Congress wants to spend billions on new weapons for possible ground war with Russia

If the powerful leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., have their way, Congress will soon invoke wartime emergency powers to build up even greater stockpiles of Pentagon weapons. The amendment is supposedly designed to facilitate replenishing the weapons the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, but a look at the wish list contemplated in this amendment reveals a different story.

Reed and Inhofe’s idea is to tuck their wartime amendment into the FY2023 National Defense Appropriation Act (NDAA) that will be passed during the lame-duck session before the end of the year. The amendment sailed through the Armed Services Committee in mid-October, and if it becomes law the Department of Defense will be allowed to lock in multi-year contracts and award non-competitive contracts to arms manufacturers for Ukraine-related weapons.

Joe Biden’s broken promise to avoid war with Russia could lead to Armageddon

If the Reed/Inhofe amendment is really aimed at replenishing the Pentagon’s supplies, then why do the quantities in its wish list vastly surpass those sent to Ukraine?

Let’s do the comparison:

The current star of U.S. military aid to Ukraine is Lockheed Martin’s HIMARS rocket system, the same weapon U.S. Marines used to help reduce much of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, to rubble in 2017. The U.S. has only sent 38 HIMARS systems to Ukraine, but Reed and Inhofe plan to “reorder” 700 of them, with 100,000 rockets, which could cost up to $4 billion.
Another artillery weapon provided to Ukraine is the M777 155mm howitzer. To “replace” the 142 M777s sent to Ukraine, the senators plan to order 1,000 of them, at an estimated cost of $3.7 billion, from BAE Systems.
HIMARS launchers can also fire Lockheed Martin’s long-range (up to 190 miles) MGM-140 ATACMS missiles, which the U.S. has not sent to Ukraine. In fact the U.S. has only ever fired 560 of them, mostly at Iraq in 2003. The even longer-range “Precision Strike Missile,” formerly prohibited under the INF Treaty renounced by Trump, will start replacing the ATACMS in 2023, yet the Reed-Inhofe Amendment would buy 6,000 ATACMS, 10 times more than the U.S. has ever used, at an estimated cost of $600 million.
Reed and Inhofe plan to buy 20,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles from Raytheon. But Congress already spent $340 million for 2,800 Stingers to replace the 1,400 sent to Ukraine. Reed and Inhofe’s amendment will “re-replenish” the Pentagon’s stocks 14 times over, which could cost $2.4 billion.
The U.S. has supplied Ukraine with only two Harpoon anti-ship missile systems — already a provocative escalation — but the amendment includes 1,000 Boeing Harpoon missiles (at about $1.4 billion) and 800 newer Kongsberg Naval Strike Missiles (about $1.8 billion), the Pentagon’s replacement for the Harpoon.
The Patriot air defense system is another weapon the U.S. has not sent to Ukraine, because each system can cost a billion dollars and the basic training course for technicians to maintain and repair it takes more than a year to complete. And yet the Inhofe-Reed wish list includes 10,000 Patriot missiles, plus launchers, which could add up to $30 billion.

ATACMS, Harpoons and Stingers are all weapons the Pentagon was already phasing out, so why spend billions of dollars to buy thousands of them now? What is this really all about? Is this amendment a particularly egregious example of war profiteering by the military-industrial-congressional complex? Or is the U.S. really preparing to fight a major ground war against Russia?

Our best judgment is that both are true.

Looking at the weapons list, military analyst and retired Marine Col. Mark Cancian noted: “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future. This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”

President Biden says he will not send U.S. troops to fight Russia because that would mean World War III. But the longer the war goes on and the more it escalates, the more it becomes clear that U.S. forces are directly involved in many aspects of the war: helping to plan Ukrainian operations, providing satellite-based intelligence, waging cyber warfare and operating covertly inside Ukraine as special operations forces and CIA paramilitaries. Now Russia has accused British special operations forces of direct roles in a maritime drone attack on Sevastopol and the destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines.

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

As U.S. involvement in the war has escalated despite Biden’s broken promises, the Pentagon has surely drawn up contingency plans for a full-scale war between the U.S. and Russia. If those plans are ever executed, and if they do not immediately trigger a world-ending nuclear war, they will require vast quantities of specific weapons, and that is the purpose of the Reed-Inhofe stockpiles.

At the same time, the amendment seems to respond to complaints by the weapons manufacturers that the Pentagon was “moving too slowly” in spending the vast sums appropriated for Ukraine. While more than $20 billion has been allocated for weapons, contracts to actually buy weapons for Ukraine and replace the ones sent there so far totaled only $2.7 billion by early November.

So the expected arms sales bonanza had not yet materialized, and the weapons makers were getting impatient. With the rest of the world increasingly calling for diplomatic negotiations, if Congress didn’t get moving, the war might be over before the arms makers’ much-anticipated jackpot ever arrived.

Mark Cancian explained to DefenseNews, “We’ve been hearing from industry, when we talk to them about this issue, that they want to see a demand signal.”

When the Reed-Inhofe Amendment sailed through committee in mid-October, it was clearly the “demand signal” the merchants of death were looking for. The stock prices of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics took off like anti-aircraft missiles, exploding to all-time highs by the end of the month.

Julia Gledhill, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, decried the wartime emergency provisions in the amendment, saying it “further deteriorates already weak guardrails in place to prevent corporate price gouging of the military.”

As U.S. involvement in Ukraine has escalated, the Pentagon has surely drawn up plans for all-out war with Russia. That would require vast quantities of these exact weapons.

Opening the doors to multi-year, non-competitive, multi-billion-dollar military contracts shows how the American people are trapped in a vicious spiral of war and military spending. Each new war becomes a pretext for further increases in military spending, much of it unrelated to the current war that provides cover for the increase. Military budget analyst Carl Conetta demonstrated (see Executive Summary) in 2010, after years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, that “those operations account(ed) for only 52% of the surge” in U.S. military spending during that period.

Andrew Lautz of the National Taxpayers’ Union now calculates that the base Pentagon budget will exceed $1 trillion per year by 2027, five years earlier than projected by the Congressional Budget Office. But if we factor in at least $230 billion per year in military-related costs in the budgets of other departments, like Energy (for nuclear weapons), Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Justice (FBI cybersecurity) and State, national security spending has already hit the trillion-dollar mark, gobbling up two-thirds of annual discretionary spending.

America’s exorbitant investment in each new generation of weapons makes it nearly impossible for politicians of either party to recognize, let alone admit to the public, that American weapons and wars have been the cause of many of the world’s problems, not the solution, and that they cannot solve the latest foreign policy crisis either.

Reed and Inhofe will defend their amendment as a prudent step to deter and prepare for a Russian escalation of the war, but the spiral of escalation we are locked into is not one-sided. It is the result of escalatory actions by both sides, and the huge arms buildup authorized by this amendment is a dangerously provocative escalation by the U.S. side that will increase the danger of the world war that Biden has promised to avoid

After the catastrophic wars and ballooning U.S. military budgets of the past 25 years, we should be wise by now to the escalatory nature of the vicious spiral in which we are caught. And after flirting with Armageddon for 45 years in the last Cold War, we should also be wise to the existential danger of engaging in this kind of brinkmanship with nuclear-armed Russia. If we are wise, we will reject the Reed/Inhofe Amendment.

about war, peace and the future

“Who was it, and what did they buy?” Right-wing dark money group gets $850M from 2 anonymous donors

The right-wing dark money organization DonorsTrust was the beneficiary of two anonymous contributions of around $425 million each last year, according to a tax filing obtained by Politico, which described the gifts as “among the largest ever donations to a politically-connected group.”

Politico reported Wednesday that DonorsTrust, a longtime funder of right-wing causes that describes itself as a defender of “free-market ideals,” disclosed just three financial gifts in 2021.

“One contribution was listed for $427 million, and another for about $77 million,” the outlet found. “The third donation was worth roughly $426 million—but not in cash. DonorsTrust noted that on December 30, 2021, it received hundreds of millions in ‘closely held common stock in a C-corporation.’ It did not provide greater details on the identity of that investment.”

Dark money has become an increasingly pervasive force in U.S. politics in recent years, with big donors taking advantage of porous campaign finance laws and Supreme Court rulings that have opened the floodgates to untraceable political cash. In the decade that followed the Supreme Court’s notorious 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, groups not required to reveal their donors dumped $1 billion into U.S. elections.

The 2022 midterms saw that trend accelerate: outside organizations, many of which are allowed under federal law to keep their donors hidden from the public, spent $1.6 billion this cycle alone to boost candidates across the country. Around $1 billion of that cash aimed to bolster Republican Senate hopefuls.

In response to Politico‘s reporting, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a trenchant critic of dark money’s influence on the U.S. political system and judiciary, wrote on social media, “This is how democracy gets corroded by secret special influence—in roughly half-billion-dollar slugs.”

“Who was it, and what did they buy?” Whitehouse asked. “Let me make a guess: the money was fossil fuel-related, and will buy continued Republican obstruction of obviously necessary climate measures. That’s the pattern.”

Whitehouse’s guess may not be far off, given DonorsTrust’s record. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) points out that the Koch network, a major booster of fossil fuels and climate denial, has “made significant contributions to DonorsTrust through their foundation called the Knowledge and Progress Fund.”

“DonorsTrust promises to only funnel money to groups with an extreme anti-environmental bent,” CMD adds.

According to Politico, DonorsTrust used the massive donations it received last year to “support a vast network” of conservative initiatives, “including a $17.1 million gift it made to The 85 Fund, a group founded by a major engine of the conservative movement: Leonard Leo.”

The co-chairman and former executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leo has been instrumental in the right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court, and The New York Times reported last month that he is seeking to broaden his influence.

“His expanded effort focuses on a variety of causes,” the Times observed, “including restricting abortion rights in the states; ending affirmative action; defending religious groups accused of discriminating against LGBTQ people; opposing what he sees as liberal policies being espoused by corporations and schools; electing Republicans; and fighting Democratic efforts to slow climate change, increase the transparency of money in politics, and expand voting access.”

Leo, who controls a dark money organization called the Marble Freedom Trust, was also at the center of a massive—and likely unprecedented—donation that the Times, ProPublica, and The Lever reported in August.

Barre Seid, a Chicago business magnate with a long history of supporting right-wing groups that attack climate science, gave the Marble Freedom Trust $1.6 billion via “a series of opaque transactions over the past two years,” ProPublica and The Lever noted.

“Possible to lose everything”: Experts say dramatic FTX collapse should be a warning to crypto bros

In the fast-paced world of cryptocurrency, vast sums of money can be made or lost in the blink of an eye. In early November 2022, the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, was valued at more than US$30 billion. By Nov. 14, FTX was in bankruptcy proceedings along with more than 100 companies connected to it. D. Brian Blank and Brandy Hadley are professors who study finance, investing and fintech. They explain how and why this incredible collapse happened, what effect it might have on the traditional financial sector and whether you need to care if you don’t own any cryptocurrency.

1. What happened?

In 2019, Sam Bankman-Fried founded FTX, a company that ran one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges.

FTX is where many crypto investors trade and hold their cryptocurrency, similar to the New York Stock Exchange for stocks. Bankman-Fried is also the founder of Alameda Research, a hedge fund that trades and invests in cryptocurrencies and crypto companies.

Within the traditional financial sector, these two companies would be separate firms entirely or at least have divisions and firewalls in place between them. But in early November 2022, news outlets reported that a significant proportion of Alameda’s assets were a type of cryptocurrency released by FTX itself.

A few days later, news broke that FTX had allegedly been loaning customer assets to Alameda for risky trades without the consent of the customers and also issuing its own FTX cryptocurrency for Alameda to use as collateral. As a result, criminal and regulatory investigators began scrutinizing FTX for potentially violating securities law.

These two pieces of news basically led to a bank run on FTX.

Large crypto investors, like FTX’s competitor Binance, as well as individuals, began to sell off cryptocurrency held on FTX’s exchange. FTX quickly lost its ability to meet customer withdrawals and halted trading. On Nov. 14, FTX was also hit by an apparent insider hack and lost $600 million worth of cryptocurrency.

That same day, FTX, Alameda Research and 130 other affiliated companies founded by Bankman-Fried filed for bankruptcy. This action may leave more than a million suppliers, employees and investors who bought cryptocurrencies through the exchange or invested in these companies with no way to get their money back.

Among the groups and individuals who held currency on the FTX platform were many of the normal players in the crypto world, but a number of more traditional investment firms also held assets within FTX. Sequoia Capital, a venture capital firm, as well as the Ontario Teacher’s Pension, are estimated to have held millions of dollars of their investment portfolios in ownership stake of FTX. They have both already written off these investments with FTX as lost.

2. Did a lack of oversight play a role?

In traditional markets, corporations generally limit the risk they expose themselves to by maintaining liquidity and solvency. Liquidity is the ability of a firm to sell assets quickly without those assets losing much value. Solvency is the idea that a company’s assets are worth more than what that company owes to debtors and customers.

But the crypto world has generally operated with much less caution than the traditional financial sector, and FTX is no exception. About two-thirds of the money that FTX owed to the people who held cryptocurrency on its exchange – roughly $11.3 billion of $16 billion owed – was backed by illiquid coins created by FTX. FTX was taking its customers’ money, giving it to Alameda to make risky investments and then creating its own currency, known as FTT, as a replacement – cryptocurrency that it was unable to sell at a high enough price when it needed to.

In addition, nearly 40% of Alameda’s assets were in FTX’s own cryptocurrency – and remember, both companies were founded by the same person.

This all came to a head when investors decided to sell their coins on the exchange. FTX did not have enough liquid assets to meet those demands. This in turn drove the value of FTT from over $26 a coin at the beginning of November to under $2 by Nov. 13. By this point, FTX owed more money to its customers than it was worth.

In regulated exchanges, investing with customer funds is illegal. Additionally, auditors validate financial statements, and firms must publish the amount of money they hold in reserve that is available to fund customer withdrawals. And even if things go wrong, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation – or SIPC – protects depositors against the loss of investments from an exchange failure or financially troubled brokerage firm. None of these guardrails are in place within the crypto world.

3. Why is this a big deal in crypto?

As a result of this meltdown, the company Binance is now considering creating an industry recovery fund – akin to a private version of SIPC insurance – to avoid future failures of crypto exchanges.

But while the collapse of FTX and Alameda – valued at more than $30 billion and now essentially worth nothing – is dramatic, the bigger implication is simply the potential lost trust in crypto. Bank runs are rare in traditional financial institutions, but they are increasingly common in the crypto space. Given that Bankman-Fried and FTX were seen as some of the biggest, most trusted figures in crypto, these events may lead more investors to think twice about putting money in crypto.

4. If I don’t own crypto, should I care?

Though investment in cryptocurrencies has grown rapidly, the entire crypto market – valued at over $3 trillion at its peak – is much smaller than the $120 trillion traditional stock market.

While investors and regulators are still evaluating the consequences of this fall, the impact on any person who doesn’t personally own crypto will be minuscule. It is true that many larger investment funds, like BlackRock and the Ontario Teachers Pension, held investments in FTX, but the estimated $95 million the Ontario Teachers Pension lost through the collapse of FTX is just 0.05% of the entire fund’s investments.

The takeaway for most individuals is not to invest in unregulated markets without understanding the risks. In high-risk environments like crypto, it’s possible to lose everything – a lesson investors in FTX are learning the hard way.

D. Brian Blank, Assistant Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University and Brandy Hadley, Associate Professor of Finance and the David A. Thompson Professor in Applied Investments, Appalachian State University

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

How do you cover a present nothing like the past?

Greenhouse gases are creating such disequilibrium in the atmosphere that past patterns are no longer reliable predictors of the future. For a journalist reporting on climate change, this can mean finding where volatility has its most poignant impacts.

Volatility is a fundamental characteristic of climate change; only uncertainty is truly certain. A team of water scientists led by the U.S. Geological Survey alerted us to that volatility in 2008, when they concluded that past patterns of rainfall — going back several hundred thousand years — were no longer reliable predictors of future rainfall. Their paper in Science was called “Stationarity Is Dead,” an ominous phrase that captured how scientists’ fancy term for baselines — “stationarity,” evoking the range of fluctuations in natural systems — was no longer operative as a way to plan for the future. These scientists predicted much of what we’re seeing today — the collapse of baselines, from rainfall to temperatures and the frequency of extremes, calculations upon which entire governments, industries and human settlements have been based.

This creates a unique set of challenges for journalists covering climate. It’s something like painting a canvas while riding a rodeo horse. (I wrote about this volatility in my book, The End of Stationarity).

Baselines are handy for journalists because they offer a sense of how much variance we’re experiencing from the norm. But what is the norm? What’s the meaning of a baseline if every year the previous “baseline” is surpassed, and the past does not foreshadow the future in a measurable way?

In 2018, the Weather Underground, a data-heavy source on the weather, reported that over the previous three years — 2014-2017 — we’d experienced the most intensive rainfall periods in recorded history. Then came NOAA, which reported that the six successive months of July between 2015 and 2022 were the hottest months of July on record. Then came the World Meteorological Association, which upped the ante and reported that it’s actually been the past eight years, including the current year, that have been the warmest in the history of record-keeping. So the records keep falling one atop the other.

Consider the “100 year” flood. These are supposed to be floods of such monumental size and destructiveness that they are expected to hit flood prone areas only once every hundred years. To be more precise, every single year there’s a 1% chance of a hundred year flood. That idea, a useful reference point for all journalists reporting on the disasters that follow flooding, informs everything from insurance rates to coastal development plans to the planning of municipal water systems, dams and reservoirs, and on and on, since human civilization relies upon access to and storage of water.

Alas, that calculation, too, has been blown out of the water by … the water. Researchers at Princeton studied the FEMA flood maps and concluded that “100 year floods will be happening every 1 to 30 years,” most notably along the shorelines of the southeast Atlantic and Gulf Coast.

So amid this uncertainty, here are a couple of potential storylines to consider:

The Certainty of the American Climate Refugee

The Department of Interior recently announced grants totaling $10 million to enable five tribal communities in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest to move their homes out of the way of the rising sea. In their grant applications, the communities had to identify the precise set of climate-related threats they face. Those applications are like clues to what many other residents of coastal communities experience or will shortly be experiencing — the cutting edge of a population that could ultimately count in the millions.

Do the circumstances they face resonate with any similar challenges faced by communities in your own region? Are there similar factors at play in local authorities planning — or not — for a “managed retreat”? Might any of these places preparing for the next round of grants have anything to say about what it means to face the prospect of being ousted from their homes, either inside or outside the United States? And outside the U.S., do the precarious circumstances here echo the challenges faced by those who, often with far fewer resources, face similarly destructive erosion of the ecological systems that have sustained them?

The Certainty of the Shrinking Coastal Tax Base

Climate Central has issued a handy guide to what the rising sea levels and extreme weather means for local governments’ collection of property taxes. By mid-century, Climate Central reports, more than 648,000 individual “tax parcels” — aka homes and businesses — will be at least partially below the tidal line, which means either more barricades to be built or abandonment of the properties. This could be a time bomb impacting municipal budgets — maybe one nearby — for decades.

Those are just a few ideas from the front lines of where the uncertainties become unavoidably certain. Nor is any extreme phenomenon singular to itself; each is connected, either directly or through a cascade of consequences, to other extreme events.

* * *

Soft Rock, Hard Place

And now for some rock ‘n’ roll. The band Coldplay allows us to consider the increasingly hot question of what is actually a “sustainable”— i.e., low greenhouse gas-emitting — fuel. In early 2023, the band will launch a “Music of the Spheres” global tour, and has declared a commitment to reduce its carbon footprint by at least 50%, compared to an earlier, pre-pandemic tour, for every aspect of the performances, from the staging to the lighting to the transportation. To do so, the band partnered with a Finnish energy company, Neste, the world’s largest biofuel producer, to provide what the company calls “sustainable” diesel fuels for the trucks and airplanes the band requires.

But how sustainable those fuels are is a question that governments in Europe and the United States are grappling with and is not settled — as Coldplay no doubt may soon learn.

Neste has been heavily criticized in the past by European NGOs for relying on palm oil for so-called sustainable aviation fuels, despite the deforestation associated with harvesting palm oil from plantations in Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere. And here comes another twist, which lands us in Martinez, California, where Neste has entered into a joint venture with Marathon Petroleum, which is retrofitting one of its oil refinery facilities into processing biofuels. Among the major sources of feedstock for the facility, scheduled to reopen next year, will be soybeans, according to the company’s own permit application.

But the boom in soybean oil as an alternative to fossil fuels has coincided with an acceleration in deforestation in Brazil — where the band will be playing 10 dates in March — and elsewhere, according to a 2020 report from the British NGO Transport & Environment. In September, citing environmental concerns, the European Parliament voted to phase out all uses of soy for bioenergy purposes in Europe, a move that is awaiting final approval by the European Commission.

In other words, Coldplay could soon enough discover that it has partnered with a Finnish company relying on a fuel source in California that may well be blocked from all such uses in the European Union, of which Finland is a member. As California and other states move toward renewable biofuels, such quandaries and the matter of what is actually sustainable will no doubt become ever more common. As Coldplay once famously sang, though the context was different, “Nobody said it was easy.”

“American Horror Story: NYC” finale: Are you freaking kidding me?

Over the past 11 years, Ryan Murphy has churned out seasons of his “American Horror Story” franchise that proved successful in their ability to elicit a response. “AHS” has made me laugh, it’s made me jump, it’s even made me cry. In the later part of this summer, there was an episode of the “AHS” spinoff, “American Horror Stories,” titled “Milkmaids” that even made me literally puke. But after trudging through 10 rushed episodes of “American Horror Story: NYC,” holding on to hope that the finale would make the lackluster episodes leading up to it worthwhile, my response, which I said out loud as the credits rolled, is “Are you f**king kidding me?”

In previous seasons, faced with the presented horrors of killer clowns with disfigured faces or aliens seeking to overtake Earth by crossbreeding with humans, that response would have been the intended one. Here, it is definitely not. To start a season with a mutating virus plaguing the gay community of New York in the early to mid-’80s, causing viewers to rightfully ponder, “Is this about AIDS?” and then end with a finale where the big reveal is “Yup! It’s about AIDS,” doesn’t feel like a love letter to the epidemic, which some have described it as. It feels like salt in a wound. Makes me already wonder what we’re gonna get thrown at our feet in Season 12. A sexy take on 9/11?

While it’s true that the scariest narratives revolve around things that could really happen, Murphy built this narrative on the back of a virus that has killed over 40 million people and does it in a way that assumes we’d forgotten. “REMEMBER AIDS!?!?!” Murphy is asking us here, holding up a broken condom or a dirty needle and waggling it in the air like a rubber snake. Yeah, we do. And it’s not really something we’re looking to have turned into a campfire story. But thanks, I guess?

“American Horror Story: NYC” is going nowhere, slowly

There are enough people in the world who view the LGBTQ community as terrifying. Does Murphy, a gay man, need to work on their behalf to back up their claims?

Murphy and “AHS” co-creator Brad Falchuk have touched upon real-life horrors and atrocities in previous seasons, but not like this. “Murder House” worked in the Black Dahlia case, “Coven” contained Madame LaLaurie as a main character, and “Cult” depicted Trump’s MAGA followers as the villains they are. Those are just a few out of many examples. Murphy has even gotten a scare out of mental illness and heterosexual sex (“Asylum”) and having a large penis (“Freak Show”). Successful seasons of this show have always been a hodgepodge of elements meant to entertain and mislead. Drawing the viewer’s eyes away to one thing, while setting up big surprises to pop out when least expected. But where the show went wrong in Season 11 was in putting all of its thematic eggs in one basket, with the only minimal creative distractions being silly little red herrings that fell flat because there was no question, from the very beginning, where this season was headed. This was only ever about AIDS or worse yet, shame over being gay. And since no showrunner would logically build a similar narrative around cancer or HPV, that means that, what – being gay is horrific? Being deathly ill is given the same treatment as being a witch? You see the problem here. There are enough people in the world who view the LGBTQ community as terrifying. Does Murphy, a gay man, need to work on their behalf to back up their claims?

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

To give Murphy and Falchuk some credit, they probably really did set out to use their skills in crafting horror to say something poignant about AIDS, but there’s no tasteful and respectful way of doing that. The two-part finale for this season highlights that to the moon and back by going full “A Christmas Carol,” with Patrick (Russell Tovey) and Sam (Zachary Quinto) as gay versions of Ebenezer Scrooge. Only instead of being visited by the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future, they’re visited by people they’ve betrayed, tortured and killed.

“The darkness always wins, all we can ever do is transcend,” Henry (Denis O’Hare) tells Sam as he forces him to relive the horrors of his past in a fever dream while, in reality, he’s dying of AIDS in a back room of a hospital. In another room, Patrick, having gone blind from the virus ravaging his body inside and out, is greeted by the apparition of his dead ex-wife Barbara (Leslie Grossman) who appears to him in her wedding dress to remind him of what a piece of s**t he was.

In addition to being gay and dying of AIDS, we’re reminded in these scenes that both Sam and Patrick were also killers, which seems so besides the point here that it only adds further insult to injury. Gay killers dying from AIDS? Check. Got it. What a beautiful poem this is. (Rolls eyes).

Towards the end of Episode 9, “Requiem 1981/1987 Part One,” we hear the actual word AIDS spoken for the first time as Gino (Joe Mantello) visits Patrick in the hospital. With the staff too afraid of the virus to properly care for him, Patrick gets his food, water and medicine from Gino; his only grace and solace until he eventually dies. Infected himself, Gino spends his remaining years spreading awareness of AIDS to anyone who will listen. He attends protests wearing “Silence = Violence” pins, attends the funerals of people in his community who die from the virus, including Hannah, who became infected via Adam’s sperm donation, going to her grave with their baby still inside of her. We even get a music montage with “Radioactivity” by Kraftwerk playing as the bodies of gay men are shown falling into a freshly dug grave, one by one.

In “Requiem 1981/1987 Part Two,” Gino himself gets added to that pile, spared from a visit by any finger-wagging ghost from his own past because he was “a good gay.” Adam, the last gay standing aside from Fran (Sandra Bernhard) who we just never hear from again after Episode 8, steadies himself in front of a room of mourners, about to eulogize Gino. He takes a breath, sighs deeply, and the credits roll. I felt that sigh, and let me tell you, it weighed a ton.

about this topic

“The Menu” director on his film’s crossover with “Succession,” flavored by “corrosive” egos

There is a super-delicate flavor profile for “The Menu,” director Mark Mylod’s (“Succession“) tasty satiric thriller about an exclusive restaurant, Hawthorne, run by the eccentric Chef Slowik (Ralph Fiennes). A dozen customers — including foodie Tyler (Nicholas Hoult) and his unimpressed date Margot (Anya Taylor-Joy), critic Lillian (Janet McTeer) and a movie star (John Leguizamo) — pay obscene sums of money to partake in a precious and singular culinary experience.

“Ego is obviously a central thesis of ‘The Menu’ in terms of it being a corrosive factor in the work of any artist.”

Mylod’s film is a shrewd clapback on privilege, hubris and pretension. The diners all get their just deserts; Chef’s taco course includes tortillas imprinted with each customer’s sins. Chef and his staff, led by the unflappable Elsa (Hong Chau), maintain precise control over the evening, as secrets and lies are exposed, and some unsavory things happen.

“Flux Gourmet” is an absurdist adventure in pretentious performance art made from food sounds

Mylod chatted with Salon about his experience making “The Menu.”

You have worked almost exclusively in television and have won two Emmys for your work on “Succession.” Are you looking to take your career “next level” with “The Menu?” What is the appeal of making a feature film at this point in your career?

I’ve always wanted to make features. I just haven’t made one for a long time. I was waiting for the right script, really. I made a decision about a decade ago to try and be bolder with the choices I was making and take a few more risks and do stuff I was attracted to but also frightened of. I pushed that through television initially, and to more dramatic work, something more tonally complex. Then I extended that into searching for a film script — and excuse the foodie cliché, they are impossible to avoid with the puns — that I could get my teeth into. As soon as I read “The Menu” script, I was completely besotted with it.

There is a line in the film about “giving everything you have to please people you never know.” That a chef will prepare a meal for a nameless, faceless consumer — which is pretty much what a director does. You probably know a fraction of the people who will see your film. But what observations do you have about an audience’s unheard appreciation or disapproval?

I supposed if there is a negative review to something, you have to give up the ego for. Ego is obviously a central thesis of “The Menu” in terms of it being a corrosive factor in the work of any artist. You have to let that go. In television and film, whatever the medium, you get hurt feelings if you put something out there and it’s shot down at any level. That’s hurtful. One has to learn to do the best job to tell the story that one wants to tell, and hope that it will find an audience on whatever level.

What are your thoughts about that position of privilege?

Getting to make a film or express oneself creatively in any medium, is a huge privilege and getting to do that with a script like “The Menu” which knocked me out by what an incredible cinematic ride it is, and with a beautiful combination of tonal challenges to get the right balance between the thriller/comedy/horror and the satire, was irresistible. I’d never read anything like that before.

How did you massage the tone of the film, which is satiric with characters puncturing pretentions, but also horrific, with characters puncturing bodies?

As soon as I read it, I felt instinctively that I knew how to hit that tone. There was a lot of instinct in achieving that. But then it was working with the actors, and the rehearsal process was me and the actors talking about the themes in the film and how we related to them and how we find the throughline together. A big influence on that was that I asked the actors to watch “The Exterminating Angel,” Buñuel’s film, and the next day we spoke about that. I was knocked out by the film and particularly the culpability of the guests in that film, who had a sense of their own guilt and privilege. We shot “The Menu” almost entirely chronologically, we chart the journey of the diners from this place of privilege to a place of actual vulnerability and emotional nakedness by the end of the film.

“The Menu” is really about mindfulness, which is the moral of the film where so much bad behavior, from greed and adultery, theft and other sins are on display. What can you say about people getting their just deserts?

“[David Gelb] shot some of the real food porn shots, which elevated the satirical element of it, because he photographed the food exactly as that show would.”

In terms of satirical element to the film, my personal choice is not to hammer the satire. Satire, at its best, creeps up on you. You find yourself thinking about it after the film having a burger or drinks with friends. I tend to approach it more personally in that I look at characters not with disdain, but with curiosity as to what led them to that state of entitlement or what has denatured them or bent them from their more ideological selves into this state where there is more heightened ego, arrogance or entitlement. There is a crossover there with “Succession.” It would be low-hanging fruit to hammer them. I feel compassion for and connection with the characters. I want to understand the choices they made and how they got there. To me, that makes for more interesting character exploration than a straight “Eat the Rich” hit.

A course from “The Menu” (Searchlight Pictures)

I loved the sound of the food. How did you capture that as well as the smells and tastes of the food in the film, which is a character in the film?

If you are going to satirize something or try to illustrate or portray this world with any authenticity, I needed to get the right people in. I wasn’t a foodie before, so my first thought was who best in the business? We sent the script to Dominique Crenn, a chef in San Francisco. She is the first and only woman to be awarded three Michelin stars. She loved the script and came aboard to be our collaborator and work with us and get the design of the food and the menu up to world class level and reflect Ralph’s character as a world class chef. Dominique worked with her partner and our food stylist, and they set up the off-screen kitchen and put all of our cooks working in our on-screen kitchen through this week-long boot camp so that everything everybody was doing at any time was completely authentic. We got the look of the kitchen as how a three-Michelin-star kitchen would. And key to that was talking to David Gelb, the creator of “Chef’s Table,” which has been so influential in how food has been photographed for the past couple of decades. He shot some of the real food porn shots, which elevated the satirical element of it, because he photographed the food exactly as that show would.

What would be on your taco?

It’s almost an obsession of mine. My local Mexican place does these avocado and cheese tacos ripping with this lovely chocolate sauce –

– I meant the sin that would be on your tortilla.

It would probably be misunderstanding questions. Blimey, what’s my sin? Of course, I have no sins, I’m perfect! It would be something that reflected my lifelong imposter syndrome, probably.

Wow. Well, we can’t go there. I only have five minutes left. Chef is asked to prepare a particular dish with love. How did you infuse “The Menu” with love? There is not much love on screen.

Love is an interesting element in the film in that there is so much lost love and yearning from Ralph’s characters. We bonded in our first conversation because we saw Chef Slowik not as an evil movie baddie, but as an artist who has lost his way and is in pain and consumed with self-loathing; he has lost his love for what he does. When he meets Margot, who should not be there, she too has lost her love for what she does. And the conflict they find themselves in, there is also a deep connection between them. They have a loss of love for themselves and their direction in life. She tries to rekindle that, which is the opposite of Chef Slowik.

I infused the film with love by photographing every element by creating this restaurant and everything in it with the idea of “What would Slowik do?” When he created this world, he did it with an absolute obsession. I’m not sure one would call it love. That’s a moot point. But I made sure working with production designer and Dominque that every element of the kitchen was as high end and as perfect as it could be because that was the obsession of chef. And even the metronome of the edit, I made sure it was, “What would Chef do here?” It was all curated through his eyes. I was trying to respect and love his vision for his food and see every element as “What would Chef do?”

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

Your discomfiting film ends with the serving of comfort food. What is your comfort food and what have you eaten that truly unsettled you?

My comfort food goes back to where I grew up in the Southwest of England. It’s a thing called a Cornish pasty. It is probably a total mystery to anyone this side of the Atlantic. The closest I can think of for an American audience would be empanada. It is a very basic food, and I absolutely love it. What foods do we love? It’s the things that remind us of a place of innocence. That’s a Cornish pasty for me.

What’s the most disturbing thing I’ve eaten? Whenever I’ve gone to a three-Michelin-star restaurant, and I don’t understand and feel so excluded from that process and what is in front of me. I feel like an imposter in that situation, and therefore I feel like Margot. That was a huge connection for me. I felt like a fish out of water and didn’t connect in that room.

There is nothing you’ve eaten that has been truly gross?

I think beef tartare. The one time I tried that, I thought, “That’s not for me.” My buds just are not sophisticated enough to enjoy that kind of food.

“The Menu” spens nationwide in theaters Nov. 18.

Gary Kramer’s stories about food in film

Madison Cawthorn abandons constituents nearly two months before his term ends, buys $1M Florida home

In North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, Rep. Madison Cawthorn became a lame duck earlier this year when he lost a U.S. House primary to fellow Republican Chuck Edwards (who went on to defeat Democrat Jasmine Beach-Ferrara in the general election). Cawthorn, a far-right MAGA conspiracy theorist, will not be part of the U.S. House of Representatives’ new GOP-controlled majority when it is seated on January 3, 2023. And according to Asheville Citizen Times reporter Joel Burgess, Cawthorn is now missing in action.

Cawthorn, Burgess reports in an article published on November 16, “has apparently vacated his Washington and district offices nearly two months before the end of his term.”

“On November 16, Cawthorn’s Washington office no longer had his name posted outside and had been cleaned out,” Burgess reports. “A call to the office reached a voicemail system inviting 11th District constituents to leave a message, saying a staff member would call them back. In Hendersonville, the district office with Cawthorn’s name and the House seal on the door and window was dark and locked. Rooms were empty of furniture, and cleaning products could be seen on a counter.”

The Citizen Times reporter adds, “Calls to the Hendersonville and other district offices reached voicemail or were disconnected. A message on the voicemail said the congressman was no longer accepting new requests for assistance ‘due to our office beginning to close for the term.'”

Burgess notes that Cawthorn “recently bought a $1.1 million house in Florida” but is, according to state records, “still registered to vote” in North Carolina.

Burgess also reports that Blake Harp, a Cawthorn spokesperson, “did not respond to November 16 questions, including where constituents should go for assistance with veterans’ benefits, Social Security, late tax refunds or other issues.”

Like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Cawthorn is part of what has been described as the “House MAGA Caucus” — far-right Republicans who are loyal to former President Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda, traffic in conspiracy theories and are known for being combative and abrasive with both Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. But unlike Greene, Boebert or Gaetz, Cawthorn did not make it to the general election in 2022.

“Santa Camp” breakout on embodying Black Santa: “It is definitely activism for me”

In 2020, the man who Nick Sweeney’s “Santa Camp” introduces to the world as Santa Chris was simply another dad who wanted to give his young daughter the best Christmas possible. Part of that involved placing a large inflatable Santa Claus in the front yard of his Arkansas home, as millions of people do during the holiday season. Chris’ outdoor decoration is remarkable in that, like his family, it has a dark brown skin tone.

That was enough to cause one of his neighbors to leave an epithet-laced letter at his home.

“Please remove your negro Santa Claus yard decoration,” it read. “You should not try to deceive children into believing that I am a negro. I am a Caucasian (white man, to you) and have been for the past 600 years. Your being jealous of my race is no excuse for your dishonesty.”

It went on suggest he move “out east with the rest of your racist kind.” The bigot signed off with, “Yours truly, Santa Claus.”

Chris did not move. Instead, he became a Black Santa, and in 2021 was invited to join members of the New England Santa Society at their annual summer gathering of Santas, Mrs. Clauses and elves.

Chris, who asked that Salon refrain from using his last name, is one of three Santas who attended the camp and made it the first inclusive class in the group’s 10-year history.

Frisky moms, Porsche-demanding kids: A Santa-for-hire’s Christmas in Los Angeles

Sweeney, the director of “AKA Jane Roe,” distills this groundbreaking event into an emotionally complicated yet heartwarming portrait of a Christmas tradition long dominated by older white cisgender men and women. “Santa Camp” is an example of people with good intentions and insular views realizing they needed to expand the way they view the world, and the world views the figure they represent. This is how Chris, alongside a Santa with a disability named Fin, and a transgender Santa named Levi, came to spend time in the New Hampshire woods with fellow jolly folks both to learn the ins and outs of Santa professionalism, and to teach these old St. Nicks what it means for each of them to don the suit.

The premiere of “Santa Camp”‘ in the wake of a midterm election fueled by fear and division is a comfort, even as our culture’s refusal to grapple with racism, ableism and transphobia remains top of mind. A prime example comes by way of Chris landing his first big gig as the Santa at North Little Rock Christmas festival in 2021. He also noted that his debut was more sparsely attended compared to previous years’ events. But he was also humbled to know that families traveled for hundreds of miles to see him.

“The city of North Little Rock deserves props because they didn’t have to do it,” he remarked to Salon about his first Christmas festival experience. “They could have stayed away from the controversy, but they embraced it and had me as Santa Claus. And they’re having me back again this year. So it’s really good.”

We spoke to Chris about what Santa meant to him before the letter and his “Santa Camp” experience.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How prominent was Santa Claus in your life when you were growing up?

Well, so the figure of Santa himself actually wasn’t very prominent, because they are so few and far between. The reason that I have a love of Christmas is my father. In my hometown, he used to put up people’s Christmas lights and decorate their houses. And they were the more well-off families. But when he had his time with me on the weekend, he would take me show me the work that he been doing all week, and it was just amazing to see Christmas lights all over these gigantic houses. And so you know it bred in me this want to get that kind of house and put up decorations and have family and have the Hallmark movie, Christmas thing.

But of course, Santa wasn’t a part of it, because Black Santa, nobody really did it. You would see it here and there on an episode of a sitcom or something, but it was never something that was prominent or done very often.

When I was watching this, I realized how much I took for granted as a kid. Every Christmas our church had a Black Santa because one of the men in the parish would put on a Santa suit. But I also realized that was a conscious decision made by my parents to have us visit a Black Santa, realizing that when most people go to a mall, they’re expecting to see a white Santa Claus. Is that anything that your family ever talked about growing up or was it just presumed that if you’re going to the mall to get a picture with Santa, that Santa is probably going to be white?

Well, my experience is that a lot of Black families don’t celebrate the Santa Claus aspect of Christmas because we didn’t see ourselves reflected.

“The ‘War on Christmas’ thing, I think it is really out of a sense of loss for so many people that they have to now include people.”

Very early on we know that Santa is not real, because he doesn’t look like us. But for me, with my daughter, we had been looking for a professional Santa to go and have our pictures done with. Even before the letter, I had thought about doing it. I was going to dress up for our daughter and do it because she was little and all she would know is that Santa was there. But we were very deliberate.

When my wife had her, she spent a week in the NICU. I would go back and forth between the house and the hospital. So I wanted to do something special for them. And I found a four-foot-tall inflatable Black Santa. That’s where the story began, was that I wanted my wife and daughter to come home from the hospital and have a Santa, and I wasn’t going to put up one that didn’t look like what I was.

And so every year we’ve added more and more decorations. We look all year long, find stuff on websites and have to order it. But we are very deliberate in making sure that our daughter sees herself represented in everything, that she sees that we are part of society and we’re not some strange thing. We do regular things, and we celebrate Christmas. That’s what we wanted her to see.

Over the last couple of decades, there’s been a concerted effort to brand the “War on Christmas” and define what Christmas is for a certain segment of Americans, along with a demand that any kind of representation within Christmas be apolitical. One of the things that I was reading in the notes about “Santa Camp” is that you see this work of being Black Santa as a version of activism. Can you talk a little bit about that?

I mean, I honestly think that the reason that I got the letter is because I had Santa in the front yard where a Black Lives Matter flag was flying on our tree. There were the 2020 protests that happened, and me and my wife had gone out and protested. We donated. We are very pro-Black. And so it’s supposed to be apolitical, but it is definitely activism for me, because my people are part of the community. We exist, we pay taxes, we do everything else. We should be able to celebrate Christmas, and decorate our yards however we want to. And if you don’t like it, keep driving down the street or keep walking on. But don’t bother people. Let people be happy. Leave folks alone.

The “War on Christmas” thing, I think it is really out of a sense of loss for so many people that they have to now include people. And some of it is they feel bad for not ever realizing that folks weren’t included. And instead of having empathy, they get angry about it and get defensive when you should just be accepting and more loving towards people.

We see in the movie what you learned from or what’s taught in Santa Camp, in terms of the different ways to be Santa. You also were the only Black person in this space where, as it was pointed out, this is a community that’s dominated by older white men. What were some of the things that you learned and took away from the experience of being in that Santa Camp?

I learned that everyone is actually different. You have your character development things that you can do you make your character of Santa be unique and what you want it to be. And I learned that that’s actually OK. It’s OK to joke around the Santa is from the South Pole instead of the North Pole. Or, you know I have a friend that has a company called the Black Santa Company. He says Santa Claus doesn’t eat cookies, Santa Claus eats brownies. That kind of stuff. It’s okay to embrace the differences and make it your own and own it.

The filming of “Santa Camp” took place in 2021, which is when you said you had your first big Santa gig. And we see that in the aftermath of what had happened to you in 2020, that your neighbors also put up Black Santas. Was that a surprise for you?

“Adults need to move out of the way and let kids enjoy the season.”

Yeah, it was definitely a surprise, because they organized that themselves. I never asked anyone, never sought it out. All of those people did that themselves. They got together as a group and decided to do it. But they did it without prompting from me or anyone that I’m related to. It was great to be driving home from picking up my daughter from daycare, and you just magically see a Black Santa. And then you look to the other side of the street, and there’s another one. And then there’s another one. It was great because my daughter is the one that pointed it out.

And it was the fact that people who I had never met, decided that they wanted to show what support was the best thing about it. They could have easily just not done anything. But there’s hundreds of people that did, decided that they wanted to do something to show us that they loved us and accepted us as a part of the community.

What was that like for you, after everything that you went through?

So initially, it was a little crazy when the letter went viral. People showed up at the house, they’d bring gifts and all sorts of stuff. And because people would just show up, it’s a little nerve-wracking. You don’t know if someone is at your front door for good or bad. But you know, folks are dropping off ornaments and all sorts of stuff. The weirdest thing was there’s a guy who works in cybersecurity who looked up my name and my voting records to figure out our address. And then he showed up at the house. That was the that was the strangest.

Yikes. He showed up in the house bearing gifts, or . . .?

Yes, he had a gift. But while I’m talking to him at the door, I have my hand on the bat behind the door. Because at the end of the day, like I said, it’s a stranger who’s showing up at your house and you don’t know what their will is. But everyone that was coming by had nothing but goodwill to give to us.

And you know, there would be times during all of that where . . . every morning for like solid three weeks at about 6:15, someone would drive past our house, and just lay on their horn until they were past our house. And so one morning, I decided that I was tired of it. I basically told the police what was happening, they took care of the issue. It hasn’t happened since then.

That was literally the only negative reaction that I had. But more people were just like, let people live and let families be happy. And that’s what the ultimate message is: happiness for others. Let others be happy in what they’re doing.

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

The movie showed your first big gig appearing as Santa, and you said you’ve gotten this gig again. Have you gotten other gigs since? Are you doing more this year?

Yeah. So I have this gig again. I’m also Santa Claus for the Southwest Little Rock Christmas parade, and for the city of Maumelle’s Christmas parade. I’m doing more photo bookings. I have a weekend booking, the weekend of Black Friday, with a photographer in Dallas. He contacted me. He really wanted me to come and do photos. I have some pictures in southern Arkansas. So people are just organically finding out about me more. And then, now that this film is coming out, they’re gonna find out even more. My weekends are completely booked already through the end of the season. I anticipate next year is going to be even crazier.

What are you hoping that people will take away from watching “Santa Camp,” in terms of the whole experience of being Santa?

I hope people realize that Christmas is for children. I have not had a single kid ever say anything about Santa being Black. They are simply happy to see Santa.

I just worked an event for a cancer center, the Sugar Plum Ball. It’s a daddy-daughter dance. The dads were happy I was there. The girls were happy I was there. Nobody said, “Hi, Black Santa. They said “Hey, Santa.” So: Christmas is for kids. They don’t care. Adults need to move out of the way and let kids enjoy the season.

“Santa Camp” debuts Thursday, Nov. 17 on HBO Max.

about Santa Claus

Three prominent Republicans publicly decline to back Trump’s 2024 presidential run

Donald Trump’s Tuesday night announcement that he would run for the White House for the third presidential cycle in a row has not generated the amount of excitement that he may have hoped for as he seeks to clear the field.

“Anyone looking for Republican reactions to Donald J. Trump’s announcement of a third presidential campaign may have been surprised by the silence,” The New York Times reported Wednesday. “There was, to be sure, a vocal contingent celebrating Mr. Trump’s entry into the 2024 race.”

The newspaper listed Republicans including Reps. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

“But these voices stood out precisely because so few of their colleagues echoed them,” the newspaper reported. “On social media, most congressional Republicans were talking about almost anything else: inflation, border policy, NASA’s Artemis moon rocket launch, the military’s coronavirus vaccine mandate, the 115th anniversary of Oklahoma’s statehood, the need to recycle asphalt.”

Some Republicans openly declined to endorse the former president.

Dave Price of WHO-13 in Des Moines reported GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley would not endorse Trump, saying it was a “tradition in Iowa.” Price noted Grassley did endorse Bob Dole in 1996.

Punchbowl News correspondent Max Cohen reported Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott would not say if he is supporting Trump’s comeback attempt.

On Wednesday, NBC News senior congressional correspondent Scott Wong asked House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., if he was “prepared to endorse” Trump.

When he did not answer, ABC News reporter Katherine Faulders followed-up, but McCarthy still wouldn’t answer.

“You guys are crazy,” the GOP Leader responded.

Listen to McCarthy below or at this link.

McCARTHY won’t say whether he’ll endorse Donald Trump for president.

Me: “Are you prepared to endorse him [Trump]?”

Silence from @GOPLeader. @KFaulders: “Will you endorse him?”

McCarthy: “You guys are crazy” pic.twitter.com/ppLwIXgB6D

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) November 16, 2022

Nancy Pelosi stepping down as top Democrat — and other Dem leaders are stepping aside

United States House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) announced on Thursday that she “will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership” in the 118th Congress.

Democrats lost their five-seat House majority in last week’s midterm elections, handing Republicans a slim but very real edge in the lower congressional chamber.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the current minority leader, is widely expected to be chosen as the next Speaker. On Wednesday, 188 members of the House GOP caucus nominated him for the job, which would begin when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd, 2022.

In her address, Pelosi touted her work with “three presidents” – George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden – in a notable snub of former President Donald Trump.

Her message was clear.

“For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect,” Pelosi said. “And I am grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”

Watch below or at this link.

Pelosi: I will not seek re-election to democratic leadership in the next congress. For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the democratic caucus that I so deeply respect. pic.twitter.com/CQdzY0qpwu

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 17, 2022

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, followed Pelosi’s lead on Thursday, announcing he will also step aside from House Democratic leadership, and “continue [his] service in a different role.”

State Newsroom senior reporter Jennifer Shutt shared Hoyer’s message on Twitter.

” … I have decided not to seek elected leadership in the 118th Congress,” Hoyer said in a press release. “I do intend to continue my service in Congress and return to the Appropriations Committee as a member to complete work in which I have been involved for many years.”

Shutt reports Hoyer is throwing his support behind Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., for Democratic leader.

“I’m collecting evidence”: Arizona election loser Kari Lake refuses to concede, hires “best” lawyers

Failed Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake, who repeatedly refused to say she would accept the results of the governor’s race in Arizona if she lost, refused to concede and may challenge her election loss to Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs.

Some of the election denier’s allies are urging her to challenge the election results because of a printing problem, which slowed the tabulation of scores of ballots in Maricopa County on Election Day and caused uncertainty at some polling places, according to The New York Times. Republican Maricopa County officials said that the malfunctioning ballot-counting machines did not indicate any instances of “fraud” and did not deny anyone the opportunity to vote.

But the Trump-backed former news anchor posted a video to Twitter Thursday morning accusing the “broken election system here in Arizona” of disenfranchising voters.

“Our election officials failed us miserably,” Lake said. “What happened to Arizonans on Election Day is unforgivable. Tens of thousands of Maricopa County voters were disenfranchised. Now, I’m busy here collecting evidence and data. Rest assured I have assembled the best and brightest legal team and we are exploring every avenue to correct the many wrongs that have been done this past week.”

Arizona, we are still in the fight. pic.twitter.com/ytaGvqG5J0

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) November 17, 2022

Lake’s campaign is working with other Republican state campaigns to prepare a legal fight, collecting testimonials from voters to be used in court, according to two people familiar with the planning, The Times reported.

Former President Donald Trump has also remained vocal in the matter and called Lake on Sunday, falsely claiming that Democrats were trying to steal her victory as they had done to him in 2020, according to a person familiar with the conversation, The Times reported.

“They just took the election away from Kari Lake,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump-backed Arizona election loser Kari Lake cries “BS” over results — and it badly backfires

Other election deniers who supported Trump’s false election fraud claims in 2020 are once again using election fraud conspiracies to promote the idea that the election was stolen from Lake.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist who advised him to try to overturn the presidential election results, urged Arizona officials not to certify the election. Election denial influencer Seth Keshel posted on Truth Social that Lake “won’t be conceding a damn thing,” and Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn demanded a hand count of the results, The Times reported.

Floyd Brown, founder of the right-wing publication The Western Journal, claimed on social media that the election “was the most corrupt” he had ever witnessed and that “illegal schemes [were] used by Maricopa County to disenfranchise voters.”

“Spent hours last night working with Lake team on a continuing war for Arizona. She will not go quietly into the night. She intends to stand and fight. She knew when she entered this race that it would be tough. Her opponents lack her courage. She is fighting for us,” Brown tweeted.

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

When news broke on Monday that Hobbs had won, prominent election denier Mark Finchem, who lost the race for secretary of state, began pushing out conspiracy theories on social media.

“Less tweets more lawsuits,” one tweet said. In another, he said that the “results from the machines defy all math” and also that “Polls had me winning Maricopa. No way we lost Maricopa.”

Lake’s campaign also convinced some supporters to attend a Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hearing on Wednesday night, where attendees called on the Board of Supervisors to resign, nullify the election and use paper ballots.

“You are the cancer that is tearing this nation apart,” one attendee said during the meeting.

While other Republican candidates have conceded after losing their races, Lake has posted videos on social media suggesting she will be challenging her election loss to Hobbs. In one video, Lake posted slow-motion clips of her on the campaign trail featuring the Tom Petty classic “I Won’t Back Down.”

about Kari Lake

“Unauthorized and improper”: Republicans want to “audit” GOP campaign arm over questionable spending

When Nevada’s 2022 U.S. Senate race was called for incumbent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Democrats knew that they would be keeping their Senate majority in 2023. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell knew that he won’t be Senate majority leader next year.

The 2022 midterms have underscored tensions between McConnell and Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). McConnell, over the summer, complained about the “quality” of Republican Senate candidates who had been nominated, and Scott was offended by McConnell’s comments. The NRSC chairman vigorously defended those Donald Trump-supported Senate candidates.

But as it turned out, those candidates did not perform well. J.D. Vance won in Ohio, but Dr. Mehmet Oz lost to Democrat John Fetterman in Pennsylvania. Democratic Sen. Maggie Hasan was reelected in New Hampshire, and a runoff election will determine whether Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia keeps his seat or is replaced by Trump-supported GOP challenger Herschel Walker. Warnock received more votes than Walker, but the race was close enough for a runoff to be called under Georgia election rules.

On Tuesday, November 15, Scott declared his desire to replace McConnell as GOP leader in the Senate. But the following day, The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reports, “a majority of GOP senators voted to elect McConnell” as their leader for 2023. It’s official: McConnell, not Scott, will be the top Republican in the U.S. Senate next year.

Further illustrating the post-midterms tensions among Republican senators is a call for the NRSC to be audited. Politico’s Alex Isenstadt, in an article published on November 16, reports that on November 15, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina “said there should be an independent review of how the party’s campaign arm spent its resources before falling short of its goal of winning the majority.”

Isenstadt reports, “The back and forth is part of an all-out war enveloping the party following last week’s election. Over the past week, the political operations aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and NRSC Chair Rick Scott (Fla.) have clashed openly, blaming the other for the disappointing outcome — even before Scott launched a longshot leadership challenge to McConnell.”

Isenstadt also reports that “according to two people familiar with the discussion, Blackburn told Scott during the meeting that there needed to be an accounting of how money was spent, and that it was important for senators to have a greater understanding of how and why key decisions involving financial resources were made.”

“To move forward, Blackburn said, the party needed to determine what mistakes were made,” Isenstadt reports. “Tillis spoke out in support of the idea, arguing that there should also be a review of the committee’s spending during the 2018 and 2020 election cycles, which would allow for a comparison to be made.

Scott, meanwhile, is alleging that before he was NRSC chairman, there were “hundreds of thousands of dollars in unauthorized and improper bonuses” at the NRSC.

Business Insider has reported that a former NRSC aide is vehemently critical of Scott’s tenure as NRSC chairman and believes that he seriously mishandled the 2022 midterms.

That aide told Business Insider, “Sen. Scott will go down as one of the worst campaign chairmen in recent Senate history.” And the aide, interviewed on condition of anonymity, added that Scott should “focus on his home state” and “leave the national political arena to the grown-ups.”

“EO” is the gorgeously hypnotic drama about a donkey whose journey will break your heart

Gorgeously filmed, experimental in style, and incredibly humanistic, “EO,” recounts the experiences of the titular donkey — frequently from the animal’s point of view. The film is Polish director Jerzy Skolimowski’s (“Four Nights With Anna“) homage to Robert Bresson‘s “Au Hasard Balthazar,” and it arrives with bona fides, having won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and is Poland’s selection as their official Oscar entry for Best International Film.

EO is first seen under a red strobe light with surging music. He is a circus animal who is cared for by Kasandra (Sandra Drzymalska) who is part of the Cyrk Orion. She feeds EO and gives him affection, and the donkey is wonderfully expressive even as the camera follows him trotting along. But protesters against animal abuse in the circus cause EO to be “repossessed” and taken from Kasandra. Viewers can see the sadness in his eyes.

Nicolas Cage’s revenge thriller “Pig” is more about loss than bringing home the bacon

The film then shows all the different experiences EO has on his own as he moves through the Polish countryside. The story is, of course, a metaphor with EO as the innocent who encounters all kinds of people. One could liken the animal to an immigrant who is forced to work — EO is seen hitched to a cart in his early scenes — or a symbol for Poland and how people in the country treat him, kindly and cruelly. There are children who pet him and ride him and others who exploit him. In one adorable moment, he munches on a carrot tied around his neck. There are folks who are gentle, such as Kasandra, who locates him in one charming scene and feeds him a muffin for his birthday. His braying when she leaves him is heartbreaking.

There are many striking scenes of EO on his own. He watches horses run free from the captivity of a trailer. One marvelous sequence has EO out in nature at night, and he sees frogs in the water, a spider in its web, an owl on a tree branch, a howling wolf and a racoon scurrying before lasers and gunshots spoil nature’s tranquility. There is also a fabulous drone shot through a forest and along a river that is scored to Pawel Mykietyn’s sonorous music. Even a tracking shot of EO trotting through a lighted tunnel is mesmerizing. (Michal Dymek did the exquisite cinematography.) And a breathtaking landscape is shrewdly seen in widescreen at first but later from between the slats that are penning EO in on a truck. (Freedom/captivity is a strong theme here.)

But as the film progresses, it has EO interacting with people. When he is near a soccer pitch, EO has an impact on a game during a penalty kick. He is taken to the afterparty by the winning team, and has smoke blown in his face. He is a passive participant as windows are broken but EO is beaten by hooligans. There are questions raised about his suffering as he is passed around and EO ends up on a farm where foxes are killed for their fur. His actions there include kicking a violent man, which should make audiences cheer.

“EO” does abruptly shift its storylines, which can be disconcerting, and his character can be in the background for some of the drama. One of the more interesting sequences has EO being transported by Mateo (Mateusz Kosciukiewicz) a trucker. EO is not in the frame when Mateo cleans himself up in a rest stop washroom or offers to help someone, nor does the animal see the shocking act of violence that occurs as this scene unfolds, but the film suggests EO senses it. (Viewers will feel it too.)

Likewise, when a young man, Vito (Lorenzo Zurzolo) encounters EO, he wonders if he is saving the donkey or stealing him. As he returns home to his Italian villa, he has a tense exchange with The Countess (Isabelle Huppert) that involves her breaking plates and tossing handfuls of silverware around in a scene full of drama. Again, it seems a bit far afield from EO’s story, but it is fascinating, and Huppert is dazzling in her cameo.

One sequence, around the film’s midpoint, features a robotic animal, which perhaps only emphasizes the beauty of EO, a real one, but an earlier scene of a horse being tenderly washed and groomed while EO watches, jealously, conveys his alienation more effectively.

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

Such is the film’s narrative logic, and perhaps it is best to just let the film wash across the screen, not unlike a hypnotic series of slow-motion scenes of water near the film’s end. Viewers can make connections or interpret people, or actions, or emotions as desired. EO is not going to judge, but he is going to tell you what to think or feel, which is perhaps the beauty and brilliance of this uncommon film.

“EO” opens in New York City Nov. 18 with a platform release to follow.

movie reviews by Gary Kramer

NASA’s Artemis mission is headed to the Moon. Now what?

After considerable delays, humans are one step closer to returning to the Moon. On Wednesday morning just before 2 AM, NASA finally launched Artemis 1, an unmanned mission that will send a rocket around the Moon, from its Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Though unmanned, the spacecraft carried a module that is designed to carry humans. The rocket on which the module traveled is known as Orion, and is NASA’s flagship rocket for future Moon missions.

Originally slated for lift-off on August 29, four different delays pushed the mission back to November 16th. The repeated delays were a result of extreme caution on behalf of NASA, given the mission’s expense: NASA estimates it will spend $95 billion on the Artemis project up till 2025, with each launch, including this one, costing about $4.1 billion. The delays were partially due to the pure hydrogen fuel tanks, which proved to be finicky.

Thankfully, the Artemis 1 launch went off without a hitch. Now, the spacecraft will undergo a full test of its capabilities and instruments over the course of the next three weeks before it returns to Earth.

“What an incredible sight to see NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft launch together for the first time. This uncrewed flight test will push Orion to the limits in the rigors of deep space, helping us prepare for human exploration on the Moon and, ultimately, Mars,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a statement.

Bullseye! NASA’s DART test was a smashing success, altering the orbit of the asteroid Dimorphos

This mission is intended to inaugurate a new era of exploration of the Moon, which has not been visited by humans since 1972. If and when a manned mission returns, it will mark a new era for humanity. For these reasons, the Artemis missions are considered a big deal, hence why so many people were closely following its postponements.

Though there aren’t any astronauts onboard, there’s still a lot we’ll be able to study about Earth’s closest neighbor. So what will we hope to learn?

What are Artemis and Orion and where are they going?

Artemis is the name of the mission, after the Greek lunar deity, who was the “goddess of the hunt.” Orion is the name of the semi-reusable spacecraft, named for the constellation which depicts another mythical Greek hunter.

According to NASA, Orion will loop once around the Earth, flinging it approximately 40,000 miles beyond the Moon, where it will zip around it on November 21. There, it will drop off a few toaster-sized satellites called CubeSats (more on them in a bit) and return to Earth over the course of 25.5 days, splashing back down to earth on December 11.

While this mission may seem similar to Apollo, the execution is quite different, and it marks a lot of firsts — including the first use of the blandly named Space Launch System, which is the most powerful rocket in the world and NASA’s largest since the Saturn V rockets of the Apollo mission era. The Apollo missions were also much shorter, typically around 8 days in space.

What took so long to get the rocket off the ground?

Two technical issues — a problem with one of the engines on August 29th and a hydrogen leak on September 3 — made launching Artemis 1 too dangerous. But weather was a major issue, too. First, Tropical Storm Ian scrapped a September 24 launch while Hurricane Nicole delayed the launch on November 14.

But these delays are only the most recent. In truth, the Orion program has been suffering setbacks, including from tornadoes and design flaws, since 2010, when President Obama signed the NASA Authorization Act, kickstarting the program.

As history has shown, little errors can have big consequences, so it’s probably a good thing NASA waited until the right moment. Rushed engineering of unmanned Vanguard rockets designed during the beginning of the Space Race led to dismal consequences: from 1957 to 1959, only 3 of 11 Vanguard rockets successfully reached orbit.

Now, the Artemis missions will lay the foundation for other off-world exploration, including potential Mars expeditions.

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

“It’s taken a lot to get here, but Orion is now on its way to the Moon,” Jim Free, NASA deputy associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, said in the same statement. “This successful launch means NASA and our partners are on a path to explore farther in space than ever before for the benefit of humanity.”

What’s onboard the Orion?

Orion carries with it 10 CubeSats, each with its own special mission, that will be left behind as the main spacecraft heads back to Earth. CubeSats are lightweight, blocky satellites that have revolutionized interstellar communication because you can stuff a lot of them on a single rocket. In fact, Orion has already dropped a few that have since begun tweeting.

Some of them are more exciting than others. OMOTENASHI, for example, will crash itself into the Moon’s surface using a laser-ignited rocket. Japan’s JAXA, their equivalent to NASA, designed the smallest lunar lander in history to deploy an airbag, allowing OMOTENASHI (a Japanese word which means “hospitality”) to land safely. It will then measure radiation levels which are “essential to support radiation risk assessments for astronauts and establish a benchmark for space radiation models for human space activities on the Moon,” a JAXA report explains.

BioSentinel is another peculiar experiment, containing a bioengineered strain of budding yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) typically used in baking and brewing beer. The fungus are embedded into microfluidic cards that can measure their growth and “help calibrate the biological effects of radiation in deep space,” NASA says. Space agencies will need to design ways of dealing with the vast level of radiation in space, which will be a huge issue for any humans that visit the moon. Speaking of which…

What’s next for Moon missions?

Artemis 1 is just the beginning. Artemis 2, due to launch in May 2024, will carry humans — but they will not land, merely orbit the moon, much like they Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 missions. If all goes well with Artemis 1 and 2, the Artemis 3 mission could launch as early as 2025. It is intended to put people on the moon for the first time since 1972, the Apollo 17 mission.

The Artemis 3 mission won’t merely be the first time in a while since someone has put bootprints on Moon dust. NASA states they intend to “land the first woman and the first person of color on the surface of the Moon,” with this mission.

about astronomy

“Expanding financial relationship”: Saudis funneled “billions” to Trump family before 2024 launch

On Thursday, Judd Legum laid out in his Popular Information blog the full extent to which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has poured money into the Trump family — as former President Donald Trump launches his third consecutive campaign for the White House ahead of 2024.

“The coverage of his announcement was broadly critical, focusing on the poor results of the candidates he endorsed in the 2022 midterms. Reports also noted some other issues complicating Trump’s run, including his role in fomenting an insurrection and the federal criminal investigation into his handling of classified documents,” reported Legum. “These stories virtually ignored one of the most significant developments since Trump left the White House: his expanding financial relationship with Saudi Arabia. Since Trump left office, entities controlled by the Saudi government, a repressive regime responsible for the murder of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, have sent billions to Trump and his family members.”

The total investment from the Saudis, Legum estimated, is in the “billions.”

To begin with, wrote Legum, “The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) has spent billions creating LIV, a new golf tour. Two of LIV’s eight tournaments in 2022 were held at Trump-owned golf courses, including the season-ending championship at Trump Doral in Florida.” Then there is the PIF’s investment into Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, through his real estate business: “The full board of PIF, led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, overruled the committee’s recommendation and decided to invest $2 billion. Under the deal, Kushner will receive a $25 million annual management fee, plus a percentage of any profits.” This deal was approved by the Saudi royals over the objections of PIF officials who recommended against it.

And then there is another Trump licensing deal in the works with a private company closely linked to the Saudi royals, Legum continued: “Earlier this week, Trump ‘struck a deal with a Saudi-based real estate company to license its name to a housing and golf complex that will be built in Oman.’ The agreement was made ‘with Dar Al Arkan, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest real estate companies, for the project.’ Under the arrangement, Trump will receive ‘a cut of condo sales or golf course revenue in exchange for allowing its name to be used.’ The proceeds could be considerable since the project is estimated to cost $1.6 billion and ‘will include an estimated 3,500 residential units, luxury retail and 450 rooms at the hotels.'”

All of this comes amid reporting that MBS “preferred” Trump as president and privately mocks President Joe Biden. It also comes as Saudi Arabia brokered a global drawdown of oil production by OPEC, reportedly overriding objections from other OPEC member states, a move that the U.S. claims is a deliberate attempt to hurt its economy and blunt the effectiveness of European sanctions against Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

What is high fashion’s obsession with cheap eats?

Fall’s latest fashion trends — from a crumbled package of chips “it bag” to a pasta box crossbody clutch — look like they’d all belong in your mouth rather than on a Fashion Week runway.

In June, artist and designer Nik Bentel announced the return of his viral Barilla-inspired crossbody bag, which first made rounds on Twitter in August of last year. The revamped design is akin to a box of De Cecco’s penne pasta (there’s no brand name on the new bag, unlike its predecessor) that’s adorned with a dainty purse handle and an elegant gold chain. Similar to his 2021 release, only 100 of Bentel’s recent “Pasta Bag” were available for sale for a limited time only.

When asked about his bag’s design, Bentel told Food & Wine, “I try to make every object unique, but I think this one is slightly different because of the online excitement. I felt like I needed to do another one, but I also think the aesthetic is totally different.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cegi0q0pWmo/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=35242411-ad5b-4076-90ca-573b39813879

He continued, “A few small pasta companies reached out to me, asking to collaborate on a pasta bag. But I think I needed something that was a bit more ubiquitous. There’s a certain aesthetic that pasta companies go for in terms of advertising their pasta. They use certain colors, certain gradients, certain fonts, and certain words, so I tried to incorporate as much as possible into this.”

As Crocs turn 20, here’s a look back at how they became a beloved kitchen shoe

Bentel’s “Pasta Bag” can easily be mistaken for an ordinary box of pasta — the former flaunts vibrant hues of blue and yellow, a nutrition label on the side along with the pasta’s weight, listed both in pounds and grams. There’s also a brief description of the “pasta” and multiple images of penne plastered on the front.

Alongside Bentel, Balenciaga dipped its toes into food fashion this past October. The international fashion house, in partnership with Frito-Lay, debuted its $1,500 clutch that resembles a crumpled, discarded bag of Lay’s potato chips. Called the “L.O.L. Clutch,” the bag is available in four distinct “flavors”: Classic, Flamin’ Hot, Limón, and Salt & Vinegar. And while the “flavors” are not explicitly mentioned on the bag, it’s not hard to guess simply from the bags’ designs, which mimic the OG chip packets.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CjnBih5oLAs/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=dda3ad88-3d73-4366-8ccb-047394a73085

https://www.instagram.com/p/CjQ975ep-RQ/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=59d66dee-8794-4c34-88c1-8a12869d15b6

The recent releases illustrate — in a pretty on-the-nose way — high fashion’s long-standing obsession with cheap eats. Since 2014, junk foods have been a prominent source of inspiration in a slew of haute couture pieces. Take for example Jeremy Scott’s McDonald’s-inspired Moschino collection, in which runway models dressed like McDonald’s employees and carried Golden Arches-decked handbags on plastic food trays. Or Charlotte Olympia’s and Kate Spade’s Chinese takeout box-inspired purses. Or Anya Hindmarch’s cereal and soda-themed accessories.

The intersection, albeit bizarre at first glance, is actually quite apt considering that fast food and high fashion are not far off from one another. As journalist Zing Tsjeng explained, “Fast food is a speedy sugar high, mixing feel-good nostalgia with trashy cheerfulness. It’s like the experience of fashion itself: we’ve all had that instant hit of pleasure when we buy something we know we shouldn’t but can’t resist anyway. Put it another way — there’s a reason quinoa and brown rice haven’t inspired a fashion collection.”

That sentiment still holds true today, especially amid an ongoing pandemic when junk food consumption and cravings are at an all time high. Per a Jan. 2022 report published by MDPI, chips, cookies, ice cream and sugar-sweetened beverages, like regular soda, fruit drinks and juices, have all been popular choices of foods in recent months. So, it’s not surprising that they are now making their resurgence in art and fashion.

Bentel told Food & Wine last year that his famed Barilla pasta bag was created shortly after he enjoyed “his 100th bowl of penne pasta” during the early few months of quarantine. It was then that he wondered how he could repurpose the pasta box and, eventually, he settled on making it a handbag.

“The bag is an irreverent take on the past year of staying inside,” Bentel explained. “Using the mundane objects we had lying around during the pandemic, and turning them into something a little more thrilling for our post-pandemic world. The goal of the bag is to inspire a little bit of thought and reflection on being able to create something exciting from the mundane.”

As for the “L.O.L. Clutch,” Balenciaga’s creative director Demna was inspired to create the bag because he “loves chips in general” and “has carried a bag of Lay’s potato chips as an accessory before.” Earlier this year, Demna was spotted clutching an empty bag of Lay’s Original Wavy Potato Chips at the graduate show of Antwerp’s Royal Academy of Fine Arts. The Georgian designer reportedly “held on to his flat Lay’s bag throughout the day, from his front row seat at the student fashion show to the festivities afterwards…,” per Paper Mag.

High fashion, today, remains both attainable — and wearable — to only a select few. But high fashion meshed with cheap eats changes the dynamic entirely, allowing luxe wear to be more personal and familiar to the public. Sure, carrying a $1,500 Lay’s clutch is extreme. But at least it looks like a bag of Lay’s potato chips, an item that’s readily available at your nearest convenience store.

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

An extension of high fashion’s obsession with cheap eats is also seen in the swanky bodega photoshoots recently popularized by actor Sydney Sweeney. Earlier this year, Sweeney donned a custom Miu Miu two-piece with matching Miu Miu hand gloves at a nearby shop on Hollywood Boulevard. The photoshoot, led by celebrity photographer Amber Asaly, took place right after Sweeney’s red carpet showcase at the premiere of “Euphoria” season two.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CYZlGTHvRL5/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=e1fbbc1b-76f2-4d2c-a010-9351d9d48629

“The result is a set of delightfully fun and comically contrasting shots. Sweeney looks like a classic ingénue, wrapping herself in a fur stole outside of the Hollywood Wax Museum,” W Mag’s Carolyn Twersky wrote. “[I]t is the contradiction between Sweeney, in her custom French look and bombshell beauty, up against the everyday monotony of a Hollywood souvenir shop that makes the photos so enjoyable. The actress seems very at ease in the setting, despite the fact that she in no way fits in.”

Sweeney took part in a similar shoot following last year’s Golden Globes, when she posed in front of a nearby 7-Eleven, dressed in a poofy pink Ralph & Russo dress and sipping on a Big Gulp.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CL4kETnBJ5d/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=caadfaca-caf6-4ba2-8a61-46d0e2371f6a

“There is something so pleasing about seeing a gown-adorned Sweeney in the most pedestrian of places. Probably because who doesn’t have the urge to stuff their face with junk food after a night of squeezing into formal clothes and making small talk?” Twersky added.

Perhaps that’s the appeal of it all — both high fashion and cheap eats are fun and quirky, making them a perfect fit for one another. And even if most consumers aren’t able to afford such humdrum-turned-luxurious goods, at least they’ll be enthralled by them.

stories on fashion and trends:

“Shouldn’t be up for debate”: 37 Senate Republicans vote against same-sex and interracial marriage

A law that would codify federal protections for same-sex marriages cleared a procedural hurdle in the U.S Senate on Wednesday, overcoming the 60-vote filibuster threshold and setting the stage for approval.

Senators voted 62-37 in favor of ending debate on the Respect for Marriage Act and advancing it to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Twelve Republicans joined the Democratic caucus in support of the bill.

“This is huge,” advocacy group Public Citizen tweeted. “The vote on final passage could happen as soon as this week.”

The marriage equality legislation comes months after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sparked outrage over his Dobbs v. Jackson concurring opinion that suggested the reversal of the 2015 landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision—which recognizes same-sex unions—while also attacking precedents that protect the rights to contraception and interracial marriage.

Maybe just maybe, the Supreme Court should realize they have no business telling anyone who they can and can't love and marry. I was proud to cast my vote today to finally make marriage equality – including same-sex and interracial marriages – the long overdue law of the land.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 16, 2022

“The right to marry the person you love shouldn’t be up for debate,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted. “But Justice Clarence Thomas warned that he’d put it at risk—so the Senate is taking action to protect marriage equality no matter what the Supreme Court does. We’re going to get this done.”

Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., who is one of nine openly gay members of the U.S. House, previously denounced Thomas’ remarks on the chamber floor and called on the Senate to pass the Respect for Marriage Act on Wednesday.

A few months ago, I took to the House floor to urge my colleagues to join me in the fight to protect LGBTQ+ rights from the far-right Supreme Court.

Now we’re on the verge of winning. It’s time for the Senate to pass the Respect for Marriage Act.pic.twitter.com/cRAnIaoEnl

— @mondairejones.bsky.social (@MondaireJones) November 16, 2022

The House approved the Respect for Marriage Act in July. However, if it passes the Senate with a bipartisan amendment, it will have to return to the House for another vote before it goes to President Joe Biden’s desk.

After the Senate vote Wednesday, Biden said he would “promptly sign it into law.”

“Love is love and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” Biden tweeted. “Today’s bipartisan Senate vote gets us closer to protecting that right. The Respect for Marriage Act protects all couples under law—I urge Congress to send the bill to my desk so I can make it law.”

Alexis DeBoshnek’s trick for turning canned tuna into a luxurious dinner will blow your mind

Lately, every time I go to the supermarket, I feel like someone who has awakened from a 30-year nap and can’t believe how much everything costs. A quart of milk is how much? A dozen eggs ring up for what? Not long ago, I’d imagined all the steak and salmon I’d be cooking with the kids away at school and only two people to cook for most nights.

There has been no steak.

But eating on a restrained budget doesn’t have to mean eating glumly. Recently, as I leafed through the beautiful “To the Last Bite: Recipes and Ideas for Making the Most of Your Ingredients,” I found myself enraptured with Alexis DeBoschnek’s simple approach for delicious meals that get the biggest bang out of pantry staples. I’m obsessed with her preserved lemons and quick pickles, not to mention her interpretation of the iconic smash burger.

A specialty food shop owner’s guide to stocking your pantry

Yet it was DeBoschnek’s recipe for bucatini with tuna and olives that called out to me the loudest. In her hands, pasta and tuna didn’t seem like a reminder of sad childhood casseroles. It looked, as she described it, like a feast to make on a Mallorcan holiday “at the end of long days in the sun.” And who wouldn’t want a little taste of that on a dreary fall night?

Because, of course, there’s no bucatini to be found (and because sometimes I get a craving for something other than pasta), I make my version with hearty black beans. And because a cheap meal doesn’t have to be a retrained meal, I also amp up DeBoschnek’s suggested amounts of garlic and red pepper flakes. For a final hit of intensity, I throw in a few thinly sliced, seeded slices of lemon.

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

“You know this isn’t really my thing — but look,” my tuna-rejecting, olive-avoidant spouse told me as we wound down from this dinner of tuna and olives. His plate was entirely clean, and he was reaching back into the serving bowl.

What can I say? This is just a magical mix of flavors. That I’d made the meal in about 10 minutes for a few pennies was nice. But enjoying a spectacular dinner for two — one that briefly transported us to a languid Spanish getaway — was absolutely priceless.

* * *

Inspired by Alexis Deboschnek’s “To the Last Bite: Recipes and Ideas for Making the Most of Your Ingredients”

Garlicky Black Beans with Tuna and Olives

Yields

2-4 servings

Prep Time

10 minutes

Cook Time

10 minutes

Ingredients

1 15-ounce can black beans
6 tablespoons olive oil
4 grated garlic cloves
1 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
1/2 cup chopped jarred green olives
2 tablespoons capers
Juice and zest of 1 lemon
1 large can oil-packed tuna, drained
Flaky salt and black pepper, to taste
Cleaned, chopped parsley or other tender greens, to taste

Directions

In a serving bowl, mix together the garlic, red pepper flakes, olives, capers, lemon juice and zest, salt and pepper and 3 tablespoons of olive oil.
Heat the rest of the oil in a medium-sized skillet over medium heat.
Add the beans and simmer until just warmed. Add the tuna and stir.
Pour the garlic and oil mixture into the pan and heat everything through.
Pour the mixture back into your serving bowl, mix and top with herbs. Enjoy immediately.

Cook’s Notes

Feel free to reach for olives with pimentos, as well as cut a few thin extra slices of lemon, if you like.

Got leftovers? They’re very good served cold for lunch.

dinner ideas for when you don’t feel like pasta

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

“Extremely bad luck”: Trump lawsuit lands before judge who sanctioned his lawyers for frivolous suit

Donald Trump drew a bad hand in his countersuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The former president had sued James for “intimidation and harassment” after her office filed a $250 million lawsuit against the Trump Organization, which the 41-page complaint alleged was an attempt to “steal, destroy or control all things Trump,” and the attorney general had the case removed to federal court.

“Extremely bad luck for Trump,” reported Politico’s Kyle Cheney. “He filed a lawsuit against NYAG Letitia James in Florida state court. James yesterday removed the case to federal court and it landed before … Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who just days ago sanctioned Trump attorneys for a frivolous lawsuit.”

Some of Trump’s own legal advisers urged the Florida attorneys who drafted the James complaint that the case was frivolous and would fail, and they unsuccessfully staged an intervention to stop the suit from being submitted to a court.

Middlebrooks just last week sanctioned some of Trump’s lawyers over a lawsuit filed against Hillary Clinton and dozens of other political enemies that the judge called an intentional abuse of the legal system.

“These were political grievances masquerading as legal claims,” said Middlebrooks, who dismissed Trump’s lawsuit in September. “This cannot be attributed to incompetent lawyering. It was a deliberate use of the judicial system to pursue a political agenda.”

Extremely bad luck for Trump. He filed a lawsuit against NYAG Letitia James in Florida state court. James yesterday removed the case to federal court and it landed before … Judge Donald Middlebrooks, who just days ago sanctioned Trump attorneys for a frivolous lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/5mAOesdgjk

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) November 17, 2022

We won’t get fooled again — I think. Trump’s back, but let’s hope it’s a brief visit

So here we go again.

He’s back.

Donald Trump is once again running for president. For some he’s the second coming (or more accurately the third coming) of Jesus Christ, riding in on his mandarin chariot of vitriol, lies and deceit to save the world from God knows what. For the rest of us he’s a human popcorn husk stuck between your teeth; a human case of long COVID you can’t shake; a human cancer you can’t excise, radiate or get rid of no matter how much chemotherapy you endure.

Trump began his 2024 revenge tour in typical aplomb, before a crowd of cult followers cheering his every lie from a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago. Outside they were shouting “Trump or Death” and inside they worked themselves into a MAGA-hat frenzy like ferrets on Benzedrine, caffeine and meth.

Desperate conservatives rally around an absurd talking point: Trump pivots to being presidential!

Donald, as always, is a menace to society and he doesn’t care. You can never quite count the idiot out: His survival instincts are preternatural and his ability to con is uncanny. But his new announcement comes just after the midterms, where his favorite candidates were trounced: Those who ran on the Big Lie lost and the Republican “red wave” never materialized. Many in the GOP are looking elsewhere, anywhere, for new leadership while Trump claims his movement is the greatest in the history of the world and there will probably “never be anything like it again.”

We can only hope.

Trump is trying to resurrect his underdog status, which catapulted him into office in 2016, but he has the noose of several criminal and civil investigations, as well as his own track record as president, wrapped around his neck, weighing him down. It appears he has learned nothing from the midterm debacle suffered by the Republicans. His speech was pure fiction, including the claim that he kept us out of wars “for decades” while president. The lies, too numerous to itemize, read like a laundry list of reasons the voters rejected him so soundly in his last bid for the Oval Office.

His historically early announcement for the office belies his insecurity and was strategically made to try and suck all of the oxygen out of the room – as Trump often does – by planting himself firmly on center stage. His hope is to bench any and all Republican opposition to his nomination. For now, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — once a star fascist protégé of Trump’s — looks to be the only viable alternative for the remnants of the Republican Party after Trump’s ravages.

It will be best if we pull out the hook and yank Trump off stage. The world is finally looking more familiar and a little more hopeful with Joe Biden at the helm than it was at any point during Trump’s years in office.

Trump has long proclaimed, “Only I can fix it,” but left the entire world teetering on the brink of disaster, a fact that was reinforced by this week’s meeting between President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Bali. The two leaders spoke candidly about their priorities and intentions, including the need to work together to seek amicable solutions to serious problems. Rather than announcing “Only I can fix it,” both leaders, despite their differences, acknowledged the need for all nations to work together to solve problems we all share. As Xi said, “We are at a crossroads.”

Working to build relationships is the cornerstone of Biden’s foreign and domestic policy and is an anathema to Trump — who preaches unity through beating into submission those who disagree with him.

Biden acknowledges reality, and has been able to forge relationships with those who disagree with him to pass infrastructure bills and a coalition of support against Russian aggression in Ukraine. That has been at the heart of Biden’s foreign policy. “He really believes that,” a senior White House official recently explained to me. “He really thinks that we can work together with all nations, even our enemies on issues where we have similar interests.”

That’s far from the old Donald Trump mantra of chest-thumping, whining and screeching like a wounded animal caught in a trap. It’s also a far cry from Trump’s claim, as he announced his third bid for the White House, that China was responsible for him losing the last election — which he has yet to admit he lost.

Isolationists are having a fit because of Biden’s foreign policy while cheering Trump’s insanity. They ignore reality at the cost of humanity’s existence. We are all in this together, and isolating yourself from the rest of humanity is why the hunter-gatherers deep in the Amazon are no longer among us.

Donald Trump is that man; a power-craving hunter-gatherer con artist out to stake his claim as a modern-day potentate while imbued with the pusillanimous power of a puff pastry. The world has moved on from Trump, even if his cult will still grovel and bray like wild jackasses at his flat feet.

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

The rest of us are trying to take our lessons from the midterms and move on. Trump may not realize that taking away a woman’s right to make her own medical choices is contrary to democratic principles; he may not acknowledge that denying the 2020 election results subverts democracy and he obviously does not care what the rest of us think. But Trump and his minions are in the minority, and after four years of Donald Trump the midterms made one thing exceedingly clear: He’s done. He can ravage the country, he can cause suffering and pain, but he has no legacy to maintain and nothing positive to give to society. Rupert Murdoch has tossed him on the dung heap of history. Mike Pompeo swiped at his former boss and called on the GOP not to get caught “staring in the rearview mirror claiming victimhood.”

It appears that what passes for Republicans in this day and age have had enough of getting their asses handed to them because of the meanderings of Trump and his mindless minions. But that is expected from those with any common sense at all. Veteran Republicans, delighting in their own rectitude, still labor under the false assumption that they are righteous — so they venerate themselves while dismissing the man they followed and lavished with praise until it was no longer profitable to do so.

Joe Biden exhales as “red wave” runs dry: And he can’t wait for Trump-DeSantis grudge match

That, of course, fails to describe Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, Louie Gohmert and a handful of other crusty miscreants whose sum total of wisdom and maturity couldn’t fill a thimble. They are the weakest of the weak, proud to be on display and far too ignorant to understand their sideshow status. They, like Trump, demand to be heard for no reason other than they’ve soiled their own laundry.

Donald Trump has always attracted himself to such people and made the mistake of seeing weakness as a merit and inferiority as a superior asset. So have Pompeo, Bill Barr and others who once attached themselves to Trump like blood-sucking remoras to sharks.

Those characters and others like them are now looking for a new shark, and many are drawn to DeSantis — who so far has yet to engage the former president, though Trump has trolled him several times recently. As previously noted here, Joe Biden has taken some pleasure in what now looks to be a DeSantis vs. Trump death match.

It’s obvious that neither Cheney nor Kinzinger can win the Republican nomination in 2024 — but they’d be a major threat to Biden and the Democrats if they did.

But that may be missing the point as well. Trump will get a lot of attention from the press. DeSantis will too. But the Democrats don’t need to fear either of them. They’d both be far easier to vanquish than the potential threat neither Democrats nor Republicans can see coming: The re-emergence of a legitimate conservative party in America, whether it’s called the Republican Party or something else. Democrats have been pushing for that since they got into office, most notably by giving Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger prominent positions on the Jan. 6 committee. The president often talks about “traditional” Republicans and has described the MAGA crowd as “a minority portion of the party” — which admittedly could mean as much as 49.9 percent of Republican voters. On this I agree. Many Republicans saw Trump as the easiest path to victory, and they love to win. Now that Trump no longer looks like a winner, where will those voters end up?

Biden’s actions could be inadvertently responsible for the greatest threat to Democratic victory in 2024: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

At this point it’s obvious that neither of them could win the Republican nomination, but a Cheney/Kinzinger ticket (with Cheney at the top) would be a frightening prospect for Democrats, especially if Biden chooses not to run for re-election. Liz Cheney is not the hero many perceive her to be at the moment — but what politician is? She has a following, and is an appealing candidate for her patriotic response to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

That appeal supersedes the fact that for most of Trump’s administration she was one of his staunchest political allies.

Of course Cheney is persona non grata among the MAGA maggots, but she’s still a potential breakthrough GOP candidate. How ironic would it be for the party that continuously tries to tell women what to do with their bodies to have the honor of electing the first female president?

Pondering a possible Cheney campaign, a young GOP voter told me that the “woke liberals would eat their hearts out.” This was a 26-year-old African-American who works in retail management. He is religious, a former high school football star and a conservative Republican. He belongs to the young Republican crowd that believes Democrats are all socialists, fascists and anti-American. He only votes for Democrats, he said, when the Republicans “are crazy.” He didn’t vote for Trump and he doesn’t like DeSantis. But he says he is intrigued by Cheney and Kinzinger.

To be sure, Donald Trump has a far better chance of becoming the Republican nominee in 2024 than Cheney does — and the Republicans are far closer to slipping deeper into authoritarianism than embracing the lessons they might learn from last week’s midterm elections. For the moment, Cheney remains a young conservative’s pipe dream.

Perhaps Democrats should stop slapping themselves on the back and reflect on the fact that they managed to lose the House to a party of election deniers, clowns, con artists and thieves.

The Democrats could learn something from the midterms as well. True, they stopped the “red wave,” but not on the strength of their candidates. It was because of the issues. The voters, in many cases, chose what they saw as the lesser of two evils. And as we all know, the problem with doing that is that you are still choosing evil.

So what should the Democrats learn? Perhaps they might reflect on the fact that they still lost control of the House — by an agonizingly narrow margin — to a political party filled with election deniers, clowns, reprobates, con artists, thieves and robber barons. The Republicans are gradually morphing into the Nazi Party and the Democrats still lost seats? Christ, how ineffective can you be?

However low the Republicans set the bar, the flaccid Democrats barely crawled over it. The message from the Democrats after the midterms is that “people voted for democracy.” Actually, that remains to be seen. Democrats are slapping themselves on the back because they didn’t lose as badly as the pundits, pollsters and press thought they would. That’s not cause for gloating.

Can we aim a little higher? The country still needs much better voter turnout if democracy is to win. One thing people close to Trump have noted is that for all the supposed high engagement in these midterms, there were plenty of precincts across the country where voter turnout was below 50 percent. That, I was told, favors Trump in his 2024 bid. Trump’s people are rabid voters — when he’s actually on the ballot. If all goes according to whatever plan Trump has — and let’s face it, he never really has a plan — those Trump voters could give him the Republican nomination and sweep him into the White House again while the rest of us sleep.

I don’t buy it. Donald Trump has failed to learn a lesson from reality, as so many times before in his life.

The world has moved past him.

I still don’t believe he’ll be on the ballot in the 2024 general election.

He is and remains a pariah. What’s left of the Republican Party, held hostage by Trump for the last six years, is struggling to move on, despite its natural tendencies to play the role of the Gimp in “Pulp Fiction.”

The Democrats, should Biden decide to run again, are potentially putting an octogenarian on the ballot against a lunatic septuagenarian.

I pray there are other, better options.

As Pete Townshend once told us, “I get on my knees and pray, we won’t get fooled again.”

So “Who’s Next?” (That’s the album containing that song.)

I hope it’s someone who values democracy.

We all know that isn’t Donald Trump.

about the aftermath of Trump’s “big” announcement

Medicare plan finder likely won’t note new $35 cap on out-of-pocket insulin costs

A big cut in prescription drug prices for some Medicare beneficiaries kicks in next year, but finding those savings isn’t easy.

Congress approved in August a $35 cap on what seniors will pay for insulin as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, along with free vaccines and other Medicare improvements. But the change came too late to add to the Medicare plan finder, the online tool that helps beneficiaries sort through dozens of drug and medical plans for the best bargain.

Officials say the problem affects only 2023 plans.

To fix anticipated enrollment mistakes, Medicare officials will give beneficiaries who use insulin a chance to switch plans next year. They can make one change after Dec. 8 and throughout 2023 through a special enrollment period for “exceptional circumstances.” Typically, people are locked in for an entire year.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provided initial details of the opportunity in a document distributed to the State Health Insurance Assistance Program, or SHIP, which assists Medicare enrollees in every state. Although Medicare did not publicize the document, beneficiaries can get more information by contacting their local SHIP office. CMS officials would not answer questions about whether the ability to change plans will be granted automatically.

“We are pleased that CMS is offering the special enrollment period that will allow insulin users to change plans in 2023,” said Chris Reeg, director of the Ohio Senior Health Insurance Information Program.

In some cases, a special enrollment period can be avoided, said Janet Stellmon, director of the Montana State Health Insurance Assistance Program. If the plan charges more than a $35 copayment for a member’s insulin, a SHIP counselor can ask the plan to correct the mistake. “Plans usually try to make it right quickly,” said Stellmon, who helped one beneficiary save $565 a month on insulin.

Medicare patients spent $1 billion in 2020 on insulin products — four times the amount in 2007, with some paying as much as $116 a month out-of-pocket, KFF has found. Americans paid an average of five to 10 times as much for insulin in 2018 than in other countries, according to a recent study. About 3.3 million people with Medicare rely on one or more insulin products to control blood sugar levels.

The $35 copay for injectable insulin products takes effect Jan. 1, and July 1 for patients who use an insulin pump.

When beneficiaries who use insulin now check the plan finder, the price could show up as thousands of dollars a year instead of the maximum $420 stipulated by law. An inaccurate price could also distort the costs of other drugs, which depend on what coverage phase patients reach. For example, once both the plan and the patient spend a total of $4,660 for all drugs next year, the member pays no more than 25% of the cost for non-insulin drugs.

It’s extremely difficult for consumers to evaluate policy options without the plan finder. One plan might have the lowest price for one drug but not another. Or a plan might have the lowest premium but higher drug prices. Or a preferred pharmacy in one plan may be excluded in another.

Medicare officials caution consumers about the problem. “This new $35 cap may not be reflected when you compare plans,” according to a warning that pops up during a plan finder search. “You should talk to someone for help comparing plans,” it says, pointing readers to the Medicare help line — 800-633-4227 — or a counselor with SHIP. It doesn’t mention the option of changing plans after the Dec. 7 enrollment deadline.

But both SHIP counselors and representatives answering the Medicare help line rely on the same flawed plan finder.

Georgia Gerdes at AgeOptions in Oak Park, Illinois, trains people across the state to assist Medicare beneficiaries. She said she searches for policies without adding insulin to a client’s medication list and separately searches plans that cover the type of insulin the client takes. Then she reviews those lists to see which ones on the insulin list are also on the list of non-insulin drugs and manually adds the $35 monthly insulin cost before making recommendations.

Medicare beneficiaries filled prescriptions for at least 114 kinds of insulin in 2020, and those who did not get low-income subsidies paid on average $572 out-of-pocket, according to the KFF study.

But drug plans do not have to cover all injectable insulins, said Tatiana Fassieux, an education and training specialist at California Health Advocates. “It’s all about the formulary,” she added, referring to the plans’ covered drugs.

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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

“I don’t want to be a vampire, I want to be a werewolf”: Herschel Walker campaign gets more bizarre

Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker ranted about werewolves and vampires during a campaign stop on Wednesday amid a series of bizarre statements that left observers scratching their heads.

Walker, the Trump-backed former NFL running back facing Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., in a run-off election on December 6, went off on a lengthy tangent about the film “Freak Night” during a speech in McDonough, Ga.

“I was here watching a stupid movie late at night hoping it’s gonna get better, it don’t get better but you keep watching anyway. Cause the other night, the other night I was watching this movie — I was watching this movie called “Fright Night,” “Freak Night” or some type of night but it was about vampires,” he said. “I don’t know if you know but vampires are some cool people, are they not?”

“But let me tell you something that I found out: a werewolf can kill a vampire, did you know that?” he added. “I never knew that. So I don’t want to be a vampire anymore, I wanna be a werewolf.”

Another woman has stepped forward alleging Herschel Walker paid for her abortion

Walker went on to describe the plot, explaining the kids in the film got an actor to try to kill the vampire in their attic, before making a comparison to Warnock.

“Now this is an actor, he’s all fake, he’s blessing the house with his holy water. They walked upstairs, and this vampire, looking real good in this black suit — whoa now that sounds like Senator Warnock now, doesn’t it?” Walker said. “Looking real good in this black suit, floated from the ceiling, he floated from the ceiling looking good, and cool. And I’m thinking, whoa, you better get out of your house. If somebody floats from the ceiling get out of the house, that’s not your house.”

Walker then attempted to turn the story into a parable.

“As he floated by the ceiling, the kid jumped behind our hero, and as he jumped behind the hero, the guy jumped in front of him with the holy water, thrown it on him, on the vampire’s forehead. He covers his eyes,” he said. “Then he took his hand away. He started laughing. He said, ‘that don’t work.’ He took the cross, put it on his forehead, on the vampire’s forehead, and the vampire didn’t even do anything. Now he said, ‘that don’t work,’ and that’s the way it is in our life. It doesn’t work, unless you got faith… we gotta have faith.”

"I don't know if you know, vampires are cool people, are they not?" — Herschel Walker's speeches are somehow even less coherent than his TV appearances. Like, what it this. pic.twitter.com/nl0UmtKa26

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 16, 2022

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, played the clip to demonstrate that Walker is “ill-equipped on so many levels.”

“I’ve got to say, it’s some rambling incoherence taken to Olympian levels,” he said.

“Seriously…seriously, what the hell was that?!” tweeted Jaime Harrison, the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

“There are no werewolves in Tom Holland’s 1985 film Fright Night,” wrote journalist Adam Ward.

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

Walker has repeatedly made eyebrow-raising statements on the campaign trail, suggesting that the solution to high insulin costs is to “eat right,” suggesting Medicaid “has not been good” when asked about expanding it, and criticizing climate change solutions by arguing that the United States’ “good air” will “float over to China’s bad air.”

Walker on Monday attacked the growing green energy industry, arguing that Georgia is not “ready for the green agenda.”

“What we need to do is keep having those gas-guzzling cars, ’cause we got the good emissions under those cars,” Walker said.

Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker (R): "If we was ready for the green agenda, I'd raise my hand right now. But we're not ready right now … What we need to do is keep having those gas-guzzling cars, 'cause we got the good emissions under those cars." pic.twitter.com/KwEIEpdg8C

— The Recount (@therecount) November 14, 2022

During a campaign stop in Jefferson on Tuesday, Walker appeared surprised to learn that there is early voting in his election.

“I don’t think they have early voting, do they?” he said before being corrected by a staffer.

While many Republican candidates have focused on attacking Democrats over crime, Walker has admitted that he has “no idea” what his solution is. Local news outlet WMAZ this week tried to get more details on Walker’s crime plan but came up empty.

“We asked his campaign again Tuesday,” the outlet reported. “They did not respond.”

about Herschel Walker

Patients complain some obesity care startups offer pills, and not much else

Many Americans turn to the latest big idea to lose weight — fad diets, fitness crazes, dodgy herbs and pills, bariatric surgery, just to name a few. They’re rarely the magic solution people dream of.

Now a wave of startups offer access to a new category of drugs coupled with intensive behavioral coaching online. But already concerns are emerging.

These startups, spurred by hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from blue-chip venture capital firms, have signed up well over 100,000 patients and could reach millions more. These patients pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to access new drugs, called GLP-1 agonists, along with online coaching to encourage healthy habits.

The startups initially positioned themselves in lofty terms. “This is the last weight loss program you’ll try,” said a 2020 marketing analysis by startup Calibrate Health, in messaging designed to reach one of its target demographics, the “Working Mom.” (Company spokesperson Michelle Wellington said the document does not reflect Calibrate’s current marketing strategy.)

But while doctors and patients are intrigued by the new model, some customers complain online that reality is short of the buildup: They say they got canned advice and unresponsive clinicians — and some report they couldn’t get the newest drugs.

Calibrate Health, a New York City-based startup, reported earlier this year it had served 20,000 people. Another startup, Found, headquartered in San Francisco, has served 160,000 patients since July 2020. Calibrate costs patients nearly $1,600 a year, not counting the price of drugs, which can hit nearly $1,500 monthly without insurance, according to drug price savings site GoodRx. (Insurers reimburse for GLP-1 agonists in limited circumstances, patients said.) Found offers a six-month plan for nearly $600, a company spokesperson said. (That price includes generic drugs, but not the newer GLP-1 agonists, like Wegovy.)

The two companies are beneficiaries of over $200 million in combined venture funding, according to tracking by Crunchbase, a repository of venture capital investments. The firms say they’re on the vanguard of weight care, both citing the influence of biology and other scientific factors as key ingredients to their approaches.

There’s potentially a big market for these startups. Just over 4 in 10 Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, driving up their risk for cardiovascular conditions and Type 2 diabetes. Effective medical treatments are elusive and hard to access.

Centers that provide this specialty care “are overwhelmed,” said Dr. Fatima Stanford, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General in Boston, a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard. Her own clinic has a waitlist of 3,000.

Stanford, who said she has advised several of these telemedicine startups, is bullish on their potential.

Dr. Scott Butsch, director of obesity medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said the startups can offer care with less judgment and stigma than in-person peers. They’re also more convenient.

Butsch, who learned about the model through consultancies, patients, and colleagues, wonders whether the startups are operating “to strategically find which patients respond to which drug.” He said they should coordinate well with behavioral specialists, as antidepressants or other medications may be driving weight gain. “Obesity is a complex disease and requires treatments that match its complexity,” he said. “I think programs that do not have a multidisciplinary team are less comprehensive and, in the long term, less effective.”

The startups market a two-pronged product: first, the new class of GLP-1 agonists. While these medications are effective at provoking weight loss, Wegovy, one of two in this class specifically approved for this purpose, is in short supply due to manufacturing difficulties, according to its maker, Novo Nordisk. Others in the category can be prescribed off-label. But doctors generally aren’t familiar with the medications, Stanford said. In theory, the startups can bridge some of those gaps: They offer more specialized, knowledgeable clinicians.

Then there’s the other prong: behavioral changes. The companies use televisits and online messaging with nutritionists or coaches to help patients incorporate new diet and exercise habits. The weight loss figures achieved by participants in clinical trials for the new drugs — up to 15% of body mass — were tied to such changes, according to Novo Nordisk.

Social media sites are bursting with these startups’ ads, everywhere from podcasts to Instagram. A search of Meta’s ad library finds 40,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram between the two firms.

The ads complement people’s own postings on social media: Numerous Facebook groups are devoted to the new type of drugs — some even focused on helping patients manage side effects, like changes in their bowel movements. The buzz is quantifiable: On TikTok, mentions of the new GLP-1 agonists tripled from last June to this June, according to an analysis by investment bankers at Morgan Stanley.

There’s now a feverish, expectant appetite for these medications among the startups’ clientele. Patients often complained that their friends had obtained a drug they weren’t offered, recalled Alexandra Coults, a former pharmacist consultant for Found. Coults said patients may have perceived some sort of bait-and-switch when in reality clinical reasons — like drug contraindications — guide prescribing decisions.

Patient expectations influence care, Coults said. Customers came in with ideas shaped by the culture of fad diets and New Year’s resolutions, she said. “Quite a few people would sign up for one month and not continue.”

In interviews with KHN and in online complaints, patients also questioned the quality of care they received. Some said intake — which began by filling out a form and proceeded to an online visit with a doctor — was perfunctory. Once medication began, they said, requests for counseling about side effects were slow to be answered.

Jess Garrant, a Found patient, recalled that after she was prescribed zonisamide, a generic anticonvulsant that has shown some ability to help with weight loss, she felt “absolutely weird.”

“I was up all night and my thoughts were racing,” she wrote in a blog post. She developed sores in her mouth.

She sought advice and help from Found physicians, but their replies, she told KHN, “weren’t quick.” Nonemergency communications are routed through the company’s portal.

It took a week to complete a switch of medications and have a new prescription arrive at her home, she said. Meanwhile, she said, she went to an urgent care clinic for the mouth sores.

Found frequently prescribes generic medications — often off-label — rather than just the new GLP-1 agonists, company executives said in an interview. Found said older generics like zonisamide are more accessible than the GLP-1 agonists advertised on social media and their own website. Both Butsch and Stanford said they’ve prescribed zonisamide successfully. Butsch said ramping up dosage rapidly can increase the risk of side effects.

But Dr. Kim Boyd, chief medical officer of competitor Calibrate, said the older drugs “just haven’t worked.”

Patients of both companies have critiqued online and in interviews the startups’ behavioral care — which experts across the board maintain is integral to successful weight loss treatment. But some patients felt they simply had canned advice.

Other patients said they had ups and downs with their coaches. Dana Crom, an attorney, said she had gone through many coaches with Calibrate. Some were good, effective cheerleaders; others, not so good. But when kinks in the program arose, she said, the coach wasn’t able to help her navigate them. While the coach can report trouble with medications or the app, it appears those reports are no more effective than messages sent through the portal, Crom said.

And what about when her yearlong subscription ends? Crom said she’d consider continuing with Calibrate.

Relationships with coaches, given the need to change behavior, are a critical element of the business models. Patients’ results depend “on how adherent they are to lifestyle changes,” said Found’s chief medical officer, Dr. Rekha Kumar.

While the startups offer care to a larger geographic footprint, it’s not clear whether the demographics of their patient populations are different from those of the traditional bricks-and-mortar model. Calibrate’s patients are overwhelmingly white; over 8 in 10 have at least an undergraduate degree; over 8 in 10 are women, according to the company.

And its earlier marketing strategies reflected that. The September 2020 “segmentation” document laid out three types of customers the company could hope to attract: perimenopausal or menopausal women, with income ranging from $75,000 to $150,000 a year; working mothers, with a similar income; and “men.”

Isabelle Kenyon, Calibrate’s CEO, said the company now hopes to expand its reach to partner with large employers, and that will help diversify its patients.

Patients will need to be convinced that the model — more affordable, more accessible — works for them. For her part, Garrant, who no longer is using Found, reflected on her experience, writing in her blog post that she was hoping for more follow-up and a more personal approach. “I don’t think it’s a helpful way to lose weight,” she said.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

How California’s initiative to fund electric vehicles went terribly wrong

Back in June, a measure to tax the wealthiest Californians to raise funds for electric vehicles and wildfire fighting qualified for the state ballot. At first, it seemed like a clear winner. The initiative had the support of hundreds of environmental and public health groups, unions, firefighters, and elected officials. The American Lung Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the California Democratic Party all endorsed it, with 63 percent of voters saying they would support the measure on election day this November.

If any state would support a tax for climate action it would be California, where nearly two-thirds of residents believe local officials should do more to address climate change. But on Tuesday, Californians resoundingly rejected the initiative, with 59 percent voting it down.

What happened? How did an immensely popular environmental ballot initiative fail in a state that prides itself on being one of the most progressive on climate?

In short: A governor broke party ranks, billionaires launched an opposition campaign, and a corporation with a PR problem turned out to be a major liability. Let’s dig in.

The surprise twist came in late July, soon after the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop 30, as the measure was called. Governor Newsom and the California Teachers Association announced their formal opposition. The teachers association took issue with putting “a special interest lock box” on taxes that would traditionally fund schools. Governor Gavin Newsom narrowed his sights on the rideshare company Lyft, the proposition’s primary funder. He started campaigning heavily against the measure, starring in a September television ad where he asked Californians to vote against “[Lyft’s] sinister scheme to grab a huge taxpayer funded subsidy.” He even donated his own re-election funds to the opposition group.

“Gavin Newsom has a lot of credibility as a climate advocate in the state,” said Catherine Wolfram, a climate and energy economics professor at University of California, Berkeley. “The fact that he came out against Prop 30, voters paid attention to that.”

California law requires rideshare companies to log 90 percent of all miles in electric vehicles by 2030, and Newsom accused Lyft of trying to use taxpayer dollars to foot the bill for its transition to electric. Once Newsom spoke out against the measure, it started slipping in the polls.

Corporate involvement in drafting and promoting legislation is something that many Californians take issue with, and with good reason. In 2020, Lyft and Uber pushed through a heavily contested measure, Prop 22, to reclassify workers as contractors, which gets companies off the hook for providing minimum wage, overtime, health care, and other benefits.

Lyft spent over $45 million on a California ballot measure to fund electric vehicles that failed on Tuesday. (Ramin Talaie/Corbis via Getty Images)But in this case, Prop 30 wasn’t exactly the carve out for Lyft that Newsom said it was. According to the clean transportation groups who devised the measure, Lyft came on, mostly as a funder, once the basic contours of the measure were already established. “There was nothing in there that specifically mentioned Lyft,” said Steven Maviglio, who consulted on press strategy for the proposition. “The measure would have benefitted low- to middle-income Californians by subsidizing electric vehicles and installing charging stations in their neighborhoods. Lyft would have benefitted in that its drivers fall into the category of being Californians.” The measure slated 50 percent of its EV funding for low-income communities, which are disproportionately impacted by air pollution.

The money raised from the Prop 30 tax, an estimated $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, would have gone to the California Air Resources Board, the Energy Commission, and CAL FIRE, state agencies Newsom funds with his own budget to reach California’s climate targets. These include a 40 percent emissions reduction by 2030 and 100 percent EV sales by 2035 in a state where transportation comprises 50 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to some of the worst air quality in the country.

Beyond Lyft’s involvement, there are other reasons Newsom and other Prop 30 opponents pushed back against the measure. Some of the biggest funders of the opposition campaign were billionaires who would have been affected by the 1.75 percent tax increase on incomes over $2 million a year. Top donors to the No to Prop 30 campaign included Netflix Founder Reed Hastings, investment company founder Mark Heising, Sequoia Capital venture capitalist Michael Moritz, and Catherine Dean, chief operating officer of Govern for California, an influential donor network composed primarily of Bay Area venture capitalists and tech executives. Several of the big Prop 30 contributors, like Hastings, Dean, and Heising, were also big supporters of Newsom’s 2022 gubernatorial reelection bid, with some maxing out allowed donation levels.

Newsom expressed his concerns about increasingly relying on high-income earners to fund state programs. California gets most of its revenue from income taxes, and people who make over $2 million — the 0.2 percent of residents, taxed at 13.3 percent of their income — already make up 30 percent of the state’s income tax revenue, according to CalMatters. This pool can be a volatile and unstable source of funding as it is heavily tied to fluctuating markets. Other opponents expressed concerns about driving high-income earners out of the state, although studies show the people moving out of California are low- and middle-income residents who can no longer afford to live there; high earners are the ones moving in.

Opponents also argued that California ballot measures that carve out portions of the budget for specific issues limit the flexibility of the governor and the legislature to allocate funds. “Climate is such a big topic and there are interlocking issues,” said Wolfram. “Ballot propositions are the wrong way to do climate policy.”

Ultimately, Lyft was the opposition’s biggest talking point. “The other side never got around that Lyft had written and funded the campaign,” said Matthew Rodriguez, campaign manager for No on Prop 30.

Maviglio, who has consulted on strategy for California environmental measures like the plastic bag ban and the water bond, warned against reading the vote as an indication of voter’s beliefs on climate change or progressive taxation. It’s much easier to get a “no” vote on a ballot measure than a “yes,” he said, so long as the opposition can sow some seeds of doubt in the minds of voters, which in this case they were able to do by focusing on Lyft. “The conversation was never about the actual policy,” said Bill Magavern, policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air.

What’s next for the future of EVs in the state? The good news is there is money for clean transportation. After lobbying from Newsom, California legislators recently approved a historic $54 billion in climate spending with $10 billion set aside for electric vehicle funding over five years. There is also money from the federal Inflation Reduction Act coming in for EV incentives, as well as an expected $384 million from the Infrastructure Bill for charging stations in California. But experts say it’s nowhere near enough. “The $10 billion is a promise, not a law,” said Magavern, adding that past electric vehicle subsidy programs in the state have consistently run out of money. Lack of charging stations has also emerged as a clear roadblock in efforts to mandate the transition to electric trucks for the shipping industry. And while the past two years have seen big budget surpluses, Governor Newsom has already warned about restrictions next year; Magavern worries that climate change programs will be among the first to be cut.

“We are in a crisis when it comes to climate and air pollution and wildfires,” said Magavern. “To meet the emergency, we needed to do something out of the ordinary. [A tax increase] wouldn’t pass the legislature so it took something like a ballot initiative.”

Meanwhile in New York, a historic $4.2 billion bond act for conservation, water quality infrastructure, flood risk reduction, and climate change mitigation passed with no organized opposition. The measure, which will allow the state to raise money for projects by taking on debt, also had a large coalition of environmental and labor groups behind it, and is projected to create 84,000 jobs across New York State. “New Yorkers said ‘yes’ to investing in clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, reduced flooding, environmental justice, and jobs,” said Kate Boicourt, director of climate resilient coasts and watersheds for the New York chapter of the Environmental Defense Fund. “This act… is a win for everyone and will make an impact in communities across the state for generations to come.”