documents that every one of his predecessors since Richard Nixon have disclosed.

“Donald Trump has finally run out of places to hide,” wrote Jason Easley and Sarah Jones at PoliticusUSA‘s The Daily. “For years the speculation about what is in the tax returns that Trump had refused to release ran rampant. Was he really broke? Did he take money from foreign governments? Did he commit crimes? There were so many questions, and now the answers could finally be arriving.”

The Internal Revenue Service’s handover of Trump’s returns came a week after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the former president’s bid to prevent the House committee from obtaining the filings. Earlier this month, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the IRS from turning over the documents after Trump filed an emergency appeal.

Democratic lawmakers say they need Trump’s tax returns as part of an effort to determine the effectiveness of annual presidential audits. Trump and his legal team contend that Democrats are seeking the documents in order to harm him politically. House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., first asked the U.S. Treasury Department for the returns in 2019.

Trump was the first president in half a century to refuse to disclose his tax returns when running for or while in the White House, claiming he was under IRS audit—a status that does not preclude disclosure.

A 2020 New York Times investigation found that Trump did not pay any federal income tax in 10 out of 15 years beginning in 2000 due to “chronic losses and years of tax avoidance.”

“I thought he was going to beat me”: Herschel Walker’s ex claims he attacked her in “enraged” fit

The Daily Beast’s Roger Sollenberger has done more than his share of bombshell reporting on Herschel Walker in 2022, describing, in elaborate detail, allegations that the U.S. Senate candidate impregnated two different women and wanted them to have abortions — allegations that the MAGA Republican has flatly denied. Sollenberger offers yet another bombshell report on Walker in an article published by the Beast on December 1; this time, the reporter details a former girlfriend’s allegations of violent and abusive behavior.

“A former longtime girlfriend of Republican senatorial candidate Herschel Walker has come forward to detail a violent episode with the football star, who she believes is ‘unstable’ and has ‘little to no control’ over his mental state when he is not in treatment,” Sollenberger explains. “The woman, Dallas resident Cheryl Parsa, described an intimate and tumultuous five-year relationship with Walker in the 2000s, beginning shortly after his divorce and continuing for a year after the publication of his 2008 memoir about his struggle with dissociative identity disorder (DID), once known as multiple personality disorder.”

In Georgia, Walker is trying to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock. Walker has been campaigning as a severe social conservative, aggressively courting the far-right white evangelical vote and proposing strict abortion bans even in cases of rape or incest. Georgia’s U.S. Senate race shows that truth can be so much stranger than fiction; Rev. Warnock is an ordained Baptist minister, yet white evangelicals are rallying around Walker despite allegations that he has impregnated two women he wasn’t married to, encouraged them to have abortions, committed adultery countless times, and committed acts of domestic violence.

Critics of Walker and the Christian Right or Religious Right have been pointing to the race as a textbook example of why they hold the far-right white evangelical movement in such low regard. Walker’s white Republican evangelical supporters, they argue, aren’t about principle; they’ll all about tribalism and power. And Sollenberger’s report on Parsa’s allegations won’t make Walker’s critics any less critical of him.

According to Sollenberger, “Parsa, who has composed a book-length manuscript about her relationship with Walker, says she is speaking out because she is disturbed by Walker’s behavior on the campaign trail, which she claims exhibits telltale flare-ups of the disorder she tried to help him manage for half a decade…. Parsa provided a detailed account of a 2005 incident that turned violent after she caught Walker with another woman at his Dallas condo. She said Walker grew enraged, put his hands on her chest and neck, and swung his fist at her. ‘I thought he was going to beat me,’ she recalled, and fled in fear.”

Parsa didn’t hold back during her interview with the Daily Beast. According to the Dallas resident, Walker uses DID as an “alibi” to “justify lying, cheating, and ultimately destroying families.”

“He’s a pathological liar,” Parsa told the Beast. “Absolutely. But it’s more than that. He knows how to manipulate his disease, in order to manipulate people, while at times being simultaneously completely out of control.”

Parsa, Sollenberger reports, is “one of five women who were romantically involved with Walker who spoke to The Daily Beast for this article.”

“All of them described a habit of lying and infidelity — including one woman who claimed she had an affair with Walker while he was married in the 1990s,” Sollenberger explains. “All five women said they were willing to speak to expose the behavior of the man they now see running for Senate…. This is the first time in the campaign that a woman has gone on the record with accusations against Walker. His candidacy, however, has been dogged by other allegations of domestic violence, specifically from a 2008 interview with his ex-wife that resurfaced ahead of his announcement last August.”

Despite all the damning allegations against Walker, it is possible that he will be representing Georgia in the U.S. Senate in 2023. The race has been close. After the November 8 election, Warnock had more votes than Walker. But because Warnock’s lead was less than 50 percent (49.4 percent for Warnock and 48.5 percent for Walker), the race went to a runoff under Georgia’s election rules.

The runoff election is scheduled for Tuesday, December 6. An Emerson College/The Hill poll released on December 1 found Walker trailing Warnock by about 2 percent.

If Warnock is reelected, Democrats will have a 51-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. But if Walker wins, the Senate will have a 50-50 Democratic/Republican split — which will still be a Democratic majority because of Vice President Kamala Harris’ ability to break a tie.

Democratic strategists have been stressing that Walker is unfit to serve in the Senate, and Parsa agrees.

“He is not well,” Parsa told the Daily Beast. “And I say that as someone who knows exactly what this looks like, because I have lived through it and seen what it does to him and to other people. He cannot be a senator. He cannot have control over a state when he has little to no control of his mind.”

A nation of attention junkies: Trump and Elon are the perfect symbols of America’s predicament

It seems we are a nation filled with people who desperately crave attention.

Consider me a casual observer and commentator on what I find alarmingly and amusingly stupid from those willing to walk into the public arena and drop their diaper in a bid for that attention.

Whether you’re a 24-year-old ignorant racist, fomenting hatred and gaining attention by showing up at the former president’s Golden Disco Palace in Florida where you can smell the spray-on ’80s vibe as surely as you can identify the spray-on tan or you are the man who makes history by being the first twice-impeached former president to announce another run for the White House historically early because you crave the attention. 

Either way? You’re an attention junkie, whore or addict. Pick your title, it’s the same thing — though “whore” may be more accurate as most of these people manipulate others for money and are not merely innocent junkies. An adult “political junkie whore” might actually be the most accurate term, though perhaps not the most favored. Julia Roberts played a hooker with a heart of gold in “Pretty Woman,” but political whores in real life bear little resemblance to that. They’re more like the toothless hookers (of all possible genders and orientations) in Nuevo Laredo’s Boys Town, turning tricks for cheap makeup and dollar bills.

With Trump firmly established as today’s premier political hooker, we have to realize that his breed also exists elsewhere in popular culture. For example, you could be a billionaire robber baron with a great need for attention who has purchased your own media or social media empire, driving the rabble wild with either desire or disdain — but making sure you get attention is your real game.

Or you can be a social media troll hiding behind the bushes and happily adding fuel to the fire, while avoiding any responsibility in search of the notoriety you so desperately desire.

The world continues to careen between crazy and dysfunctional, with occasional stops in reality just to check the baggage and make sure the bills are paid.

In the recent past, even nominally sane Republicans on Capitol Hill (nominal being a necessary qualifier) were firmly in the mutual embrace of a con man they often told us in confidence was criminally insane — yes, I do mean Donald Trump. They loved the attention and the money — fertile ground many a political parasite has thrived on in the past.   

Now? Some Republican members of Congress are metaphorically running away from Trump, and literally running away from reporters asking them about their Josh Hawley/”Chariots of Fire” act whenever Trump is mentioned — especially since a few specific reporters refuse to give the Republicans safe haven to bash Trump while remaining safely anonymous. What’s their beef? Don’t they want the attention?

No matter how vociferously some of those Republicans may pretend to be offended by Trump’s current behavior — which is, by the way, the same behavior he’s exhibited since he crawled his way out of the social womb as a young adult — all those former sycophants will surely reattach themselves to Trump’s bulbous posterior if it benefits them or their political campaigns in the future.

Nick Fuentes is the attention-seeking, Nazi-loving, Holocaust-denying far-right 24-year-old young man at the center of Trump’s latest gaffe — a man often vilified by other extremists as being “too extreme.”

Trump’s answer to the firestorm around his dinner with Fuentes is “I don’t even know who that guy is.” That’s an oldie-but-goldie response in Donald’s melodramatic mental arsenal. It, of course, means he knows the guy perfectly well. Just ask George Papadopoulos or anyone else Donald has said that about in his sordid past.

But the press has long since abandoned any sense of calling out most of his lies. Trump has made us weary and we’ve got too much skin in the game: We’re far too dependent on the audience attention we get from Trump. So, while he enjoys the rough-and-tumble of calling us “fake news” and trying to bully or antagonize those who push back, most of us are just strapped into the rollercoaster and here for the ride.

That’s something most grifters understand, including but not limited to Elon Musk and Donald Trump. You cannot give Trump the benefit of the doubt, because he has left no doubt that he’s a con man since his first moments in public life. If you don’t see that, then congratulations: You’re the mark.


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


Musk is another entitled rich guy from the Trump club who gets the benefit of the doubt — and like Trump, he is given it far more often than he deserves it. 

Under the banner of restoring “free speech” to his recently purchased Twitter empire, Musk has embraced an increasingly significant number of changes that make his claims untenable. Granting amnesty to Trump and other hatemongers has also drawn the ire of Apple, another media powerhouse, and the onetime golden boy of Tesla and SpaceX  looks tarnished today. Reading his tweets is only slightly more amusing than Trump’s old tweets. But they get him attention, and that is what Musk wants as he declares himself a patriot.

Musk was never a friend of the American people. He’s a friend only to himself. He’s Trump’s long-lost pseudo-sibling, craving the attention Trump has. Musk wants to suck up all the oxygen in the room. Twitter is his bid to get it. His claim that he wants a large community sharing free speech on Twitter has become embarrassing. 

Free speech cannot merely be a cacophony of capricious crap from divisive trolls who each have access to their mutually “exclusive facts.” Musk has declared his company to be the future of journalism. Ha. I say if he wants to be a journalist, he should at least hire a copy editor. Those are in short supply but heavy demand, though not among the masters of the media universe. Musk doesn’t know what a copy editor is, any more than he knows how to fix the problems of the media. If he means what he says about that, he should by now have reached out to those of us who actually understand the problem. It’s complex, it’s nuanced, and you won’t get a lot of attention for carefully studying the facts. 

Musk isn’t entirely to blame for this debacle. The press shoulders a lot of blame by hero-worshiping him and Trump and other so-called elite “geniuses” in hopes of access. There are fewer and fewer reporters left on the streets who understand what their job is, and even fewer editors or managers who know how to get the best out of their reporters. Speaking truth to power? The truth is, the media has ceded its public power to politicians and is now being carved up by the robber barons they also caved into long ago.

Some people are unable or unwilling to recognize the obvious facts of the Holocaust, the moon landing, the Jan. 6 Insurrection, the COVID pandemic and climate change — and that’s among the greatest follies of our species since we crawled out of the caves. Clinging to dangerous fictions has led to a media landscape dominated by demented human demons. That is partly why people like Fuentes, the Oath Keepers, Donald Trump and Elon Musk get our attention. Their asinine followers cheer them on with the devotion of Christian zealots (and often are Christian zealots) while the rest of us recoil in horror or laugh uncontrollably or some combination of the two — often within the same breath. Either way, the insanity draws attention to itself.

These attention addicts cheer and analyze to death everything about themselves. Far from being repulsed by those who find them insufferable, they enjoy the notoriety they gain from critics. The adrenaline rush of attention pushes them to even more outlandish antics. It’s a lot like watching a toddler figure out that if he takes a crayon and draws on the living room wall, his parents will appear out of nowhere. It’s magic. 

But the dark arts come at a price. The successful prosecution of Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes shows that reality can turn harsh for those who will do anything to get noticed. Any further analysis of this insipid behavior only provides the perpetrator with the additional attention he craves, even at his own expense. It is pathological and dangerous. 

It also makes you wonder if they could get as much attention by working in a homeless shelter, volunteering to coach youth sports or teaching kindergarten. Would they give up their pathological desires for something a little more wholesome? We don’t live in that world. We live in a world where a man-child can bay at the moon about his extreme opinions based on fiction and fear while screaming “Look at me!” 

Then again, when you look at Trump, Musk and their ilk, you realize the world is better off with them nowhere near impressionable toddlers. The venom they spew may well result from some hidden tale of woe in their own upbringing, but there’s no need to spread it to further generations. We already have to pay the price for our racist, elitist, misogynistic, ignorant mistakes by dealing with these people as adults.

You cannot back down. You cannot ignore them. You can’t give them too much attention. (No, literally. No amount will ever be too much for them.) You can only inform others they’ve been conned — and some will never learn. You can prosecute the worst of them, as the Oath Keepers have found out and as Donald Trump will soon find out. You can publicly shame them. But you shouldn’t disengage. Someone needs to be the substitute parent to these spoiled-rotten, adult-diaper-wearing crybabies.

Leave Twitter? Please. I’ll stay for a while and put forth an effort. Trump, Musk, Fuentes, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, Jim Jordan, Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul and a host of others all apparently had serious parental issues — probably with their fathers.

Spank them, change their diapers, give them a timeout, remove them from the public arena and prosecute them when justified. That’s cultural parenting. And if you crave attention, then be careful what you wish for.

Or, if you like the movies, “Play for blood you say? That’s just my game.” As Doc Holliday said, “I’m your huckleberry.”

“Not just another alternate elector”: Judge identifies GOPer who played central role in Trump plot

A Georgia judge on Wednesday ruled that state Republican Party Chairman David Shafer cannot share an attorney with 10 other Republicans involved in the pro-Trump fake elector scheme because he played a central role in the effort.

Judge Robert McBurney ruled that while the legal exposure of other so-called “alternate electors” is limited, they cannot share attorneys with Shafer because of the central role he played as an organizer of the scheme, according to Politico. Shafer and other Trump supporters organized groups of fake electors ahead of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and submitted fake slates of electors for former President Donald Trump in states won by President Joe Biden. The Georgia scheme is under investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is probing efforts to overturn the state’s election.

Wednesday’s ruling was a partial victory for Willis, who asked for both attorneys representing 11 fake electors to be disqualified over concerns that the joint representation could pose a conflict if any were criminally charged and others were called to testify as witnesses. Attorneys Kimberly Burroughs Debrow and Holly Pierson argued that their clients had not been charged with a crime and faced minimal legal exposure and waived concerns about a conflict in order to share the two attorneys.

McBurney agreed that potential criminal charges against the other 10 fake electors were “remote and hypothetical” but said Shafer is “the exception” because he was “not just another alternate elector.”

“Given the information before the Court about his role in establishing and convening the slate of alternate electors, his communications with other key players in the District Attorney’s investigation, and his role in other post-election efforts to call into question the validity of the official vote count in Georgia, the Court finds that he is substantively differently situated,” McBurney wrote in a seven-page opinion.

“His fate with the special purpose grand jury (and beyond) is not tethered to the other ten electors in the same manner in which those ten find themselves connected,” McBurney wrote. “This imbalance in exposure to the District Attorney’s investigation makes it impractical and arguably unethical for Pierson and Debrow to represent all eleven together.”


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


McBurney ruled that the two attorneys “may represent David Shafer or the other ten alternate electors — but not both.” Another five of the state’s 16 fake electors are represented by different attorneys.

He cited Shafer’s unique role in organizing the effort, including emails and other records showing that he played a key role in the plot. Shafer organized Republicans in the Georgia state capitol in December 2020 to forge a fake elector certification and served as one of the fake electors himself, according to CNN. He was also a plaintiff in a dubious lawsuit as he fought to overturn the election. He coordinated at least some of his efforts with Trump’s team, testifying to the House Jan. 6 committee that he organized the scheme at the direction of the Trump campaign.

Though Shafer’s lawyers insist he didn’t commit a crime and did everything out in the open, investigators obtained an email from a former Trump campaign aide asking the fake electors for “complete secrecy and discretion” and urged them to misdirect security at the state capitol when they arrived.

Debrow and Pierson told Politico they disagreed with the ruling and argued they should be allowed to represent all 11 clients.

“Mr. Shafer did not select the replacement electors or have any legally material ‘communications with other key players in the District Attorney’s investigation,'” the lawyers said in a statement. “His only ‘role in other post-election efforts to call into question the validity of the official vote count in Georgia’ was the constitutionally protected act of petitioning the government through the proper judicial process to contest the election, a lawsuit in which the nominee electors themselves were the real parties in interest.”

The involvement of the fake electors in the TrumpWorld plot to overturn his loss in the state is just one part of Willis’ investigation. She is also probing Trump’s efforts to pressure Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn his loss in the state and other efforts by Trump allies like then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Meadows and Graham fought the grand jury subpoenas they received in the probe but were ultimately ordered to testify. Graham testified for “just over two hours and answered all questions” last month, a spokesman said. Meadows earlier this week had his bid to dismiss the subpoena rejected by South Carolina’s Supreme Court.

“We have reviewed the arguments raised by [Meadows],” the opinion said, “and find them to be manifestly without merit.”

South Dakota voters approved Medicaid expansion, but implementation may not be easy

South Dakotans voted Tuesday to expand the state’s Medicaid program to cover thousands of additional low-income residents, becoming the seventh state to approve expansion via the ballot box.

But as other conservative states have shown, voter approval doesn’t always mean politicians and administrators will rush to implement the change.

In Missouri, for example, experts said subpar publicity efforts and an outdated application system led to a glacial pace of enrollment after voters there approved Medicaid expansion in 2020.

A similarly slow rollout could occur in South Dakota, said Tricia Brooks, a Georgetown University research professor who studies Medicaid.

South Dakota’s Medicaid computer system “has a long way to evolve,” Brooks said. “Unless they’re going to really boost their eligibility [processing] capacity, then I think we’re in for a rough or rocky start to expansion.”

That could leave some South Dakotans temporarily uninsured even after they become eligible for Medicaid coverage.

Brooks said state administrators could face additional complications if the federal government ends the covid-19 public health emergency while South Dakota is enrolling newly eligible people into Medicaid. During the health emergency, states have been barred from dropping people who are no longer eligible for Medicaid, but they will resume doing so once the emergency ends.

Officials with the South Dakota Department of Social Services acknowledged Wednesday that they need to prepare. “We anticipate needing a significant number of additional staff and technology resources for implementation,” Laurie Gill, the department secretary, said in a statement. She said the department created a leadership team to oversee necessary policy and system changes.

Missouri and most other states where voters approved Medicaid expansion faced politicians who tried to hamstring implementation.

But the pro-expansion group South Dakotans Decide Healthcare is confident that the change will be implemented as required by the constitutional amendment that voters approved Tuesday, campaign manager Zach Marcus said.

Marcus pointed to deadlines included in the amendment, and he noted that Gov. Kristi Noem — a Republican who opposed expansion — promised during a debate to implement the change if voters approved it.

South Dakota became the 39th state to approve Medicaid expansion, after 56% of voters supported the measure. The Department of Social Services expects about 52,000 newly eligible residents ages 18 through 64 will enroll in Medicaid.

Medicaid is the nation’s leading public health insurance program for people with disabilities and low incomes. It is funded and administered by the federal government and states.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act initially required states to expand their programs so more low-income adults could gain coverage, with the federal government paying 90% of the costs. But a U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down that mandate.

Most states adopted Medicaid expansion through governors’ orders or legislature-approved bills. But voters in Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota overrode resistance from lawmakers and governors by approving expansion through ballot measures. Every time Medicaid expansion has been on the ballot, it has passed.

Expansion proponents in South Dakota sought a constitutional amendment, which can’t be easily repealed or revised. The amendment includes implementation deadlines and bars the state from creating extra rules, such as work requirements, for people who newly qualify for Medicaid.

In the past, South Dakota politicians have filed lawsuits that successfully argued that voter-approved measures violated the state constitution.

Last year, for example, Noem spearheaded a lawsuit that overturned a voter-approved amendment to legalize recreational marijuana. But she recently said the Medicaid expansion amendment “appears to be written constitutionally.”

States can face hurdles in rolling out Medicaid expansion even after implementation begins. Education, enrollment, and processing policies play a role.

For example, in 2021, Missouri hit roadblocks when lawmakers refused to fund the program, and the state implemented the change only after a judge ordered the state to begin accepting applications. Experts said Missouri officials put little effort into outreach and required people to navigate a bureaucratic application process. Data shows the state also failed to process applications on time.

Oklahoma, where voters approved expansion the same year, had the opposite experience. Lawmakers there agreed to fund the program, and the state spread the word about expansion through social media campaigns, TV interviews, and outreach events. The state also evaluated whether people who had applied to other benefit programs might be newly eligible for Medicaid.

By December 2021, Oklahoma had enrolled more than 210,000 people through Medicaid expansion, while Missouri had enrolled fewer than 20,000.

Shelly Ten Napel, CEO of Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas, said officials can take steps to ensure a positive experience in South Dakota. Creating a “simple administrative process” means less work for applicants and state workers, said Ten Napel, who advocates for clinics that serve low-income and uninsured patients.

Brooks, the Georgetown expert on Medicaid administration, said South Dakota’s Medicaid practices aren’t as strong as other states’. “South Dakota is not advanced in their use of technology,” Brooks said. “I worry if it’s too manually driven that the state will be overwhelmed. And that will slow down the processing and you could potentially see what we’ve seen in Missouri.”

Brooks’ concerns are supported by studies and data.

South Dakota uses multiple applications and processing systems for Medicaid and other benefit programs when it could use just one, according to a March report by KFF and Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.

The report also says South Dakota is one of three states without an online account system. That means South Dakotans can’t monitor their applications or upload documents to renew their coverage.

The Department of Social Services must submit its Medicaid expansion plan to the federal government by March 1 and begin providing benefits to newly eligible people by July 1.

Gill said the department is developing a system that is cellphone friendly and will allow people to create online accounts.

But she said those changes won’t be ready until fall 2023. That’s months after the department is expected to see a flood of new, post-expansion applications.


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Investigating private equity’s stealthy takeover of health care across cities and specialties

Two-year-old Zion Gastelum died just days after dentists performed root canals and put crowns on six baby teeth at a clinic affiliated with a private equity firm.

His parents sued the Kool Smiles dental clinic in Yuma, Arizona, and its private equity investor, FFL Partners. They argued the procedures were done needlessly, in keeping with a corporate strategy to maximize profits by overtreating kids from lower-income families enrolled in Medicaid. Zion died after being diagnosed with “brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen,” according to the lawsuit.

Kool Smiles “overtreats, underperforms and overbills,” the family alleged in the suit, which was settled last year under confidential terms. FFL Partners and Kool Smiles had no comment but denied liability in court filings.

Private equity is rapidly moving to reshape health care in America, coming off a banner year in 2021, when the deep-pocketed firms plowed $206 billion into more than 1,400 health care acquisitions, according to industry tracker PitchBook.

Seeking quick returns, these investors are buying into eye care clinics, dental management chains, physician practices, hospices, pet care providers, and thousands of other companies that render medical care nearly from cradle to grave. Private equity-backed groups have even set up special “obstetric emergency departments” at some hospitals, which can charge expectant mothers hundreds of dollars extra for routine perinatal care.

As private equity extends its reach into health care, evidence is mounting that the penetration has led to higher prices and diminished quality of care, a KHN investigation has found. KHN found that companies owned or managed by private equity firms have agreed to pay fines of more than $500 million since 2014 to settle at least 34 lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that punishes false billing submissions to the federal government with fines. Most of the time, the private equity owners have avoided liability.

New research by the University of California-Berkeley has identified “hot spots” where private equity firms have quietly moved from having a small foothold to controlling more than two-thirds of the market for physician services such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology in 2021. And KHN found that in San Antonio, more than two dozen gastroenterology offices are controlled by a private equity-backed group that billed a patient $1,100 for her share of a colonoscopy charge — about three times what she paid in another state.

It’s not just prices that are drawing scrutiny.

Whistleblowers and injured patients are turning to the courts to press allegations of misconduct or other improper business dealings. The lawsuits allege that some private equity firms, or companies they invested in, have boosted the bottom line by violating federal false claims and anti-kickback laws or through other profit-boosting strategies that could harm patients.

“Their model is to deliver short-term financial goals and in order to do that you have to cut corners,” said Mary Inman, an attorney who represents whistleblowers.

Federal regulators, meanwhile, are almost blind to the incursion, since private equity typically acquires practices and hospitals below the regulatory radar. KHN found that more than 90% of private equity takeovers or investments fall below the $101 million threshold that triggers an antitrust review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.

Spurring Growth

Private equity firms pool money from investors, ranging from wealthy people to college endowments and pension funds. They use that money to buy into businesses they hope to flip at a sizable profit, usually within three to seven years, by making them more efficient and lucrative.

Private equity has poured nearly $1 trillion into nearly 8,000 health care transactions during the past decade, according to PitchBook.

Fund managers who back the deals often say they have the expertise to reduce waste and turn around inefficient, or moribund, businesses, and they tout their role in helping to finance new drugs and technologies expected to benefit patients in years to come.

Critics see a far less rosy picture. They argue that private equity’s playbook, while it may work in some industries, is ill suited for health care, when people’s lives are on the line.

In the health care sphere, private equity has tended to find legal ways to bill more for medical services: trimming services that don’t turn a profit, cutting staff, or employing personnel with less training to perform skilled jobs — actions that may put patients at risk, critics say.

KHN, in a series of articles published this year, has examined a range of private equity forays into health care, from its marketing of America’s top-selling emergency contraception pill to buying up whole chains of ophthalmology and gastroenterology practices and investing in the booming hospice care industry and even funeral homes.

These deals happened on top of well-publicized takeovers of hospital emergency room staffing firms that led to outrageous “surprise” medical bills for some patients, as well as the buying up of entire rural hospital systems.

“Their only goal is to make outsize profits,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University and a critic of the industry.

Hot Spots

When it comes to acquisitions, private equity firms have similar appetites, according to a KHN analysis of 600 deals by the 25 firms that PitchBook says have most frequently invested in health care.

Eighteen of the firms have dental companies listed in their portfolios, and 16 list centers that offer treatment of cataracts, eye surgery, or other vision care, KHN found.

Fourteen have bought stakes in animal hospitals or pet care clinics, a market in which rapid consolidation led to a recent antitrust action by the FTC. The agency reportedly also is investigating whether U.S. Anesthesia Partners, which operates anesthesia practices in nine states, has grown too dominant in some areas.

Private equity has flocked to companies that treat autism, drug addiction, and other behavioral health conditions. The firms have made inroads into ancillary services such as diagnostic and urine-testing and software for managing billing and other aspects of medical practice.

Private equity has done so much buying that it now dominates several specialized medical services, such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology, in a few metropolitan areas, according to new research made available to KHN by the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC-Berkeley.

Although private equity plays a role in just 14% of gastroenterology practices nationwide, it controls nearly three-quarters of the market in at least five metropolitan areas across five states, including Texas and North Carolina, according to the Petris Center research.

Similarly, anesthesiology practices tied to private equity hold 12% of the market nationwide but have swallowed up more than two-thirds of it in parts of five states, including the Orlando, Florida, area, according to the data.

These expansions can lead to higher prices for patients, said Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.

In a study of 578 physician practices in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology published in JAMA Health Forum in September, Singh and her team tied private equity takeovers to an average increase of $71 per medical claim filed and a 9% increase in lengthy, more costly, patient visits.

Singh said in an interview that private equity may develop protocols that bring patients back to see physicians more often than in the past, which can drive up costs, or order more lucrative medical services, whether needed or not, that boost profits.

“There are more questions than answers,” Singh said. “It really is a black hole.”

Jean Hemphill, a Philadelphia health care attorney, said that in some cases private equity has merely taken advantage of the realities of operating a modern medical practice amid growing administrative costs.

Physicians sometimes sell practices to private equity firms because they promise to take over things like billing, regulatory compliance, and scheduling — allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine. (The physicians also might reap a big payout.)

“You can’t do it on a scale like Marcus Welby used to do it,” Hemphill said, referring to an early 1970s television drama about a kindly family doctor who made house calls. “That’s what leads to larger groups,” she said. “It is a more efficient way to do it.”

But Laura Alexander, a former vice president of policy at the nonprofit American Antitrust Institute, which collaborated on the Petris Center research, said she is concerned about private equity’s growing dominance in some markets.

“We’re still at the stage of understanding the scope of the problem,” Alexander said. “One thing is clear: Much more transparency and scrutiny of these deals is needed.”

‘Revenue Maximization’

Private equity firms often bring a “hands-on” approach to management, taking steps such as placing their representatives on a company’s board of directors and influencing the hiring and firing of key staffers.

“Private equity exercises immense control over the operations of health care companies it buys an interest in,” said Jeanne Markey, a Philadelphia whistleblower attorney.

Markey represented physician assistant Michelle O’Connor in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit filed against National Spine and Pain Centers and its private equity owner, Sentinel Capital Partners.

In just a year under private equity guidance, National Spine’s patient load quadrupled as it grew into one of the nation’s largest pain management chains, treating more than 160,000 people in about 40 offices across five East Coast states, according to the suit.

O’Connor, who worked at two National Spine clinics in Virginia, said the mega-growth strategy sprang from a “corporate culture in which money trumps the provision of appropriate patient care,” according to the suit.

She cited a “revenue maximization” policy that mandated medical staffers see at least 25 patients a day, up from 16 to 18 before the takeover.

The pain clinics also overcharged Medicare by billing up to $1,100 for “unnecessary and often worthless” back braces and charging up to $1,800 each for urine drug tests that were “medically unnecessary and often worthless,” according to the suit.

In April 2019, National Spine paid the Justice Department $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower’s civil case without admitting wrongdoing.

Sentinel Capital Partners, which by that time had sold the pain management chain to another private equity firm, paid no part of National Spine’s settlement, court records show. Sentinel Capital Partners had no comment.

In another whistleblower case, a South Florida pharmacy owned by RLH Equity Partners raked in what the lawsuit called an “extraordinarily high” profit on more than $68 million in painkilling and scar creams billed to the military health insurance plan Tricare.

The suit alleges that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to telemarketers who drove the business. One doctor admitted prescribing the creams to scores of patients he had never seen, examined, or even spoken to, according to the suit.

RLH, based in Los Angeles, disputed the Justice Department’s claims. In 2019, RLH and the pharmacy paid a total of $21 million to settle the case. Neither admitted liability. RLH managing director Michel Glouchevitch told KHN that his company cooperated with the investigation and that “the individuals responsible for any problems have been terminated.”

In many fraud cases, however, private equity investors walk away scot-free because the companies they own pay the fines. Eileen O’Grady, a researcher at the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said government should require “added scrutiny” of private equity companies whose holdings run afoul of the law.

“Nothing like that exists,” she said.

Questions About Quality

Whether private equity influences the quality of medical care is tough to discern.

Robert Homchick, a Seattle health care regulatory attorney, said private equity firms “vary tremendously” in how conscientiously they manage health care holdings, which makes generalizing about their performance difficult.

“Private equity has some bad actors, but so does the rest of the [health care] industry,” he said. “I think it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush.”

But incipient research paints a disturbing picture, which took center stage earlier this year.

On the eve of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech in March, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of “buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”

The covid-19 pandemic had highlighted the “tragic impact” of staffing cuts and other moneysaving tactics in nursing homes, the statement said.

More than 200,000 nursing home residents and staffers had died from covid in the previous two years, according to the White House, and research had linked private equity to inflated nursing costs and elevated patient death rates.

Some injured patients are turning to the courts in hopes of holding the firms accountable for what the patients view as lapses in care or policies that favor profits over patients.

Dozens of lawsuits link patient harm to the sale of Florida medical device maker Exactech to TPG Capital, a Texas private equity firm. TPG acquired the device company in February 2018 for about $737 million.

In August 2021, Exactech recalled its Optetrak knee replacement system, warning that a defect in packaging might cause the implant to loosen or fracture and cause “pain, bone loss or recurrent swelling.” In the lawsuits, more than three dozen patients accuse Exactech of covering up the defects for years, including, some suits say, when “full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem … might have negatively impacted” Exactech’s sale to TPG.

Linda White is suing Exactech and TPG, which she asserts is “directly involved” in the device company’s affairs.

White had Optetrak implants inserted into both her knees at a Galesburg, Illinois, hospital in June 2012. The right one failed and was replaced with a second Optetrak implant in July 2015, according to her lawsuit. That one also failed, and she had it removed and replaced with a different company’s device in January 2019.

The Exactech implant in White’s left knee had to be removed in May 2019, according to the suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.

In a statement to KHN, Exactech said it conducted an “extensive investigation” when it received reports of “unexpected wear of our implants.”

Exactech said the problem dated to 2005 but was discovered only in July of last year. “Exactech disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself,” the statement said. TPG declined to comment but has denied the allegations in court filings.

‘Invasive Procedures’

In the past, private equity business tactics have been linked to scandalously bad care at some dental clinics that treated children from low-income families.

In early 2008, a Washington, D.C., television station aired a shocking report about a local branch of the dental chain Small Smiles that included video of screaming children strapped to straightjacket-like “papoose boards” before being anesthetized to undergo needless operations like baby root canals.

Five years later, a U.S. Senate report cited the TV exposé in voicing alarm at the “corporate practice of dentistry in the Medicaid program.” The Senate report stressed that most dentists turned away kids enrolled in Medicaid because of low payments and posed the question: How could private equity make money providing that care when others could not?

“The answer is ‘volume,'” according to the report.

Small Smiles settled several whistleblower cases in 2010 by paying the government $24 million. At the time, it was providing “business management and administrative services” to 69 clinics nationwide, according to the Justice Department. It later declared bankruptcy.

But complaints that volume-driven dentistry mills have harmed disadvantaged children didn’t stop.

According to the 2018 lawsuit filed by his parents, Zion Gastelum was hooked up to an oxygen tank after questionable root canals and crowns “that was empty or not operating properly” and put under the watch of poorly trained staffers who didn’t recognize the blunder until it was too late.

Zion never regained consciousness and died four days later at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, the suit states. The cause of death was “undetermined,” according to the Maricopa County medical examiner’s office. An Arizona state dental board investigation later concluded that the toddler’s care fell below standards, according to the suit.

Less than a month after Zion’s death in December 2017, the dental management company Benevis LLC and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics agreed to pay the Justice Department $24 million to settle False Claims Act lawsuits. The government alleged that the chain performed “medically unnecessary” dental services, including baby root canals, from January 2009 through December 2011.

In their lawsuit, Zion’s parents blamed his death on corporate billing policies that enforced “production quotas for invasive procedures such as root canals and crowns” and threatened to fire or discipline dental staff “for generating less than a set dollar amount per patient.”

Kool Smiles billed Medicaid $2,604 for Zion’s care, according to the suit. FFL Partners did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, it denied liability, arguing it did not provide “any medical services that harmed the patient.”

Covering Tracks

Under a 1976 federal law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, deal-makers must report proposed mergers to the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division for review. The intent is to block deals that stifle competition, which can lead to higher prices and lower-quality services.

But there’s a huge blind spot, which stymies government oversight of more than 90% of private equity investments in health care companies: The current threshold for reporting deals is $101 million.

KHN’s analysis of PitchBook data found that just 423 out of 7,839 private equity health care deals from 2012 through 2021 were known to have exceeded the current threshold.

In some deals, private equity takes a controlling interest in medical practices, and doctors work for the company. In other cases, notably in states whose laws prohibit corporate ownership of physician practices, the private equity firm handles a range of management duties.

Thomas Wollmann, a University of Chicago researcher, said antitrust authorities may not learn of consequential transactions “until long after they have been completed” and “it’s very hard to break them up after the fact.”

In August, the FTC took aim at what it called “a growing trend toward consolidation” by veterinary medicine chains.

The FTC ordered JAB Consumer Partners, a private equity firm based in Luxembourg, to divest from some clinics in the San Francisco Bay and Austin, Texas, areas as part of a proposed $1.1 billion takeover of a rival.

The FTC said the deal would eliminate “head-to-head” competition, “increasing the likelihood that customers are forced to pay higher prices or experience a degradation in quality of the relevant services.”

Under the order, JAB must obtain FTC approval before buying veterinary clinics within 25 miles of the sites it owns in Texas and California.

The FTC would not say how much market consolidation is too much or whether it plans to step up scrutiny of health care mergers and acquisitions.

“Every case is fact-specific,” Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokesperson, told KHN.

Lordan, who has since left the agency, said regulators are considering updates to regulations governing mergers and are reviewing about 1,900 responses to the January 2022 request for public comment. At least 300 of the comments were from doctors or other health care workers.

Few industry observers expect the concerns to abate; they might even increase.

Investors are flush with “dry powder,” industry parlance for money waiting to stoke a deal.

The Healthcare Private Equity Association, which boasts about 100 investment companies as members, says the firms have $3 trillion in assets and are pursuing a vision for “building the future of healthcare.”

That kind of talk alarms Cornell University professor Rosemary Batt, a longtime critic of private equity. She predicts that investors chasing outsize profits will achieve their goals by “sucking the wealth” out of more and more health care providers.

“They are constantly looking for new financial tricks and strategies,” Batt said.

KHN’s Megan Kalata contributed to this article.


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

America is still deeply traumatized — and the midterms didn’t fix that

The American people are traumatized by the Age of Trump and what it unleashed. The damage is at once physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual, financial, spiritual and political, and is nowhere near being healed or repaired.

This trauma comes with a literal body count, and that outcome is not a negative externality, a “defect” or an accident. Trumpism, like other forms of fascism and authoritarianism, is lethal by design.

The pain and suffering caused by the Age of Trump and its forces were amplified by preexisting societal traumas, such as extreme wealth and income inequality, white supremacy, sexism, a culture of violence and systemic injustice.

In a recent interview on Democracy Now!, bestselling author and physician Gabor Maté said this about America’s collective unwellness:

[I]n our society, psychological woundedness is very prevalent, and it’s rather an illusion to believe some people are traumatized and others are not. I think there’s a spectrum of trauma that crosses all layers and all segments of society. Naturally, it falls heavier on certain sections — on people of color, people with genders that are not fully accepted by society, people of economic inequality who suffer more from inequality — but the traumatization is pretty general in our culture. …  [T]he first thing that has to happen is a recognition that how we’re living or some aspect of our lives is not working for us, and that there’s a cause for it, which we can actually uncover by some compassionate inquiry.

And very often there needs to be a wake-up call. Now, COVID could have been a wake-up call for this culture, but I don’t think it will have worked that way. It should have, but it didn’t, because of the nature of this society. … The resistance to social transformation in this culture is so deep that the COVID lessons, I don’t think, have been learned, nor will be applied.

If we “look upon these manifestations as individual pathology,” that yields no explanation, Maté continues. But to “see them as the outcomes of a toxic culture” may provide more useful insight. Public health experts have shown how loneliness, anxiety, suicide and other forms of self-harm, diminished self-esteem, unhealthy relationships, drug and alcohol abuse, the “deaths of despair” and other indicators of a society in existential crisis increased in America during Donald Trump’s presidency.

There are countervailing forces, to be sure. Joe Biden has tried to exert a calming influence over the American people and to serve as an anchor and model for responsible leadership. Furthermore, a large proportion of the American people stood up against the Republican Party’s anti-democracy “red tide” during the recent midterm elections. Nonetheless, most of the public and its leaders and opinion-makers, especially the mainstream media, remain in deep denial about the reality of the fascist threat to American democracy and civil society.

Many Americans, in fact, seem collectively stuck in the depression and bargaining stages of grief. There has been no closure, let alone any proper reckoning for the trauma and loss suffered during the Age of Trump. The result could be described as collective maladaptive compensatory behavior.

Because fascism is a form of corrupt, unrestrained power — a fundamental assault on the collective and individual emotions of a society as a means to break its collective will and enforce a destructive revolutionary project — therapeutic language is especially useful both in diagnosing the crisis and finding a way to solve it. 

Understood through that framework, the midterm elections and the immense relief being experienced by many Americans about how democracy “triumphed” and Trump and the Republicans have been “beaten back,” are revealed as dangerous acts of premature celebration. To use a powerful metaphor, the American people are like “dry drunks,” a therapeutic term used for alcoholics who have stopped drinking without addressing the underlying causes of their disease and addiction. If we believe our democracy is almost fully healed because of what happened in November, we are making the same crucial mistake.

In a recent series of posts on Twitter, activist and author Don Winslow has shared what he calls “tragic and upsetting facts”:

1. We lost the House.

2. More Republicans voted than Democrats.

Facts.

Tragic and upsetting facts but facts….

A lot of “toxic positivity” on here. It’s a real thing, and really, really annoying and nonsensical….

The reason I’m posting facts about the 2022 mid-terms – which I realize are difficult to see – is so that my fellow Democrats can make some important structural changes NOW so that we don’t repeat this in 2024.

In the latest installment of his invaluable New York Times column, Thomas Edsall focuses on empirical data showing that, as Winslow says, Republicans actually received more votes than Democrats did in the midterms. (This phenomenon is known as “wasted votes” in which one party runs up huge margins in safe seats.) Edsall also observes that the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition “revealed dangerous cracks” in the midterms, and may be vulnerable to exploitation and attack by its opponents:

Turnout fell in a number of key Democratic cities. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the city’s “vote count dropped 33 percent from 2020, more than any other county and the statewide average of 22 percent. It’s not just a 2020 comparison: This year saw a stark divergence between Philly turnout and the rest of the state compared to every federal election since at least 2000.”

The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners reported that turnout of registered voters in 2022 was 46.1 percent, down from 60.67 percent in the previous 2018 midterm.

According to the Board of Elections in Ohio’s Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, turnout fell from 54.5 percent in 2018 to 46.1 percent in 2022.

The Gotham Gazette reported that from 2018 to 2022, turnout fell from 41 to 33 percent in New York City.

The drop in turnout was disturbing to Democratic strategists, but so too was the change in sentiment of many of the voters who did show up, as support for the party’s nominees continued to erode among Black, Hispanic and Asian American voters.

Edsall reports that “Republican House candidates got 3.5 million more votes nationwide than Democrats did, 53.9 million, or 51.7 percent of the two-party vote to the Democrats’ 50.4 million, or 48.3 percent.” That’s a startling six-point swing in the Republicans’ favor from 2020, and they would indeed have enjoyed a “red wave” election if voters had not by and large “turned against the specific candidates endorsed by Donald Trump — candidates who in competitive races backed Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.”


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


At the Daily Beast, David Rothkopf also sounded the alarm about the continued threat from the Republicans’ fascist campaign to end American democracy. “Voters helped beat back creeping authoritarianism,” he notes, and that’s “worth celebrating.” But Democrats lost the House and only barely held the Senate. All the likely contenders for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination, Trump of course included, “are drawn like moths to the authoritarian flame. Their goal is to incinerate checks on presidential power and to suppress the will of all those who may oppose them”:

When the euphoria of stopping the “red wave” fades, we’ll have to accept the fact that the 2022 midterms, in the end, affirmed that we remain a deeply divided country….

Yes, many prominent election deniers lost their races, but a disquieting number of them won at both the national and local levels. And the GOP supermajority on the Supreme Court isn’t going anywhere — which means more fundamental rights are threatened, and partisans will have friends in high places should they want to distort election results in the future…

At the Atlantic, leading “never-Trumper” Tom Nichols also cautioned against premature celebration:

Events of the past few weeks in Russia, Brazil, and America show the global right in disarray. But these are not signs of defeat, as liberals might hope; they are the disorderly attempt by antidemocratic forces to stage a recovery.… [W]e should not lose sight of the fact that some of the worst people in national and global politics are reorganizing and retrenching. They will be back.

In an essay for the Guardian, Simon Tisdall rejects the “received wisdom on the left that the Republicans will self-destruct in a scrap for the party nomination,” and that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis may finally break Trump’s hold on the party:

And yet, and yet … bandwagon-loads of wishful thinking cloud these calculations. Trump retains the support, mostly, of his famed “base” — the Maga core. He continues to attract torrents of individual cash donations. The politics of grievance have deep roots. DeSantis has not said he will run.

And he is dusting off his election playbook, which confounded conventional wisdom in 2016. He will again cast himself as the underdog, the outsider, the only candidate who calls out corrupt Washington elites. Trump, after all, is an expert on corruption….

Could America really fall for this vaudeville charlatan all over again? Polls suggest most voters want neither Trump nor Joe Biden in 2024. Yet if there is a rematch, who can say what will happen.

One of the most powerful recent warnings about the enduring nature of fascism and its deep systemic and culture roots in America came from distinguished sociologist and activist Frances Fox Piven, in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t think this fight over elemental democracy is over, by any means,” [Piven] said. “The United States was well on the road to becoming a fascist country — and it still can become a fascist country.” …

While many observers have breathed a sigh of relief over the rout of extreme election deniers endorsed by Trump, and his seemingly deflated campaign launch, Piven has a more somber analysis.

All the main elements are now in place, she said, for America to take a turn to the dark side. “There is the crazy mob, Maga; an elite that is oblivious to what is required for political stability; and a grab-it-and-run mentality that is very strong, very dangerous. I was very frightened about what would happen in the election, and it could still happen.”

That Piven is cautioning against a false sense of security in the wake of the midterms would not surprise her many students and admirers. … She has raised red flags over the vulnerabilities of the country’s democracy, the inequalities baked into its electoral and judicial systems, and how poor Americans, especially those of colour, are forced to resort to defiance and disruption to get their voices heard. Now, with the Republicans having taken the House of Representatives, she foresees ugly times ahead.

“There’s going to be a lot of vengeance politics, a lot of efforts to get back at Joe Biden, idiot stuff. And that will rile up a lot of people. The Maga mob is not a majority of the American population by any stretch of the imagination, but the fascist mob don’t have to be the majority to set in motion the kinds of policies that crush democracy.”

The American people are at a perilous moment in their halting efforts to heal and recover from Trumpism and the evils it has empowered and unleashed. The Supreme Court will soon decide if state legislatures have the power to reject the results of democratic elections. In essence, if the court decides in favor of the “independent state legislature” doctrine, the U.S. will be at extreme risk of becoming a fake “managed democracy” in the mold of Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.

If Trump successfully returns to power in 2025, he will be eager to silence or imprison journalists and other “enemies” of the MAGA movement. A second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy. Trumpists and other neofascists continue to engage in acts of thuggery, violence and terrorism against liberals, progressives, Black and brown people, Jewish people, Muslims, LGBTQ people and others deemed to be “un-American.” Many experts have warned that the country remains on a path to a low-intensity civil war or other sustained right-wing violence.

Depending on how they respond to these challenges, the American people could then find themselves relapsed, collapsed fully backwards into the Age of Trump and neofascism – or perhaps something even far worse.

Americans still have the power to heal the traumas of the last seven years and move forward into a stronger and healthier and more enduring democracy. But only if they are willing to face these “tragic and upsetting facts” without flinching. 

The GOP hasn’t evolved on LGBTQ rights, despite media swooning over “bipartisan” marriage vote

If there are two things the Beltway media loves, it’s crowing about “bipartisanship” and congratulating Republicans for (allegedly) making some kind of social progress. So the mainstream media swooned on Tuesday after 12 Republicans joined Senate Democrats to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that offers some protections for same-sex couples in the event that the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Watching cable news or reading headlines, one would get the impression that after two decades of fighting LGBTQ rights at every turn, Republican hearts have suddenly grown two sizes, leading them to rally to protect the right for same-sex couples to get married. 

“The GOP’s same-sex marriage evolution,” gushed a Politico headline. As most Republicans voted against same-sex marriage, this was caveated as a “slow, choppy tidal shift,” but the implication that we’re heading toward an inevitable endpoint, where Republicans stop opposing equal rights for LGBTQ people, remained.

But make no mistake: There’s no real evolution here. In many ways, Republicans are doubling down on attacks on queer people. The GOP is still beholden to the religious right, which continues to oppose not just same-sex marriage, but queer rights in general. What we’re seeing instead is a shift in tactics. The rising popularity of gay rights forced the anti-LGBTQ movement to develop more underhanded methods, but they have not given up. Instead, they are modeling themselves after the anti-abortion movement, which spent decades quietly chipping away at reproductive rights, until they finally got the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in June. The religious right is pulling out the same blueprint to attack queer people, and they still have a major ally in the Republican party. 


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


Despite laudatory coverage implying otherwise, a majority of Republicans voted against this bill. And there’s a reason it had to be passed in the lame-duck session: Senate Republicans were afraid their support for it would spark evangelical backlash in the midterm elections. But it couldn’t be punted to next year, either, when Republicans will control the House of Representatives in 2023 and would never agree to pass such a bill. The vote’s delicate timing alone should put a damper on the “Republicans are pro-gay now!” narrative. 

Most GOP voters, actually, are fine with same-sex marriage. As Philip Bump of The Washington Post explained in his realistic analysis, it’s the GOP base — the people who vote in primaries and donate money — that holds “ongoing, fervent opposition.” They are still virulently homophobic. And as Donald Trump’s ongoing popularity shows, that rabid right wing base still controls the Republican party. 

This tension is a reason why the majority of Republicans who voted against this bill are now playing word games to explain why they stand with the religious right against not just the wishes of most Americans, but against even the majority of their own voters. The most popular gambit has been to claim that the law is “unnecessary” since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. But of course, the court can overturn rulings, as demonstrated by the Roe reversal in June. Moreover, Justice Clarence Thomas openly invited religious conservatives to file suits to relitigate Obergefell, implying that now, with three Donald Trump-appointed judges, the court could throw out same-sex marriage rights along with abortion rights. 

Republicans also played the victim, painting the vote as a Democratic effort to make them look bad by forcing the issue. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas threw down this card, arguing on his podcast Wednesday that the bill’s timing was hurting Republican Herschel Walker in his challenge against incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock in Georgia’s run-off election. The bill, Cruz claimed, is “kicking evangelical voters in Georgia in the teeth.”

But mostly, the GOP promoted the claim that the bill was an assault on “religious liberty.” In an op-ed for Fox News, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah articulated this point, arguing that “federal recognition of same-sex marriage” could “inflict harm on those who, for reasons rooted in sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction, do not embrace same-sex marriage.”


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


Of course, the actual Respect for Marriage Act explicitly outlines that no minister will ever be required to marry a same-sex couple. But reading on in Lee’s op-ed, the GOP strategy to covertly chip away at the rights of same-sex couples becomes clear. For instance, he cites a vague concern that “many colleges, universities and other nonprofits could lose their tax-exempt status based on their refusal, rooted in religious belief, to recognize same-sex marriage.”

The refusal of such institutions to “recognize” same-sex marriage is about more than etiquette. What Lee demands here is the right for employers to deny certain benefits to LGBTQ employees. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” employers in the policy he’s proposing would have a right to keep same-sex spouses — or children from those unions — from being included in health insurance plans. It could also allow religiously affiliated hospitals to deny same-sex couples visitation rights. We know this because the religious right has already carefully carved out the right to discriminate under the cover of faith in other cases like Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, which allowed employers to cite religion as a reason to deny health care coverage to women who use contraception. 

Lee’s op-ed is a portend of the larger GOP strategy to undermine LGBTQ rights: Rely on the public’s assumption that same-sex marriage is legally “safe” while passing laws under the radar that make queer people second-class citizens. The “don’t say gay” law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida is a good example. Same-sex couples are still allowed to be married in the state, but now queer students, teachers and parents are forced to hide their identities and marriages, unlike straight people. Republican politicians like Sen. John Cornyn of Texas have also hinted at legal strategies to challenge same-sex marriage on the grounds that its existence threatens the “right” of religious conservatives to live in queerphobic communities. 

Even the 12 Republican senators who crossed the aisle to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act deserve no credit. In order to get those votes, as Noor Noman at MSNBC points out, Democrats had to write a bill that “panders to religious groups and denies protections to LGBTQ Americans who need them most.” The bill does not require states to keep same-sex marriage legal if the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges. It also leaves the door open for the GOP to grind away at LGBTQ equality, even without a direct overturn of Obergefell. 


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


This is familiar territory for those who have watched the anti-choice movement gradually erode reproductive rights while most Americans blithely assumed Roe v. Wade would protect them. Before the Roe overturn caught millions of Americans by surprise, Republicans had already taken away a lot of access to reproductive health care through red tape regulations and defunding strategies that made both abortion and birth control needlessly hard to get. At the same time, the “pro-life” branding gave Republicans cover to pretend their opposition to abortion stemmed from personal belief rather than a policy plan to take away others’ rights. Meanwhile, the religious right ran a multi-decade intimidation campaign to stigmatize abortion by picketing clinics and characterizing abortion patients as childlike victims of the “abortion industry.” 

The same playbook is being rolled out in the fight to take away LGBTQ rights. Attempts to strip away health care access and other basic rights are being repackaged as a defense of “religious liberty.” Support of discriminatory laws is being rebranded as “personal beliefs.” Efforts to force queer people back into the closet are being justified as necessary to “protect” religious conservatives and their desire to teach anti-gay views to their kids. Even the equivalent of clinic protests are starting to emerge, mainly in the form of groups like the Proud Boys protesting drag shows and Pride events. It’s all for the same purpose: To publicly shame people for being out of the closet, just as clinic protesters shame patients for abortion. 

The conservative press has made it quite clear to the party that its religious right base has no intention of backing down. 

“Marriage is no longer a means of harnessing the brute facts of biology into the service of children,” the editorial board of the National Review wrote Monday. The editorial lamented the view that marriage should be about “married parties’ happiness.” Instead, they celebrate the “older view of marriage,” which they describe as based on “the biological reality of sexual complementarity, one man and one woman, that works to advance a social ideal.” This view is not just homophobic, it’s anti-equality (and, frankly, anti-romance) — a model of marriage not about love and companionship but about chaining yourself to another person out of duty. Notably, the National Review holds itself out as the voice of “reasonable” conservatism. (They have, at times, even tried to take out Donald Trump.) 

Similarly, Christopher Bedford wrote a commentary for Fox News claiming that by protecting same-sex marriage, “Washington politicians are sleepwalking into another firestorm.” He predicts the Respect for Marriage Act will lead to social chaos.

These are not the words of a movement that accepts it has lost the war of public opinion and is ready to acquiesce to LGBTQ equality. The strategy may be changing, but the goal remains the same: Religious conservatives are still actively working to oppress queer people by rejecting their human rights, and the GOP is still captured by the religious right. The 12 Republican votes for this bill should be read as a distraction, not a fundamental shift in Republican philosophy. 

The pandemic “ruptured” childrens’ social skills around the world, researchers say

Since the widespread social isolation brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and social researchers have been concerned about its social impact. Children in particular are more affected, as experts believe the next generation’s social development was stunted by lockdowns. As one psychiatrist told Salon last year, “at every stage of development, things have been disrupted,” from infants and small children “to adolescents who can’t socialize and all through different stages of life.”

“These severe ruptures to children’s developmental and learning trajectories underline how much we need to think about the impact on social, and not just academic skills. Catch-up education must address the two together.”

Now, a new pair of studies in the journal Longitudinal and Life Course Studies sheds more light on the extent to which children from the world’s most vulnerable communities were socially set back by the pandemic. The findings were both surprising and surprisingly foreboding for what they say about the social and educational consequences for the world’s children.

The new studies focused on roughly 8,000 children of primary school age in Ethiopia. In a study involving 2,000 children, researchers learned that children who struggled socially prior to the pandemic had more pronounced difficulties in 2021. Fewer children were likely to agree with statements like “I feel confident talking to others,” “I make friends easily,” and “If I hurt someone, I say sorry.” Overall, the researchers found that a number of children who had expressed confidence in surveys taken before the pandemic (in 2019) no longer felt that way afterward. Similarly, they learned that students who had previously had a rocky road academically were in even worse straits after the lockdowns, with more than 1 out of 10 children in this cohort ultimately dropping out. This was especially true for people in rural areas, girls, and the poorest citizens.

Another even larger study, which included roughly 6,000 children, found that they had lost the equivalent of at least one-third of an academic year during the lockdown. The president of Addis Ababa University, which helped conduct the study, did not mince words about its implications.

“These severe ruptures to children’s developmental and learning trajectories underline how much we need to think about the impact on social, and not just academic skills,” Professor Tassew Woldehanna said in a statement. “Catch-up education must address the two together.”


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


This is not the first study to reveal how vulnerable children suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Children of color in the United States were already at a disadvantage in America’s education system, and these inequities broadened during the pandemic. American children more broadly have also seen a drop in test scores and other educational benchmarks as a result of the pandemic. Although conservatives have blamed this on school closings, other experts say it is because of the more widespread disruption caused by the pandemic to every sector of life.

“The pandemic was challenging for everyone and resulted in wholesale disruption of daily lives and routines (inside school and out),” Dr. Ethan Hutt, a professor of education at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, told Salon in October. “Even in places where schools were open it is fair to wonder what instruction in those settings was like and not hard to imagine it might have been less effective than usual.”

Amidst the chaos and anxiety of the lockdown, there was a spike in reports of mental health-related emergency room visits among American young people. Children of all backgrounds have experienced a mental health toll since the COVID-19 pandemic swept over the planet in 2020. The situation is so dire that last year the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children’s Hospital Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry released a letter expressing alarm over the situation.

“As health professionals dedicated to the care of children and adolescents, we have witnessed soaring rates of mental health challenges among children, adolescents, and their families over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the situation that existed prior to the pandemic,” the group said in a statement. “This worsening crisis in child and adolescent mental health is inextricably tied to the stress brought on by COVID-19 and the ongoing struggle for racial justice and represents an acceleration of trends observed prior to 2020.”

House passes paid sick leave for railway workers

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday by a margin of 221-207 to pass a concurrent resolution adding seven days of paid sick leave to a White House-brokered contract that was rejected by over half of the nation’s unionized rail workforce but that President Joe Biden urged Congress to force through to prevent a nationwide rail strike next month.

Only three Republicans joined 218 Democrats to approve the paid sick leave measure. Three Republicans and one Democrat abstained.

Just minutes earlier, 79 Republicans joined 211 Democrats to pass a strike-averting resolution that would impose Biden’s heavily criticized tentative agreement, which in its original form does not guarantee any paid sick leave. Five Republicans did not vote.

Biden—a self-described “pro-labor president”—has been condemned by rail workers and progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups for pressuring Congress to use its authority under the Railway Labor Act of 1926 to ram through his deal to preempt a looming strike.

Prior to the intervention of Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who submitted an amendment to add seven days of paid sick leave to the existing settlement on Tuesday night, progressives feared that House lawmakers would advance the White House-brokered pact without trying to improve it.

In a statement praising the House for taking action to prevent a rail shutdown that “would be devastating to our economy and families across the country,” Biden failed to mention Bowman’s amendment.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), by contrast, said Wednesday in a statement that she “was proud to work alongside Rep. Bowman to push for an amendment to a rail deal that would guarantee seven days of paid leave to railroad workers.” Omar thanked House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and the chamber’s leadership for bringing the amendment to the floor.

“Railroad corporations are raking in record profits—over $20 billion last year alone,” said Omar. “Meanwhile, their workers do not even have the basic protections of a single day of paid or unpaid sick time. In the face of these record profits, railroad workers have made a simple, dignified request for the basic protections of paid leave.”

“I will always stand with rail workers and workers around the world,” she added, “and will do everything in my power to make sure their basic demands are not ignored.”

Both the strike-averting resolution and the concurrent resolution adding seven days of paid sick leave to Biden’s deal now head to the Senate.

In a joint statement released in the wake of the House votes, 12 members of the upper chamber—including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—thanked Biden and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh “for their hard work in negotiating a tentative agreement that is better than the disastrous proposal put forward by the rail industry.”

However, they said, “Congress can and must make this agreement better.”

The lawmakers continued:

For nearly three years our nation’s rail workers have been fighting on the frontlines of the pandemic. They have kept our trains on the track even while facing unprecedented challenges.

Supply chain problems coupled with increased consumer spending and online shopping habits have put the freight rail industry under incredible strain. And as a result train crews have been working around the clock often with inflexible and unpredictable work schedules to transport everything from food and fuel to medical supplies and cleaning products.

But even as the need for worker protections and workplace flexibility have grown, railroad companies provide zero days of paid sick leave to their workers. What this means is that if a rail worker comes down with Covid, the flu, or some other illness and calls in sick, that worker will not only receive no pay, but will be penalized and, in some cases, fired. That is absolutely unacceptable.

“During the first three quarters of this year, the rail industry made a record-breaking $21.2 billion in profits,” says the statement. “Guaranteeing seven paid sick days to rail workers would only cost the industry $321 million a year—less than 2% of their total profits. Please do not tell us that the rail industry cannot afford to guarantee paid sick days to their workers.”

“We commend the House for addressing this outrageous situation and guaranteeing paid sick days to every rail worker in America,” Sanders and his colleagues concluded. “We urge the Senate to quickly take up the House-passed language for a roll call vote and urge our colleagues to support these workers. We look forward to bipartisan support.”

When asked Tuesday night by MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes if he thinks at least 10 Republican senators would back the paid sick leave provision, which is necessary due to the upper chamber’s anti-democratic 60-vote filibuster rule, Sanders mentioned that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) had indicated “significant” support for the amendment among his GOP colleagues.

“Look, you have a number of Republicans who claim—claim—to be supporters of the working class,” said Sanders. “Well, if you are a supporter of the working class how are you going to vote against the proposal which provides guaranteed paid sick leave to workers who have none right now? So I am cautiously optimistic that we can get this done.”

However, the fact that just three House Republicans voted for the measure does not bode well for its prospects in the Senate.

Notably, Cornyn reversed his openness to adding seven paid sick days to the contract on Wednesday, telling Jake Sherman of Punchbowl News: “I just think it’s a bad idea for Congress to try to intervene and renegotiate these collective bargaining agreements between labor and management.”

As Politico reported, “Rail workers will stay on the job until December 9, [but] certain hazardous materials are likely to start being sidelined over the weekend to avoid being stranded” in the event of a strike.

New Buckingham Palace racism reports vindicate Meghan and Harry’s concerns

Allies are standing in support of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, after the recent revelations that Prince William’s godmother, Lady Susan Hussey had a racist exchange with Ngozi Fulani, of the community initiative Sistah Space.

The high-ranking Buckingham Palace aide has resigned since the incident became public, but the exchange is just another in a line of racist incidents coming from the British Royal Family.

Fulani wrote about the exchange she had with Lady Hussey, in which the palace aide asked where Fulani was from.

She explained that she was born in Britain, but Hussey persisted, asking where she was really from, the implication was that because she was Black, she wasn’t actually from Britain.

“No, what part of Africa are YOU from? Hussey asked.

“I don’t know, they didn’t leave any records,” Fulani said.

“Well, you must know where you’re from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?” Hussey came back.

“Here. The UK,” explained Fulani.

“No, but what Nationality are you?” Hussey asked again.

“I am born here and am British,” Fulani tried to explain again.

“No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?” Hussey asked again.

“‘My people,’ lady, what is this?” Fulani asked.

“Oh, I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you are from. When did you first come here,” Hussey ked pressing, not realizing what she was revealing about herself.

“Lady! I’m a British national, my parents came here in the 50’s when—” Fulani said before Hussey was cut off.

“Oh, I knew we’d get there in the end, you’re Caribbean!” Hussey said.

“No, lady, I’m of African heritage, Caribbean descent, and British nationality,” Fulani explained.

Over the past several years Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan have spoken out about the racism they’ve experienced in the Palace and even from their own family members. Harry revealed in their interview with Oprah that he and his father didn’t speak for a while and made it clear that his grandparents, the Queen and Prince Phillip, were always welcoming and loving toward Meghan.

At one point, however, there was a discussion about what “color” Harry and Meghan’s children would be, given that she is Black. An interview with the former counterterrorism police chief revealed that the couple faced “disgusting and very real” threats from right-wing extremists. He was in charge of the royal protection while working at the Metropolitan Police.

Speaking to Britain’s Channel 4 News, Neil Basu said, “If you’d seen the stuff that was written, and you were receiving it … you would feel under threat all of the time.”

Nadine White, race correspondent and columnist for the Independent spoke with Fulani about the incident and the public outcry that has followed.

“Ngozi Fulani tells me she hasn’t heard from the palace [or] received [an] apology after the resignation of the aide who made racially offensive remarks.” She also tweeted that the incident is continued evidence of “racism in the royal family” and “calls for anti-racism training to be rolled out across royal households.”

The Palace said that they have reached out, so it isn’t clear whether that happened after the report or if it wasn’t true.

It’s being seen by Harry and Meghan fans as vindication for their ongoing comments about the danger they faced and their desperate need for security. Things got so bad at one point that while pregnant with their son, Archie, Meghan was thinking about suicide. After seeing what his mother went through, Harry said that it was important they take major steps to ensure he and his family always felt safe and were able to have a life outside the palace.

“It’s funny how some people clutch their pearls when people bring up British colonialism,” said Yashar Ali, New York MagazineNew York Magazine. “Especially when they bring it up in the context of the royal family and its courtiers. But here’s a perfect example of a colonial attitude in Prince William’s godmother. Not the only one!”

Managing director of Word In Black, Liz Courquet-Lesaulnier, tweeted about the words from Lady Hussey that are all too familiar to people of color.

“The good ol yeah, but where are you REALLY from?” she said. “And these people tried to act like Meghan Markle made it all up. SMH… Also this isn’t just a random *staff member* — it’s Prince William’s GODMOTHER, Lady Susan Hussey.”

The first reports about the news were that Hussey was nothing more than a palace aide, when in fact, she’s a member of the insiders.

Political commentator Matthew Stadlen noted, “The obvious question now is: Just how prevalent is racism at the heart of the Royal Family?

All of this comes as Prince William and Kate are arriving in America for the first time in eight years. The trip begins in Boston, Massachusetts, ironically the state in which the “shot heard round the world” took place that began the American Revolution against the British in 1775.

The mystery of Philadelphia’s gruesome “The Boy in the Box” case has been partially solved

In February 1957, a young man hunting muskrats in a park north of Philadelphia chanced upon the badly beaten corpse of a young boy discarded in a cardboard box near the side of the road. Worried that police would reprimand him for hunting, he left the box where it was, and there it sat until days later when a college student discovered it again and alerted local police, according to an in-depth feature written by All That’s Interesting

The boy in the box was naked, wrapped in a plaid blanket, and was thought to be between 3 and 7 years old, per initial investigations. The cause of death was determined to be blunt force trauma and according to now retired detective sergeant Bob Kuhlmeier, “he appeared to be cleaned and freshly groomed with a haircut.”  

Setting out to to determine the identity of the young boy, police ran a check on his fingerprints, but did not come up with a match. They canvased the area with fliers for years, doing their due diligence to give the unidentified child’s name back so he may have a proper burial, but consistently came upon dead ends. Until now. 

On Wednesday afternoon, Philadelphia police issued a statement saying that DNA and genealogical information have led to a positive ID on “The Boy in the Box,” and will be providing an update on the case as soon as next week.

According to CBS News, workers at the Ivy Hill Cemetery where the boy’s remains were laid to rest under a headstone  reading “America’s Unknown Child” were tearful upon hearing that his actual name will be known for the first time in more than six decades.

“To have a name on that stone, that’s what everybody has been wishing forever,” Ivy Hill’s Linda Tamburri said in a quote to CBS. “I’m just glad I’m here to actually know I’ll see that little boy’s name on the stone.”

“I think it’s wonderful,” Dave Drysdale, cemetery secretary and treasurer at Ivy Hill, said. “I just wish that the police officers and all the people involved who long passed away were still here to see it because that was one of their goals and a couple of them said ‘I hope they live long enough to see a name put on there.'”


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


 As detailed in the feature by All That’s Interesting, there were many wild theories about “The Boy in the Box” case. In 1960, a psychic tipped off an employee of the medical examiner’s office that the boy came from an orphanage. When police followed up on the lead they found a style of blanket at the orphanage in question that matched the one the dead boy was wrapped in, but nothing panned out from that lead. Later, a woman who called herself “M” claimed that “the boy had been purchased by her abusive mother,” who bashed his head against the wall after he vomited up some baked beans she’d fed him. Police latched on to this as baked beans had been found in the contents of the dead boy’s stomach but, again, the lead went nowhere. 

Philadelphia Police Captain Jason Smith told NBC Philadelphia on Wednesday that while he can’t discuss the identity of the boy prior to next week’s news conference, he harkened back to a statement given to the news outlet in 2021 in which he said “identifying the boy was just the beginning.”

“The investigation will start all over again and then we’ll start searching for a suspect,” Smith said.

As senators debate the Kroger-Albertsons merger, some grocery employees still aren’t being paid

Chief executives of the two largest U.S. supermarket chains, Kroger and Albertsons, stood before members of the Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights on Tuesday to defend a proposed $20 billion merger

Rodney McMullen, chairman and CEO of The Kroger Co., told committee members, chaired by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., that the merger would “bring together two complementary organizations to establish a national footprint, allowing us to expand our customer reach and improve proximity to deliver fresh and affordable food.”

But senators across party lines questioned the need for a merger — and voiced concerns over whether one would result in lost jobs and decreased competition in the grocery sector. Among them, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, the subcommittee’s ranking GOP member, expressed skepticism that the companies would actually keep prices low for customers.

Inflation, to put it gently, is wreaking havoc on our entire economy,” Lee said. “But not on the grocery industry, it appears.”

McMullen responded that the combined entity had plans to keep prices stable. Price cuts, he said, would begin immediately, and no “front-line workers” in stores, warehouses or manufacturing facilities would be laid off amid the merger.

“I just don’t see less competition going forward,” McMullen said.

In October, Klobuchar signed a letter from senators urging Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan to investigate the proposed merger. The same month, Lee said he would ensure that antitrust laws would be enforced under the proposed deal, the Wall Street Journal reported. Separately, Sens. Elizabeth Warren. D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., along with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., implored Khan to oppose the deal.

Members of Congress aren’t the only parties who have voiced concern over the proposed merger, however.

Prior to the hearing, grocery workers represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union — which represents 100,000 Kroger and Albertsons workers in 12 states and the District of Columbia — held a press conference demanding that lawmakers stop the merger.

“This merger is based on pure greed. I want the executives and Wall Street bankers who cooked it up to know how devastating it will be for both workers and customers,” Judy Wood, a cake decorator at Albertsons for 34 years and a member of UFCW Local 324, said. “The stores are going to raise prices without consequence because they won’t face competition. Kroger will close down stores that are too close to one another, putting customers out of options and workers out of jobs. It’s estimated over 5,700 workers could lose their jobs just in Southern California, so we need to do everything we can to fight this merger.”

“What does my future hold working for a company without any money? How will Safeway keep its promise to fund our pension? You can see why workers like me are worried.”

Jane St. Louis, a front end associate at Safeway, which is owned by Albertsons, said “the private equity guys” who are brokering this deal have never worked in the grocery industry.

“They do not know or care about our business — all they care about is making money for themselves,” she added. “And now, they are trying to give themselves a $4 billion payday before this merger is even reviewed by the FTC. What does my future hold working for a company without any money? How will Safeway keep its promise to fund our pension? You can see why workers like me are worried.”

In her remarks, St. Louis referred to an “unusual” $4 billion special dividend announced by Albertsons in conjunction with the merger. The payment would represents nearly all the supermarket chain’s liquid assets. 

Critics of the deal have alleged that Albertsons announced the payout in an apparent attempt to make the merger look more favorable to government regulators, as it would give the appearance of a financially solvent company merging with a company in need of financial assistance.

“It is seemingly a brazen attempt to manufacture new facts on the ground by destabilizing Albertsons’ competitive position and jeopardize the FTC’s ability to fully exercise its statutorily-mandated antitrust oversight because the self-sabotaged shell of Albertsons that remains will likely argue that it will fail if the merger is rejected,” said a letter sent to sent to Khan by 26 organizations, including the American Economic Liberties Project, the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the UFCW.

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine filed a lawsuit on Nov. 2 “asking that the Court block Albertsons from issuing the payout to shareholders until a full review of the proposed merger agreement can be completed and is seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) for immediate relief.”

This suit was joined by the offices of the attorneys general for the states of California and Illinois and filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, Judge Carl Nichols — who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from 1997 to 1998 and was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by former President Donald Trump in 2018 — refused to halt the payment. According to court documents, Nichols noted that the company had reported strong earnings, and the dividend payment had been vetted by investment banks and approved by Albertsons’s board of directors. Halting the payment would “interfere” with the board’s decision and harm shareholders, the judge found.

That said, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson also filed a suit in state court seeking to stop the payout. King County Superior Court Commissioner Henry Judson approved a temporary restraining order blocking Albertsons from paying a special dividend while the court determines if the payout violates state antitrust laws. The judge scheduled time to hear witness testimony, and then have a follow-up hearing on the matter, meaning that the temporary restraining order will remain in place through at least the Dec. 9 hearing.

Running parallel to anxieties surrounding the merger — though they’ve received far less mainstream attention — are ongoing reports from Kroger employees regarding late, partial and missing paychecks. As Salon Food reported on Nov. 11, these reports appear to have originated around Labor Day, following a shift to a new payroll software.

Management at Kroger referred to this issue as “a glitch,” according to a November email sent to an area manager in the Midwest that was reviewed by Salon Food. Per the email, they were “aware of the issue with relief [pay] being entered, but not paid out.” However, they didn’t indicate to employees when the issue would be resolved.

In a previous story shared with Salon Food, Mark Kilbrade had been working at one of the supermarket chain’s Centreville, Ohio, locations for about a year when he put in a vacation request. Though Kilbrade’s request was approved by management, paid time off wasn’t reflected in his check after he returned from vacation. In fact, it wouldn’t be reflected for another four weeks, after he involved a union representative.

“I decided once I got my pay to leave the company, and I did without a proper notice,” Kilbride wrote in an email to Salon Food. “You don’t mess with employee’s pay. Fortunately being married, my spouse had income, so it did not hurt much. But if it were just myself, there is no way I could have made ends meet.”


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


Kilbride isn’t alone; Salon Food previously communicated with more than a dozen past and present Kroger employees, all of whom shared similar stories. It remains unclear how many employees have been impacted by the ongoing payment issues. The company hasn’t responded to a total of five requests for comment.

According to an email sent from corporate leadership to area managers, at least 5,000 Michigan Kroger employees received impartial Labor Day weekend paychecks. Since Salon Food’s story about this “glitch” was first posed earlier in November, 10 present employees have reached out to Salon Food, saying they haven’t received full paychecks on background via email and social media messaging.

Nationwide, Kroger has nearly 2,800 stores in 35 states operating under 28 different brands, including Mariano’s and Ralph’s. Salon Food has spoken to more than 20 employees from across the country — both on the record and on background — whose stores have been personally impacted by the payroll glitch.

In recent weeks, several lawsuits and class-action grievances have been filed against Kroger.

Most recently, on Nov. 25, one current and one former Fred Meyer store employee filed a complaint in federal court against Kroger, Fred Meyer’s parent company. According to a report in The Oregonian, the workers alleged that Fred Meyer had violated Oregon wage laws when it rolled out a faulty payroll software as part of a companywide human resources system upgrade that caused widespread pay errors.

“Fred Meyer knew, or should have known, in advance of activating the new payroll system that it would cause widespread pay errors,” the complaint said, alleging that Fred Meyer didn’t plan adequately nor conduct enough testing before the rollout. Moreover, it claimed that the problems could have been prevented.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, all wages owed to the plaintiffs, attorney feed and incurred damages as a result of the payroll errors.

“When you are living paycheck to paycheck, a short or missed check isn’t just a temporary inconvenience; it can mean racking up late payments on rent and bills, skipped meals, and struggling to afford gas.”

According to records obtained by The Oregonian, at least 20 former and current employees have filed suit against Kroger regarding incomplete and late payments.

Dan Clay, president of the UFCW Local 500, which represents Kroger employees from the region, issued a statement on Nov. 17 indicating that his organization was connecting members with legal representation.

“Kroger, who owns Fred Meyer and QFC, implemented new accounting software they didn’t know how to use,” he said. “When you are living paycheck to paycheck, a short or missed check isn’t just a temporary inconvenience; it can mean racking up late payments on rent and bills, skipped meals and struggling to afford gas. Victims are being pushed into a financial hole that can take months to crawl back out of. For a worker to go without pay because a multibillion-dollar corporation cannot figure out their payroll software is beyond unacceptable.”

The chains have said they expect the regulatory review process to take as long as two years, with the deal closing in early 2024, if a federal judge rules that the merger can move forward.

This story has been updated to include developments on the Washington state court level. Follow Salon Food’s ongoing coverage here.

Breaking down the Kanye West and Kim Kardashian settlement, including $200K child support

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are officially, legally no more.

Almost two years after first filing, Kardashian and West have settled their divorce, including child custody. West, also known as Ye, will be responsible for paying $200,000 in monthly child support, according to court documents.The former couple will share joint custody of their four children, each parent having “equal access,” as Entertainment Tonight has reported, but Kardashian will have the majority of parenting time with North, Saint, Chicago and Psalm, all under the age of 10, which continues the basic arrangement the co-parents had established

As is typical, child support will be automatically deducted from West’s account and deposited in Kardashian’s. According to Entertainment Tonight, West “will also be responsible for an equal share of their kids’ educational expenses (including tuition), as well as their children’s security expenses.” West will be liable for private school fees, tutoring and health care costs for his children, Insider reports. Both Kardashian and West have waived receiving spousal support, which is in accordance with arrangements from their prenuptial agreement

According to Entertainment Tonight, Kardashian and West are to resolve any future disputed issues regarding their children through mediation: “The one stipulation: if one of the parents fails to participate in mediation, the other parent, by default, will make the parental decision.” 

Their divorce had been contentious, including West (who had at least four different attorneys) objecting to Kardashian’s request to be legally declared single because West allegedly wanted his assets protected first. The judge did grant Kardashian’s request. Those proprietary assets were apparently divided appropriately as a result of the new settlement (and also in accordance with their prenup) but no details have been released.

The divorce settlement between West and Kardashian was reached only weeks before the two would have had to go to trial in court to resolve their issues, issues West spoke — and rapped — publicly about, including in the song “True Love” where West “didn’t waste any time making his feelings known about how he felt when it came to visiting his kids.” That song includes the lyrics about visitation with children, “I feel like they borrowed . . . When I gotta return them, scan ’em like a bar code.”

In recent months, West has been the subject of increasing concern and mounting controversy. The rapper and designer has made repeated public antisemitic statements, statements which caused his supporters to react in turn. He wore a “White Lives Matter” shirt to Paris Fashion week, threatened violence against Jewish people in social media posts and stormed out of an interview. These behaviors have caused West to lose sponsorships and support from multiple brand partnerships, including Adidas, Gap, Foot Locker and Balenciaga. He was also dropped by his agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA). On a recent podcast, West alleged he owes the IRS about $50 million in back taxes.


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


Kardashian cited irreconcilable differences when she filed from divorce from West in February 2021. At that time, the couple had been married for nearly seven years. In March of this year, when West shared an Instagram post of his daughter’s backpack, lamenting that he was last “allowed” to see the child a week previous, Kardashian wrote in a now-deleted comment, “Please stop with this narrative, you were just here this morning picking up the kids for school.”

Madison Cawthorn departs House floor with a warning against “soft metrosexuals”

On Wednesday, Rep. Madison Cawthorn took to the House floor to deliver what will be his last speech before his 11th District seat turns over. Referencing prepared notes to compose his thoughts, Cawthorn departed with a firm warning not against the dangers of lax gun restrictions in North Carolina, but that of social media turning American men into “soft metrosexuals” unwilling to raise arms and fight.

“Our young men are taught that weakness is strength, that delicacy is desirable and that being a soft metrosexual is more valuable than training the mind body and soul,” Cawthorn said in the opening of his speech. “Social media has weakened us, siphoning our men of their will to fight; to rise in a noble manner, square their jaws and charge once more into the breach of life to defend what they love.”

Referring to what he views as a decline in his version of true masculinity as being a degrading force that’s ushering America towards “the precipice of disaster,” Cawthorn goes on to ask if we will “sit behind a screen” while these fancy boys of his nightmares lead to our ruin.

“I ask the young men of this nation a question,” Cawthorn furthered. “Will you sit behind a screen while the storied tales of your forefathers become myth? Or will you stand resolute against the dying light of America’s golden age? Will you reclaim your masculinity? Will you become a man to be feared? To be respected? To be looked up to? Or will you let this Nation’s next generation be its final generation?” 


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


In May, Cawthorn lost hold of his seat after a run against Sen. Chuck Edwards. A supporter of Trump, Cawthorn’s campaign for re-election was stymied by a series of scandals and controversies brought to light that ran the gamut from sexual abuse allegations during his college years, to photos of him wearing women’s lingerie. 

In a video that circulated in mid-November, Cawthorn sings Trump’s praises while riding in a car and listening to what sounds like pop radio.

“I will follow this man until the day I die,” Cawthorn says in the video. “Barring some terrible information.”

 

Christine McVie of Fleetwood Mac, a distinctive voice whose hits spanned decades, is dead at 79

Christine McVie, the distinctive, bluesy-voiced singer-songwriter, died today following a “short illness,” according to a family announcement posted on Instagram. She was 79. Along with Stevie Nicks, Lindsey Buckingham, former husband John McVie and Mick Fleetwood, she was a core member of Fleetwood Mac during their multiplatinum heyday, writing and co-writing such songs as “Over My Head,” “Say You Love Me,” “Don’t Stop,” “You Make Loving Fun,” “Hold Me,” “Everywhere” and “Little Lies,” among others.

Born in the Lake District of northwest England as Christine Perfect in July 1943, McVie didn’t begin studying music until age 11. After discovering rock ‘n’ roll during her teen years, her piano studies shifted toward such early influences as Fats Domino and the Everly Brothers. She studied sculpture at Birmingham’s Moseley School of Art. During her college years, she played in a blues group called Sounds of Blue. After graduation, she moved to London, where she worked as a window dresser.

In 1967, McVie joined the blues band Chicken Shack, with whom she recorded two albums. In 1969, she sang lead vocals on “I’d Rather Go Blind,” which scored a top 20 hit on the UK charts. She earned Melody Maker awards for best female vocalist in 1969 and 1970, when she left Chicken Shack after her marriage to Fleetwood Mac bassist John McVie. After recording a solo album, “Christine Perfect,” she joined Fleetwood Mac in 1970.

McVie’s arrival heralded a new era for the band, which was reeling after the departure of blues master Peter Green. During the early 1970s, she served as one of the band’s mainstays as Fleetwood Mac famously endured a raft of personnel changes, including a stint featuring American singer-songwriter Bob Welch. While they enjoyed moderate success with such LPs as “Bare Trees” and “Mystery to Me,” the group suffered a PR crisis when another group toured the United States under their name, resulting in a long-running lawsuit with their former manager Clifford Davis.

Fleetwood Mac’s fortunes shifted after the group moved to the U.S. in 1974, hoping to jumpstart their career by joining the nascent California rock scene. With the addition of Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham to their lineup that same year, they recorded the eponymous “Fleetwood Mac” album. Driven by such hit singles as “Rhiannon,” “Over My Head” and “Say You Love Me,” the LP catapulted the band to the top of the charts while earning them heavy radio rotation.

With their famous fivesome in play, Fleetwood Mac emerged as one of rock’s reigning supergroups. By this juncture, Christine and John McVie had divorced. With the demise of Nicks’ and Buckingham’s relationship, Fleetwood Mac was famously beset by romantic trauma, which they lampooned via a Rolling Stone cover photo depicting the five musicians in bed together. Released in 1977, their next LP “Rumours” dominated the international charts, becoming one of the bestselling records of all time on the strength of Nicks’ “Dreams,” Buckingham’s “Go Your Own Way,” “Don’t Stop” and “You Make Loving Fun,” which McVie composed about her affair with Curry Grant, the band’s lighting director.

While they would never match the runaway bestseller status of “Rumours,” Fleetwood Mac produced a string of multiplatinum albums, including “Tusk,” “Mirage” and “Tango in the Night.” In each instance, the band embarked upon sold-out tours that cemented them as one of rock’s premier live acts. Their concerts would often conclude with “Songbird,” McVie’s plaintive, mournful contribution to “Rumours.” In 1984, she released a second solo album, entitled “Christine McVie,” that included the top 10 hit “Got a Hold on Me.” For “Tango in the Night,” McVie charted a hit single with “Little Lies,” which she co-wrote with then-husband Eddy Quintela, whom she married in 1986.

After Buckingham’s and Nicks’ departures in the early 1990s, the band recorded two additional albums, including “Behind the Mask” and “Time.” For the former, McVie penned “Save Me,” the band’s last U.S. top 40 hit. An improbable reunion with Buckingham in the mid-1990s resulted in the band’s bestselling live album “The Dance,” which topped the U.S. charts in 1998. That same year, the band was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

For McVie, life in the spotlight might have ended there. After touring behind “The Dance,” she left Fleetwood Mac, retiring to a home in the English countryside. In 2014, Fleetwood announced that she would be rejoining the band, which had performed several sold-out tours in the intervening years. In 2017, she collaborated on the “Lindsey Buckingham Christine McVie” LP. The band’s fortunes shifted yet again in 2018 when Buckingham was abruptly fired from the group, resulting in yet more personnel changes.

McVie’s career was surveyed in the 2019 BBC documentary “Fleetwood Mac’s Songbird Christine McVie.” Over the years, she earned two Grammy Awards, as well as the Ivor Novello Award for Lifetime Achievement from the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers, and Authors. Along with Nicks and Buckingham, she holds a towering place as a preeminent singer-songwriter during the post-Beatles era.

McVie’s surviving bandmates eulogized her on social media, writing that “there are no words to describe our sadness at the passing of Christine McVie. She was truly one-of-a-kind, special and talented beyond measure. She was the best musician anyone could have in their band and the best friend anyone could have in their life. We were so lucky to have a life with her. Individually and together, we cherished Christine deeply and are thankful for the amazing memories we have. She will be so very missed.”

What to watch on Netflix in December, including Letterman’s Zelenskyy interview and a new Pinocchio

The decorations are up. (Well, they’ve been out in stores since October, anyway.) The fancy Thanksgiving dishes have been placed away on a high, dusty shelf once more, your relatives have flown home again, you’re eating your way through leftovers — and we’re finally launching into the last, frenzied month of the year. 

With a new month comes a new slate of streaming programing on Netflix, enough shows and films to satisfy everyone on your list, from the naughty to the nice. Wrap gifts in the company of comedian Chelsea Handler, learn something with Robert Downey Jr., or unwind from stressful work deadlines with a romp of rich people figuring out a puzzle as “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” finally arrives in our homes. And though the streaming service has dipped more than a toe into the deep snowy field of Christmas films, fortunately not everything upcoming on Netflix is holiday-themed. 

From an American fashionista is still in Paris for some reason (she’s never leaving, folks) to a holiday classic as interpreted by Luke Evans to David Letterman interviewing Volodymyr Zelenskyy, apparently, Salon highlights some of the new and compelling treats coming to Netflix this December.

Check out our picks for a Netflix December below.

01

“The Masked Scammer,” Dec. 1

Scammers have been huge in culture lately, from the fictionalized Anna Sorokin of “Inventing Anna” to the true love crimes of “The Tinder Swindler” (say that five times fast). “The Masked Scammer” delves deep into another one, a French con artist who scammed French elite to the tune of millions of euros. The Netflix doc promises to be a little different in that this story not only features interviews with the con man’s victims but his accomplices. Très intéressant.

02

“Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” Dec. 2

Another adaptation of a classic novel: a socialite, unhappy in her marriage, begins an affair with the gamekeeper on her husband’s estate in the country. This is more than simply a torrid affair, however: it’s love, and D.H. Lawrence’s tale, hugely controversial at the time of its publication, explores the complex emotions and individual awakenings of a powerful, true relationship. If you like your stories sweeping, romantic and tinged with tragedy, this fresh take on “Lady” is for you. 

 

03

“Scrooge: A Christmas Carol,” Dec. 2

You know the story. Grumpy, selfish Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by three spirits, hell-bent on teaching him the meaning of Christmas. But you’ve never seen Scrooge like this: specifically, played by Luke Evans in a musical, animated adaptation. Will cruel Scrooge change in time for Christmas morning? Is Tiny Tim dealing with ableism? Can Olivia Colman sing? (She was the queen, so I should think so.) Tune in to find out.

 

04

“Sr.,” Dec. 2

In the documentary “Sr.,” Robert Downey Jr. explores the life of his father, cinema pioneering legend Robert Downey Sr. An actor and filmmaker, Downey Sr. became famous for low-budget, often absurd underground films. He wrote and directed “Putney Swope,” a satire about the New York advertising world in 1969, and a 5-year-old Downey Jr. made his film debut in an absurdist film by his father, 1970’s “Pound.”

 

05
“Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio,” Dec. 9

Stop-motion, a classic tale and Guillermo del Toro? You had us at del Toro. The Oscar winner, creator of “Pan’s Labyrinth,” “The Shape of Water” and Netflix’s new “Guillermo del Toro’s Cabinet of Curiosities,” reimagines the story of Pinocchio, the puppet who became a boy, in this animated film. With songs by Alexandre Desplat, Roeban Katz, del Toro and Patrick McHale, this adaptation promises to become a cool, magical classic. When it gets dark and chilly at four in the afternoon, nothing says the winter holidays like slightly unnerving children’s stories.

 

06

“Emily in Paris,” Dec. 21

Everyone’s favorite hapless “ugly American” returns. She knows how to eat in France, at last, and she knows how to love as the Darren Star-created heroine frets between multiple dashing love interests in the city of lights. In this season, she’s torn between jobs as well. “Emily in Paris” has never been the most substantial of stories, but as elevated by the performances of Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu, Ashley Park and Bruno Gouery, it’s the perfect, cheery background accompaniment to wrapping gifts or cooking dishes chef Gabriel would probably not approve of. 

 

07

“Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery,” Dec. 23

A sequel to the blockbuster hit film “Knives Out,” the new “Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery” was released in theaters in late November. It comes to Netflix just in time to reward yourself for putting up with your terrible uncle at dinner or getting your holiday shopping all done. The star-studded cast of the witty mystery includes Edward Norton, Janelle Monáe, Kate Hudson, Kathryn Hahn and Daniel Craig in the most delightful wardrobe like a dandified James Bond. 

 

08

“The Witcher: Blood Origin,” Dec. 25

Toss a coin to this “Witcher” prequel, set thousands of years before the popular fantasy show which delighted audiences (and then destroyed them when its hero, played by Henry Cavill, was recast). The prequel is a limited series in the same elven world, featuring the likes of powerhouse “Everything Everywhere All at Once” star Michelle Yeoh and Minnie Driver . . . in elf ears?

 

09
“Chelsea Handler: Revolution,” Dec. 27

A common theme in December programming? People are back, baby. This time, it’s Handler in a new stand-up special. In her latest routine, the comedian (and former Netflix talk show host) covers such topics as her decision to not have children (only dogs) and the pitfalls of dating during the pandemic.

10

“White Noise,” Dec. 30

Don DeLillo’s classic novel, winner of the National Book Award, follows a college professor and his family as they navigate an emergency “airborne toxic event” in their idyllic town, not to mention all the toxic trappings of modern-day life. Given the film treatment by Noah Baumbach, the adaptation, starring Adam Driver with a receding hairline, Don Cheadle and Greta Gerwig with my crimped hair from middle school, promises to be rife with family drama, dark humor and the search for meaning in an increasingly meaningless and apocalyptic world.

 


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

11

“My Next Guest with David Letterman and Volodymyr Zelenskyy” Coming Soon

Letterman’s Netflix specific talk show “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction” is back. This time, the former late night host travels to Kyiv, Ukraine to speak with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The conversation promises to be insightful and illuminating, as the popular Zelenskyy has spent nearly a year fighting a war against Russia, who invaded Ukraine in February. Letterman’s past president interviews include speaking with Barack Obama. 

 

 

Republicans’ Supreme Court bid to let lawmakers overturn elections could badly backfire on GOP

To hear some tell it, a Supreme Court case set for argument on Dec. 7 could spell the end of democracy in the United States. If the Republicans who brought the case, Moore v. Harper, prevail, state legislatures will effectively be free to override the votes of their citizens in presidential elections, the doomsayers predict. That might allow a future presidential candidate to undo an election, much as Donald Trump attempted, but failed, to do in 2020.

The Atlantic warned that the “Court’s right-wing supermajority is poised to let state lawmakers overturn voters’ choice in presidential elections.” The Guardian opined that a ruling in favor of the GOP would mean that “whether Republicans win or lose elections via the popular vote will not matter because they will be able to maintain power regardless.” And Slate called Moore v. Harper “the Supreme Court case that could upend democracy.”

Those fears are overblown. They ignore other legal protections that would prevent the theft of a presidential election. A state legislature can in fact choose which electors to pick, legal scholars generally agree, as those bodies routinely did in the early days of the republic. But a legislature has the power to decide to handle a vote that way only before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election.

“No matter what the Court decides” in Moore v. Harper, as New York University law professor Richard Pildes has put it, “it would still not mean state legislatures could choose simply to ignore the popular vote in their state and appoint presidential electors themselves after the election.” Federal law, for example, requires states to choose their electors on Election Day. And several federal courts have held that after-the-fact changes raise questions of due process and equal protection. A state legislature can’t simply swoop in after the voting and rewrite the rules for a completed election because it didn’t like the outcome.

Still, Moore v. Harper has major implications for other aspects of elections, including gerrymandering. The case arises from a fight over redistricting by the Republicans who control both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly. This year, the state’s Supreme Court, voting in line with its 4-3 Democratic majority, ruled that the legislature’s congressional district map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the North Carolina Constitution. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter. Federal courts typically can’t second-guess a state court’s interpretation of its own laws.

But North Carolina’s Republican legislators found a way to get the case to friendlier terrain: the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that the North Carolina court’s ruling violates the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause states that the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” unless Congress overrides them. The North Carolina Republicans want the Supreme Court to bar state courts from interfering with state legislatures when it comes to congressional elections.

A ruling in their favor would effectively insulate partisan gerrymanders from legal challenges. It would also complicate how states administer elections and neutralize other parts of state constitutions that govern voting and elections, ranging from guarantees of ballot secrecy to automatic voter registration. An examination of the case, and the way it traces its origins both to local political battles in North Carolina and to the legal contest that decided the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, reveals a lot about how the exigencies of a political moment can shape the law for decades.

There’s plenty of irony here. Republicans fought for years to keep federal courts from examining partisan gerrymanders. They won that fight in a 2019 case, Rucho v. Common Cause, which also originated in North Carolina. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, declared that federal courts had no authority to review cases concerning partisan gerrymandering. But he went out of his way to note that alternatives remained: “provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.” Democrats in swing states had already begun to do precisely what Roberts suggested: bring cases under state laws in state courts, many of which remain receptive to Democratic views.

That has caused a case of apparent buyer’s remorse for Republicans. Having previously persuaded the court to stay out, many of the same legislators who succeeded in the Rucho case are back at the high court, begging the justices — now a 6-3 conservative majority — to reinsert themselves into the fight.

It’s further proof that victories don’t always deliver the expected results, a lesson that applies to both law and politics. Republicans, for example, spent years challenging campaign finance restrictions and triumphed in a line of cases starting with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, only to see Democratic fundraisers exploit those rulings and outspend them in recent elections. (Whether this gusher of money in politics has been good for the country is an entirely different question.)

A similar phenomenon could occur if the Republicans prevail in Moore v. Harper, at least when it comes to redistricting. Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos ran a series of simulations recently that projected voting outcomes if each state could gerrymander at will. He concluded that “nationwide, North Carolina is more the exception than the rule. Overall, Democrats would modestly benefit from a holding that state legislatures’ ability to draw congressional districts can’t be limited by state courts.” He projected that Democrats would net two to three congressional seats. If that turns out to be true, what’s good for North Carolina Republicans may not end up being good for all Republicans.

Many of the apocalyptic scenarios posited by Democrats trace their origins to the party’s calamitous Supreme Court defeat in Bush v. Gore in 2000. That case, not coincidentally, emerged from a state — Florida — where a Republican legislature was attempting to outmaneuver a state supreme court that was largely liberal. The Florida Supreme Court had ruled that the state constitution authorized it to extend the deadline for county election boards to complete ballot recounts in that year’s presidential election, which turned on the whisper-thin margin in Florida. Democrats saw the ruling as the ordinary interpretive work of a court; Republicans contended that it amounted to altering election rules after the fact.

Bush’s legal team appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the state court had acted in violation of the presidential electors clause, a provision of the federal Constitution that resembles the elections clause in structure as well as name. Where the elections clause concerns congressional elections, the electors clause empowers states to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” That, Bush’s lawyers argued, prohibited state courts from altering election laws enacted by the legislature, as they contended Florida’s high court had done.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore opinion awarded the presidency to Bush on other grounds. But three justices — then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — issued a concurring opinion seen as the genesis of what is today called the independent state legislature theory.

There are many versions of the independent state legislature theory, but in broad outline, it holds that, by assigning legislatures the authority to set the rules for federal elections, the U.S. Constitution implicitly insulates those rules from ordinary state-level checks on the legislative function, like judicial review. As Rehnquist put it in his concurrence, “This inquiry does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.”

Today, the Bush v. Gore decision is often conflated with parallel maneuvers by Republicans in the Florida Legislature, who began the process of voting to award the state’s electoral votes to Bush. But their strategy mostly turned not on the constitutional theory but on an obscure 1845 statute that allows state legislatures to pick their own presidential electors if their state has “failed to make a choice” for president on Election Day. (The 1845 law was mainly intended to accommodate emergency conditions, like natural disasters, legal scholars have found. But Florida Republicans argued that their state’s problems in 2000 amounted to a failed election. Congress is expected to do away with the law during the current lame-duck session.)

The independent state legislature theory didn’t catch fire. In fact, a Supreme Court majority — the four liberals plus Justice Anthony Kennedy — rejected it the one time the high court addressed it head on, in a 2015 case that upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s independent redistricting commission.

But the theory made a comeback, courtesy of four members of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. In several potential swing states, like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, Democrats had persuaded state courts to adjust election rules to address complications created by the COVID-19 pandemic and postal delays — in many cases, extending the date by which mail ballots had to reach election officials. When Republicans appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. But Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, at times joined by Thomas, all wrote versions of the same thing in opinions that did not carry the weight of precedent. As Gorsuch put it in one such passage: “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

Even as the independent state legislature theory largely faded from discussions of presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, it persisted in litigation over redistricting. With conservative justices skeptical that federal courts had the power to undo partisan gerrymanders, reformers — mostly aligned with Democrats — began to find success proposing ballot initiatives that would place redistricting in the hands of independent commissions. Democrats also turned to state courts to challenge restrictive voting and election laws, including Republican gerrymanders. State constitutions tend to be more expansive and easier to amend than the federal charter, and relying on state law insulated the cases from a Roberts court hostile to many liberal voting and election law claims. The independent state legislature theory was one of the only ways Republicans could get the U.S. Supreme Court to save them from Democrats’ state-level maneuvers.

Some of the fiercest redistricting battles were playing out in North Carolina. In the election of 2010, the GOP gained control of both chambers of the state legislature for the first time in over a century, due partly to a Republican operation targeting swing states ahead of the 2011 redistricting process. In their heyday, North Carolina Democrats were hardly gun-shy about gerrymandering, and the Republican majority approached redistricting with equivalent ruthlessness. Liberal advocacy groups and Democrats went to court, and for the next decade, redistricting litigation became a near-constant. In 2016, North Carolina Republicans suffered a serious setback: Their congressional district map was struck down as a racial gerrymander. So they pivoted to explicitly partisan gerrymandering, using data on voting patterns to dilute Democratic Party voting power.

More lawsuits followed. But the options narrowed in 2019, when the Rucho decision closed federal courts to opponents of partisan gerrymandering.

In North Carolina, redistricting for the present decade got underway in late 2021. Fed up with endless litigation, Republicans pledged to forego the use of data on race or party preference and to draw maps in transparent fashion — on computers in committee rooms, subject to public scrutiny via YouTube livestreams.

The process looked different, but the maps it produced did not. North Carolina’s electorate is very closely divided. Yet under the new congressional maps, Democrats would win only three of the state’s 14 congressional districts — four in a good year. Republicans would take the other 10 or 11.

How GOP lawmakers had managed to draw such slanted maps without partisan voting data remains a matter of dispute. But several state judges saw clear evidence of a gerrymander; one opinion called the maps “extreme partisan outliers,” creating so few competitive districts as to be “incompatible with democratic principles.” This February, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution bars partisan gerrymandering of this sort. In response, lawmakers redrew the congressional map. But that, too, failed to pass muster. Following a process established by the legislature, the trial court then appointed special masters to redraw the map for the 2022 election; lawmakers could give it another crack afterward.

The resulting map reflected the roughly equal split between Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina. This fall’s House election yielded a delegation of seven Democrats and seven Republicans.

Over the past two years, many national Republicans have fixated on the independent state legislature theory. But in North Carolina, it was almost an afterthought until Republican lawmakers wanted a pathway to the Supreme Court.

At its core, Moore v. Harper boils down to what the Constitution means when it assigns each state’s legislature the task of regulating congressional elections: Does that mean the legislature is subject to the traditional oversight of state courts and the gubernatorial veto? Or does it mean the legislature acting alone, with no such oversight? If it’s the former, then laws setting the rules for federal elections are no different than any other laws. If it’s the latter, things get complicated.

If the elections clause was meant to exclude other parts of state government, then the most extreme version of the theory is also the most natural reading of the clause: Only the strictures of federal law can check how state legislatures regulate congressional elections. That position, however, is too extreme for all but Trump’s closest allies, like John Eastman, an architect of Trump’s attempt to use the independent state legislature theory to retain power after the 2020 election, who filed an amicus brief advocating for it.

For their part, the North Carolina lawmakers maintain that state constitutions, as enforced by state courts, can’t impose substantive obligations or restrictions on the legislature’s power to regulate federal elections. This position reflects their principal concern: North Carolina Republicans waited a century to pry political power away from the Democrats, and they feel aggrieved that state courts keep interfering with the pursuit of their agenda.

The state’s GOP lawmakers see the case through local eyes, according to Pat Ryan, who until earlier this year served as deputy chief of staff to Phil Berger, the top Republican in the Senate. Ryan described the case as the latest parry in “a battle over separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.” That view is echoed by local Democrats and liberal activists. The Republicans didn’t really care about coup fantasists in the Trump camp, or even the national party’s broader ambitions and plans. “This is all about their fight with the judiciary,” Pricey Harrison, a Democrat on the House Redistricting Committee, told me. “They’re trying to figure out how to game the system.”

Many Republicans concerned with the national stage, meanwhile, have argued for a narrower version of the independent state legislature theory: State constitutions can limit how legislatures regulate federal elections, but only if they’re sufficiently specific.

That would operate to the benefit of national Republicans in two respects. First, it would let them undo recent state supreme court rulings that they dislike while retaining the ones they like. So, for example, rulings rejecting GOP gerrymanders not only in North Carolina but also in Pennsylvania rely on open-ended provisions in their state constitutions. By contrast, in New York, where the state’s high court overturned an aggressive Democratic gerrymander this year, the state charter contains an explicit ban on partisan gerrymandering. Second, it would give Republicans’ allies in the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc maximum flexibility to bend future election disputes the GOP’s way. The line between sufficient and insufficient specificity, after all, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Federalizing state lawmaking isn’t a natural right-wing position, and tellingly, many conservative legal luminaries of the past few decades have filed briefs opposing the independent state legislature theory in any form. “It is rare to encounter a constitutional theory so antithetical to the Constitution’s text and structure, so inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning, so disdainful of this Court’s precedent, and so potentially damaging for American democracy” in its effects on redistricting and election administration, reads the brief of the legal team representing individuals and advocacy groups opposing the North Carolina GOP. The legal team includes J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge widely admired in conservative legal circles. Another conservative former federal appellate judge, Thomas Griffith, joined an amicus brief opposing the independent state legislature theory; yet another was backed by the co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. Most legal scholars, historians and election officials — liberal or conservative — offer similar views.

Supporters of the independent state legislature theory rely chiefly on selective readings of earlier Supreme Court cases and attempt to play to the originalist preferences of some conservative justices. The historical record surrounding the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and early state charters offers little illumination. Still, the North Carolina lawmakers rely heavily on a document that many historians regard as a fabrication, written not during the time of the Constitutional Convention in the late 1780s but in 1818. As the brief Luttig joined puts it, “Casting about for an originalist response, Petitioners cite the so-called ‘Pinckney Plan.’ But that ‘Plan’ is a thoroughly discredited document concocted 30 years after the Convention.”

The frustration of the GOP lawmakers at the North Carolina Supreme Court’s Democratic majority is understandable on one level. The state court justices, in the case that led to Moore v. Harper, hang an awful lot on fairly thin reeds; they derive a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering from four very broadly phrased clauses in the state constitution. One reads, simply, “All elections shall be free.” (The frustration for North Carolina Republicans may ease in the near future: The GOP won two state Supreme Court seats in elections this month and come January, the court will have a 5-2 Republican majority. That suggests that, should the Republican lawmakers make yet another attempt at a gerrymander, they may receive a more favorable outcome.)

Yet more understandable still is the worry of those opposed to the independent state legislature theory — that the parochial concerns of one state political party will justify upending the regulation of federal elections nationwide.

Is the brain a quantum computer? A remarkable pair of studies suggests so

If someone were to (theoretically) throw a wrench at your head, you might be able to catch it just in time to avoid a concussion. But how? Typically, for split-second reactions, we do not consciously decide to catch. Your brain reacts, does the catching thing, and you don’t have to think about it at all.

In fact, our brains regularly make decisions before we even know it. In one 2008 experiment, that has since been repeated a few times, participants were given decision-making tasks while their brains were monitored using brain imaging techniques. It was found that one’s brain can make a decision up to 10 seconds before its owner is consciously aware of it.

There’s a lot going on in the mind that scientists are still trying to understand. Indeed, despite numerous attempts by neuroscientists over the last century and beyond, it has been difficult to pinpoint exactly why consciousness exists or what it is — a quandary known as the “hard problem of consciousness.” Even though we have a good understanding of where consciousness originates — essentially via neurons sending signals to each other — scientists still aren’t sure how it arises in matter. After all, humans are just made of basic chemicals like the rest of the universe. A rock isn’t conscious—is it? So what makes our soup of chemicals called a brain different? That’s the hard problem to solve.

For decades, some outsider researchers have postulated that the brain has some connection to quantum entanglement that results in consciousness. And a recent experiment published in the Journal of Physics Communications is an indicator that this could be possible.

“Quantum” is a term thrown around so often, especially in the realm of pseudoscience, that it can be devoid of meaning if it’s not properly contextualized, but it doesn’t have to be confusing. The whole realm of quantum mechanics simply deals with things at their smallest possible level, as small or smaller than atoms. “Quantum” in this context is a synonym for discrete: a photon is a quantum of light, for example, meaning a discrete packet of energy or matter.

On a macroscopic scale, the realm of baseballs and planets, objects tend to have well-defined locations and velocities. This is the realm of “classical” physics. But the rules of physics operate slightly differently in the world of the very small. On a quantum scale — in this sense, we mean “tiny” — individual atoms or particles don’t have fixed points, but a probability that they exist within a certain place at a certain time. Odder still, individual particles can have connections to other particles in different points in space. 

“I think if you ask, most neuroscientists — or even physicists — would say that it’s not possible to find entanglement in the brain.” 

Still, this idea that quantum mechanics is implicated in consciousness is still not very popular among most neuroscientists or physicists, who believe consciousness happens via classical physics, not the quantum level. It’s especially hard to test the idea because it requires measuring living human brain activity at mind-bogglingly small levels.

“I think if you ask, most neuroscientists — or even physicists — would say that it’s not possible to find entanglement in the brain,” Dr. Christian Kerskens, the lead physicist at the Institute of Neurosciences at Trinity College Dublin, told Salon. Entanglement is a theory central to quantum mechanics that explains how photons or electrons can become connected, or entangled, even at long distances. Entangled particles may have properties that are seemingly in two states at once, until someone steps in and observes them. 

“I actually was working on this for a long time,” Kerskens said. “I did blood flow measurements during my PhD. And when I studied the dynamics of blood flow, I thought of something going on there that you can’t really explain with just classical physics.”

“I’m responsible for the two MRIs at Trinity College,” Kerskens added. “As a physicist, I’m the person who has to come up with ideas what we can do with them.”

Kerskens borrowed an experiment model that has been used to explore quantum gravity, described as “one of the deepest physics mysteries of our time.” A theory of quantum gravity seeks to marry two seemingly opposed fields of physics: the microscopic world of quantum mechanics with the macroscopic world of gravity. They are odd bedfellows: Gravity has a seemingly limitless range, and the largest-scale structures in the universe, galactic superclusters, exist because of gravity’s ability to create structures that span millions of light-years; yet on a small-scale, the force of gravity is negligible, and is typically ignored in quantum mechanical calculations. For decades, physicists have tried to come up with a theory that merges these two forces, but to no avail.

So what could quantum mechanics have to do with the brain? Using slightly tweaked MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machines, Kerskens and his co-author David López Pérez at the Polish Academy of Sciences scanned 40 test subjects. In magnetic resonance imaging, extremely powerful magnets make all the magnetic particles in the human body align in the same direction; the movement of matter within a person can then be observed with precision. 


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


In the case of these experiments, the MRI machines weren’t exactly hacked, but they were used unconventionally. Normally, with these massive machines, you want a clear signal. But Kerskens and Pérez altered them so their signals were almost like a radio tuned to static.

Then, the researchers monitored signals of brain water, a fluid that naturally accumulates in our skulls and has proton spins that can be detected with MRI. Through the static, they also received signals from the heart called “heartbeat evoked potentials.”

The heart does all its work via signals sent by the brain; this relationship has been shown to influence conscious perception, which shifts with focus of attention. In the MRI experiment, Kerskens and Pérez found that the heartbeat signals correlated with spikes in brain activity. 

This was unexpected: these types of heartbeat signals aren’t normally detectable through an MRI. Yet the researchers believe they could detect them because the protons in the brain water and the protons in the heart had their spins “entangled” — meaning that the brain perhaps mediated the entanglement. That implies something happening on the quantum level with the brain’s signals.

“We found that there’s a correlation between our signal and the short-term memory performance of the volunteers,” Kerskens explained. In the paper, he and Pérez emphasized that “quantum fluctuations may be essential for cerebral dynamics and cognitive functioning.”

In other words, these two signals overlapping is a strong indicator of entanglement. Again, this is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics, which means our brains and thus consciousness could work a bit like a quantum computer. This experiment is a good indicator of something happening that was entangled — especially given that a few research participants fell asleep, as one does in an MRI machine, and when they became unconscious, the signal disappeared.

Kerskens and Pérez repeated the experiment in another paper published in October, this time with 60 participants varying in age. Half were between 18 and 29 and the others were older than 65. Not surprisingly, the heartbeat signals were less stable with age, but after being given a test that measures mental performance, it became clear that the complexity of the heartbeat may be somehow related to improved cognitive ability.

“We found that there’s a correlation between our signal and the short-term memory performance of the volunteers,” Kerskens explained. In the paper, he and Pérez emphasized that “quantum fluctuations may be essential for cerebral dynamics and cognitive functioning.”

But it’s not hard proof, at least not yet. Nonetheless, it’s worth continuing to explore this issue because the implications are huge. It could offer a completely different way to look into therapies for stroke or neurological diseases. It might help build better quantum computers. Or it could just indicate we need to rethink how the mind works.

“Is maybe quantum mechanics not complete? Is there something else that we are missing?” Kerskens wondered.

MRI machines have existed for a long time, so why haven’t they been used before like this? Kerskens said he assumed the reason why this type of experiment hasn’t been done before is because most people don’t believe quantum mechanics relates to how the brain creates consciousness. And more research is truly needed to better demonstrate that consciousness is quantum.

“Our experiment doesn’t explain how it could work. It only proves that it should be quantum,” Kerskens said. “Maybe there’s a different explanation for it. The next step would be then, how does it actually work? That will be for me, the next interesting aspect.”

The “Willow” legend continues, only now the quest is open to all who would take it, including girls

When “Willow” made its theatrical debut back in 1988, most movie critics were middle-aged white men, save for the likes of Janet Maslin. To a large extent, that’s still true. However, it’s important to keep this in mind when considering how George Lucas’ fantasy was received.

Here was Ron Howard directing a friendly hybrid of fairy tale and Tolkien-inspired quest about the someday empress Elora Danan, a magical infant protected by an aspiring sorcerer played by Warwick Davis.

“Willow” is a simple story, in which Willow Ufgood joins the valiant swashbuckler Madmartigan (played by Val Kilmer) and, eventually, the warrior Sorsha (Joanne Whalley) to save the kingdom of Tir Asleen. But Davis, whose biggest part before this was the main Ewok in “The Return of the Jedi,” was not your typical savior. In the climactic battle, Willow uses his ordinary talent to pull off an extraordinary victory over the villain, Sorsha’s evil mother Queen Bavmorda.

All this likely contributed to “Willow” earning two thumbs down from Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, and an emphatic “meh” from others. But if you were a kid back then, “Willow” may occupy an honored place in your memory for the same reasons the critics didn’t get it.  “Willow” decentralizes the typical white male hero in its power fantasy, making the most important person in the universe a baby girl and the second most a little person. It’s also unafraid to make light of a genre that used to take itself far too seriously.

WillowSorsha (Joanne Whalley) in “Willow” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)

The new Disney+ series continuation expands that tradition by placing a queer romance at the heart of its story, one part of a more inclusive vision of what destiny-bound heroes look like. 

Nevertheless, in a genre that still has a male savior complex, placing the quest in the hands of capable young women and tasking them with rescuing a prince instead of the other way around is refreshing. Along with their companions, each is on a mission to find their true greatness, whether intentional or accidental.

The series picks up Elora Danan’s legend years later, long after Madmartigan has disappeared, leaving Sorsha to rule Tir Asleen, and raise their children Prince Airk (Dempsey Bryk) and Princess Kit (Ruby Cruz). Airk has his father’s penchant for womanizing, while Kit inherited his swordsmanship.

Only when the party gallops away from the castle does the cast’s chemistry coalesce.

This comes in handy when Airk is taken by servants of another rising evil, sending Kit and her best friend and knight-in-training Jade (Erin Kellyman) on a mission to find him. Their mother refuses to let them go alone, assigning a battle-hardened rogue, Boorman (Amar Chada-Patel), to assist. Kit’s reluctant but brainy betrothed Graydon (Tony Revolori) also tags along, as does a kitchen maid named Dove (Ellie Bamber), who is smitten with Airk.

WillowGraydon (Tony Revolori), Boorman (Amar Chadha-Patel), Dove (Ellie Bamber), Kit (Ruby Cruz), Willow Ufgood (Warwick Davis) and Jade (Erin Kellyman) in “Willow” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)

And in case the name doesn’t provide enough of a hint, their first assignment is to bring Willow out of retirement to find the long-lost Elora Danan yet again, since he and Sorsha hid her identity from everyone, including her, after their first adventure together.

In the same way that the film dropped into a decade in which cinematic sword and sorcery tales were primarily defined by the likes of “Conan the Barbarian” and John Boorman’s “Excalibur,” the TV series comes to us in a time when fantasy is shaped by “Game of Thrones.”

The good news about that is that the genre is decidedly more mainstream than it once was. Even Chris Pine is starring in an upcoming movie based on “Dungeons & Dragons.” That means the audience is primed to accept details, like anachronistic language, that didn’t land as well in the 1980s.

Just as Kilmer didn’t strain to take on a British accent and screenwriter Bob Dolman refused to contort the script to fit J.R.R. Tolkien’s version of formal English, the latest “Willow” heroes sound and think like the people who are keen to watch their adventures unfold.

Only when the party gallops away from the castle does the cast’s chemistry coalesce.

Still, it takes a couple of episodes to acclimate to what the show is aiming to do. Like every other piece of TV fiction stretching its narrative hands back in time to connect to an established story, the opening pair of episodes are laden with clunky exposition reestablishing the legend of Elora Danan, striving mightily to remind us of why we once cared and should care now. (This isn’t quite a spoiler, but you can figure out what happened to Elora Danan from the moment that one of the characters walks onto the screen.)

WillowGraydon (Tony Revolori) and Jade (Erin Kellyman) in “Willow” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)

On the other hand, this “Willow” features inspired cameos that reflect how beloved it has become in the years since its release. Enlisting Whalley to reprise Sorsha is a nice touch and a surefire way to send anyone who hasn’t seen the original story since it first came out in the Disney archives for a rewatch. Other celebrities with obvious connections to either the movie or 1980s nostalgia also pop up along the way, including one late appearance meant to serve as an ode to Kilmer.

“Willow” grants viewers of all ages comfortable entry into its realm.

It’s unknown whether the original Madmartigan will make an appearance, but Chadha-Patel revels in playing up the roguish humor the “Top Gun” actor brought to the movie, especially in his scenes with Cruz.

WillowScorpia (Adwoa Aboah), Toth (Charlie Rawes) and Boorman (Amar Chadha-Patel) in “Willow” (Disney+/Lucasfilm Ltd.)

Revolori’s amiable turn as the band’s well-read brainiac keeps a group that primarily depends on edged weapons and acrobatics connected to its large-heartedness. In the main, it is Davis who takes a bit of time to warm up to the title character he first brought to the screen when he was 17 years old. His current version of the sorcerer is a weary man who is aware of his shortcomings but willing to take on a task nobody else is up to. Initially, though, his performance conflates mature concern with emotional flatness.


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


For the longest time, being a woman who loves high fantasy meant expecting to seeing yourself in limited roles. Women could be wise and beautiful sages, mages, or queens, the most powerful of which tended to be evil. Or they’re princesses in need of saving, whether for love or a grand reward bestowed by one or both of her parents, usually her father.

Then again, as “Game of Thrones” demonstrated, there are worse ways for a woman’s power to be portrayed and earned. Considering how emotionally challenging it can be for women to watch adaptations of George R.R. Martin’s work, for girls they’re downright nightmarish.

This series makes a laudable effort to bring some balance to that energy by empowering all of its heroes with physical and emotional resilience, granting viewers of all ages comfortable entry into this realm.

I still wish that “Willow” were as consistently electric from the start as it eventually becomes from the third episode onward. Then again, if “Willow” takes a couple of episodes to find its greatness, perhaps the story’s spirit dictates that is as it should be.

The first two episodes of “Willow” debut Wednesday, Nov. 30 on Disney +.

Sam Bankman-Fried says he’s secretly the “third-biggest Republican donor” thanks to “dark money”

Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and former CEO of Bahamas-based cryptocurrency exchange FTX, claims to be the third-biggest donor to the Republican Party — but says he kept it quiet to avoid criticism. 

“All my Republican donations were dark,” Bankman-Fried told cryptocurrency commentator and YouTuber Tiffany Fong. He said he didn’t publicly disclose the donations because “reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans.” 

Bankman-Fried was also the second-largest Democratic donor during the last election, but said he gave just as much to the GOP privately because reporters are “all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight so I made all the Republican ones dark.”

Among the lawmakers who have pledged to return the money they received after FTX went bankrupt are Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Ill., and Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla.

Bankman-Fried says it is “not generally known” that he is the “third-biggest Republican donor this year as well.” He reportedly donated $40 million to Democrats last election cycle, and if the same amount was given to Republicans, that would make Bankman-Fried their fifth-largest individual donor, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.

He also brought up the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision from Citizens United v. FEC which allowed corporations and outside groups to make unlimited political donations. Political groups no longer had to disclose who their donors were, which gave rise to so-called “dark money.”

“Despite Citizens United being the literally the highest-profile Supreme Court case of the decade and the thing everyone talks about with campaign finance, for some reason in practice no one can possibly fathom the idea that someone actually gave dark,” Bankman-Fried told Fong.

FTX, which was once valued at $32 billion, filed for bankruptcy on November 11. Bankman-Fried revealed to Axios that while he was once the richest person under 30 — with a net worth of $26 billion — he is now down to his final $100,000.

FTX is currently facing lawsuits for fraud and their top 50 creditors are owed more than $3 billion. Additionally, FTX did not have an accounting department according to a bankruptcy filing

Bankman-Fried also reportedly used customers’ money to fund his personal expenses, including bets at his trading company, Alameda Research. Some of the luxury benefits employees enjoyed included a $200-a-day allowance for food delivery and a private plane to fly Amazon packages from Miami to the Bahamas, according to a Financial Times report.

Several right-wing figures have questioned Bankman-Fried’s donation to Democrats and have proposed it may have even skewed the midterm election results.

“What about the money Sam Bankman-Fried gave to the Democratic Party? Will the Democrats have to give it back to the people who were defrauded?” Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked on his November 16 show, falsely stating Bankman-Fried gave $40 billion rather than the $40 million he actually spent.


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


Bankman-Fried has tried to build his reputation around being an “ethical billionaire” but some of his recent comments have changed his public perception. In an interview with Vox earlier this month Bankman-Fried said “fuck regulators,” and admitted that a lot of the “dumb shit” he said to appear charitable was a public relations move. 

After the interview went public, Bankman-Fried tweeted that he thought he was having an off-the-record conversation with a friend.

“You were really good at talking about ethics, for someone who kind of saw it all as a game with winners and losers,” said Vox reporter Kelsey Piper in a text with Bankman-Fried, whom she was friends with in the past.

“ya, hehe, I had to be,” Bankman-Fried responded in a series of texts.

“it’s what reputations are made of, to some extent,” he continued. “I feel bad for those who get fucked by it. by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths [sic.] and so everyone likes us.”

While Bankman-Fried didn’t know the texts would be released, his interview with Fong is a different story. He knew that the content of their phone conversation would eventually become public, but didn’t know the audio would be released, Fong told Gizmodo.

“To be honest I toyed with other methods of releasing info like Twitter threads but it was difficult to convey things like sarcasm / remorse in writing without being attacked for ‘sympathizing’ with Sam,” Fong added in an email to Gizmodo on Wednesday.

Fong said the audio would be the best way to convey his responses and tone accurately so that listeners “could make their own judgments on his claims.” She explained that she doesn’t work at a reputable publication, so people may have questioned her credibility or believed she was “making this all up,” so releasing the audio was her best bet. 

The calls also revealed that Bankman-Fried believed if FTX never filed for bankruptcy, “all users would be whole and withdrawals would be on on FTX right now—not just U.S., international as well.”

However, John J. Ray III — who is known for taking over Enron after their infamous collapse in 2001 — has replaced Bankman-Fried as CEO of FTX, and shared that “never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls.” 

Crypto investors who lost money with FTX are similarly unhappy, calling for Bankman-Fried to be jailed. Regulators in the Bahamas argue, however, that other countries also have a responsibility to keep FTX honest, and that this investigation will take time. 

Both the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are reportedly investigating the downfall of FTX, according to the Wall Street Journal

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has requested that the six largest crypto exchanges — including Binance and Coinbase — provide their balance sheets and other relevant information about customer fund management since the FTX collapse.

“As Congress considers much-needed regulations for the crypto industry, I will focus on the clear need for consumer protections along the lines of the assurances that have long existed for customers of banks, credit unions and securities brokers,” Wyden wrote in a letter to the crypto exchanges.

In an interview with CNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., chair of the House Financial Services Committee, added that the committee would “do everything that we can to expose any violations that were obviously made.” 

“I am petrified”: Expert says Elon Musk takeover likely to lead to demise of “Black Twitter”

Before the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile and Sandra Bland were propelled into the media spotlight, their names were Twitter #hashtags.

In 2020, Twitter was essential to the spread of historic Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality across the world.

But Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter has thrown the future of Black Twitter into question. Social media users argue that the takeover has already had an impact on the Black social media community.

For instance, not only do multiple sources report an almost immediate spike in the use of the N-word, but Musk has also allegedly mocked Black Lives Matter in general and the group’s apparel found at Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco, California.

The impact of Musk’s takeover is so abundantly clear that Black Twitter held its own satire-infused funeral.

User tweets clearly take a humorous approach, a well-documented coping technique for the Black community. But as a Black professor who studies communication and police brutality, I am petrified when I envision the implications of Black Twitter’s demise.

It starts with a hashtag

A world without Black Twitter is a world void of robust, rapid and authentic information sharing on police brutality within the Black community. As a result, it is my belief that the community will be systemically silenced and exposed to increased levels of police-related violence.

Black Twitter refers to the digital community within Twitter that embraces and celebrates Blackness all while circulating topics, stories and images that directly relate to and affect the Black community. Black Twitter is not defined by geography or membership.

Instead, it refers to a culture and community co-created by Black Twitter members. Black Twitter is used to offer cultural critiques, and to discuss significant historical moments.

Pew Research has found African Americans who use Twitter are twice as likely (68%) to discuss issues of race online compared with their white counterparts (31%). In addition, 85% of those Black users believe social media to be an important tool in creating sustained social movements.

Finally, according to Nielsen, 19 million, or 28%, of Twitter’s 67 million users are African American. And about one in five African Americans are on Black Twitter.

A 2016 study found that education, amplifying marginalized voices and pushing for structural changes to policing were the main goals for Black Twitter users dedicated to BLM. My dissertation clearly shows that the Black community, especially Black millennials and Gen Zers, use Black Twitter as a primary source of information about police brutality.

I discuss this in greater detail on the Opinion Science Podcast and Emerson College’s Campus On The Common Podcast.

Without Black Twitter, one of the Black community’s main information channels would not exist.

First with breaking news

For many social media users, Black Twitter is the first way they hear of stories involving police brutality.

In fact, I have found that hashtags have replaced breaking news headlines for some Black Twitter users.

“Honestly, I hear about most cases on Twitter,” one interviewee told me during my research. “It’s always on Twitter before it becomes main headline news. News will pick it up like a day or two after I’ve already seen it on Twitter.”

On Twitter, a hashtag is no longer just a name. Instead, it often blossoms into awareness campaigns that seek police reform. Hashtags are often the catalysts for mobilization, and this mobilization would be significantly slower in a world without Twitter.

Twitter is often used to document and upload videos of police brutality. For instance, the video of George Floyd’s death in police custody was first publicized on Twitter, and then mainstream news circulated the footage.

I like to think of Black Twitter as the fuel, while mainstream media are the wheels on the information highway.

Real images in real time

In my research, several interviewees indicated Twitter is the preferred message channel on police brutality because of its authenticity.

For many, Black Twitter avoids perceived racial biases of mainstream media outlets that rely on police sources for information. Instead, users are exposed to firsthand accounts often filmed by other Black users.

“I find Twitter to be most credible, especially the firsthand accounts and videos,” one interviewee told me. “There is something about seeing videos that makes it more real. There is less time for someone to flip a story.”

Another interviewee echoed similar ideas, stating, “I definitely prefer videos on Twitter over hearsay or the news. I don’t trust the news. But videos serve as solid evidence. I think that’s important because there are lots of cases where people are killed by police and we wouldn’t have any evidence if it weren’t for videos on Twitter.”

For some, like Elon Musk, Twitter may be a digital playground to boost their wealth and magnify their egos. But Black Twitter and the information it provides is literally a matter of life and death.

From Pearl Pearson to Breonna Taylor to Tamir Rice to Philando Castile, the use of Twitter was essential in gathering evidence, gaining public attention and pushing for reforms.

In a world where cameras are always on and information is constantly being shared, police brutality still exists. Imagine what may happen when there are fewer places to make public those images and unvarnished stories.

Deion Scott Hawkins, Assistant Professor of Argumentation & Advocacy, Emerson College

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