Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

It’s not just Trump: Midterms show the religious right is an albatross around the GOP’s neck

A couple of weeks out from a midterm election in which Republicans dramatically underperformed, one major theme has emerged in the post-mortems: Donald Trump is to blame. Turns out that voters do not like efforts to overthrow democracy, like Trump’s attempted coup or the January 6 insurrection. As data analyst Nate Cohn at the New York Times demonstrated, Trump’s “preferred primary candidates” — who usually won a Trump endorsement by backing his Big Lie — fell behind “other G.O.P. candidates by about five percentage points.” The result is a number of state, local and congressional offices were lost that Republicans might otherwise have won. 

Republican leaders are struggling with this information because dumping Trump is easier said than done so long as he has a substantial percentage of their voting base in his thrall. But, in truth, Republican problems run even deeper than that. It’s not just Trump. The religious right has been the backbone of the party for decades, but this midterm election shows they might now be doing the GOP more harm than good at the ballot box. 

As with Trump, Republicans are in a “can’t win with them/can’t win without them” relationship with the religious right. Fundamentalists remain a main source of organizing and fundraising for the GOP, as well a big chunk of their most reliable voters. They can’t afford to alienate this group any more than they can afford to push away Trump. Doing so risks the loss of millions of loyal voters. But by continuing to pander to the religious right, Republicans are steadily turning off all other voters, a group that’s rapidly growing in size as Americans turn their backs on conservative Christianity. That’s doubly true when one looks at the youngest voters, the ones Republicans will need to stay viable as their currently aging voter base starts to die off. 


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


New data from the progressive polling firm Navigator Research shows how dire the situation is for Republicans. On “culture war” issues like reproductive rights and LGBTQ equality, the voters broke hard on the progressive side of things. Among Democratic voters this midterm, 48% said abortion was an important issue for them, showing strong pro-choice sentiment. But among Republicans, only 13% ranked abortion (and the banning of it) as a driving factor in their vote. When Democratic voters were asked their main reason for their voting choice this year, abortion rights was the most popular, cited by 49% of voters. But among Republican voters, only 24% cited support for abortion bans as a major factor. 

Republican politicians may have been circumspect in talking about their anti-abortion views prior to Election Day, hoping to make the issue less salient to swing voters. But overall, the past two years have been heavily defined by Republicans catering to the religious right. It’s not just that the GOP-controlled Supreme Court went out of its way to overturn Roe v. Wade this past June. Republican leadership in state governments rushed forward to ban abortion, to the point where the red states seemed to be competing over how draconian their abortion bans could be.

Nor were the attacks on reproductive health care limited to abortion. In July, the House of Representatives voted on a bill to codify contraception rights so state governments couldn’t ban birth control. All but eight Republicans voted to allow contraception bans. Democratic fears about legal contraception are not misplaced, either. Last week, ProPublica leaked audio of a meeting between anti-choice activists and Republican legislators in Tennessee, where the assembled can be heard gaming out their next steps to ban female-controlled forms of contraception. 

All of this ugliness did not help Republicans in the midterms.

The situation was similarly dire on the LGBTQ front, as Republican politicians raced to oppress queer and trans people, especially kids. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis championed the “don’t say gay” law that forces queer teachers and students into the closet. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott menaced parents who accept a child’s trans identity by threatening to use Child Protective Services to break up their families. Republicans keep passing laws blocking trans people from receiving health care or playing on sports teams. In addition, there’s been a dramatic rise in conservatives attempting to ban books featuring LGBTQ characters. 


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


This rash of queerphobic policy has been accompanied by an escalation of bigoted rhetoric in right wing media, all aimed at painting LGBTQ people as perverts and child predators. From Fox News on down the entire conservative media ecosystem, it’s become routine to accuse queer people of being “groomers,” which is a not-especially-oblique way to call them child molesters. Groups like the Proud Boys routinely target drag shows with intimidating “protests,” which are starting to get violent. Over the weekend, there was a gun massacre at a gay club in Colorado Springs. While the police are still not speaking publicly about the killer’s motive, observers have pointed out that the murders happened mere hours before a drag brunch, the kind of event that conservative groups have been targeting for harassment. 

All of this ugliness did not help Republicans in the midterms. On the contrary, it appears to have hurt them, especially with such high youth voter turnout. As a national youth poll run by Harvard shows, younger people reject the fundamentalism that animates the Republican party. Only 12% identify as “fundamentalist/evangelical,” while 37% — by far the biggest group — say they have no religious preference at all. This comports with other polling that shows that Christian churches are becoming older and smaller all the time, as young people leave in droves. Overall, 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage. About two-thirds of Americans want abortion to remain legal. 

Even among Republican voters, the religious right doesn’t seem particularly popular. Along with the low enthusiasm for abortion bans, the Navigator poll shows that Republican voters weren’t super interested in anti-LGBTQ policy positions. Only 20% of those voters cited anti-trans views as a motivator in voting this year, despite nearly two years of non-stop right wing propaganda on this subject. The top three issues that got GOP voter juices going were opposition to social welfare spending, demands that government be “tough on crime” and anger over immigration. In other words, they were all proxy issues for white grievances about a racially diverse society. The Republican party still appeals to racist voters, but even they’ve lost the enthusiasm for being the panty police. 

Christian conservatives are used to the Republican party being dependent on them.

Despite this hard, statistical evidence, religious right activists refuse to accept that their extremism is hurting the Republican party. As Rachel Cohen of Vox explained last week, anti-abortion leaders insist that banning abortion is a winning issue for Republicans. Instead, as Politico reported, they’re claiming that it was Republicans who failed by supposedly “not running harder on abortion restrictions.”

Whether these arguments are delusional or simply bad faith hardly matters. The desperation is palpable. Christian conservatives are used to the Republican party being dependent on them, and therefore bending over backward to please them. But this data shows that pandering to the religious right might be hurting the GOP more than helping. Fundamentalists are learning they’re just as dependent on the Republican party as the GOP is on them. No wonder they’re doubling down. As more and more people leave their pews, their only foothold in staying relevant is to maintain control over the Republican party. As with Trump, they will not leave quietly, but continue to hold the GOP hostage to their increasingly unpopular agenda. 

COP27 ends with no emissions agreement: The oil era is ending anyway — because it must

COP27, the UN climate conference held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, this year, ended with the dismantling of one climate-diplomacy stone wall — which was very good news — and the construction of another, which most definitely was not. Thirty years of stonewalling by rich nations over even discussing how to finance the growing global bill for climate-turbocharged weather disasters ended with a reluctant U.S. concession that the topic could at last be formally discussed, and agreement to set up of a fund as one important mechanism to help pay those bills.

This limited progress on the loss and damage caused by the climate crisis was unmatched, however, by any meaningful progress on prevention — meaning measures to ensure that climate pollution is curbed in time to respect the 1.5℃ warming red line that remains the world’s hypothetical goal. No agreement was reached on how to lower the chances that the climate chaos unleashed by greenhouse-gas pollution simply wipes entire human communities off the map. Very few of the nations that are major emitters have complied with the spirit of the Paris Agreement by further ratcheting their emission commitments down toward zero. This left the world on track for as much as 2.9°C warming by the end of this century.

India, ultimately joined by 80 other countries — including the U.S., U.K. and EU — had called for a qualitative broadening of Glasgow’s “phase down coal” target to include oil and gas. This became the focus of negotiations on the emission reduction front. That effort ultimately died in the back rooms, as Saudi Arabia and Russia — with initial support from Canada — made it clear they would refuse to sign any final agreement containing a commitment to move broadly beyond carbon-based fuels.

This refusal by major oil and gas exporting nations to support international action to phase out fossil fuels — the absolutely essential element in any plan to protect the climate — is not truly a new stonewall. Saudi Arabia laid the foundation stone of this barrier at the dawn of climate diplomacy in 1991, when it insisted that UN climate agreements would require not just consensus but unanimity of member states. This suggests, as Bloomberg’s David Fickling points out, that while the world must move rapidly beyond fossil fuels, agreements at UN conferences will not be a fruitful pathway to doing so.

The Saudis have used their implicit veto to stall progress at previous COPs as well. As long as the focus was on coal, negotiators were able work around the recalcitrant desert kingdom and find compromises with coal-dependent countries like India. But by putting oil and gas in the center of the discussion — where they most certainly belong — India forced the Saudis to finish building their wall. This at least makes it clear that there will be no international agreement to end reliance on oil and gas: Not this year, not next year at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates, not ever, as Fickling correctly points out. This is not exactly surprising — however deplorable the diplomats of oil-importing nations made it sound. 

There will be no international agreement to end reliance on oil and gas: Not this year, not next year at COP28 in the UAE, not ever. But that doesn’t mean the oil era isn’t coming to an end.

That doesn’t mean  the era of oil isn’t coming to end — of course it is. Nor does it mean that international collaboration isn’t the key to accelerate that petroleum sunset — it is. But oil will depart not because of a diplomatic deadline, but because cleaner, cheaper and better substitutes, primarily electric, are embraced by businesses, cities and consumers, as well as by oil-importing nations. The role of governments is not to negotiate the end of oil but to maximize their economic dynamism by financing its replacement. Oil can then linger on as a vestigial throwback, like horse-drawn transportation: a niche product deployed for tourist entertainment in Central Park, or for back-country hauling in Afghanistan.  


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


The demolition of one stone wall, and construction of another, should send a powerful message to climate defenders. We must focus less on seeking to shackle fossil fuels through international diplomacy. Instead, we should loudly celebrate the reality that by replacing gas, oil and coal we can turbocharge the global economy. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, and their allied economics interests in Texas and Alberta, will continue to obstruct the transition to cleaner, cheaper renewable energy. In doing so, however, they are not only the enemies of climate security, but also opponents of an inclusive, prosperous and sustainable global economy. 

As the transition away from fossil fuel and toward clean energy accelerates, a new topic will become central to the climate-diplomacy agenda — how to assist nations and regions dependent on coal, oil and gas to diversify their economies. Realistically, that may not happen until we have deployed enough clean energy that coal, oil and gas markets begin their irreversible decline. So whatever winds up on the annual negotiating agenda for the UN’s climate convention next year, the brass ring to reach for is clear enough: deeper, faster deployment of wind and solar electricity; advanced batteries and electric vehicles; heat pumps and net-zero buildings; green hydrogen and clean manufacturing. It’s the growth of those things that will drive carbon’s decline. We frequently ignore this, at our peril. Creating gigajoules of clean energy, not drafting pointless communiques, is what matters. 

US ranks last among peer nations for COVID-19 mortality: study

American citizens pride themselves for living in a country that most of them believe is superlative — freest, most powerful, most entrepreneurial. Yet despite the spheres where it has high standing, the United States ranks dismally among its peer nations when it comes to deaths from COVID-19. “Dismal” might not be a strong enough adjective, actually: the U.S. ranked dead last among its peer nations, with the most deaths per capita.

The data comes from a new study published in the medical journal JAMA, which also analyzed state-by-state vaccination and public health data. Alarmingly, researchers noted that if every state in the United States had the same vaccination rates as those states with the highest vaccination rates, more than 100,000 lives would have been saved.

“The US would have averted 122,304 deaths if COVID-19 mortality matched that of the 10 most-vaccinated states.”

Led by researchers from the Brown University School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, the JAMA study compared data on vaccinations and COVID-19 mortality in 2021 and 2022 between the United States and the 20 other most populous countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Not surprisingly, the per capita death rate was higher in America than any of those other 20 countries during the delta and omicron waves in 2021 and 2022, with America accumulating 370,298 COVID-19 fatalities in total.

Yet the data was particularly illuminating when the authors compared the ten US states with the highest vaccination rates with those that had the lowest vaccination rates.

According to the JAMA study, the per capita rate of COVID-19 deaths in the 10 states with the highest vaccination rates (73%) was 75 deaths out of every 100,000 people. By contrast, the 10 states with the lowest rates of vaccination (52%) had a per capita death rate of 146 out of 100,000 people.

But on an international scale, the numbers looked bad, too. The 10 most vaccinated states had an excess all-cause mortality rate that was equal to or less than that of several other OECD countries (including Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland). The phrase “all-cause mortality rate” refers to the total death rate, based on all causes of death, within a total population for a given period of time. That number is meaningful because many deaths that were, on paper, from other causes were indirectly caused by COVID-19. 


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


“From June 27, 2021, to March 26, 2022, the US would have averted 122,304 deaths if COVID-19 mortality matched that of the 10 most-vaccinated states and 266,700 deaths if US excess all-cause mortality rate matched that of the 10 most-vaccinated states,” the authors conclude. “If the US matched the rates of other peer countries, averted deaths would have been substantially higher in most cases (range, 154,622 – 357,899 for COVID-19 mortality; 209,924 – 465,747 for all-cause mortality).”

This means that, if the 10 states which had the fewest number of vaccinated citizens had been inoculated at the rates of the 10 states with the highest percentage of vaccinated citizens, roughly 122,000 people who died of COVID-19 during the nine-month period covered by the study would have lived instead. Similarly, if throughout the United States the total amount of excess deaths from all causes had been the same as in the 10 most highly-vaccinated states, more than 266,000 deaths would have been avoided.

The United States’ dismal public health ratings owe a debt to the haze of vaccine misinformation that pervades the United States, and which has become dogma among some right-wing politicians who have encouraged the spread of public health misinformation for political gain. Although anti-vaccine conspiracy theories became increasingly popular due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they long preceded it. In 1998, soon-to-be-discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield published a case series which claimed that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR vaccine) was linked to the development of autistic traits in young people. A panic ensued until it became clear that Wakefield’s paper was riddled with problems: It had no data about the MMR vaccine, included speculative conclusions, only reviewed a small sample of patients and used a poorly-designed experimental model. It later came out that Wakefield also had financial conflicts of interest which he had not disclosed when publishing the study.

“It is to their advantage to spread [misinformation]. There is no means of recourse for those who may be harmed by the words spoken by Rogan and Rodgers, and broadcast on Spotify, for any harm that might be caused as a result.”

Anti-vaccine ideas became more prevalent in the 2020s after the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States. Popular podcaster Joe Rogan touted supposed COVID-19 treatments that did not work, such as the horse de-wormer ivermectin. Rogan’s ideas spread thanks to other anti-vaccine celebrities such as quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

There is no scientific evidence indicating that purported COVID-19 treatments like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, vitamin C and vitamin D are effective in stopping COVID-19 infections. While monoclonal antibodies can be effective, and Paxlovid works well, both are second-line defenses that are much more likely to be given to the unvaccinated when they contract the virus, as unvaccinated persons typically have far worse outcomes if and when they contract COVID-19. 

“Is the caller the killer?”: How Jessica Logan’s 911 call for help became evidence against her

Detective Eric Matthews decided Jessica Logan probably killed her baby before he talked to a single eyewitness or collected almost any evidence. At that point, on Oct. 9, 2019, the coroner hadn’t yet announced a cause of death. What Matthews did have was a recording of Logan’s 911 call from two days earlier.

The detective scribbled notes as he listened.

“Jessica,” the 911 dispatcher said at one point, “take a deep breath for me, OK?”

“I can’t,” Logan replied, inhaling sharply to force the words out. “That’s my baby.”

“I know. I know.”

“I need my baby.”

The call had come in just after 3 a.m. from a duplex in the heart of Decatur, Illinois. On the tape, Logan struggled to gain her composure as the dispatcher asked what had happened.

“I came in my son room to try to give him a breathing treatment because he needs breathing treatments,” Logan said as she sobbed. “And he’s not breathing.”

She had found her 19-month-old son Jayden tangled up in his bed sheets, face down and stiff, one arm bent above his head and white foam spilling out of his mouth.

“He’s so cold and hard,” Logan said.

“What?”

“He’s so cold and hard.”

Rigor mortis had already begun to set in by the time Jayden’s grandmother and her husband rushed into the apartment. For the final two minutes of the call, Logan could no longer speak. There were only screams.

All of this, the detective concluded after the recording stopped, was an act: The 25-year-old mother of two had likely staged the scene to cover up a murder. He had the evidence right there on tape, and now he was going to build his case against her. Matthews, a veteran on the Decatur police force with buzzed hair and an even temperament, didn’t reach this revelation by applying some tried-and-true police method or proven science.

Five months earlier, he had taken a two-day law enforcement training course called “911 homicide: Is the caller the killer?” that was held at a nearby community college. The instructor, who is the chief architect of the discipline, promises those who attend his classes they’ll leave with the power to solve murders by listening to a 911 call.

For more than a decade, the training program and its methods have spread across the country and burrowed deep into the justice system, largely without notice. Pitched exclusively to law enforcement, others in the justice system, including defense lawyers and judges, often learn police have used the technique for the first time in the courtroom.

Today there are hundreds of police officers, prosecutors, coroners and dispatchers nationwide who have taken the course and could now present themselves as experts, able to divine truth and deception — and guilt and innocence — from the word choice, cadence and even grammar of people reporting emergencies.

For Matthews, Logan presented a textbook case on which to apply his newly minted skills. She did not explain precisely what had happened until almost a minute into the 911 call, and she never explicitly asked for an ambulance for Jayden. These, the detective noted in a report, are “indicators of guilt.”

She gave information in an inappropriate order. Some answers were too short. She equivocated. She repeated herself several times with “attempts to convince” the dispatcher of Jayden’s breathing problems. She was more focused on herself than her son: “I need my baby” instead of “I need help for my baby.” And when asked if Jayden was beyond any help, Logan said, “I think he’s gone.” She had “already accepted that Jayden was deceased,” Matthews noted in his report.

According to the detective, almost everything Logan said — and didn’t say — was evidence of her guilt.

He documented his findings and then got to work sharing them. His interpretation of her 911 call that day would come to play a profound role at almost every turn of the case that followed, while Logan’s family, already shattered by one unspeakable loss, reckoned with the possibility of another.

Matthews did not respond to multiple interview requests, and the chief of the Decatur Police Department declined to comment or make any of his staff available for an interview. Neither replied to a list of detailed questions.

In the coming weeks, ProPublica will reveal the origins of 911 call analysis and the local, state and federal agencies that foster it, despite a consensus among experts that its application is scientifically baseless. Police and prosecutors continue to leverage this method against unwitting defendants across the country, ProPublica found, in some cases slipping it past judges to present it to jurors.

The case against Jessica Logan — reconstructed here from dozens of interviews, videos and audio recordings, as well as more than 1,000 pages of internal emails, text messages, police reports, court filings and other records — illustrates the fragility of long-established legal protections meant to guard against junk science and its impact on families.

Hope Bradford, a mother of three with eyes that smile before her mouth can catch up, took in Logan, her son’s then-girlfriend, when she was 17. It was an unofficial adoption after Logan’s biological mother died of cancer. She’s called Bradford “Mom” ever since. To Bradford, Logan is “Butterball.” Only Jessica if she’s in trouble: Jessica when she cut class; Jessica when she was arrested for shoplifting as a teenager; Jessica when she got caught joyriding her father’s Chevy and showed up at Bradford’s doorstep.

Bradford’s tone, normally buoyant, drops low and icy when she’s meting out discipline to her kids and grandkids. “You’ve got to get your shit together,” she told Logan one time after her new daughter backslid. Like most do when Bradford gives orders, Logan obeyed.

Bradford’s son, Shawneen Comage — father to Logan’s two boys — did not. In October 2018, he was arrested for punching Logan in the face six or seven times, just feet from where Jayden slept, child services records show. He was convicted of domestic battery. Comage had abused her before over the years, his fits of rage memorialized by holes pockmarked in the drywall around his bedroom. In an interview, he said he regrets that part of his past and that he’s come a long way since.

After the episode in 2018, a state child services investigator noted that Logan seemed “somewhat complacent” about Comage’s violence. It’s not far from how friends and family describe her: gentle and guileless, with a placid affect that can be difficult to read. Her narrow green eyes often stare vacantly. As a child, she was diagnosed with a learning disability so severe that she qualified for government benefits after graduating high school. She needed the questions on her final exams read to her.

When Logan speaks, she takes long pauses to think over an answer, and the words fall out of her mouth slowly. She drags vowels. She repeats herself often. “It’s like she’d be in a daze about certain things,” one relative observed. “I don’t want to say Jess is slow,” another said affectionately before trailing off.

Logan turned 22 and moved into her own apartment, the first that felt like a real home after brief stints in two other places. It was a Section 8 duplex with white vinyl siding minutes away from Bradford. Logan loved the clean carpets and playground right outside where she could snap pictures of Jayden and her older son Je’Shawn playing together. She recorded hundreds of such moments — the mundane and the milestones: first steps, spaghetti dinners, birthday parties, even trips to the doctor.

Logan felt independent. She started to plan a future for her family, maybe somewhere down south. She researched U-Haul prices and affordable housing options. “My goal,” she said later, “was to have three kids and own my own house before the age of 30.”

But the bills piled up quickly. She tried to keep her head above water with odd jobs and babysitting gigs, relying largely on food stamps and whatever she could borrow from family and payday loan companies. More than once, she overdrafted her checking account to buy gas and diapers. Bradford, a certified nursing assistant, eventually helped her land a full-time job in the kitchen at a nearby long-term care facility.

On the afternoon of Oct. 6, 2019, Bradford picked up Logan and the boys and drove to Walmart. Jayden — who had grown thickset, with curly black hair and a pigeon-toed waddle — needed new socks and sippy cups. Just socks for Je’Shawn. Logan had $20 in her pocket and nothing in the bank as she pushed Jayden in the shopping cart.

Bradford told Logan, “You need to get some new underwear, Butterball,” something she had discovered after finding tattered panties in the laundry. But the $20 was just enough to cover the boys. At checkout, Bradford paid for the underwear and then dropped all three back home.

Hours later, just after 3 a.m., Bradford’s phone rang. On the other end, Logan wailed. Jayden or Je’Shawn — Bradford couldn’t make out which one — wasn’t breathing. She told Logan to hang up and call 911.

Bradford and her then-husband, Clint Taylor, sped to the duplex, through red lights, in less than two minutes. Taylor jumped out before the car stopped rolling and bolted inside, where he found Logan talking to the 911 dispatcher and cradling Jayden’s body.

When Bradford came into the living room, both women began to scream. Taylor scooped Je’Shawn up and carried him outside toward the flashing lights that had arrived on the scene. Firefighters rushed in, but it was too late.

When the coroner took Jayden’s body away, “I observed Jessica to be very upset and crying,” a patrol officer wrote in his report. “After giving her time to calm down, I conducted an interview.”

When a child dies, families are tormented by what they don’t know. Sometimes babies and toddlers just stop breathing in their sleep, from accidental asphyxiation, illness or a maddeningly unclear combination. In 2019, at least 125 children Jayden’s age died of “undetermined causes” in the U.S., according to government estimates, a phenomenon known as Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood. More than 200 were killed in homicides.

There often appears to be little way of distinguishing between the two explanations. Absent definitive physical evidence, police may try to fill the gap with circumstantial clues, assigning meaning to how family members behaved before and after. The grieving parent becomes a suspect.

Once they decide a death is a homicide, detectives have an array of tools at their disposal. For decades, law enforcement has repeatedly embraced the latest evidence to fall under the banner of “forensics.” Bite marks, hair follicles, roadside drug tests, written statements, polygraphs and blood spatter have all been analyzed with techniques that were later called into question.

Still, some prosecutors have accepted this evidence as fact before they leverage it in plea deals or judges allow them to present it to juries. At least 416 people nationwide have been exonerated since 2012 after they were convicted with faulty forensics or misleading expert testimony, according to data from the National Registry of Exonerations, a project from three universities.

Similarly, 911 call analysis is a measure of law enforcement’s credulity, favored in cases with few witnesses or other evidence to differentiate an accident from a murder. Use of this method is still a well-kept secret among police and prosecutors, who almost never share their analyses publicly. In emails with one another, however, they extol its value in solving murders and frequently consult with the program’s chief architect, a retired deputy police chief from suburban Ohio named Tracy Harpster.

Emergency 911 calls are, without doubt, critical pieces of information for investigators. They often establish a raw first-hand account and timeline that can later be checked against other evidence. But Harpster preaches they are also much more: The recordings are ciphers that can be decoded to help solve murders, if, and only if, you take his training course. He gets paid up to $3,500 to teach an eight-hour class.

One in three callers reporting a death, Harpster claims, betray their true involvement with unconscious word choices, omissions and patterns of speech — what the program calls “indicators of guilt.” For instance, “Huh?” in response to a dispatcher’s question is a guilty indicator. So is an isolated “please.” Other indicators are more subtle and subjective: Did the caller provide “extraneous information”? Was there too little urgency in their tone? Too many Freudian slips or other “mental miscues”?

Those who take the training are given a simple checklist to track how many of these errors a caller commits. Harpster first began developing the list as a criminal justice graduate student. For his master’s thesis in 2006, he listened to 100 recordings and claimed that certain indicators correlate with a caller’s guilt, and others with innocence.

Today, Harpster tells students they can use the model — which he and two coauthors later expanded on in a peer-reviewed exploratory study — to predict a 911 caller’s role and h​​elp solve murders. If there are enough guilty indicators, he often says, then the call is “dirty.”

Twenty researchers from seven federal government agencies, universities and advocacy groups have tested Harpster’s model against other samples of 911 calls to see if the guilty indicators he had identified did, in fact, correlate with guilt. They’ve consistently found no such relationship for most of the indicators. In two separate studies, experts at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit warned law enforcement officials to exercise caution when using 911 call analysis because their results contradicted so many of Harpster’s claims.

Given the popularity of the training course, one researcher told ProPublica, “we had to make sure it could be replicated — and it couldn’t.”

Patrick Markey, a psychologist at Villanova University who has been studying 911 calls, added that he’d find it “very disturbing” if Harpster’s method were being used to help convict people. “We don’t know if it’s valid or not,” Markey said.

In an interview last summer, Harpster defended his program and noted that he has also helped defense attorneys argue for suspects’ innocence. He maintained that critics don’t understand the research or how to appropriately use it, a position he has repeated in correspondence with law enforcement officials for years. “The research is designed to find the truth wherever it goes,” Harpster said. “I’m pro-police but I’m not pro-bullshit.”

He would not allow ProPublica to sit in on one of his training sessions and declined subsequent interview requests. He also did not respond to a detailed list of questions about his method’s role in Logan’s case.

Susan Adams, a retired FBI agent and one of Harpster’s coauthors, said in an email that they analyzed 300 calls for their study and a book on the subject. They’ve also volunteered their time to help police and prosecutors on many other cases. (Harpster claims he has directly assisted in more than 1,000 homicide investigations.) No single indicator can be used to determine the likelihood of innocence or guilt, Adams said. “Instead, our study examined indicators in combination, just as 911 call analysis should be used in combination with case facts to uncover the truth.”

Psychologists and criminal justice experts say applying the model in the real world is dangerous because those indicators can indicate very little; that such judgments often amount to reading tea leaves; that it’s extremely difficult to decide what someone should or shouldn’t say in an emergency because everyone reacts differently; and that parents holding their dead children may very well speak irrationally.

“You might as well flip a coin,” said Maria Hartwig, a psychologist and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice with expertise in deception detection. Hartwig and others said that a commercial operation selling 911 call analysis should be met with skepticism instead of credence.

This did not happen when Matthews took the course in Decatur. Records show that local and state officials readily certified and funded Harpster’s program with taxpayer dollars.

Matthews’ class was held at Richland Community College, a low brick complex on the far side of Decatur, an agroindustrial city in the center of Illinois. Decatur is scarred by train tracks and surrounded by corn and soybean fields. On a typical day, student drivers in a tractor-trailer navigate orange cones in the school’s parking lot.

Over the years, the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board has approved Harpster’s program for credits toward a lead homicide investigator’s certificate, often funding the class with state grants. As the name suggests, the board is supposed to set statewide training standards.

When approached by ProPublica, the board could provide no record that it had scrutinized the research behind the curriculum. John Keigher, the board’s chief legal counsel, said he was unsure how the previous training manager had vetted Harpster’s application. “Maybe he did his own research and Googled stuff,” Keigher said.

Keigher had no misgivings about the program and said that local training agencies, which are partly funded by the board, get to choose who they host.

In Decatur, that entity is called the Law Enforcement Training Advisory Commission, which also provided no record of evaluating the validity of the course before offering it to local police and prosecutors.

Approval from these outside agencies lent Harpster’s class unqualified legitimacy. To small departments that may be less equipped to judge new techniques on their own, the method appears groundbreaking. Or, as one former attendee wrote in the commission’s course evaluation form: “One of the best if not the best course I’ve taken in 21 years of law enforcement.”

Five months after he took the 911 call analysis training, Matthews put his new skills to the test on Logan’s call the day he was assigned the case. Emails indicate that he asked Harpster for a consultation on the case. It was at that moment that Logan became a suspect.

After he analyzed the call, Matthews spoke with the patrol officer who had first interviewed Logan at the scene. That officer then filed a new report “in light of recent discoveries.”

In the second report, he wrote that Logan’s emotions were insincere; there were no actual tears in her eyes; and she was silent sometimes but hysterical at others. “I originally believed this was possibly due to the shocking and traumatic experience,” the officer said, “but the crying somehow did not seem genuine and felt forced.” (He later explained in court that he normally chooses to report only facts to preserve the integrity of the investigation, but after learning the new information from Matthews, the officer wanted to put his opinion about Logan’s demeanor into the record as well.)

Matthews also testified at the coroner’s inquest — a hearing separate from criminal proceedings where the coroner presents an autopsy report and other evidence to a panel of jurors, who then determine the official manner of death. Matthews told the jurors he was trained in basic and advanced 911 call analysis and said he found “mostly all guilty indicators” in Logan’s recording.

At one point early in the investigation, Matthews told a child services investigator that he had identified red flags in the case, according to meeting notes of the conversation. The detective explained that Logan “had failed the 911 stress test,” citing the fact that she repeated several times that Jayden suffered from breathing problems, as if to establish an alibi.

Jayden did have a history of respiratory illness. Medical records show his mother took him to the hospital or doctor’s office more than two dozen times after he was born, the final time a month before he died, when he had a fever, cough and rash. “I just be so paranoid and scared,” Logan told Matthews once. Jayden had been diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and treated for bronchiolitis and viral pneumonia at different points in 2018. He was admitted at least four times. Doctors prescribed him breathing medication to be administered through a nebulizer. He was sick, it seemed, more than he wasn’t.

At Jayden’s funeral, Je’Shawn, who turned 4 that same week, looked inside the casket, touched his little brother’s face and asked his mother to fill Jayden’s sippy cup. Jayden was buried next to three cousins, each of whom had been born months premature before dying in the hospital. All four names are tattooed on Bradford’s wrists.

For days, condolence messages poured in from friends and relatives checking on Logan. She deactivated her Facebook profile and ignored many of the texts, replying only in quick bursts to others:

Trying to keep it together

Can’t stop crying

I haven’t slept or really ate in 2 days

Just trying stay strong for Je’Shawn

He keep asking for his brother.

The coroner hired Dr. Scott Denton, a forensic pathologist, to perform the autopsy and determine a cause of death. After his preliminary review, Denton asked Matthews to enlist Logan for a video reenactment of the night Jayden died. Logan said she didn’t feel like she had a choice and returned to the duplex with Bradford, but without a lawyer, on Oct. 17. Matthews told Bradford to wait outside.

With the camera rolling, Logan stood in Jayden’s bedroom and held a Jayden-sized mannequin. She placed it on top of the Paw Patrol bed sheets, which were still where she’d left them weeks earlier, and gave her account of the crucial hours between Walmart and the 911 call.

Logan said she had followed the nightly routine: baths at 7:30, playtime and television for an hour and then off to bed. She put Jayden down in the bottom bunk. “I gave him a kiss good night and told him I loved him,” she said. Je’Shawn slept in her bed.

Before she climbed in next to Je’Shawn around 10:30, she peeked at Jayden, who had been fighting a cold, and then set two phone alarms, one for midnight and one for 3 a.m., to administer the breathing medication. She slept through the first alarm. (Days before, she had Googled “what does it mean when you sleep really heavy and can’t hear nothing,” according to her search history.) Then, she said, she woke at 3 a.m. before padding across the hall into Jayden’s room.

Logan found him face down with the fitted sheet wrapped around his head. His bare back was cold and his arms stiff. Just like her biological mother had felt to her on her deathbed 10 years earlier. “I knew,” Logan told Matthews, “that he was already gone.”

In his report, Matthews echoed several of his observations from the 911 call analysis: “Jessica did not appear to be upset or troubled when manipulating the mannequin and illustrating how she discovered her deceased son in his bed.” Before leaving the house, the detective asked for Logan’s cell phone. She handed it over.

A week later, Matthews invited Logan to the police station to talk again. A relative drove her downtown. Je’Shawn, his cousin and another friend rode in the back seat. “I’ll be right back,” Logan told them. The detective led her into a small, white room, where a white chair was waiting for each of them.

Matthews pushed his chair back from a desk and turned to face Logan, their knees inches apart. “I’m running into a lot of problems with this, your account of what happened,” he said. “I’m finding problems from the moment you called 911 until today.”

Matthews, who has been a juvenile detective for years, spoke obliquely at first. Her story didn’t add up, he said, and the professionals agreed with him; she wasn’t a monster, but a young, desperate mother at the end of her rope. As his words rushed at her, Logan hardly moved. Matthews alluded to something incriminating on her phone but didn’t elaborate. (Records show police had discovered evidence of a Google search, apparently from the day before Jayden died, for the phrase “How do you suffocate.”)

“There’s irrefutable proof that something happened to this kid and that you did something to him. OK?” Matthews said. “You killed Jayden.” At that, she shook her head back and forth: “No, I did not. No, I did not.”

“I’m going to be able to prove it,” the detective said. He told her that during one of their earlier interactions she “had no emotion at all.” In his report later, Matthews wrote that Logan remained “generally emotionless,” with her hands in her pockets and little visible reaction. That inscrutable countenance again.

“Everybody shows their emotions different,” she told him.

When Logan asked for a lawyer, the detective said she was going to be arrested for murdering Jayden and stood to leave. For almost an hour, she waited in the white room alone, hardly moving except for a tapping right foot. She was so still, the motion-sensitive lights turned off. She sat in darkness.

In the parking lot outside, Je’Shawn played in the back seat of the car. His entire immediate family had now vanished — both parents behind bars and his only brother dead.

Almost two weeks later, Je’Shawn climbed on top of a large leather chair in a child services center in downtown Decatur. He sat across from a female staffer. Between them was an easel. She said she wanted to ask him some questions about his family while they drew pictures together.

“Who all do you live with?” the woman, cross-legged on the floor, asked gently. Je’Shawn fidgeted with toys and explored the room. He said he lived with his grandma now. She drew a house with two smiley faces inside.

“My brother not there,” Je’Shawn offered.

“How come your brother’s not there?”

“Because he’s in heaven.”

The staffer tried to get details about the night Jayden died and what Je’Shawn may have seen. He mentioned a cover over his brother’s face but little else that tracked. (“I farted,” he confessed at one point.)

After a few more rounds, she left Je’Shawn in the room by himself for a moment. He picked up a toy cellphone and flipped it open. “Hi, Mama,” he whispered into the receiver. “I’ll draw you a picture.”

He pressed the marker against a new sheet of paper and drew his brother.

After Logan was arrested, Denton submitted his final report. Cause of death, the pathologist wrote, was asphyxia by “smothering and compression of the neck.” The coroner’s inquest made it official: homicide.

ProPublica consulted with three forensic pathologists who had no prior knowledge of Jayden’s case to review the coroner’s files, including the autopsy report, photographs, medical records and reenactment video. None of them accepted Denton’s conclusion of smothering, which, they said, is tantamount to declaring homicide. They noted that deaths by asphyxia are often accidents or due to illness. (Denton did not respond to multiple interview requests, and the coroner who had hired him declined to comment for this article. Neither replied to a detailed list of questions.)

Dr. Shaku Teas, a forensic pathologist who performed more than 600 autopsies on children during her nearly two decades at medical examiners’ and coroners’ offices across Illinois, said she could see no trauma to Jayden’s body. “There’s going to be some trauma when you suffocate a 19-month-old,” she said, because of their size coupled with an instinct to resist. “I don’t know where he came up with a homicide.”

In the autopsy report, Denton identified light blanching on the tip of Jayden’s nose and tiny dots on his eyelids, cheeks and elsewhere — burst blood vessels called petechiae. Teas and the other pathologists said Denton’s interpretation of the dots was overstated. Much of it looked like it could be a rash, they said.

Two preeminent pathology experts wrote in a 2000 paper that petechiae dots around the face and eyes, by themselves, “point to no particular cause of death” because they can also appear during moments of physical exertion like coughing, sneezing or respiratory distress. Misattributing these dots, the authors wrote, can lay “false grounds for conviction.”

Dr. Jane Turner, a private consultant and former medical examiner in St. Louis, told ProPublica the petechiae and blanching on Jayden could be explained by accidentally suffocating face down or a seizure. She said Denton didn’t seem to test for respiratory viruses or test Jayden’s cerebral spinal fluid — grave errors given his medical history. “The cause of death and manner of death should have been undetermined,” Turner said. “There were gaps in the investigation with respect to the autopsy and some questionable conclusions.”

After Bradford attended the inquest and learned the results of Denton’s autopsy report, she realized Logan’s case would likely go to trial. Logan called her that day from jail. They cried as they spoke. “I’m sick to my stomach right now,” Bradford said. “I just cannot believe this.” Je’Shawn played in the background.

Logan told Bradford she was feeling so depressed that she planned to see a mental health counselor. “J.J. was a sweet innocent boy,” she said, using Jayden’s nickname.

“I would never,” Logan added, her voice catching.

“I know you wouldn’t,” Bradford said before it was time to hang up. “I love you, Butterball.”

Logan’s trial took three days in June 2021. Nineteen months had passed since she was arrested. She sat in court, hands laced together, next to Christopher Amero, a local lawyer and military veteran with a thick, red beard. Logan’s family pooled their money to pay him $10,000.

The state’s lead prosecutor laid out his narrative to the jury several times: Logan was drowning in debt, so she murdered Jayden to cash out his $25,000 life insurance policy. Police found no vials of the breathing treatments, he said, evidence that she never intended to give them to Jayden. The jury heard a barrage of voicemails from debt collectors and prison phone conversations. In some of the recordings, Logan snapped at Je’Shawn for misbehaving. In others, she told her children’s father how far behind she’d fallen on the bills.

Logan’s plan, the prosecutor said during his opening statement, was to smother Jayden in the middle of the night and call 911 a few hours later with a manufactured story about breathing problems. “That plan betrayed her,” he added. “Forensic science betrayed her.”

He played the six-minute 911 recording before calling Matthews to testify. The prosecutors had been wary of introducing Matthews as an expert in 911 call analysis, emails indicate, and resolved to instead incorporate the guilty indicators subtly during closing arguments. It’s a common legal tactic to circumvent courts’ standards for expert testimony.

“She’s 45 seconds into the 911 phone call before she even says, ‘My child’s not breathing, and I need help,'” the prosecutor told the jury. “A mother telling you that there was no reason to try to see if her 18-month-old could be saved. Does that sound right to you?” The Macon County prosecutors who tried the case did not respond to interview requests or a list of questions about how they used 911 call analysis.

But Amero served the prosecution an unexpected boon during cross examination: He asked Matthews specifically about the “multiple indicators of guilt,” which the detective had detailed in a sworn statement, along with other observations about Logan’s suspicious demeanor. Matthews seized on the moment, explaining the research and how he had first determined that Logan was a suspect.

“In this training,” he said, “we use a chart that will allow you to determine whether the person was being honest on the call or not.” Matthews testified that Logan never once explicitly asked for help during the 911 call and a full minute had elapsed before she explained what was going on.

Amero later told ProPublica he thought that the combination of the 911 recording and Matthews’ analysis was a turning point in the trial.

The prosecution’s most important piece of evidence against Logan was Denton’s testimony about his autopsy. Amero did not call another pathologist to puncture Denton’s conclusions. The jury was left to believe that the only way Jayden could have the tiny marks and light blanching on his face was if he’d been smothered.

Another critical piece of evidence was an item that police had discovered on Logan’s phone: a Google search for the phrase “How do you suffocate.” The police report is unclear, and an officer wrote that he found the search in some of the phone records but not others. In court, that officer testified the search took place 19 hours before Jayden died, which he had verified with a subpoena to Google. This, prosecutors said, was proof she had planned to kill Jayden. ProPublica reviewed a search history file from Google but was unable to independently verify the police department’s analysis of the data extraction.

The family disputes the timeline. After Jayden died, relatives gathered at Bradford’s house to grieve. Bradford’s biological daughter asked if Jayden could have suffocated. According to Logan and Bradford, that’s when Logan searched for “How do you suffocate.” (Bradford’s daughter and Taylor said they saw Logan on her phone at that moment but did not see what she typed.)

Then there was the life insurance agent who said Logan had called the day after Jayden died to inquire about his policy. The agent found the call suspicious enough to tell police. The family maintains this is also a misunderstanding. The morning after Jayden died, those at Bradford’s house discussed paying for the funeral and travel for Jayden’s father to attend.

A family friend came over with sandwiches. She overheard the conversation and suggested calling the insurance company to ask about Jayden’s policy. Then Logan made the call, according to Bradford, Logan and Taylor. “That was my fault,” the family friend told ProPublica. “That was all me.” Logan never cashed out the policy. The package the insurance company sent sat unopened atop her dresser until after she was arrested.

Police never interviewed the family friend, and Amero didn’t call her to testify. He didn’t call any character witnesses besides Bradford — a decision that incensed the family as the trial wore on. Logan’s father, Joey Logan, and her sister Brittany Phipps sat next to one another in the gallery. Phipps said the judge threw her out of the courtroom for groaning and glowering. Bradford didn’t trust herself not to do much the same and sat alone in an anteroom for most of the trial.

After an initial interview with ProPublica, Amero did not respond to requests for comment or questions about his strategy at trial.

Joey Logan, a sandblaster with a bum eye who keeps a pack of Marlboro menthols stationed in his front shirt pocket, never got the chance to tell the jury how much his daughter doted over her sons.

“Jess would do anything for them boys,” Logan said in a recent interview. “She did everything for them boys.”

On the last day of the trial, Jessica Logan took the stand. Tattooed on her left hand, in bold letters, was the word “honesty.” She described her relationship with her boys’ father; her earlier miscarriages; the learning disabilities that slowed her down in school; her unsuccessful attempt to earn a degree from the community college; one of her jobs, at a takeout chicken restaurant in town; the two dozen doctors’ visits for Jayden. And she told her version of what happened the night he died.

Logan said she was proud of the fact that she was paying for Jayden’s life insurance and seemed confused when asked why she never cashed out the policy. “It wasn’t going to bring my son back,” she said.

In his closing arguments, the lead prosecutor warned the jury not to infantilize Logan or excuse what she’d done because she’s “not very bright.” The trial, he said, was about Jayden, “a boy who wasn’t able to protect himself from the world.” He said that was Logan’s job, “and she was the person who killed him.”

Amero pointed out that Matthews never tested the bedding for Jayden’s lung fluid. “Why was it never done? Because Detective Matthews listened to the 911 call, on the same day that he got assigned the case,” Amero said. “Because she wasn’t being emotional enough.”

In a breathless rebuttal, Amero pleaded with the jury to reconcile the 911 recording they heard, the analysis offered by Matthews and their own common sense. “It almost took a minute before she was able to get anything out to the dispatcher,” he said. “Why did it take her almost a minute? Because she couldn’t gather herself. Okay. That’s why it took a minute.”

“Every one of you heard the 911 call,” Amero continued. “If that call was not a plea for help, then I cannot explain to you what is. That entire call was a plea for help. But because she didn’t, specifically, say, ‘Please come help me,’ we’re going to use that as an indicator of her guilt. Is that justice? Is that logical? It’s not.”

The jurors deliberated for less than two hours before announcing their decision: guilty of first-degree murder. Logan’s chest got heavy, as she put it later, and the dam burst. She sobbed. A local television news reporter covering the trial criticized her for being conspicuously impassive throughout the trial. “But when that guilty verdict came down,” the reporter said, “tears started to stream down her face.”

At the sentencing in July, Logan asked the judge for leniency. “It hurt me to know people think I — think I did this based off of my emotions,” she told him. “Everyone grieve different.” The judge sentenced her to 33 years.

Connie Moon, a retired schoolteacher with lightning white hair, was one of the jurors at the trial. In a recent interview, she said she was persuaded by the financial motive laid out by the prosecutors. “It’s one of those sad stories about poor, desperate people,” Moon said. “But I do stand by my verdict.”

A second juror, who asked to remain anonymous so she could speak freely, told ProPublica she found Logan’s 911 call odd, an opinion validated by Matthews’ testimony at trial. But, more than anything, she was convinced by the autopsy report and Denton’s description of the findings. Because that testimony went unchallenged, the juror was under the mistaken impression that those small dots and blanching were proof positive of smothering. ProPublica shared with her the conclusions from the outside pathologists.

“I’m part of the group that put her away for 33 years. And that’s a heavy weight. I don’t take that lightly,” the juror said, in tears. “I don’t want her to suffer because we didn’t have the right information. And, I don’t know, maybe we made a mistake in our judgment. I don’t know. I felt at peace at the time. I can’t say I do right now.”

Another juror, who also requested anonymity, went much further. She put little stock into the 911 call analysis because, she said, there are too many differences in the way people speak for anyone to claim an expertise. But she believes now and she believed then: Jayden’s death was an accident, perhaps because Logan tried to settle him in too tightly in the bed.

“They kept saying it was intentional,” the juror told ProPublica, “but I honestly don’t think it was intentional.” The judge explicitly instructed the jurors that they should only vote to convict if they believed that the state proved both that Logan killed Jayden and she had intended to do it or, at the least, meant to cause him great bodily harm.

Still, the juror voted to convict Logan of first-degree murder, which is a deliberate act. She seemed to misunderstand the judge’s instructions. “She didn’t murder him. That’s the wrong word,” the juror said. “But what do I know?”

The night the jury’s guilty verdict was read, Matthews finished the case where it had started. He wrote an email to Harpster, the chief architect of 911 call analysis. “Just wanted to reach out to you and thank you for your help in my 2019 murder case,” he wrote, including a link to the television news story. Matthews said that he noticed the jury seemed compelled by his testimony and stared intently while nodding their heads. “I strongly believe,” Matthews finished, “that the 911 call analysis was a tremendous benefit to both my investigation and the trial.”

It was just before 6 a.m. on a Wednesday in late August when Bradford walked out of a retirement community center in navy scrubs after her shift ended. The sky over Decatur went from black to blue as she drove across town to the babysitter’s house to pick up her grandson. On Bradford’s mind was a court hearing slated for the afternoon. After more than a year, Logan’s appeal had entered its final stage, and lawyers for both sides would make arguments in front of a panel of judges.

For weeks, Bradford, a devout Baptist, had been anxious about the date and prayed on it nightly. But, as she drove, she felt at peace with whatever the outcome: an immediate ruling from the judges or more months of uncertainty. “I’m leaving it up to God,” she said, turning into the sitter’s driveway.

Two honks of the horn and Je’Shawn bounded outside, a Jurassic World backpack strapped around his shoulders and some loose jelly beans in his pocket. Bradford is in the process of formally adopting Je’Shawn, who has been in her custody as a foster son since his mother was arrested. “He knows that I’m still grandma and he knows who his mom is,” Bradford said once. “He’s never going to forget that.”

Back at the house, as his grandmother clipped his fingernails, Je’Shawn pointed out some of her gray hairs and asked where they came from. “You gave them to me,” Bradford responded with a smile. In the years since Je’Shawn’s brother died, doctors diagnosed him with an anxiety disorder and ADHD. He sees a counselor weekly. He chews his T-shirt collars until they fall apart. He frequently grimaces and blinks with his whole face. He likes Bradford to hold his hand until he falls asleep.

At 7 a.m., after breakfast, Je’Shawn boarded the school bus. Next came Bradford’s daily ritual, an hour of near silence she steals each morning. She sat in a lawn chair on the front porch, next to Je’Shawn’s bike, while the sun rose over the train tracks, through the trees, and splashed her face.

Later that same morning, 45 minutes away past miles of farmland, Logan shuffled into a recreation room at the state’s largest women’s prison. She carried with her sketches of Je’Shawn and Jayden, artwork gifted by another inmate.

It would be Je’Shawn’s seventh birthday soon, and she would get to choose a gift from a prison catalog to mail him. They would eat ice cream and play board games together in the prison’s visitation room.

That also meant it was the anniversary of Jayden’s death. The family would visit his grave without her. Logan has been diagnosed with depression, and she’s been in and out of protective custody because of issues with other inmates, including being the target of frequent bullying. Some call her “baby killer.”

In the rec room, she talked about her case, the appeal hearing later that afternoon and her two sons. She twice retold the story of the night Jayden died. Her eyes welled up, and her voice broke. She blamed herself for not waking up for the first alarm at midnight to administer Jayden’s breathing treatment. That, she said, could have saved him.

Logan has been inconsistent about whether she had preloaded the nebulizer before she went to bed or if she planned to load it after waking up Jayden. There is no mention in the police or court record of any officers checking the actual machine for the medicine, and they didn’t find full or empty vials elsewhere in the house. Logan has also waffled on whether she gave Jayden CPR the night he died.

As she spoke, Logan often stammered and took several beats to connect thoughts. “I have a learning disability,” she explained. “So I can’t really, I don’t really understand a lot of things.” Unlike Bradford, who keeps her frustration close to the surface, Logan said she tends to bury painful emotions. She’s more like her father that way.

“You shouldn’t feel like somebody’s guilty just because the way their emotions is. Everybody react and have emotions different than everybody else,” she said, a refrain she’s repeated since she was first arrested. “I mean there really nothing I could have said differently or did differently. I shouldn’t had to reword stuff to make it, I guess, to make Detective Matthews — I feel like I did nothing wrong on the 911 call.”

An hour later, Bradford settled in front of her computer to watch the appeal hearing on a video conference — the fate of her family decided by strangers on the screen. She hunched forward, looking over the top of her glasses to text updates to family. As usual, most of the curtains were drawn, and the house dim. Bradford likes privacy.

Logan’s state-appointed appeals lawyer told the panel of judges that his client deserved a new trial because the first one was unfair for a number of crucial reasons. First, he argued, the reenactment video should never have been admitted into evidence because Logan was not read her rights before she took part in it; and the video inappropriately influenced the pathologist who prepared the autopsy report. An appellate prosecutor responded that the reenactment’s significance was being overblown.

Logan’s appellate attorney said another critical problem with the trial was that Amero had chosen to elicit testimony about the 911 call analysis from Matthews. It was a “grossly unreasonable” gambit, the attorney said, one that allowed the detective to interpret Logan’s credibility. “And that’s the province of the jury.”

Then the hearing ended without ceremony. Everyone’s screens went black, and Bradford stared for a moment. She thought prosecutors continued to dismiss crucial facts in their portrait of Logan, treatment she considered especially glib given the circumstances. “They don’t realize it’s this girl’s life they’re playing with,” Bradford said.

A month later, Bradford got word while waiting in the hallway during one of Je’Shawn’s therapy appointments: Logan lost the appeal. Her attorney has asked the Supreme Court of Illinois to take the case. If the court agrees, it could take another year or longer of briefs and arguments. In the meantime, Bradford plans to move to Texas to be closer to her biological daughter and grandchildren. Je’Shawn will go with her.

After the appointment, Bradford drove back to the house in the heart of Decatur, still her family’s home for now. Inside, on almost every flat surface, are candles, more than 200 of them. She collects the classic fresh linen and vanilla scents, along with the more exotic: names like pumpkin pecan waffles and clementine sherbet. At least one is always burning, giving the house a different sweet smell every day.

In the corner of the living room, propping up a card of inscriptions and prayers from the staff at Jayden’s daycare, is a memorial candle for Jayden, encased in plastic with his picture on all four sides.

Je’Shawn often asks Bradford to light it.

No, she tells him, not this one. “I don’t want it to melt away.”

When will climate change become the crucial issue in American elections?

Believe me, it’s strange to be an old man and feel like you’re living on a new planet. On November 7th, the day before the midterm elections, I took my usual afternoon walk in New York City and I was wearing a short-sleeved shirt! That was a first for me. And no wonder, since it was 76 degrees out — beautiful, but eerie. After all, that’s just not November weather. 

By then, in fact, a distinctly unseasonal heat wave that, the previous week, had hit the country from the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast was spreading across the Eastern U.S. from Tallahassee, Florida (a record-tying 88 degrees) to Burlington, Vermont (a record 76 degrees). Temperatures ranged from 15 to 25 degrees above normal. And yet, in a sense, this was nothing new. The worst megadrought in 1,200 years has held the West and Southwest in its grip for what seems like eons now and has evidently been moving toward the middle of the country (with the Mississippi River becoming an increasingly dried-up mud puddle).

Meanwhile, Nicole, a rare November hurricane that formed in the Caribbean, would, sadly enough, spare Mar-a-Lago. However, a distraught Donald Trump, riding it out there (despite state evacuation orders), would react angrily to the political hurricane that clobbered Florida on November 8th when Ron DeSantis swept to a resounding victory amid chants of “two more years!” Meanwhile, thanks in part to already rising sea levels, Nicole would further erode Florida’s coastline in a telling fashion.

I know, I know, the real story last week was the changing political weather in this country: the angry Donald, Ron De-Sanctimonious, the Red Wave that proved barely a trickle; the surprising importance of abortion to the election campaign; the losses of so many Trumpian election deniers; those endless vote counts that left the Senate miraculously still in the hands of the Democrats and the House barely in those of… well, god knows who the Republicans really are anymore — all of it grabbed our attention big time and, given what’s at stake, why shouldn’t it have?

In a way, Nicole was nothing compared to the tropical storm of political news that swamped us during an election season in which so many Trumpists, including “Doc” Mehmet Oz and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, suffered losses that shocked the former president. They also left some Republicans lambasting him for the first time — Liz Cheney aside — in years, even as he announced his next presidential run. 

How our political world does change every now and then (even if only sort of) to the surprise of pollsters and political commentators alike. I mean who, in recent years, would have dared predict that, in the wake of the 2022 midterm elections, the Murdoch-owned tabloid, the New York Post, would mock Donald Trump on its front page? It featured him as an egg-shaped “Trumpty Dumpty” teetering at the edge of a wall with the headline “Don (who couldn’t build a wall) had a great fall — can all the GOP’s men put the party back together again?”

And yet, sadly enough, you could also say that, for all the hoopla, in certain ways our political system doesn’t change. At least, not faintly fast enough. In case you hadn’t noticed, for example, there was one issue that couldn’t loom more ominously in this all-American world of ours, that couldn’t be more crucial to our future lives, and that was missing in action during this election season. I’m thinking, of course, about climate change, the ominous overheating of this planet thanks to the greenhouse gasses that continue to spew into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. This very year, it looks as if fossil-fuel emissions will once again rise to record levels. By the end of 2022, an estimated 36.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide (or more) will have headed for that atmosphere on a planet already feeling the heat, literally and figuratively, in a historic (or, under the circumstances, perhaps I mean a-historic) way.

Missing in Action in Election 2022

Honestly, how strange this election truly was, don’t you think? And not simply because of Donald Trump and the election-denying candidates he backed. When I consider this planet, the only one we humans have (at least as yet), I find it all too unnerving that climate change didn’t make it into the midterms in any significant, or even discernible, fashion. 

I’m talking about the very planet on which the heat is increasing in an ever more striking way. Ice is melting from alpine heights to polar glaciers; rising sea levels are imperiling ever more coastal areas; previously unimaginable kinds of flooding are occurring from Pakistan to Nigeria; and record droughts have settled in across much of the northern hemisphere, while famine — actual starvation — is becoming a part of life in an increasingly parched horn of Africa. Meanwhile, more people are probably being driven from their homes and lives, not just by us humans but by nature itself, and are on the move than at any recent moment in our history.

Worse yet, we know enough — or perhaps I mean should know enough — to realize that life as we once experienced it (note the past tense!) is heading for the history books. In the worst sense imaginable, whether we care to notice or not, we all now find ourselves on a new planet. The scientists who follow this closely have been informing us of just that for years now, as has António Guterres, the head of the United Nations. Here’s the news in a nutshell: it’s only going to get precipitously (as in going off the edge of a cliff) worse, especially if humanity doesn’t take collective action in the coming years to bring the burning of fossil fuels under far greater control, while increasing the use of renewable energy sources significantly.

And all of that should help explain why, when it comes to those midterm elections, I’m left with a giant question mark that has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Given how obvious and ominous our global situation already is, why did climate change not grip American voters the way abortion did? (After all, there was a Supreme Court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency regulating the release of greenhouse gasses, just as there was one against Roe v. Wade.) 

Why was the possibility of our planet becoming ever less livable not at the top of the list of issues in the 2022 midterms? Why weren’t politicians spending their time discussing the subject? Why wasn’t it part of every stump speech, at least for the candidates who weren’t Trumpublicans? 

It should be the issue of the moment, the week, the month, the year, the decade, the century, shouldn’t it? Admittedly, post-election, Nancy Pelosi did take out after Trump and crew on the issue of climate-change denial, as well she should have, but that was a rare moment indeed. And, to give him credit, Joe Biden has worked hard to pass significant climate legislation (even if, thanks in part to the war in Ukraine, his administration has also allowed fossil-fuel extraction to ramp up). 

You want an election “issue”? Honestly, when you think about how an ever more overheated planet is going to affect our children and grandchildren, shouldn’t global warming have been right at the top of any list? And why wasn’t its absence considered the mystery of our times, perhaps of all times? 

One much-commented-upon surprise of the midterm election season was the turnout of Generation Z voters in a non-presidential year and how significantly their votes skewed Democratic. And yes, we know from polling that Gen-Z voters did indeed have climate change on their minds in a way their elders evidently didn’t. We know that, for them, it was right up there with (or just behind) abortion, protecting democracy, and inflation. And that’s not nothing.

In fact, as Juan Cole wrote at his Informed Comment website, “According to a recent Blue Shield poll, some 75% of youth in America report that they have had panic attacks, depression, anxiety, stress, and/or feelings of being overwhelmed when considering the issue of climate change. Globally, many of these young people are even afraid to bring children into the world that is being produced by our high-carbon styles of life.”

Personally, I’m with them when it comes to anxiety. When I think about the world my children and grandchildren are now likely to inherit, it leaves me distinctly depressed, stressed, and — yes — overwhelmed. And when I think that, in 2022, global warming wasn’t a significant issue, not even for Trumpublicans to attack, those feelings only multiply.

Left in the Dust of History

I mean, forget the melting Alps in Switzerland or the melting glaciers in the Himalayas; forget the missing water supplies in parched, overheated Jordan, or the spring temperatures that soared to 120 degrees and above in India and Pakistan; ignore the 500-year record drought that engulfed Europe, drying up the Rhine and other rivers, and the soaring temperatures that, last summer, turned even China’s mighty Yangtze River into a giant mudflat; ignore the record melt of Greenland’s ice sheet this September or the coming total disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic (with an accompanying rise in global sea levels), and just think about a few basics in our own country, which has reportedly warmed 68% faster than the planet as a whole over the last half century. Approximately four decades ago, extreme weather disasters causing at least $1 billion in damage occurred in the United States on average once every four months. Now, it’s once every three weeks. Doesn’t that tell you something?

And what, I wonder, will it be like four decades from now when the Gen-Zers are at least somewhat closer to my age? Meanwhile, that western mega-drought continues, wildfires grow increasingly severe, coastal areas are battered ever more fiercely by storms that, crossing overheated waters, only grow ever stronger, seasons become hotter, and… but let me just stop there. 

I mean, you get the idea, right? And count on one thing: someday, perhaps even in 2024, America’s elections are finally going to heat up, too — and I’m not just thinking about Humpty Trumpty or Ron DeSantis. Count on this, too: climate change on its present course ever upwards is going to become the true inflation of the future, as well as an issue, possibly the issue, in any election season. Republican weaponizing of it will end and how politicians respond to it will matter in their vote count (assuming, of course, that some version of American democracy is still in place in that perilous future of ours). 

If you once rejected the very idea of climate change — yes, you Donald Trump and you Ron DeSantis! — you’ll be an object of bitter mockery and ridicule. If you supported billionaires who, flying on their own private jets, put striking amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, you’ll pay for it politically. If you urge that more coal, oil, or natural gas be produced, you won’t have a chance in any election season. 

Whether we truly know it or not, whether we accept it or not, whether we paid the slightest attention to COP27, the recent U.N. climate meeting in Egypt, or not, trust me on one thing: the perilous heating of this planet is the topic that will, sooner or later, leave all others in the dust. New cold wars and hot wars will make no sense whatsoever in such a future. After all, we’re now on a tipping-point planet. Or rather, let me put it this way: either attention to climate change will leave all else in the dust or climate change itself will leave us all in the dust, and how truly sad that would be!

What happened to Rezwan: The Afghan teen who survived the Taliban but not U.S. resettlement

On the last day of Rezwan Kohistani’s life, he ate lunch alone.

Three other boys were at his table in the high school cafeteria, two of their trays touching Rezwan’s, surveillance video shows. They laughed among themselves, seemingly oblivious to their classmate, even after one of the boys accidentally knocked over Rezwan’s milk carton.

Rezwan, a tall and handsome freshman, had arrived at the school four months earlier, after fleeing Afghanistan with his family. He sat at the table for a few more minutes, at one point covering his face in apparent distress. Then he got up and made his way through the halls, past a bulletin board announcing, “You belong.”

Rezwan pushed open the school door, walked out into the rain and sent his mother a text in his native language, Dari, saying “goodbye.”

Months earlier, the Kohistanis had been among the lucky ones. The eight members of the Kohistani family had fled Kabul as it fell to the Taliban in August 2021, catching an overcrowded evacuation flight arranged as part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to rescue Afghan allies. Rezwan’s father, Lemar, had spent years risking his life to distribute fuel to the Americans.

The Kohistanis, especially 14-year-old Rezwan, saw their arrival in America as an opportunity. But the family found itself isolated in a new home that made little sense to them: Oronogo, a sleepy town of 2,500 in southwest Missouri where almost all of the residents are white.

There were no other Afghans for miles. A few other Afghan refugees were scattered across the surrounding Joplin metropolitan area. That part of Missouri has a history with the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings, and today it has few immigrants of any nationality. About a decade ago, the area’s only mosque was shot at and then set ablaze.

Rezwan’s school had never enrolled a newly arrived refugee, according to administrators. Without Dari interpreters on staff, Rezwan used Google Translate to try to engage with his teachers and classmates. He sometimes came home crying, telling his family that he’d been mocked for things like fasting during Ramadan. His teacher, noticing him struggle with attendance and grades, sent repeated pleas for help to his resettlement agency, to no avail.

“We’d been left alone,” said Lemar. “We tried to leave. But what do I know about how this system works?”

How did the Kohistanis wind up so cut off from other Afghans? And how did Rezwan end up at a school that didn’t know what to do with him? The answer lies in a cascading series of failures that stretched from a tiny Missouri nonprofit to the White House, which was ill-prepared to handle the human fallout of America’s longest war.

The United States has a long and fraught history when it comes to welcoming refugees. For decades, the resettlement system has been chronically underfunded, with the government outsourcing the work to a network of often-overstretched nonprofits that are supposed to help refugees navigate their new and deeply foreign worlds.

The system was further gutted when President Donald Trump slashed the number of refugees that the U.S. would accept each year by 80%. Hundreds of nonprofits, which relied on a small payment for each refugee they handled, had to cut their staff or simply close.

As a candidate, Biden had promised to reverse Trump’s cuts and “reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees.” Once he became president, experts, advocates and members of Congress also urged him specifically to do more to evacuate Afghan allies before U.S. troops withdrew.

But the administration let in only a trickle of Afghans. And Biden wavered on his pledge to cancel Trump’s historically low cap on refugees. The White House said it needed to assess the damage done by the previous administration. After pressure from advocates in the spring of 2021, Biden agreed to let in more refugees, but even then he raised the cap to only three-quarters of the pre-Trump numbers.

By August, when Kabul fell, most resettlement nonprofits that relied on federal payments were only just beginning to rebuild. Suddenly, they were forced to handle the U.S.’s biggest refugee influx in decades.

“They brought in numbers that were close to the amount we would resettle as a nation in a year, but they did it in a month,” said Ann O’Brien, an official at a Connecticut resettlement organization that remained open after Trump’s cuts by relying on volunteers.

O’Brien and others said their groups initially had to pay out of their own pockets to care for the incoming Afghans, as Biden and Congress took nearly two months to allocate emergency funds.

“All the resettlement agencies were welcoming families with no federal funds coming through,” O’Brien said. “We were fronting the federal government cash to take care of these families.”

Reports that Afghans were not getting the help they needed began piling up across the country. The refugees were being left without food and found themselves facing eviction and unable to get in contact with the nonprofits tasked with helping them.

When the Kohistanis arrived in the U.S., they were among tens of thousands of Afghans packed into military bases. They waited for a placement for four months in Fort Dix in New Jersey.

By many accounts, the Russian-doll-like resettlement system buckled under the strain. The government relies on nine federally designated nonprofit organizations, which, in turn, often outsource the critical work of resettlement to subcontractors who are tasked with finding homes, jobs, medical care and schools for refugee families. In exchange, the government pays $2,275 per refugee.

Every Wednesday, the U.S. Department of State hosts a Zoom call with resettlement groups, who then select refugees to take.

Lemar had initially asked to be resettled near cousins in Los Angeles, but as a second choice, he offered St. Louis, where an aunt lives. During a December call, one of the nonprofits, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, selected the Kohistani file.

Soon after, Lemar’s aunt, Marina Kohistani, received a call from a resettlement official to verify the relationship. Marina vowed to support the family. She had fled Afghanistan nearly two decades before and knew the family would need extra help.

“I told them the kids need special support,” Marina recalled. “Life here is different in so many ways.”

Lemar said he was soon told that his case had been assigned to a resettlement subcontractor, the International Institute of St. Louis.

St. Louis had been ranked highly by the State Department as a relocation spot for Afghan refugees because of its relative affordability and the availability of jobs, housing and services. It has a school dedicated to students new to the U.S., complete with Dari and Pashto interpreters, along with teachers trained to recognize early signs of stress.

But in August of 2021, the International Institute was only just beginning to rebuild after Trump’s cuts. It had nearly two dozen job openings, including for caseworkers, job placement coordinators and school program managers.

“There wasn’t enough time to hire and train staff, plus no money to do so,” said Anna Crosslin, who served as the organization’s director for many years but left in the spring of last year, before the Kohistanis arrived.

Paul Costigan, who helps run the International Institute’s refugee program (and who also oversees Missouri’s resettlement program as the state refugee coordinator), said he hadn’t known the family wanted to go to St. Louis. “I think if we knew they wanted St. Louis, that would have been approved,” he said.

Instead, the International Institute assigned the Kohistanis and other families to their branch 200 miles away, the International Institute of Southwest Missouri.

“We’re a small office,” said Rebekah Thomas, director of the southwest Missouri branch. “We were quickly overwhelmed.”

So her office further outsourced some of the cases it had received. It made an informal agreement to hand the Kohistanis and six other families to an even smaller organization: Refugee And Immigrant Services & Education, or RAISE, a small nonprofit based near the Arkansas-Missouri-Oklahoma border.

There was no contract in place. Nor had RAISE ever resettled refugees before. Founded in 2017, its staff of four had taught English and helped Somali refugees get jobs at a local chicken plant. RAISE had never before sought housing or enrolled kids in school.

Michael Newman, RAISE’s executive director, said the organization saw a chance to grow by filling in some of the gaps left by the Trump-era cuts. “This was our opportunity to start that process,” said Newman.

Newman, who joined RAISE in 2018, had previously worked in insurance and for a company that sells adjustable beds. He had no previous experience with refugees.

“This is like my third career,” he said. Asked what factors had gone into choosing a location for the Kohistanis, Newman said his faith guided him to help find “nice homes” for refugees.

The Kohistanis, including an uncle who fled with them, landed at Springfield-Branson National Airport on Dec. 28. They were met by a RAISE staffer and volunteers, who drove them more than an hour west. They passed the area’s largest town, Joplin, then the smaller Webb City, and wound up traveling down a rural single-lane highway into Oronogo, Missouri.”I wanted to say, ‘Where are we going?’ but the translator was in the other car,” recalled Lemar, who’s 39 and broad chested with jet-black hair. “We were coming from a city, but there was nothing around us on the road except farms.” They finally drove down a dead-end gravel road to their three-bedroom townhouse. There was an elementary school nearby, but little else. Around the corner was a shuttered fireworks store and a car wash. Half a mile down the road in one direction was a Dollar General; in the other direction, a gas station. Groceries were 7 miles away.

Like many refugees, the Kohistanis initially had no car.

“There are more cows and sheep here than people,” Lemar recalls Rezwan saying when he first surveyed the landscape around the house. “This isn’t a city, this is a village. Why are we here?”

In exchange for his risky fuel-delivery job in Afghanistan, Lemar’s salary had offered his family comforts in Kabul. They owned a bungalow in a bustling, middle-class neighborhood and the kids all went to private school. The family would pile into their Toyota Highlander for holidays and drive into the mountains to visit their grandparents.

Lemar and his wife, Muzhda Kohistani, said they did not expect the United States to replicate their old lifestyle. But they were at least hoping for familiar faces who could help them navigate the basics of life in the U.S.: How to pay for lunch. Where to get wifi access. How to get health care.

As it was preparing to host Afghans, RAISE announced a partnership with a church to gather volunteers and hold cultural orientations ahead of the refugees’ arrival. The volunteers stocked the Kohistanis’ pantry with Afghan groceries, but they knew little about Afghan culture or customs. “We received cultural sensitivity training,” said one of the church volunteers. “But the idea that we could be trained and deployed in specific ways” like recognizing signs of depression or finding Rezwan a doctor, “is preposterous.”

While RAISE worked with a local church, the refugee group said it didn’t create a similar arrangement with the mosque in the area. Leaders of the small Muslim community in nearby Joplin said they were contacted by RAISE only once last year before the Kohistanis and other refugees arrived.

Navid Zaidi, the treasurer of the local Islamic Society of Joplin, shared a text exchange in which a RAISE official asked if Shiite and Sunni Muslims could be placed in the same community. But Zaidi said they were never asked to support the resettlement process. “We were approached to answer questions like: ‘Is there a mosque in the region?'” he recalled. “That’s it.”

RAISE placed a few Afghan families in Joplin. But some of them felt isolated too. “For us, we wanted a community of Afghan brothers and sisters,” said Nasirullah Safi. The Safis moved to Houston with the help of a cousin who worked for a refugee resettlement group. “We have family here in Houston, which made it better for my wife and children to grow. We call this place home.”

Zaidi said placing the Kohistanis in the smaller, more rural Oronogo was “not appropriate.”

The Kohistanis were the only Afghan family settled there.

“We were all glad to be safe, but nothing about this place felt like home,” said Lemar. “Rezwan was the most upset, and he was determined to get out as soon as we arrived.”

On a crisp January morning, Rezwan started his freshman year at Webb City High School, 3 miles south of the family’s home. Rezwan wore clothes that had been donated by a local church: sweatpants that were too short, a T-shirt that was too big and sneakers that were worn out.

That morning, he met English language teacher Sally Lee.

Rezwan smiled and nodded as Lee introduced him to some of her other students who were nonnative speakers of English. No one else spoke Dari. Over the last three years, Lee had taught Webb City’s few migrant students from Mexico and Central America, often sacrificing her summers to give them extra assistance.

When Lee learned that her remote Missouri town might be hosting Afghans, she had reached out to RAISE to request training “to help [Webb City] be prepared to meet the needs of these children and their families,” as she wrote in a Nov. 16, 2021, email. No one responded.

State money was available to pay for interpreters to help refugees adjust, but the school didn’t apply.

In an early assessment, Lee wrote that Rezwan’s English was better than she expected, but he was still worried for family members who had been left behind in Afghanistan. “We are just trying to get them familiarized with our language and culture,” she wrote on Jan. 29, 2022. “He is in survival mode, but seems very grateful to be here.”

On his second day of school, a classmate noticed Rezwan was missing from class. She wrote to him over Instagram.

The classmate, who asked not to be identified, asked Rezwan: “Do you live close to the school, because maybe my mom could take you.”

“Yes, but your mom will be bothered,” he wrote back. “Unless your mother is merciful.”

The classmate and her mother drove Rezwan to school the next day. They hummed along to the radio and helped Rezwan practice English. “I can understand you,” he’d tease when she and her mother tried to break down a new phrase for him.

Rezwan and his classmate continued to message each other regularly the first few weeks he was at Webb City. But his attempts to connect with her often seemed to miss the mark.

When she asked Rezwan whether he had made any new friends, he said no.

One student who did befriend Rezwan was Judah Beard. They met during a school pickleball lesson. Judah was a senior, three grades above Rezwan. But they were around the same height, both athletic and fans of soccer. They bonded over fashion and their similar sense of style. “He used to ask me all sorts of questions: how I got my hair so soft, where to buy jeans, what I thought about America’s wars.”

Beard tried to introduce his senior classmates to Rezwan. But they found little in common with the Afghan teen.

Back home, Rezwan had amassed a following on TikTok, where he would flirt with the camera while lip syncing Bollywood ballads and dramatic Afghan song lyrics about life, love and sometimes death. At his new school, Rezwan would share TikToks of people falling down or farting that the other kids found childish. Some videos were in Dari, which the other teens couldn’t understand.

Sometimes kids would ask Rezwan a question and he’d turn to his phone for a translation. Beard recalled that the resulting exchanges often didn’t make sense, and kids started to feel as though they were talking to a computer.

“He’d try to ask a question. I wouldn’t understand and he’d get frustrated and stop trying,” Beard said. “Most of the kids didn’t know his name. When he had no one to talk to, he’d go on FaceTime,” talking to friends and family back home.

Rezwan tried to get noticed. He started wearing tight pants and satiny shirts, leaving the top three buttons undone, hoping to look like soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo. When he wore chunky sneakers, classmates mocked him for “knockoff Yeezys.”

Beard remembers that students in gym class made a point of walking on the opposite side of the basketball court from Rezwan.

“It’s not natural to see,” said Beard. “I’d see him over to the side, walking at the same pace as everyone, and there would be no one near him.”

His English teacher, Lee, tried to help Rezwan. She emailed RAISE on Feb. 22 asking again for cultural training. Three weeks later, RAISE’s newly hired school enrollment coordinator, Madeline Bridgford, wrote back asking how school was going for the Kohistani family.

By late March, Rezwan was struggling to make it through the school day, either leaving early or arriving midday, attendance records show. Lee wrote in an email at the time that she tried to reach out to Rezwan’s parents, but they didn’t respond. Lemar said he was out of town visiting family.

When RAISE’s Bridgford responded to Lee, the coordinator said none of the teacher’s problems were unique. Other schools and Afghan families were also requesting additional resources from RAISE. “I actually just found out today that school in Afghanistan is ½ day,” she wrote. “I’m only part-time and it’s actually insane how just an incredible amount of things need attention every day!!” (Bridgford did not respond to requests for comment.)

On March 28, Rezwan told Lee that he was moving in with his uncle in nearby Joplin and transferring to Joplin High School, where a few Afghan kids were enrolled. But that move never happened. He missed 16 classes that week, according to attendance records.

“I don’t know what’s going on with him, he seems to think he can make his own rules,” Lee wrote to a Joplin teacher over email.

His parents said that after their evacuation, they weren’t always focused on Rezwan. He was the eldest of their six kids, and they expected him to help the family navigate life in the United States.

But when Ramadan started in April, Rezwan told his mother and younger brother Emran that others made fun of him for not eating during lunch.

Muzhda said she wasn’t sure what to do. “I told him that if it doesn’t get better, that I’d talk to his teachers at school,” but she never did, she recalled. She said she didn’t know how to support Rezwan when he was wrestling with a system and culture so foreign to her.

She said that she wasn’t used to seeing her oldest son struggle. In Kabul, Muzhda recalled, Rezwan was happy and had no mental health issues. “He was a good student and a good brother to his siblings.”

But Rezwan’s problems in Missouri were getting worse. “He has 3 Fs right now,” Lee wrote to RAISE’s Bridgford on April 28.

Despite Lee’s effort to flag Rezwan’s troubles, Webb City schools Superintendent Anthony Rossetti said “other than an initial visit … there were no other visits with the counseling team.” Nor did the school set up an alternative learning plan, despite the district allowing students to take half days or attend virtual classes. Although the school did not schedule any follow-up meetings with Rezwan’s parents, it did send them automated calls every time Rezwan was not in class.

The same week that Lee sent an email about Rezwan’s grades, RAISE gave Lemar a questionnaire to assess how the family was doing.

It was a survey from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the group that had first taken the family’s resettlement case and then subcontracted it. The form had multiple-choice questions that asked whether the family had proper housing and access to food. One of the questions was about mental health, offering a rating of 0 to 3. Lemar circled “1,” which he explained later was a reference to his own mental health struggles.

RAISE arranged a virtual appointment for Lemar to meet with a Dari-speaking therapist. The therapist recommended that the family move, Lemar recalled.

Rezwan had been begging to move since they arrived in Oronogo. He’d set his sights on Dallas, Texas, where the Kohistanis had relatives and a larger Afghan community that had expressed a willingness to support the family. In mid-April, Rezwan and Lemar had driven to Dallas to assess their future home. The trip was a success and the Kohistanis had made plans to move.

But when Lemar told RAISE about the planned move, Newman, the group’s executive director, visited the Kohistanis at home and encouraged them to stay until the end of the school year. “Their Welcome Team is trying to encourage them to stay,” Bridgford wrote on April 28 to Lee, Rezwan’s teacher. The “Welcome Team” were church volunteers organized to help the family.

Rezwan’s father agreed to hold off.

The family had planned to move on May 4. Instead, Rezwan arrived at school and confronted Lee to demand a new path to graduation. He insisted he was 17 years old and couldn’t spend four more years at school.

Later that day, Rezwan ate alone and texted his mother goodbye. Rezwan’s parents were not worried. They assumed he had gone to spend the night with his uncle in Joplin. Rezwan had done that a few times before.

Early the next morning, police received a 911 call. A student had been found dead near the high school baseball field.

The preliminary autopsy report declared Rezwan’s death a suicide, though the final report stopped short of making a definitive determination because police have yet to complete their investigation.

Rezwan was buried on May 6 after a service in the mosque outside Joplin. Dr. Tabassum Saba, a leader of the area’s small Muslim community, started a fundraiser for the family. “Not everyone here is a hatemonger. Not everybody is KKK. But putting families in rural areas is going to be traumatic,” said Saba, who is a psychiatrist. “They would have been better off in many other places.”

Saba remembers seeing Rezwan’s 5-year-old sister comforting Muzhda, and students from Webb City consoling Lemar.

The few students who’d befriended Rezwan grieved. A former classmate ran out of her classroom in tears when she saw his seat empty the next morning. “I think this whole thing could have been avoided if there were other Afghan kids and he had a group to be in instead of being alone,” his friend Beard recalled.

Others were callous. One student expressed surprise that Rezwan hadn’t died trying to “blow up the school,” multiple classmates recalled. The boys who had sat at Rezwan’s lunch table before he disappeared were asked about him by investigators. None recognized him. One said, “What’s a Rezwan?”

Rossetti, the superintendent, said he’s still unsure exactly what happened to Rezwan, but he feels responsible. “We’re doing a lot of reflective soul-searching.”

He also said the school district hadn’t been given the guidance it needed. “We didn’t even know what the right questions to ask were. We didn’t know what support or approaches we may need. We didn’t even know if we were going to get one student or 50.”

The district has since hired a diversity coordinator and a counselor to monitor migrant students for trauma, and it’s hosting a suicide and bullying prevention workshop. Each change is a product of the district’s experience with Rezwan, Rossetti said.

Lee, Rezwan’s former teacher who had tried to get help for him, did not want to speak about what happened.

“I can’t think about it. I don’t think I can even talk about it. I’m trying to put it away so I can move on and try to heal,” Lee said. “It was the hardest thing I’ve ever been through in my entire career.”

When asked whether she and the school had enough support, Lee responded, “I don’t know if I want to answer that.”

Each entity that was tasked with taking care of the Kohistanis offered similar sentiments: They expressed sympathy for the family’s loss but took no responsibility for the difficulties the family faced.

The head of RAISE said Rezwan’s death is a tragedy, but he remains committed to the group’s expansion into refugee resettlement. “I’m very proud of what we’ve done. We’re very proud of Joplin. It’s risen up,” Newman said. He and RAISE declined to answer a lengthy set of questions from ProPublica and The Kansas City Star about the group’s resettlement work.

The International Institute of St. Louis, whose Springfield branch passed off the Kohistanis to RAISE, was the on-the-ground entity responsible for the family. It had to follow federal guidelines for the resettlement of refugees, including regular performing check-ins.

The International Institute did not respond to detailed questions about how it handled the Kohistanis’ case and why it handed families off to an organization with no resettlement experience.

In earlier communications, the organization said it had properly handled the Kohistanis’ placement. “We made the best decision with the information and resources we had,” the Institute’s Costigan said in an interview. “RAISE said they had the housing to support large families, and that’s what this family needed.”

The nonprofit originally tasked with resettling the Kohistanis, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, also declined to address questions about its handling of the Kohistanis’ case.

“We will not speculate on the circumstances of this tragic event to prevent further damage and pain to the Kohistani family,” it said in a statement. The organization noted that while “the resettlement system had been decimated,” Afghans were only placed in communities after “careful consideration and assessments involving housing, employment, transportation, school enrollment, and more.”

The federal government typically requires its main refugee partner organizations, including the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, to audit their resettlement subcontractors and ensure that refugees have been properly cared for.

“USCRI continues to adhere to the goal of auditing all our service providers at least every three years, and we continue to achieve that aim,” said Kevin Sturtevant, a spokesperson for the organization. He declined to comment on plans to audit the International Institute.

Responsibility for resettling America’s Afghan allies ultimately falls on the Biden administration.

The State Department, which oversees the placement of refugees, said in a statement:

“We grieve with the Kohistani family, as well as the community in Missouri who opened their arms to welcome them.” It went on to point to “a staffing shortage at many refugee resettlement agencies” and said that the government “worked closely with the resettlement agencies to address these challenges.”

The investigation into Rezwan’s death remains open. Webb City police have been waiting since May for law enforcement in Joplin to unlock Rezwan’s phone, which was found near his body. (Joplin police declined to comment.) Investigators still hope to check the phone for any potential evidence.

“This is new territory for us,” said Webb City Police Chief Don Melton, who could not remember a time when his department was responsible for possible evidence on a locked mobile phone or had a case go on for more than five months. Even Rezwan’s age remains a mystery to investigators. While Rezwan’s parents and passport say he was 14, the police report noted “his real date of birth is unknown.”

The Kohistanis stayed in Missouri through the summer, awaiting word on the investigation.

On Aug. 15, 2022, a year to the day after Kabul fell to the Taliban, they finally moved to Dallas.

The Kohistanis now have cousins and an extended community of other Afghans to rely on for meals, child care and guidance. And the kids are starting afresh at a school dedicated to immigrants and English language learners.

Lemar has had severe back pain since Rezwan’s death. He was planning to get his trucking license, but he hasn’t. He has also been putting off his plans to be an Uber driver.

Instead, Lemar spends much of his time mulling over his son’s death. Suicide is a sin in Islam, and Lemar remains convinced that Rezwan wasn’t capable of it.

“To survive war then come to America to be buried?” Lemar said, his voice trailing off. “What else is there to say? We are lost.”

About This Story

This story, a partnership between ProPublica and The Kansas City Star, is based on dozens of hours of interviews with the Kohistanis, other newly arrived Afghans, the local Islamic community, church volunteers, Rezwan’s classmates, school officials, law enforcement officers, employees at the International Institute and RAISE, and federal resettlement officials and experts. We also relied on a variety of records obtained through public records requests, including subcontracting agreements, school emails, Rezwan’s final autopsy report and video documenting his last days.

We reviewed death records, scene photos, police reports, surveillance footage from inside Webb City High School, Rezwan’s social media posts and his mobile phone data usage.

We published photos and texts from Rezwan with the consent of the Kohistani family.

Kelly Rowland is booed accepting an award for an absent Chris Brown

On Sunday, Chris Brown won in absentia the American Music Award for Favorite Male R&B Artist. Accepting the award in his absence was Kelly Rowland, who did so — and made a small speech — to the accompaniment of boos resounding through the Microsoft Theater.

It is unclear if the disapproval was for Brown, Rowland, the American Music Awards, or a combination of all three. Brown, who bested The Weeknd, Brent Faiyaz, GIVĒON and Lucky Daye for the award, was supposed to perform at the ceremony: a tribute to Michael Jackson. But that tribute was scrapped “at the eleventh hour,” according to Variety.

This year, a 40th anniversary reissue of Jackson’s album “Thriller” will be released and the tribute, including hits like “Thriller,” “Beat It” and “Billie Jean,” was allegedly planned in support of that. Prior to the awards ceremony, Brown posted on his Instagram a video with the caption “U SERIOUS?” He added in the comments: “WOULDVE been the ama performance but they cancelled me for reasons unknown.” This was to have been Brown’s first performance on network television since he performed at the BET Awards in 2017 

Like Jackson, who was acquitted in 2005 of child molestation, Brown is a divisive figure. Brown pled guilty to assaulting Rihanna, his girlfriend at the time, the night before another huge music award ceremony, the 2009 Grammys. Brown was sentenced to community service, served with a restraining order and had to undergo domestic violence counseling. A series of violent incidents followed. 

In 2011, Brown allegedly threw a chair at a window when asked about Rihanna in an interview. The following year, he was involved in a brawl at a New York club. In 2015, he pled guilty to a felony assault charge stemming from a 2013 incident, shortly before he voluntarily entered — and was kicked out due to violent behavior — rehab. In 2017, he was served with another restraining order for sending violent threats to a model ex-girlfriend. In 2019, Brown was detained by authorities in France after rape allegations were made. 


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


Accepting the award on Brown’s behalf, Rowland, who rose to fame as a member of Destiny’s Child, told the American Music Awards crowd to “chill out,” raising a finger in admonition. She also addressed Brown directly, saying, “Thank you for being an incredible performer. I’ll take this award, bring it to you. I love you.” 

Variety writes, “The network was not opposed to Brown performing, but the combined effect of him leading a Jackson tribute was deemed unacceptable.”

A brief history of the Butterball Turkey Talk-Line, including the most bizarre questions ever asked

Thanksgiving is an annual celebration of all things family, friends and food. Hosting the holiday feast is a simultaneously chaotic and rewarding experience.

After taking a step back, it’s not hard to see why. First, there are hasty, oftentimes last-minute trips to the supermarket. Then, there are long hours of prep work, followed by even more hours of cooking, playing host (which may include navigating a conversation about politics at the dinner table) and cleaning up.

From a culinary perspective, the most stressful component may be preparing the turkey. Whether your showstopper weighs 12 pounds or 20 pounds, roasting such a hefty bird is no easy feat. Thankfully, there’s 24/7 assistance at the ready if mayhem ensues.

Here to help with any problems or questions that arise is Butterball’s Turkey Talk-Line, the beloved service that allows home cooks to ask experts for advice about cooking the perfect turkey. Here’s a look back at its history, including how it has adapted over the years to changes in technology:

A brief history of the Butterball Turkey Talk-Line

The Butterball Turkey Talk-Line was officially created in 1981 as a toll-free telephone line for home cooks to call for live advice and tips from turkey experts. In its first year, the hotline received 11,000 calls, which were fielded by a group of just six operators. As the volume of calls went up, so did the number of operators.

“Can you thaw a frozen turkey by wrapping it in an electric blanket?”

Only a few years later, the Turkey Talk-Line revamped its services to keep up with new technologies and modern household appliances. In 1984, the Turkey Talk-Line ditched its old-fashioned paper script and tally system and went electronic with computerized resource information for customers. The following year, the Turkey Talk-Line offered a turkey microwave recipe, which featured a browning sauce for a golden finish, in response to more customers using at-home microwaves to cook meals.

In 1995, the Turkey Talk-Line debuted on Butterball.com, allowing operators to provide customer service and instant answers 24/7. Thirteen years later, Butterball joined social media, specifically Facebook and Twitter, and became more mobile-friendly.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Turkey Talk-Line featured only female operators until 2013, when it employed its first male staffer on the team. In 2016, the Turkey Talk-Line expanded its services to text, allowing home cooks to more speedily contact experts. Two years later, it became accessible via Amazon Alexa.

“I don’t want to touch the giblets. Can I fish them out with a coat hanger?”

Amid the pandemic, the Turkey Talk-Line operated remotely and launched its own TikTok account, where experts join in on trends and share Turkey advice and fun recipes.

Today, the hotline remains both booked and busy with more than 50-plus experts, who answer more than 100,000 questions throughout November and December.

The zaniest customer questions

For more than 40 years, the Butterball Turkey Talk-Line has readily answered questions from customers — no matter how bizarre they might be.

Here are some of the strangest questions ever asked, courtesy of a 2015 article by Sarah Burris:

  1. “I left the bird in the snowbank to thaw and now I can’t find it. Now what??”
  2. “I left my turkey in the car overnight. Is it still OK to eat?”
  3. “I carved my turkey with a chainsaw . . . Is the chain grease going to adversely affect my turkey?”
  4. “Can I baste my turkey with suntan lotion?”
  5. “Can I poke holes all over the turkey and pour a can of beer over it to keep it moist?”
  6. “The family dog is inside the turkey and can’t get out . . . ?”
  7. “I’m a truck driver. Can I cook the turkey on the engine block of my semi while I’m driving? If I drive faster, will it cook faster?”
  8. “Is it OK if I break the bones so it’ll fit in the pan?”
  9. “Can I slow roast the turkey for three or four days?”
  10. “It’s my first Thanksgiving, and I have a tiny apartment-size oven . . . How much will my turkey expand when cooking?”
  11. “Can you thaw a frozen turkey using an electric hair dryer?”
  12. “Can you thaw a frozen turkey by wrapping it in an electric blanket?”
  13. “Should I remove the plastic wrap before I cook my turkey?”
  14. “I don’t want to touch the giblets. Can I fish them out with a coat hanger?”
  15. “The turkey in my freezer is 23 years old. Is it safe to eat?”
  16. “I scrubbed my raw turkey with a toothbrush dipped in bleach for three hours. Is that enough to kill the harmful bacteria?”
  17. “How do I roast my turkey so it gets golden brown tan lines — in the shape of a turkey bikini?”
  18. “Why does my turkey have no breast meat?”

“She Said” recounts the dogged reporting behind the Weinstein story

The power of the press can bring down the mighty without firing a shot, and with our democracy — and the media —increasingly under attack, investigative journalists are the pen-wielding warriors on the frontlines of that battle. Case in point: the reporting that spawned the #MeToo movement, the social crusade that brought to light modern society’s systemic sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape. What helped ignite that movement was a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times report that uncovered innumerable sexual assaults by film producer Harvey Weinstein.

The Times’ Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor’s reporting eventually led to over 80 women stepping out of the shadows to reveal assaults by the movie mogul, who now sits in a prison far removed from his perch as the one of the most powerful figures in Hollywood. Now the story of how these investigative reporters brought down a mogul is the subject of the film “She Said” (opening in theaters today).

Any film about investigative journalism will invariably be compared to the 1976 classic “All the President’s Men.” And understandably so. The Watergate scandal was a story most every American felt they knew, yet fewer than four years after President Nixon’s resignation, filmmaker Alan J. Pakula delivered a mesmerizing mix of mystery and suspense that still felt fresh, punctuated by the type of details usually found scribbled on pages in reporters’ notepads.

Although that film’s antagonist targeted political enemies from the Oval Office, “She Said’s” preyed on women. During their grueling pursuit to expose Weinstein’s discretions, Twohey and Kantor (expertly played by Carey Mulligan and Zoe Kazan, respectively) quickly learn that the Tinseltown tycoon wields immense power and influence that, bolstered by the culpability of both genuflecting sycophants and the enabling entertainment industry as a whole, allow his misdeeds to multiply. Weinstein abused and violated women for decades, until his horrifying actions were finally revealed to the world by dogged reporting.

“She Said” director Maria Schrader deftly decides not to depict any of Weinstein’s numerous assaults, relegating Weinstein’s presence to a voice on conference calls or a few shots from behind of a balding actor portraying the disgraced producer. This effective, restrained approach delivers one of the film’s most powerful moments. We hear the authentic audio captured by Filipina-Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, as Weinstein vacillates between pleading and threatening in his efforts to coax her to come with him to his hotel room. It is at once revealing and sickening.

Although always engaging, “She Said” never elevates its action cinematically. The pacing lacks dynamics, the visuals lack punch, and the music is forgettable, especially when compared to the spellbinding craftsmanship in Pakula’s masterwork. But what the film does well is illustrate the level of detail needed for these scribes to get the goods necessary to publish their story. We see the determination necessary to fly across the country when phone calls go unanswered, but also the sensitivity essential when trying to get victims to go on record without reopening past wounds.

When, after all the hang-ups and slammed doors, Twohey and Kantor’s hellbent persistence and precision pay off, we experience some of the emotional impact these reporters felt when the first victim decides to go on record. And Weinstein’s fate is sealed. The devil is, after all, in the details.

Why schools’ going back to ‘normal’ won’t work for students of color

National test results released in September 2022 show unprecedented losses in math and reading scores since the pandemic disrupted schooling for millions of children.

In response, educational leaders and policymakers across the country are eager to reverse these trends and catch these students back up to where they would have been.

But this renewed concern seems to overlook a crucial fact: Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools were failing to adequately serve children of color. As a scholar of racial equity in K-12 education, I see an opportunity to go beyond getting students caught up. Rather than focus only on trying to close pandemic-related gaps, schools could seek to more substantially improve the quality of education they offer, particularly for students of color, if they want to achieve equitable and sustainable results.

Studying schools

For more than a decade, I’ve been conducting research on how schools can successfully serve Black and Latino students. Most of this work has focused on New York City, but what I have learned is critical for any school.

In one long-term study of a citywide initiative targeted at improving outcomes for Black and Latino boys, my colleagues and I collected data across more than 100 schools and through interviews with over 500 school leaders, teachers and students.

Based on this work, I’d like to highlight four critical conditions to improve the success and well-being of students of color.

1. Classrooms that reflect the students they serve

Research shows students do better overall when their teachers and the books students read reflect their race, ethnicity and cultures. Yet statistics show that seldom happens.

Children’s books depict nonhuman characters, like dogs and bears, almost three times as often as they depict characters who are Black, four times as often than Asian characters, five times as often than Hispanic characters, and nearly 30 times as often than Indigenous characters.

Moreover, while the teacher workforce remains nearly 80% white, research shows that students who had teachers of the same race had better chances of graduating from high school and enrolling in college.

2. Connection, not control

Students of color are more than twice as likely to be arrested at school as their white counterparts. And Black children who behave in the same ways as white children are twice as likely to be suspended for the same actions.

Many schools have established restorative justice programs, which emphasize repairing harm versus doling out punishment. These efforts can help shift teachers’ roles from controlling student behavior to forming connections with young people.

These connections can also be built outside formal classroom environments. Activities such as peer mentoring groups and student-led clubs are good opportunities for cultivating student-faculty connections. In those environments, students are more likely to feel comfortable being themselves and expressing their feelings about both learning and other issues relevant to their lives.

3. Equitable access to academic challenge

Teachers expect less of their Black and Latino students than they do of white and Asian classmates. Black and Latino students are also underrepresented in gifted and talented programs and less likely to be placed in such advanced coursework as eighth-grade algebra or Advanced Placement courses in high school.

When students have less access to rigorous learning opportunities, it can limit their progress in other areas as well. Students are more likely to enroll in college when they have taken four years of math and science. Yet Black and Latino students are less likely to be exposed to more advanced math and science courses, such as calculus and physics.

4. Teacher preparation and support

Teachers need strong preparation to serve an increasingly racially and ethnically diverse student population. But many teacher education programs are not preparing teachers to meet the needs of the students they teach, particularly in schools that primarily serve students of color.

Teachers are required to have ongoing training to keep their subject-matter knowledge up to date. Similarly, school districts could provide ongoing support for teachers to present broader depictions of history and society as part of developing culturally relevant classrooms, which draw on students’ backgrounds, identities and experiences.

The current political climate has become hostile to educators who broach topics of race and racism. Teachers may call on principals and other education leaders to shield them from backlash against exposing students to historical or current examples of racial injustice.

As schools seek to address pandemic-related gaps, there is now a unique opportunity to reimagine public education. For many students of color, business as usual wasn’t enough. Let’s learn from where we’ve been and aim for better than a return to normal.


Adriana Villavicencio, Assistant Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine

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

Why do people have slips of the tongue?

Have you visited Yew Nork? Does your stummy ache? What dog of bag food will we get?

In case you’ve wondered what causes such speech errors or slips of the tongue, you might like to know that all speakers — of all ages and abilities — make them sometimes. Even people who use a sign language produce what some call “slips of the hand.” Slips are a common feature of language.

As a developmental psycholinguist who studies how people use language, I am interested in what speech errors tell us about the human mind. Research shows that language users store and retrieve different units of language. These include small ones like single consonants, and big ones like phrases made of several words.

Exchanges and blends of sounds and words

One way to think about speech errors is in terms of the linguistic units that each involves. Another way to think about them is in terms of the actions affecting these units.

The “Yew Nork” slip shows consonant sounds switching places — a sound exchange. Notice that each of the consonants is first in its own syllable. The “dog of bag food” slip shows a word exchange. Notice that both words are nouns. Vowel sounds can also switch places, as when a speaker who meant “feed the pooch” said, “food the peach.”

The “stummy” slip blends the synonyms “stomach” and “tummy.” Phrases can also blend, as in “It depends on the day of the mood I’m in.” The speaker who said this had in mind both “the day of the week” and “the mood I’m in,” but with only one mouth for the two messages to pass through, he blended the phrases.

Substitutions by meaning

Another way to think about speech errors is in terms of what influences them. Substitutions of one word for another can illustrate.

Someone who meant to refer to fingers said instead, “Don’t burn your toes.” The words “toe” and “finger” don’t sound alike, but they name similar body parts. In fact, Latin used the same word, “digitus,” to refer to digits of the hands and digits of the feet.

This word substitution — and thousands like it — suggests that our mental dictionaries link words with related meanings. In other words, semantic connections can influence speech errors. The speaker here was trying to get the word “finger” from the body-part section of his mental dictionary and slipped over to its semantic neighbor “toe.”

Substitutions by sound

Another type of word substitution reveals something else about our mental dictionaries. Someone who meant to refer to his mustache said instead, “I got whipped cream on my mushroom.” The words “mustache” and “mushroom” sound similar. Each word starts with the same consonant and vowel, denoted as “[mʌ]” in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Each word is two syllables long with stress on the first syllable. But the meanings of these two words are not similar.

This word substitution — and thousands like it — suggests that our mental dictionaries also link words with similar sounds. In other words, phonological connections can influence speech errors. The speaker here was trying to get the word “mustache” from the “[mʌ]” section of his mental dictionary and slipped over to its phonological neighbor “mushroom.”

Insights from variety

Psycholinguists who collect and analyze speech errors find many ways to categorize them and to explain how and why people make them.

I like to compare that effort with how Charles Darwin studied Galápagos finches. Studying speech errors and finches in detail reveals how tiny variations distinguish them.

Theories of how people talk seek to explain those details. Psycholinguists distinguish slips by the linguistic units that they involve, such as consonants, vowels, words and phrases. They describe how and when speakers use such information. This can help us understand how language develops in children and how it breaks down in people with certain impairments.

These theories also describe different stages for planning and producing sentences. For example, psycholinguists hypothesize that speakers start with what they want to convey. Then they retrieve word meanings from a mental dictionary. They arrange the words according to the grammar of the language they’re speaking. How words sound and the rhythm of whole sentences are later stages. If this is right, the “finger-toe” substitution reflects an earlier stage than the “mustache-mushroom” substitution.

The study of speech errors reminds us that glitches happen now and then in every complex behavior. When you walk, you sometimes trip. When you talk, you sometimes slip.


Cecile McKee, Professor of Linguistics, University of Arizona

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

Elon Musk won’t let Alex Jones return to Twitter

Elon Musk is drawing the line about one person he doesn’t want to allow back on Twitter.

Although the platform’s new owner recently reinstated several far-right accounts, he made it clear over the weekend that he will not be awarding that same luxury to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

On Friday, Musk tweeted, “What should Twitter do next?” to which one user replied, “Bring back Alex Jones!!!!” Musk then wrote back a simple “No,” and later explained his decision in a series of separate tweets.

“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” Musk tweeted on Sunday, citing scripture to reinforce his stance against Jones, who has been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion to Sandy Hook families for falsely claiming that the 2012 school shooting was a hoax.

In response to another user who urged Musk to “Please reconsider in the interest of real free speech,” Musk said, “My firstborn child died in my arms. I felt his last heartbeat. I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.”

Jones also criticized Musk’s latest move in a video posted to the conservative outlet Rumble, saying, “Now, do I blame Elon Musk for this? No, ladies and gentlemen. And quite frankly, I don’t care if I get brought back to Twitter.” Jones and his InfoWars website were permanently suspended from the platform in 2018 due to abusive behavior.   

He continued, “I care about any of these big tech platforms going back to free speech and back to where the Internet was four years ago, before this reign of surveillance and censorship. Because this isn’t just censorship. They’re surveilling everything you say in live time, not just on Twitter, but Google, Facebook, all of it in live time.”

“This is criminal,” Jones added.

While Musk refused to revive Jones’ Twitter account, the so-called “free speech absolutist” had restored Donald Trump’s account on Saturday, shortly after the former president announced his 2024 campaign on Tuesday. Trump’s return was prompted after Musk posted a Twitter poll on Friday night asking users if Trump should be reinstated. Approximately 52% of more than 15 million total voters voted yes.

“The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated,” Musk tweeted Saturday night.

Trump, who had over 88 million followers on Twitter, was permanently suspended on Jan. 8, 2021, just two days after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. During his tumultuous presidency, Trump frequently used Twitter to spew propaganda and hateful rhetoric. But now, the ex-president says he doesn’t “see any reason for it” and will instead use his new platform Truth Social, which he claimed had better user engagement than Twitter and was doing “phenomenally well.”


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


In addition to Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) personal Twitter account was restored on Monday, after she was permanently suspended in July 2021 for spreading COVID misinformation.

“I’m the only Member of Congress the unelected big tech oligarchs permanently banned. On January 2, 2022, they violated my freedom of speech and ability to campaign & fundraise crying “covid misinformation,'” Greene tweeted from her congressional account.

“My account is back. Go follow @mtgreenee for MTG unfiltered ;)” she added.

Arizona GOP election winner refuses to do her job unless state holds “new election immediately”

Arizona Republican Liz Harris said she will not vote on any bills unless the state holds a new election after winning her state legislative race. 

“Although I stand to win my Legislative District race it has become obvious that we need to hold a new election immediately,” Harris wrote on her Instagram and campaign website. “There are clear signs of foul play from machine malfunctions, chain of custody issues and just blatant mathematical impossibilities.”

On Election Day, 60 of the 223 polling places in Maricopa County — the largest county in Arizona — had issues with their ballot printers, which delayed the count. However, the issue was resolved in a few hours and election officials have confirmed that all legal ballots have been counted. There is no evidence backing up Harris’ claims of “foul play.”

“How can a Republican State Treasurer receive more votes than a Republican Gubernatorial or Senate candidate?” Harris asked in reference to Republican Treasurer Kimberly Yee, who won her election with more votes than any other candidate on the ballot including all Democrats running for office. However, this is not unusual and Arizona voters have been known to split their votes between the two parties.

“I call on all state legislators to join me in demanding a new election,” Harris added in her statement. “I will now be withholding my vote on any bills in this session without this new election in protest to what is clearly a potential fraudulent election.”

This is not the first time Harris has tried to overthrow an election. After losing to incumbents Jennifer Pawlik and Jeff Weninger in the 2020 election, Harris started a “Grassroots Canvass Report” to decertify the results of the state legislature and presidential elections, citing baseless allegations of voting errors. 

Last year, she falsely claimed to have uncovered 173,104 “lost” votes and 96,289 “ghost votes” — votes cast from addresses where people don’t seem to live — through her canvassing efforts, and claimed that the 2020 election in Maricopa County was “uncertifiable.” 

However, election officials and other experts said Harris’ methods were “quasi-science,” and that her findings were not supported by any evidence, rendering them inaccurate.


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


Harris’ 11-page document was shared widely by conservative media outlets and Republican politicians, but the Associated Press reported in 2021 that “the report doesn’t provide evidence for these far-fetched claims, and the county’s election results have been certified for months.”

The report also based the allegations on interactions with only 4,570 voters in a few voting precincts. Harris claimed that the smaller-scale findings could be representative of the entire county “at a scientifically correlated confidence level of 95%,” but Stanford University political science professor Justin Grimmer told the AP last year that her assertions are not true.

“From the description in the report, it is clear that this was not a random sample,” Grimmer said. Certain areas of the county were oversampled, and the authors of the report failed to take into account that people who responded to canvassers were likely very different from those who didn’t.

“Their sample simply cannot justify their inference to the entire county,” Grimmer said. For example, her initial report offered only one example from the 270,000 alleged ballot irregularities. 

The cover of the report also claimed that there was a “vacant lot” in Goodyear, Arizona from which voters cast illegal ballots. However, a local reporter and former election official immediately debunked the claim on Twitter, finding that the address is a legitimate residence that housed three registered voters. She later claimed the references to a vacant lot were a “typo” and changed the image on the cover.

Furthermore, Harris’ claims of “lost” votes are problematic according to Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at the Democracy Fund and a former Maricopa County elections official.

Research shows that when people are asked if they voted months after an election, some will lie and say they did. “Voters will over-report their participation in light of social pressure to demonstrate actions that they perceive as socially desirable,” Patrick said.

Claims of “ghost” votes are similarly controversial because people often don’t consider the military and overseas voters who are legally allowed to vote from their last domiciled address

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer asked Harris to provide specific examples of irregularities last March, but she never followed up and declined to answer most questions about the report. 

Maricopa is not the only county in Arizona facing election verification troubles. The board overseeing Cochise County has also delayed certifying the results after three conspiracy theorists alleged the counting machines were uncertified. 

Tom Rice, Brian Steiner and Daniel Wood, the three men cited in the case, have previously filed at least four cases with similar claims to the Arizona Supreme Court since 2021 in an attempt to throw out the state’s 2020 election results. The court has dismissed all of their cases. 

However, the three men were able to persuade the two Republicans in control of the Cochise County board of supervisors to delay the certification until the Nov. 28 deadline. They say the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission allowed the certification of testing companies to pass, which voided the certifications of tabulation equipment throughout the state. 

Their claim was taken seriously despite Arizona Elections Director Kori Lorick’s testimony that confirmed the machines and the testing company were both certified. “The equipment used in Cochise County is properly certified under both federal and state laws and requirements,” Lorick told the board. “The claims that the SLI testing labs were not properly accredited are false.”

The delay in county certification may potentially jeopardize the entire state certification, which is set for Dec. 5. Once Arizona confirms its results, there will be a recount for the state’s attorney general race, where the results were too close to call.

There has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud or machine manipulation in the 2020 or 2022 elections.

A tale of two Bobs: Bob Chapek out, Robert Iger in at Disney

The mouse has changed its mind.

After a mere two years, the Walt Disney Company has ousted chief executive Bob Chapek, replacing him with Robert A. Iger, Chapek’s predecessor. Chapek will be stepping down immediately, the company announced Sunday. CNN described Chapek’s firing as “a shocking development at Hollywood’s biggest company.”

Iger’s previous tenure as Disney’s chief executive was from 2005 to 2020, a period considered to be the most successful for the company, marking the acquisition of Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and $71 billion deal for the majority of 21st Century Fox, as well as Disney’s launch into streaming with Disney+. Iger postponed his retirement three times and according to The New York Times, “seemed reluctant to leave the company when he did.”

Chapek took the helm at Disney in February 2020, one month before the pandemic reached America in waves. The New York Times wrote, “The handoff did not go smoothly.” CNN described the beginning of Chapek’s tenure as “one of the most tumultuous periods in the company’s nearly 100-year history.” In early March of 2020, Universal became the first Florida theme park to announce it was closing due to the coronavirus. Disney soon followed, shuttering theme parks, stores and hotels, and marking the first time ever all the parks had closed due to illness. 

Disney paid out-of-work cast members for a little over month, then the furloughs began; more than 70,000 Disney employees were furloughed during the pandemic, starting in April 2020, contributing to the overload of Florida benefit services and food pantries. That May, Disney reported a second-quarter profit drop of 91%.

Disney parks in Florida began reopening in July of 2020, though Disneyland did not reopen until the following year. The reopening occurred in stages and brought with it a host of safety measures, including masks and social distancing — as well as increased pricing. 

As The Wall Street Journal put it, Disney “use[s] fares to control crowds,” pricing out less wealthy families with VIP tours and extended park hours only for guests at Disney’s luxury resorts. The crowds have come back since the pandemic first started, but the high attendance means it’s nearly impossible to ride your favorite (or any) ride without paying extra for services that allow you to skip some hours-long lines, joining slightly shorter long lines. It also costs extra to go back and forth between the parks, and some popular days have surge pricing. Since the 2010s, Disney has increased fares at about double the rate of inflation

In a statement, Chairman of the Board for Disney, Susan Arnold, praised Chapek for “navigating the company through the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic.” But as The New York Times wrote, this year Chapek “contended with one crisis after another, some of his own making.”

The largest of those crises was Chapek’s mishandling of a stance in regard to controversial Florida legislature. For a long time, Chapek stayed silent about Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which restricted LGBTQI topics and conversation in classrooms and was also designed to make educators report suspected queer children. Chapek was criticized for his silence and for his eventual public statement, in which he tried to reassure employees he was “committed to creating a more inclusive company” but did not speak against the bill. 

In contrast, Iger publicly condemned the bill, telling Chris Wallace in an interview, “It is about what is right and what is wrong, and that just seemed wrong. It seemed potentially harmful to kids.”


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


Since leaving Disney, Iger joined the board of a crypto start-up and became a venture partner in Thrive Capital, Justin Kushner’s tech investment firm. He also started writing a book (his second) and as The New York Times reports, spent time on his yacht in locales like the Ionian Sea.” Chapek had recently signed a contract designed to extend his tenure into 2025. But according to Disney, Iger will return for two years with a Board mandate “to set the strategic direction for renewed growth and to work closely with the Board in developing a successor to lead the Company at the completion of his term.”

On Monday, after news of Iger’s return, Disney stocks were up 9%.

 

Colorado Springs shooting suspect is grandson of GOP lawmaker who compared Jan. 6 to U.S. Revolution

On Saturday, November 19, a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado left five people dead and more than two dozen people injured. The man arrested in connection with the attack, 22-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich, is facing five counts of first-degree murder and five counts of a “bias-motivated crime causing bodily injury,” according to court filings. And CBS 8 San Diego is reporting that Aldrich is the grandson of California State Assemblyman Randy Voepel.

CBS 8 San Diego’s Steve Price reports that Voepel “once drew harsh criticism from several of his colleagues in Sacramento for comparing the January 6 attack on the Capitol to the American Revolutionary War.”

A far-right Republican, the 72-year-old Voepel has been an avid supporter of the Tea Party. After a mob of Donald Trump supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, Voepel declared, “This is Lexington and Concord. First shots fired against tyranny. Tyranny will follow in the aftermath of the Biden swear-in on January 20.”

Law enforcement officials have not gone into specifics about the alleged shooter’s possible motivations or political views in the attack on Club Q, a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs. But the court filings indicate that they are considering it a politically motivated hate crime.

Is Earth a self-regulating organism? New study suggests our planet has a built-in climate control

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, also called The Great Dying, has certainly earned its nickname. It was the largest mass extinction in the geological record, wiping out between 83 and 97 percent of all species living on Earth. Although the exact cause is debated, extreme volcanic activity that perhaps cooked the planet has been fingered as the main culprit.

But somehow, despite being pummeled by asteroids and space radiation, life on this planet has kept on keeping on for almost four billion years. As our planet enters a Sixth Mass Extinction, driven by a wave of human activity that has wiped out thousands of species, the question of how this works — particularly, how the Earth seems to bounce back from large-scale disasters, or extreme changes in atmosphere or climate — becomes even more pressing.

It turns out the answer may, in part, be even stranger than anyone imagined. New research in the journal Science Advances suggests that Earth can self-regulate its temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. In other words, there are large-scale geologic processes that seem to absorb carbon dioxide over huge time scales. However, the time scales involved are far, far too long to correct for the sudden spike in carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuel combustion, meaning that the mechanism won’t save us from climate change.

“You have a planet whose climate was subjected to so many dramatic external changes. Why did life survive all this time?”

Constantin Arnscheidt and Daniel Rothman, two researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, crunched the data from multiple datasets documenting the global temperature for the last 66 million years. These paleoclimate records include ice cores from Antarctica and the chemical makeup of prehistoric marine fossils, which can tell us a lot about what Earth’s atmosphere was like in the distant past.

“This whole study is only possible because there have been great advances in improving the resolution of these deep-sea temperature records,” Arnscheidt said in a statement. “Now we have data going back 66 million years, with data points at most thousands of years apart.”

The two MIT scientists found a strong pattern suggesting that Earth employs feedback loops to keep its temperatures within a range where life can thrive. However, this happens on a timescale over hundreds of thousands of years, so while it implies our planet will bounce back from anthropogenic climate change, it won’t happen soon enough to save us.

“One argument is that we need some sort of stabilizing mechanism to keep temperatures suitable for life,” Arnscheidt said. “But it’s never been demonstrated from data that such a mechanism has consistently controlled Earth’s climate.”

The finding has big implications for our understanding of the past, but also how global heating is shaping the future of our homeworld. It even helps us better understand the evolution of planetary temperatures that can make the search for alien-inhabited exoplanets more fruitful.

“You have a planet whose climate was subjected to so many dramatic external changes. Why did life survive all this time? One argument is that we need some sort of stabilizing mechanism to keep temperatures suitable for life,” Arnscheidt said. “But it’s never been demonstrated from data that such a mechanism has consistently controlled Earth’s climate.”

Many scientists have proposed that Earth has self-regulated its temperature throughout history, but this has been difficult to prove. In the 1960s, the late inventor and environmentalist James Lovelock applied Darwinian processes to the entire planet, rather than a single organism, to explain how such a complex system evolved. He called this the Gaia hypothesis, which explains how Earth and its biological systems formed feedback loops that keeps our planet favorable for living organisms.

It also helped explain the Faint-Sun Paradox, first proposed by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. Essentially, our Sun used to be a lot smaller and colder 4.5 billion years ago. Back then, based on our current understanding of the life cycle of stars, the Sun would have been about 30 percent dimmer than it is today. This in turn would have made Earth too cold for liquid water, preventing life from forming — yet obviously this happened. So how did our rocky world pull this off?

The answer seems to lie in how carbon is cycled through the planet. A prominent theory is that when our planet first formed, it had an atmosphere chock full of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, that allowed it to absorb heat, even though the Sun was colder.

“On the one hand, it’s good because we know that today’s global warming will eventually be canceled out  through this stabilizing feedback. But on the other hand, it will take hundreds of thousands of years to happen, so not fast enough to solve our present-day issues.”

A complex process known as silicate weathering then removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and buries it at the bottom of the ocean. Over time, this cools the planet. Then, something like major volcanic eruptions or humans driving cars, pumps more carbon dioxide in the air, warming the planet again. Over the eons, Earth seems to be balancing between too cold and too hot, explaining why some call Earth a Goldilocks Planet.

The MIT study helps match existing data with this long-held theory, which helps us better understand our past and the consequences of unchecked climate change. And it would make sense that if these feedback loops exist on our planet, they may also exist in other galaxies, informing the hunt for extraterrestrial life.

“On the one hand, it’s good because we know that today’s global warming will eventually be canceled out through this stabilizing feedback,” Arnscheidt said. “But on the other hand, it will take hundreds of thousands of years to happen, so not fast enough to solve our present-day issues.”

However, Arnscheidt’s model was unable to account for this balance on timescales longer than one million years, so random chance may have also played an outsized role in life’s success on this rock.

“There are two camps: Some say random chance is a good enough explanation, and others say there must be a stabilizing feedback,” Arnscheidt said. “We’re able to show, directly from data, that the answer is probably somewhere in between. In other words, there was some stabilization, but pure luck likely also played a role in keeping Earth continuously habitable.”

It may have been a mix of randomness and feedback loops like silicate weathering that influenced Earth’s temperature in the past. But in humanity’s future, it will be free will —our policy, our consumption, our choices — that determines the temperature of the planet going forward. And we may just overwhelm these natural systems so much that they won’t be able to balance out, similar to prominent theories about potential life on Mars.

“The heating of the Sun has been slow enough to allow life to evolve, a process which takes millions of years. Unfortunately, the Sun is now too hot for the further development of organic life on Earth,” Lovelock wrote in his 2019 book “Novacene: The Coming Age of Hyperintelligence.” “The output of heat from our star is too great for life to start again as it did from the simple chemicals of the Archean Period between 4 billion and 2.5 billion years ago. If life on Earth is wiped out, it will not start again.”

Respect for Marriage Act is a tradeoff, but Democrats may not know what they’re trading

The Senate is expected to begin debate on the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) after the Thanksgiving holiday, but there’s no sign Democrats are aware that the bill involves a tradeoff between codifying same-sex marriage and perpetuating other forms of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

An amendment added to the bill this week reaffirms and adds protections to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which members of Congress and the media routinely refer to merely as protecting religious liberties but in fact has been used in court against LGBTQ and other communities.

As recently as two months ago, a judge sided with a company arguing that RFRA permitted excluding HIV-prevention drugs from its employee health plan to avoid facilitating “homosexual behavior.”

At least one senator told The Young Turks he wasn’t aware of that ruling. And the amendment’s sponsors — Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., the only open LGBTQ members of the Senate — did not respond to requests for comment about RFRA and the recent ruling.

But a dozen Republicans thought the amendment was worth backing same-sex marriage. Democrats needed at least ten to thwart a filibuster. They got those votes by adding the amendment.

“If that amendment is attached to the bill, I’ll vote for it,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said. After the amendment was added, his church, the Mormons, publicly endorsed the bill, which passed a procedural hurdle with a 62-37 vote this week.

The House would still have to approve the amended bill before Pres. Joe Biden can sign it, which he has said he will.

All of which raises the question — are Democrats aware of what those Senate Republicans think they’re getting in the amendment? Or is the amendment toothless and Romney and others are just using it as political cover to justify joining the 21st century?

A number of Christian conservatives, such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Romney’s fellow Utahn, call the RFRA amendment “lip service.” And in one respect, that’s accurate; the amendment includes rhetorical language. It says that all views of marriage — implicitly including religious opposition — deserve respect.

But its bolstering of RFRA has a more practical impact. Passed in 1993 — also with bipartisan support — RFRA was a response to the firing of two Native Americans for ritual peyote use. But since then, it has become an important legal weapon in the arsenal of the Christian right.

RFRA was sponsored by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, He’s now the Senate majority leader, but it’s not clear whether Senate Democrats today know how RFRA has been used since then, even though virtually the entire House Democratic Caucus last year backed a bill to rein in RFRA. (Schumer’s office did not respond to a request for comment.)

The Human Rights Campaign says RFRA has been “distort[ed]… into a blank check to discriminate.” And according to the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), RFRA and state versions of it “create a legal loophole for anyone who wishes to discriminate in the name of religion, allowing individuals and corporations to be free from following the laws everyone else must follow if they claim it would “burden” their religion.”

RFRA, the foundation says, was the basis for the Hobby Lobby ruling, which let corporate owners impose their religious beliefs on their employers by limiting staff healthcare plans to whatever care the owner’s religion endorses.

When then-Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., signed a state RFRA into law, LGBTQ organizations and celebrity allies went public with powerful statements in opposition. “[C]ivil rights groups and pro-equality businesses are waking up and realizing the dangers of these laws,” the FFRF concluded.

Those dangers arise from the theoretically infinite dimensions that religious freedom can assume.

Just two months ago, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that a Texas company called Braidwood Management could rely on RFRA to drop HIV-prevention drugs from its healthcare plan. And the scope of the case extended far beyond just the LGBTQ community.

The reason Braidwood could deny coverage — which O’Connor upheld with his ruling — was that paying for a healthcare plan that covers HIV-prevention drugs “facilitates and encourages homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

In other words, RFRA was used to legalize discrimination not just against LGBTQ people, but also against people suffering from drug addiction, anyone having sex outside marriage, and anyone who wanted HIV-prevention medication for any reason.

At least one backer of RFMA, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, said he was unaware of the RFRA ruling. When asked on Thursday whether he knew about the RFRA ruling, Sanders told The Young Turks, “I did not, honestly, I did not see that. Let me find out more about it. You’re telling me something new.”

And the Texas ruling isn’t the only instance of RFRA being used for exactly the opposite of its intended purpose.

RFRA has also been used to support legal claims that religious nonprofits, and then any nonprofits, and then for-profit companies should be able to exclude birth-control from their healthcare plans if the owner can cite a religious reason for doing so.

A Republican administration could use RFRA — as Pres. Donald Trump did — to justify letting a federally funded foster-care agency refuse to place kids with non-Christian families.

One church even argued that RFRA exempted its expansion plans from local zoning laws. The Supreme Court said RFRA didn’t apply that way at the state level, but states have started passing their own RFRA laws, and Congress responded by passing a new law — signed by Pres. Bill Clinton — essentially extending RFRA into zoning issues and expanding RFRA’s reach to include activities that aren’t even compelled by one’s religion.

Kentucky’s RFRA was used as the basis for an August judicial ruling that a professional wedding photographer could advertise that she discriminates against same-sex couples.

Sanders’ office has yet to respond to follow-up questions, but even though he voted for RFRA when he was in the House in 1993, there’s nothing to suggest he’s the only senator unaware of how RFRA has been used by the right. Neither party has raised RFRA’s history in the little debate Congress has had on RFMA so far — on the floor or on camera.

Which might mean each side is gambling — knowingly or otherwise — that they’re getting more out of the amended bill than the other side is, and neither wants to tip off the other.

Lee and others on the religious right seem sure they’re losing out. Alliance Defending Freedom President Kristen Waggoner reportedly said, “[T]his bill will be used by officials and activists to punish and ruin those who do not share the government’s view on marriage.”

But others on the right have suggested it’s essentially a wash, zero-sum for both sides: The underlying bill merely enshrines in the law what the Supreme Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges and the amendment merely enshrines a pre-existing law.

“Advocates of the same-sex marriage bill can arguably claim their bill maintains a status quo under which religious liberty is threatened,” as National Review Washington Correspondent John McCormack wrote.

On the other side, even opponents of RFRA seem to think the amended bill is benign at worst.

HRC is supporting the Senate bill as amended and declined to comment on the amendment to TYT. FFRF Co-President and Co-Founder Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement to TYT, “The Respect for Marriage Act is a crucial bill intended to move America forward.”

Gaylor did, however, take issue with RFRA’s role in the new bill, saying, “We would, of course, have preferred that the bill include a provision that RFRA does not apply, as was the case with the Equality Act. Recent Supreme Court decisions allow RFRA to be used to enshrine discrimination via a religious exemption.”

For that reason, Gaylor said, “Congress needs to act and pass the Do No Harm Act, which clarifies how RFRA can be used and how it cannot. An even better solution would be to get rid of RFRA altogether, which has proven to be unnecessary and harmful.”

If both sides are gambling they’re getting the better end of the tradeoff here, it’s worth looking at the track record. As even the right recognizes, they’ve been losing the cultural battle over same-sex marriage.

But the Christian right may succeed in undermining the legal force of those marriages if it can continue expanding the concept of religious liberty to legalize discrimination against the LGBTQ community. And the Christian right has a substantive track record of getting Democrats to endorse religious endeavors that appear anodyne but are weaponized politically.

As The Young Turks has reported, for instance, Democrats time and again have pleaded ignorance as to how their participation in the National Prayer Breakfast has helped the secretive, right-wing group that runs it promote its leaders’ agendas — anti-LGBTQ and anti-reproductive rights — around the world.

With apparently unwitting Democratic assistance, the Fellowship Foundation, also known as The Family, has built right-wing networks in Europe, protected Guatemala’s evangelical president by kneecapping a UN anti-corruption task force, and radicalized a previously apolitical pillow salesman named Mike Lindell.

And at the moment, while the right is raising alarms about RFMA’s ostensible erosion of religious liberty, no one on the left is publicly banging the drum about the dangers of reaffirming RFRA. In fact, the only indication that Democrats might regret passing RFRA now is that that’s exactly what happened the first time.

With additional reporting by Washington Correspondent Candice Cole and National Correspondent Matthew Sheffield.

Oh, you handsome devil: How “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” ushered in our thirst for the “sexy killer”

In 1890, Bram Stoker began research on what would become his most famous book, “Dracula.” During this research, which spanned years, the Irish author kept extensive journals in which he scribbled down his findings from hours spent poring over ancient texts pulled from the Subscription Library in Whitby, England, and from interviews conducted with members of Whitby Harbor’s Royal Coast Guard.

According to a fascinating account of Stoker’s research written for Time by the author’s great grand-nephew, Dacre Stoker, “Dracula” — which was eventually published in 1897 — was not intended to be entirely a work of fiction, but “a warning of a very real evil, a childhood nightmare all too real.” And oceans of time later in 1992, Francis Ford Coppola turned that nightmare into a romance, which filled the hearts and minds of people the world wide with a burning desire to experience a condemned love as darkly beautiful as the one portrayed by Gary Oldman as Dracula, and Winona Ryder as his destined bride, Mina Murray.

In the original text that became the basis for Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” the author did not set out to make a love story that would launch generations of people into an obsession with sexy killers.

In the original text that became the basis for Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” the author did not set out to make a love story that would launch generations of people into an obsession with sexy killers; he meant for it to be a cautionary tale – but we did not proceed with caution. Prior to Coppola’s reimagining of Stoker’s book in 1992, those looking to have their hearts broken and have fun doing so were presented with much tamer options for suitors. In the ’50s we had James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” and Marlon Brando in “The Wild One,” rumbling with switchblades and getting their scrapes kissed by lovers who had stepped over from the right side of the tracks to scuff their saddle shoes for a little adventure. In the ’70s we had John Travolta in “Grease” and Matt Dillon in “Over the Edge,” whose worst crimes didn’t go much further beyond those of the petty variety. In 1987, Joel Schumacher gave us his version of the “sexy killer” with “Lost Boys,” but while Kiefer Sutherland as the baby-faced, spiky blonde haired vampire David was undeniably hot, he repelled his chosen lover Star (Jami Gertz) because of his blood-sucking lifestyle.

Prior to “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” most were willing to brush clumps of cigarette ash off of cardigan sweaters and, at most, bail a lover out of jail. After, we seemed more inclined to run towards danger, rather than away from it. Straight up murder was no longer a deal-breaker. And the lack of a pulse was no deterrent to pledging our undying love.

At the center of Stoker’s research when writing “Dracula,” was a Romanian warlord named Vlad III who went by many other names: Vlad the Impaler, Vlad Dracula and also Voivode of Wallachia. As Stoker’s great grand-nephew, Dacre, detailed in his article for Time, Stoker’s notes contained many entries in which the author attempted to narrow down how it came to be that a real-life man was associated with names that had such devilish connotations.

“Dracula in Wallachian language means DEVIL,” Stoker wrote in his journal. “Wallachians were accustomed to give it as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous either by courage, cruel actions, or cunning.”

Writing these words into my article now, I can feel my skin warming and my heart begin to quicken. Not because the thought of a warlord called DEVIL who cut off the heads of his victims, put them on stakes and used those stakes to decorate his property makes me afraid. On the contrary. Because I was born in 1977, thus placing me in high school smack dab in the center of the “killers are sexy” Renaissance of the early ’90s, I’m hardwired to find this all extremely attractive. I’m sorry, youth, but Robert Pattinson’s Edward Cullen has nothing on young Gary Oldman as Dracula. I’m gay as a valentine and I’d still kiss that man, with tongue, right this very second. But only as Dracula. Top hat and goofy tinted glasses and all. That handsome devil.

This movie taught us that not even death could stop love, and we’ve been chasing that feeling ever since.

To celebrate the 30th anniversary of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released a Steelbook 4K Ultra HD package containing hours of extras. In one featurette titled “The Blood Is the Life: The Making of Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” Oldman talks about his portrayal of the character saying, “I tried to play him more like Raphael, like a fallen angel.” And he achieved that. With his soft, long brown hair and mournful eyes delivering lines through tears like, “I’ve crossed oceans of time to find you,” and “See me now,” it’s easy to understand how Ryder as Mina could tell him, “I love you. Oh, God forgive me, I do.” This movie taught us that not even death could stop love, and we’ve been chasing that feeling ever since.


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


A female fan kisses a poster showing the face of actor Robert Pattinson before the presentation of his new film ‘Twilight – New Moon’ at an HVB youth event at the Olympic Hall on November 14, 2009 in Munich, Germany. (Alexandra Beier/Getty Images)By the time author Stephenie Meyer released “Twilight” in 2005, having a steamy crush on a killer did no longer register as cause for concern. In fact, her series of books that centered on a family of dreamy vamps bewitching a mortal girl, causing her to give up her own life and mortality to join them, were marketed towards teenagers, as well as the film adaptations that followed.

In 2019, Brooke Cameron, an assistant professor of English who teaches a class on Victorian vampires at Queen’s University  was interviewed by the school’s paper and asked why she thought the “Twilight” books and films were so alluring.

“The seductive vampire is, by definition, a source of irresistible fascination,” Cameron said. “But rewrite this figure as an outsider or bad boy in a movie made for teenagers and you have an instant recipe for success . . . ‘Twilight’ knows its audience and delivers the goods. It taps into teenage feelings of alienation and sexual frustration. Its love story facilitates the teenage need for rebellion and some kind of expression of unconventional desire.”

That unconventional desire that Cameron mentions branches outside of vampires. Since the release of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” in 1992, TV showrunners and filmmakers ran with the whole dreamy vamp thing for years, sure, and there’s no sign of it stopping, but past the heyday of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Twilight,” we now have Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in “Scream,” and, my personal favorite, Adam Driver as Kylo Ren in the most recent block of “Star Wars” films to lust over. All killers. All fine by me.

Towards the end of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” Winona Ryder as Mina leans over the body of her slain lover, Dracula, and even in knowing that she made the right decision in killing him to save her mortal soul, she misses the love she knew with him.

“There, in the presence of God, I understood at last how love could release us all from the power of darkness. Our love is stronger than death,” she says through tears.

Sure he was a killer, but once you experience a love like that, nothing else can quite compare, and we have “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” to thank (blame?) for it.

“Key player” Ivanka Trump tried to dodge court-appointed financial monitor. It didn’t work

Private letters from Ivanka Trump’s attorneys revealed that she tried to dodge having a court-appointed monitor track her finances. In the communications, Ivanka Trump’s attorneys attempted to exclude only her from a New York state judge’s order that oversees the Trump family’s transactions, an unnamed source told the Daily Beast

New York prosecutors have already expressed concern that the Trump Organization and its executives may try to silently move around assets to avoid accountability, the source added. 

Justice Arthur Engoron on Thursday gave the Trump Organization a two-week deadline to hand over “a full and accurate description of the corporate structure” to retired federal judge Barbara Jones so that she may review “all financial disclosures to any persons or entities” by the company.

He also ordered them to notify the judge 30 days before shifting any financial assets so that they cannot escape New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million lawsuit. 

James’ three-year investigation into the Trump Organization and family’s tax write-offs culminated in a September lawsuit filed against former President Donald Trump, as well as his children Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump.

Ivanka Trump tried to give a last-minute plea to Engoron, but he did not change the final order which makes it clear that she will not receive preferential treatment and must abide by the same rules. She is currently the only defendant in the lawsuit who attempted to negotiate a better deal on her own, according to the Daily Beast. 

While Ivanka Trump has not been mentioned in the recent court hearings, she is still listed as a defendant in the lawsuit due to her involvement in the company for years. Reid Figel, Ivanka’s attorney on the suit, did not respond to questions on Friday in Washington, D.C.

Ivanka Trump has tried to back out of the political arena since the Jan. 6 Capitol attack led by her father’s supporters. She was also missing from her father’s 2024 presidential campaign last Tuesday, and in a statement to Fox News, said “I love my father very much” but “I do not plan to be involved in politics.”

However, Ivanka Trump’s exit from public politics hasn’t stopped James from seeking to hold her accountable for her role as a company executive a decade ago. 

When Ivanka Trump refused to speak with investigators in January, James publicly filed court papers that documented her role in lying about Trump Organization properties’ market values for years. The Attorney General’s office cited Ivanka Trump as a “key player in many of the transactions” listed in the lawsuit, as she allegedly used falsified documents to complete business deals. 


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


Investigators also allege that she is “responsible for securing loan terms” from Deutsche Bank relying on fake property valuations for a company golf course in Doral, Florida. They also claim she “played similar roles” in obtaining loans for projects in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Ivanka Trump’s attorneys are also relying on the argument that she hasn’t been involved in the Trump Organization in any official capacity since joining the former president in the White House. 

“Ms. Trump has had no involvement for more than five years… Ms. Trump has had no role as an officer, director, or employee of the Trump Organization or any of its affiliates since at least January 2017,” her lawyers said in an appeal filed Nov. 7 while the company tried to block the appointment of a court monitor. 

Ivanka Trump’s lawyers also tried to argue that Judge Engoron never specifically named her in court when he ordered the monitor. “NY AG never intended to impose an injunction against Ms. Trump,” they wrote.

The Attorney General’s office did not address Ivanka Trump’s defense, and prosecutors continued to support the use of a court monitor moving forward. The proceedings are scheduled to resume on Tuesday as investigators and Trump Organization lawyers discuss the lawsuit, which might go on trial next year. 

Transgender Colorado lawmaker calls out Lauren Boebert for “demonizing LGBT people” after shooting

Colorado’s first transgender lawmaker demanded controversial GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert stop smearing the LGBTQ+ community after the fatal shooting at Club Q that left five dead and 25 wounded.

After bartender Michael Anderson gave a harrowing first-hand account of surviving the massacre to NBC reporter Steve Patterson, anchor Alicia Menendez interviewed state Rep. Brianna Titone.

“What is going through your mind?” Menendez asked. “How are you thinking about this both personally and from your perch as a legislator?”

“I woke up this morning pretty shocked and my phone didn’t stop buzzing from the minute that I woke up until just recently,” Titone replied.

“This is something that we’ve been on edge about for a long time. the rhetoric that has been coming out of a lot of places — especially from the Colorado Springs area — has been really damaging and dangerous,” she explained. “A lot of people have been afraid that this is going to happen and now it is upon us, it’s happening.”

Menendez noted, “a motive has not yet been identified by investigators, but this comes at a time when this type of hate is rampant online. It is also echoed by people who have big platforms, some of them are elected officials themselves. What is your message to those folks at this moment?”

“We have a legislator here in Colorado who has been spewing out things for years,” Titone replied.

“And I have called her out on it, Rep. Boebert, in particular, and many others. We really just want them to stop, we want them to stop with these tropes, with these dangerous things that they are saying that are perpetrating these misinformations and we just want to be left alone in peace” she explained.

“Anytime that these myths and tropes are spread around about us, it drives people to say hateful things,” Titone said. “Hateful things being said turns into bullying and then it turns into worse and that is what we’re trying to stop. And if we can just get people to stop saying these things, stop demonizing LGBT people, especially trans youth, we can really start to feel acknowledged for who we are and not be treated as pariahs in the community.”

Watch below or at this link:

Arizona GOP official forced into hiding over violent threats as right-wingers stoke conspiracies

Maricopa County Supervisor Bill Gates was assigned deputies from the county sheriff’s office to guard him after being moved to an “undisclosed” location in response to disturbing threats related to the 2022 midterm elections, according to Fox 10 in Phoenix.

Gates, who is the Republican chair of the Maricopa County Elections Department, defended the county against claims of election fraud after several printers on Election Day led to tabulation machine errors.

Despite no evidence of voter fraud, right-wing commentators and politicians pushed falsehoods and accused county officials of “disenfranchising” voters.

Election denier Kari Lake, who lost Arizona’s race for governor to her Democratic challenger Katie Hobbs, has refused to concede and is urging her supporters to “fight”. Her campaign is collecting testimonials from voters to prepare for a legal battle. 

Maricopa County Attorney Tom Liddy reported a threat from the Lake campaign to the local sheriff, The Washington Post reported

A week before Election Day, an attorney from the Republican National Committee, who was identified as Benjamin Mehr, speaking on behalf of Lake’s campaign warned Liddy that there were “a lot of irate people out there” and that the campaign “can’t control them.”

Liddy told The Post he considered those words to be a threat and informed county Sheriff Paul Penzone, his boss, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and Gates.

A Twitter account linked to Lake’s campaign posted a video on Friday capturing a portion of the call that includes Liddy cursing and raising his voice. 

The clip includes the RNC attorney saying it would be helpful “for us to be able to say that Tom Liddy is giving us good information.”

To which Liddy replied: “Guess what? Let me educate you. I cannot control what you say. Okay? You can say whatever you want to say. I can’t control that. Now, if you’re not happy working with me … then we’ll just stop. I don’t give a shit.”

At one point, Liddy told Mehr: “Let me tell you something, Ben, it sounds like you’re threatening me,” which Mehr denies: “I’m definitely not threatening you, and I promise that.”

“If I don’t get these answers to you quickly, you’re not going to be able to tell the crazy people that I’ve been helpful. I don’t give a fuck. Is that clear enough? … no more threats,” Liddy said. 

Liddy’s call log shows the conversation lasted 12 minutes, according to The Post. He added that the video lacks important context explaining his reaction to Mehr’s remarks.


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


Amid the growing tension between the Lake campaign and Maricopa County officials over election procedures, Arizona’s Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich also issued a four-page document demanding answers from Maricopa County about widespread issues with printers that impacted voting on Election Day, The Post reported.

The letter, which addresses Liddy, was issued just days before the county is required to certify election results. It requests a report highlighting which voting locations had issues with printers or tabulation and a “comprehensive log of all changes” made to the settings.

“We in Maricopa County are still waiting for the completed report from the attorney general of his ongoing investigation of the 2020 election,” Liddy said in a phone interview with The Post. “I am a bit surprised that he’s getting ready to start one on 2022 when he hasn’t finished the first one yet, but I wish him well.”

Brnovich placed county officials under investigation after the 2020 election but found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities. 

After losing the GOP primary for Senate this year, Brnovich emphasized his office’s work on election integrity and claimed that he was turning up “serious concerns”. 

The letter requests a response by Nov. 28, the deadline for the county to certify results of the election.

“Macho victim” Trump rages on Truth Social because a columnist was mean to him

When Donald Trump announced his 2024 comeback attempt at Mar-a-Lago, he complained about being a victim, but that same description in The New York Times appeared to enrage the former president.

Columnist Maureen Dowd wrote about the victimization claim under the headline, “Trump, Macho Macho Victim.”

“In a Maryland suburb I covered long ago, a fire chief and his deputy were accused of arson. ‘Firefighter arson’ is actually a term, with its own Wikipedia entry, because it happens more often than you might think,” Dowd wrote. “That’s what Trump sounded like, in his announcement speech, when he said he would ‘bring back honesty, confidence, and trust in our elections.’ The arsonist seeking a job as a firefighter. He is the liar and con man who undermined confidence in our elections. All that baloney about rigged voting has only hurt Republican participation and swung independents and even some Republicans who were sick of Trump to Democrats. But he doesn’t care, so long as he can deflect the blame for his loss. ‘As I have said before, the gravest threats to our civilization are not from abroad, but from within,’ Trump said at his flaccid, whiny announcement Tuesday night at Mar-a-Lago.”

Dowd mentioned the gay anthem “Macho Man” by the Village People that Trump plays to warm up the crowds at his rallies.

“Trump flaunts his faux Macho Macho Man rhetoric, Dowd wrote. “For decades, Republicans have lectured Americans to quit embracing victimhood and stand on their own two feet, and here’s their leader announcing his presidency on a platform of Woe is me! Quit picking on me! Elect me because I’m a fall guy! ‘I will tell you I’m a victim,’ Trump said to a less-than-festive gathering where Melania seemed like a hostage and Ivanka was a no-show.”

Dowd found it absurd for Trump to claim that he’s the victim.

“Trump is no victim. He creates victims. Trump is the first former president subjected to a special counsel investigation into whether he masterminded a coup attempt,” Dowd wrote. “That’s mind-blowing, especially since he’s running for president again.”

On Saturday, Trump took to his Truth Social website for his first post since Elon Musk restored his Twitter account.

“Maureen Dowd, the super whacko who constantly writes so nastily about me, saying things that if ever said about another person, trouble would ensue,” Trump wrote.

“This has been going on for years, even before The Times became a financially failing enterprise. Maureen always wants to be so ‘juicy,’ so why doesn’t she write of her Trump escapes, where she bombed sooo badly – over and over again. ‘Have you no shame?’ I once asked her,” Trump wrote.

“She’s a sick and angry person, perhaps mentally disturbed. Give it up, Maureen!” he begged.

If entertaining is a domestic performance, let Thanksgiving be camp

In the first season of "Full House," the Tanner family, led by the late Bob Saget as Danny Tanner, is still reeling from the recent loss of wife and mother, Pam. By the ninth episode, Thanksgiving has come to San Francisco and the family is confronted with the fact that it's the first holiday meal without Pam — and that they owe it to her memory to make it a special one for the girls. 

Initially, this doesn't seem like a major problem; Danny's mom is set to fly in from Tacoma and cook for the family. But, of course, it wouldn't be a sitcom if there wasn't an unforeseen snow storm that tanks even the most well-placed holiday plans. When it becomes apparent that Danny's mom won't, in fact, be able to make her flight, Joey (Dave Coulier) has a solution. 

"It's no problem, we'll make that seven-course meal ourselves," he said. "How, you ask? The miracle…of Thanksgiving." 

I remember even as a pre-teen being a little exasperated by the assertion that a multi-course Thanksgiving dinner comes together through the power of some kind of intangible holiday magic. I'd both watched enough "Food Network," as well as my own mother and grandmother cooking in the kitchen year after year, to know that was absolutely not the case. The holiday magic to which Joey is most likely referring is the unseen domestic labor that tends to fall to one or two specific family members (historically and socially, often women). 

And indeed, DJ (the now-controversial Candace Cameron Bure), the eldest daughter at ten years old, decides to step into her mom's shoes and take charge of Thanksgiving dinner. It, predictably, goes a bit off the rails — there's a blackened turkey and a ruined pumpkin pie — but regardless, the episode in its entirety is a real crystallization of the concept of domesticity as a performance. 

To be clear, performing domesticity isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I'm not the first person to liken a good, or at least memorable, dinner to theatre. Michael J. Fox, actually, once astutely pointed out, "The oldest form of theater is the dinner table. It's got five or six people, new show every night, same players. Good ensemble; the people have worked together a lot." 

"The oldest form of theater is the dinner table. It's got five or six people, new show every night, same players. Good ensemble; the people have worked together a lot." 

Just as everyone in a restaurant kitchen has their roles to play, from saucier to sommelier, so too are roles assigned at holiday dinner. In the case of DJ, she picked up the role of hostess, which comes with its own specific expectations. If you've ever hosted Thanksgiving, you know them well: a golden-brown turkey with the mythical, appropriate ratio of white to dark meat so everyone can eat according to their preferences; sides that are somehow both traditional and novel; at least two desserts — most likely pumpkin pie and something for those who detest pumpkin pie. 


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


Perhaps you're gearing up to step back into that role again later this week. 

And just perhaps, you're also dreading it. 

I mean, there's certainly enough pop culture fodder out there — from "Full House" to "Friends" to "Frasier" —about the desire to push against the confines of holiday meal preparation and execution. This is especially tempting given the way so much cooking advice surrounding Thanksgiving entertaining positions it as practically a matter of life and death, ruled by spreadsheets, countdown clocks and that profound existential dread that comes when faced with the expectations surrounding crafting your own personal platonic ideal of the holiday meal. 

If that's you, may I offer one piece of entertaining advice? If entertaining is a domestic performance, then at least let Thanksgiving dinner be camp. 

In her landmark essay "Notes on 'Camp,'" Susan Sontag defines the aesthetic as such: "artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness and shocking excess." Based on that alone, while Thanksgiving may not be the campiest holiday — I'm personally torn over which holds that distinction — it's definitely up there.

And much like recognizing domesticity as a performance isn't inherently bad, neither is camp, though many people have come to regard the term as a synonym for kitsch or tackiness. Sontag rather describes it as "a sensibility that revels in artifice, stylization, theatricalization, irony, playfulness, and exaggeration rather than content." 

Much like recognizing domesticity as a performance isn't inherently bad, neither is camp, though many people have come to regard the term as a synonym for kitsch or tackiness.

Some of the most beloved movies are regarded as camp classics because of those attributes; think of "Death Becomes Her," "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Clue." 

Speaking of "Clue," I recently was texting with a friend of mine from college who is now an actor. Typically they operate sort of within the realm of Shakespearean roles, but their first role since coming back after pandemic lockdowns was in a community theatre production of "Clue." 

I messaged asking how they enjoyed being in a show that was so different from what they normally do, and they quickly replied: "I mean, it's camp and camp equals freedom as an actor." 

Camp in the context of Thanksgiving could look like a lot of different things. One could nod to camp icon "Auntie Mame" and serve fabulous fishbowl cocktails the size of their guests' heads accompanied with the tiniest turkey finger sandwiches they've ever seen. One could start with the traditional Thanksgiving spread and subvert it in some way, a la another more contemporary icon, Amy Sedaris (seriously, her book "I Like You: Hospitality Under the Influence" is a textbook in terms of examining the intersection of camp aesthetics and home entertaining). 

That's the beautiful thing about camp. It doesn't have to look like or operate as one specific thing. It's not a set of static aesthetic principles. It's bolstered by context and malleable over time; that's why certain films or actors who were regarded as critical flops can still achieve camp classic status in due time. 

The point is, you don't have to take it all so seriously. If traditional Thanksgiving dinners have left you feeling like a Shakespearean actor confined to a specific role — one that is laden with centuries of expectations — consider changing roles, or at least how you approach yours at the holiday table. Camp equals freedom as an actor. I believe it can provide the same in the kitchen.

Jim Jordan launches smear campaign against Trump special counsel Jack Smith on Fox News

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, threatened to investigate special counsel Jack Smith after he was appointed to lead an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s misuse of government documents and his effort to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

During an interview with Jordan on Fox News, host Maria Bartiromo wondered why Attorney General Merrick Garland had not also appointed a special counsel to look into President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

“Well, I think it’s just one more example of just how political the Justice Department has become,” Jordan replied.

Jordan took aim at Smith because he had discussions about opening investigations into conservative non-profits during President Barack Obama’s term. But the investigations never moved forward.

“In our report, we found the Department of Justice was trying to find ways to prosecute the very people who Obama’s IRS targeted,” Jordan claimed. “And, Maria, guess who was the lead person at the Justice Department looking for ways to target and prosecute the very people Lois Lerner went after? Jack Smith! The guy Merrick Garland just named the special counsel to go after President Trump.”

Jordan pointed to the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election as evidence of a broad pattern of political investigations.

“They suppressed the Hunter Biden story just days before the most important election we have and in 2022, 91 days before the midterm election, they raided President Trump’s home and then, this week, three days after President Trump announces he’s running for president … guess what? Merrick Garland says we’re going to put in as the special counsel the very individual who was at the Justice Department and was looking for ways to prosecute the people Lois Lerner and Obama’s IRS targeted.”

“If that’s not a political Justice Department, I don’t know what is!” he exclaimed. “So, this is why we’re going to look into this issue. And we’re going to get to the bottom of everything they’ve been doing at the politicized DOJ.”

Watch the video below from Fox News. You can also watch at this link.