Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Shopping for ACA health insurance? Here’s what’s new this year

It’s fall again, meaning shorter days, cooler temperatures, and open enrollment for Affordable Care Act marketplace insurance — sign-ups begin this week for coverage that starts Jan. 1, 2023. Even though much of the coverage stays the same from year to year, there are a few upcoming changes that consumers should note this fall, especially if they are having trouble buying expensive policies through their employer.

In the past year, the Biden administration and Congress have taken steps — mainly related to premiums and subsidies — that will affect 2023 coverage. Meanwhile, confusion caused by court decisions may trigger questions about coverage for preventive care or for abortion services.

Open enrollment for people who buy health insurance through the marketplaces begins Nov. 1 and, in most states, lasts through Jan. 15. To get coverage that begins Jan. 1, enrollment usually must occur by Dec. 15.

Many people who get coverage through their jobs also must select a plan at this time of year. And their decisions could be affected by new ACA rules.

So, what’s new, and what should you know if you’re shopping? Here are five things to keep in mind.

1. Some Families Who Did Not Qualify for ACA Subsidies Now Do

One big change is that some families who were barred from getting federal subsidies to help them purchase ACA coverage may now qualify.

A rule recently finalized by the Treasury Department was designed to address what has long been termed the “family glitch.” The change expands the number of families with job-based insurance who can choose to forgo their coverage at work and qualify for subsidies to get an ACA plan instead. The White House estimates that this adjustment could help about 1 million people gain coverage or get more affordable insurance.

Before, employees could qualify for a subsidy for marketplace insurance only if the cost of their employer-based coverage was considered unaffordable based on a threshold set each year by the IRS. But that determination took into account only how much a worker would pay for insurance for himself or herself. The cost of adding family members to the plan was not part of the calculation, and family coverage is often far more expensive than employee-only coverage. The families of employees who fall into the “glitch,” either go uninsured or pay more through their jobs for coverage than they might if they were able to get an ACA subsidy.

Now, the rules say eligibility for the subsidy must also consider the cost of family coverage.

“For the first time, a lot of families will have a real choice between an offer of employer-sponsored coverage and a marketplace plan with subsidies,” said Sabrina Corlette, a researcher and co-director at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

Workers will now be able to get marketplace subsidies if their share of the premium for their job-based coverage exceeds 9.12% of their expected 2023 income.

Now, two calculations will occur: the cost of the employee-only coverage as a percentage of the worker’s income and the cost of adding family members. In some cases, the worker may decide to remain on the employer plan because his or her payment toward coverage falls below the affordability threshold, but the family members will be able to get a subsidized ACA plan.

Previous legislative efforts to resolve the family glitch failed, and the Biden administration’s use of regulation to fix it is controversial. The move might ultimately be challenged in court. Still, the rules are in place for 2023, and experts, including Corlette, said families who could benefit should go ahead and enroll.

“It will take a while for all that to get resolved,” she said, adding that it is unlikely there would be any decision in time to affect policies for 2023.

An Urban Institute analysis published last year estimated that the net savings per family might be about $400 per person and that the cost to the federal government for new subsidies would be $2.6 billion a year. Not every family would save money by making the change, so experts say people should weigh the benefits and potential costs.

2. Preventive Care Will Still Be Covered Without a Copay, but Abortion Coverage Will Vary

Many people with insurance are happy when they go in for a cancer screening, or seek other preventive care, and find they don’t have to pay anything out-of-pocket. That comes from a provision in the ACA that bars cost sharing for a range of preventive services, including certain tests, vaccines, and drugs. But a September ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas led to confusion about what might be covered next year. The judge declared unconstitutional one method the government uses to determine some of the preventive treatments that are covered without patient cost sharing.

Ultimately, that might mean patients will have to start paying a share of the cost of cancer screenings or drugs that prevent the transmission of HIV. The judge has yet to rule on how many people the case will affect. But, for now, the ruling applies only to the employers and individuals who brought the lawsuit. So, don’t worry. Your no-cost screening mammogram or colonoscopy is still no-cost. The ruling is likely to be appealed, and no decision is expected before the start of the 2023 coverage year.

The other court decision that has raised questions is the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Even before that decision was announced in June, coverage of abortion services in insurance plans varied by plan and by state.

Now it’s even more complicated as more states move to ban or restrict abortion.

State insurance rules vary.

Twenty-six states restrict abortion coverage in ACA marketplace plans, while seven states require it as a benefit in both ACA plans and employer plans purchased from insurers, according to KFF. Those states are California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

Employees and policyholders can check insurance plan documents for information about covered benefits, including abortion services.

3. Premiums Are Going Up, but That May Not Affect Most People on ACA Plans

Health insurers are raising premium rates for both ACA plans and employer coverage. But most people who get subsidies for ACA coverage won’t feel that pinch.

That’s because the subsidies are tied to the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” plan offered in a marketplace. (Marketplace plans are offered in colored “tiers,” based on how much they potentially cost policyholders out-of-pocket.) As those baseline silver plans increase in cost, the subsidies also rise, offsetting all or most of the premium increases. Still, shop around, experts advise. Switching plans might prove cost-effective.

As for subsidies, passage this summer of the Inflation Reduction Act guaranteed that the enhanced subsidies that many Americans have received under legislation tied to the covid-19 pandemic will remain in place.

People who earn up to 150% of the federal poverty level — $20,385 for an individual and $27,465 for a couple — can get an ACA plan with no monthly premium. Consumers who earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level — $54,360 for an individual and $73,240 for a couple — get sliding scale subsidies to help offset premium costs. People with incomes more than 400% are required to pay no more than 8.5% of their household income toward premiums.

For those with job-based insurance, employers generally set the amount workers must pay toward their coverage. Some employers may pass along rising costs by increasing the amounts taken out of paychecks to go toward premiums, setting higher deductibles, or changing health care benefits. But anyone whose share of their job-based coverage is expected to exceed 9.12% of their income can check to see whether they qualify for a subsidized ACA plan.

4. Debts to Insurers or the IRS Won’t Stop Coverage

Thank covid for this. Typically, people who get subsidies to buy ACA plans must prove to the government on their next tax filing that they received the correct subsidy, based on the income they actually received. If they fail to reconcile that with the IRS, policyholders would lose eligibility for the subsidy the next time they enroll. But, because of ongoing covid-related problems in processing returns at the IRS, those consumers will get another reprieve, continuing an effort set in place for the tax year 2020 by the American Rescue Plan Act.

Also, insurers can no longer deny coverage to people or employers who owe past-due premiums for previous coverage, said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF. This follows a reexamination of a wide variety of Medicare and ACA rules prompted by an April executive order from President Joe Biden.

“If people fell behind on their 2022 premiums, they nevertheless must be allowed to reenroll in 2023,” Pollitz said. “And when they make the first-month premium payment to activate coverage, the insurer must apply that payment to their January 2023 premium.”

5. Comparison Shopping Will Likely Be Easier

Although ACA plans have always been required to cover a wide range of services and offer similar benefits, variation still existed in the amounts that patients paid for office visits and other out-of-pocket costs. Starting during this year’s open enrollment, new rules aimed at making comparison easier take effect. Under the rules, all ACA health insurers must offer a set of plans with specific, standardized benefits. The standard plans will, for example, have the same deductibles, copays, and other cost-sharing requirements. They will also offer more coverage before a patient has to start paying toward a deductible.

Some states, such as California, already required similar standardization, but the new rules apply nationally to health plans sold on the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov. Any insurer offering a nonstandard plan on the marketplace must now also offer the standardized plans as well.

Under a different set of rules, starting Jan. 1, all health insurers must make available cost-comparison tools online or over the phone that can help patients predict their costs for 500 “shoppable services,” such as repairs to a knee joint, a colonoscopy, a chest X-ray, or childbirth.

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.


This story can be republished for free (details).

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.

“Too soon?”: Don Jr. mocks brutal hammer attack with meme — “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume”

Donald Trump Jr. mocked the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul on social media by sharing a “Halloween costume” intended to represent the hammer-wielding intruder.

Trump Jr. shared an image Sunday night showing a hammer lying on top of a pair of Hanes underwear with the comment: “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.”

“The internet remains undefeated … Also if you switch out the hammer for a red feather boa you could be Hunter Biden in an instant,” Trump Jr. wrote.

He also posted a screenshot of the image on his Instagram, racking 88,000 likes. The underwear in his post appears to reflect a debunked rumor that the intruder was in his underwear at the time of the attack. 

Paul Pelosi was “violently assaulted” with a hammer in his California home on October 28, according to San Francisco Police Chief William Scott. He suffered a fractured skull and injuries to his right arm and hands and underwent surgery on Friday.

The intruder planned to keep him tied up until the speaker returned home, law enforcement sources told CBS News.

The suspect, who was identified as David Wayne DePape, had a list of people he wanted to target, according to law enforcement sources that spoke with CBS News. 

DePape’s social media revealed memes and conspiracy theories he posted about Holocaust denial, COVID vaccines, pedophiles in the government and claims that Democratic officials run child sex rings.

The speaker posted a statement on Twitter saying that her family is “heartbroken and traumatized” by the “life threatening attack” on her husband. 

But right-wing personalities on Twitter mocked the attack on Paul Pelosi — with some even spreading falsehoods and amplifying misinformation. 

Larry Elder, a conservative radio host, reacted to the assault by ridiculing Pelosi for his prior charge of driving under the influence. 

“First, he’s busted for DUI, and then gets attacked in his home. Hammered twice in six months,” he wrote, adding, “Too soon?” 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., called the media a “source of misinformation” and continued to promote the falsehood that the intruder was Paul Pelosi’s friend.

“The same mainstream media democrat activists that sold conspiracy theories for years about President Trump and Russia are now blaming @elonmusk for ‘internet misinformation’ about Paul Pelosi’s friend attacking him with a hammer,” Greene tweeted


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


Others went as far as suggesting the attack was fake. Dinesh D’Souza, whose widely-debunked recent film “2000 Mules” pushed Trumpist election conspiracy theories, continued to spread misinformation on Twitter.

“The Left is going crazy because not only are we not BUYING the wacky, implausible Paul Pelosi story but we are even LAUGHING over how ridiculous it is. What this means is that we are no longer intimidated by their fake pieties. Their control over us has finally been broken,” D’Souza wrote

Arizona Republican lawmaker Wendy Rogers retweeted a post mocking the attack as “fake” and displaying a bloody hammer. 

The skepticism regarding the incident seems to have grown after Evan Sernoffsky, a reporter at the Fox-affiliated local news outlet KTVU, tweeted that the attacker was in his underwear at the time of his arrest. Sernoffsky deleted the tweet and said that sources told him this was untrue.

Some people have even floated the baseless conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi and DePape were lovers.

The Telegram channel for Bannon’s “War Room” show shared a story from “The Republic Brief” that repeated some of “the same uncorroborated details about the encounter, including that the suspect was found in his underwear,” the Washington Post reported

D’souza also amplified the theory on his Twitter.

“Were Paul Pelosi and his attacker BOTH in their underwear? BOTH holding hammers? And the attacker didn’t strike until AFTER police were on the scene? As a movie-maker, I gotta say this script must be rejected. Nothing about the public account so far makes any sense,” he wrote.

Some conservatives have tried to spin the apparently politically motivated attack by tying it to crime in San Francisco.  “Last Week Tonight” host John Oliver on Sunday called out right-wing claims linking the attack to bail reform after Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, complained on Fox News about letting “dangerous criminals” roam free and commit violence. McCaul suggested that the intruder who attacked Paul Pelosi was out on bail. 

“Now, he’s wrong about a few things there. Again, the suspect was not out on bail. Also, no one gets bailed out of prison—that’s where convicted people go,” Oliver said. 

People have continued to spread falsehoods about the hammer attack, including new Twitter owner Elon Musk, who amplified a baseless conspiracy theory from a site suggesting that Paul Pelosi was drunk and in a fight with a male prostitute. “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye,” Musk wrote before deleting the tweet hours later.

California patients fear fallout from third dialysis ballot measure

ELK GROVE, Calif. — Toni Sherwin is actually looking forward to the procedure that will relocate her dialysis port from her chest to her arm, which will be easier to keep dry. Since she started dialysis in February — as part of blood cancer treatment — she has washed her hair in the sink and stayed out of her pool to prevent water from getting into the port.

Three times a week, Sherwin, 71, drives to a dialysis clinic in Elk Grove, California, the suburb south of Sacramento where she lives, and lies tethered to a machine for about four hours while it filters her blood. The treatment exhausts her, but she feels well cared for and knows the clinic workers will call the police if she doesn’t show up for an appointment and they can’t get in touch with her directly.

“They don’t play games,” said Sherwin.

Sherwin fears her access to the clinic is in jeopardy. A sign in the clinic’s window tells patients and visitors to vote “no” on Proposition 29, the third statewide dialysis initiative in five years. It would impose new requirements on dialysis clinics, such as requiring a doctor to be on hand during treatments.

She and other California voters have also been bombarded by TV ads, in which patients in wheelchairs and doctors in scrubs warn that “29 would shut down dialysis clinics throughout California.”

“We’re terrified,” said Sherwin. “If they stop it, where are we going to go? We just die.”

Sherwin is among roughly 80,000 Californians who rely on 650 dialysis clinics tucked into strip malls and medical centers around the state. Patients arrive in medical transport vans, minivans, and the occasional ride-hailing vehicle and are often too tired and hungry after treatment to drive themselves home. They drag duffel bags and pillows into clinics, prepared to sit for four or five hours at a time, typically three days a week, as their blood is cleaned and filtered through a machine because their kidneys can no longer perform those functions.

Proposition 29 would require clinics to report infections to the state and tell patients when doctors have a financial stake in a clinic, rules that are similar to existing federal regulations.

The biggest flashpoint is the requirement to have a doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant present at every clinic while patients are being treated.

Requiring a clinician on-site would increase each facility’s costs by “several hundred thousand dollars annually on average,” according to an analysis by the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office. To deal with the additional costs, the analysis concluded, clinics have three options: negotiate higher rates with insurers, lose profits, or close facilities.

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which is sponsoring Proposition 29, said reforms are necessary to keep patients safe during the physically arduous dialysis process. The union — which has tried but failed to organize dialysis workers — argues that the treatment is dangerous and that patients need access to highly trained medical professionals to deal with emergencies instead of relying on 911.

The union was also behind the two previous dialysis ballot initiatives, which failed by wide margins. Proposition 8 in 2018 would have capped industry profits, while Proposition 23 in 2020 was nearly identical to this year’s measure. Both broke records for campaign spending.

The Proposition 29 opposition campaign, funded mostly by the dialysis industry, says keeping a doctor or nurse practitioner around at all times is both costly and unnecessary. Clinics employ registered nurses who check on patients and medical directors — physicians who oversee facilities but are often on-site only part time. About three quarters of California’s dialysis clinics are owned or operated by two companies: DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care.

So far, both sides have raised at least $94 million, according to the Los Angeles Times, with roughly 85% coming from DaVita and Fresenius.

Joe Damian, 71, doesn’t buy the claim that clinics would close if Proposition 29 passed. Of course, he said, he’d feel more comfortable if a doctor were on-site when his wife, Yolanda, has her treatments. He also believes dialysis companies would continue to make money hand over fist.

“How could it not be better?” he asked. “They just don’t want to give up any of their profits.”

Damian drives his wife to her treatments in Elk Grove. He understands why other patients and their families are worried about clinics closing but thinks the industry is fearmongering.

“Closing facilities is a threat they’ll never do,” he said. “Why would they close a moneymaking business?”

Proposition 29 includes provisions intended to protect against clinic closures, such as requiring facilities to get approval from the state before they end or reduce services, but opponents argue the provisions won’t hold up in court.

Nearly all the patients interviewed going to or from dialysis appointments at five Sacramento-area clinics had witnessed workers call 911 for another patient. Most said the emergencies had been handled well by the workers and emergency personnel. Overall, they said, they felt the dialysis clinics took good care of them.

The majority of patients had internalized the language of the opposition ads that warned of clinic closures.

Norbie Kumagai, 65, spent last Thanksgiving at University of California-Davis Medical Center, and his family was told it was time to say goodbye. But Kumagai, who has stage 4 kidney disease and high blood pressure, pulled through and had to wait months for a dialysis chair to open up at a clinic in West Sacramento, about 13 miles from his home in Davis.

Kumagai generally agrees that the dialysis industry needs reforms. For instance, he said, he’d like the technicians who help him each week to get pay raises.

But he’s worried about what Proposition 29 might mean for the treatments that keep him alive.

“I’ve told my friends and neighbors I’m scared to death if it passes,” Kumagai said. “This facility will probably close.”


This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

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.

There’s a “safe limit” to how much candy you can binge before it starts doing damage to your body

Autumn is a great time for costume parties, scary movies, family gatherings — and spontaneous sugar binges. Indeed, come autumn, sugary candy, drinks and sweets are everywhere: candy bowls and home-baked treats appear in offices, while candy proliferates in households with trick-or-treating children. The ubiquity of sweets is enough to make even the most health-conscious among us slip a little.

But if you don’t often eat candy, you might wonder if a spontaneous binge is something to actually worry about. Is “borrowing” ten or twelve Reese’s from your kids’ Halloween bag really all that bad for your body if you avoid high amounts of processed sugar for most of the rest of the year? And what is actually happening inside our guts when we do eat too much sugar once in a while? 

Salon spoke with a few different doctors and health experts to answer these questions — among them, Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist and professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco. Talking to Lustig, it quickly became clear that he perceives scarfing down candy as feeding an addiction, not just some harmless pastime.

“If you binge on sugar you are activating the brain dopamine system, which can set off a sugar craving cascade that can make you want more and more.”

“If you take the alcoholic, how many drinks before they end up under the table?” Lustig asked. When I replied that it depends on the drink, Lustig exclaimed “Right? Depends on the drink! Depends on the alcoholic: How big they are, how much they weigh. It depends on a lot of things.”

Lustig completed his analogy: An alcoholic may require more drinks before they feel intoxicated, but it actually will take fewer drinks to cause lasting damage to their body because their previous drinking has already led to so much harm. By contrast, “the person who is alcohol-naïve, how many drinks can that person drink before he damages his liver? Probably about ten.”

The alcoholism-sugar addiction analogy offers a useful framework for understanding the dangers of sugar binging, but it doesn’t get at the core of what happens when we eat a large amount of sugar. The underlying issue is that when you eat too much sugar from foods like soft drinks and candy, your body pays a price. Perhaps the worst damage is the accumulation of visceral fat, a type of deep body fat that accumulates near vital organs like the liver, intestines, stomach and arteries. Sugar consumption is linked to everything from cardiovascular diseases and diabetes to fatty liver disease and dental cavities.

Specifically eating too much fructose (the type of sugar in most fruit) can create resistance to leptin, a hormone that tells your body when it needs to stop eating. As such, eating sugar can quickly become a self-sustaining cycle, as your body consumes more and more of the potentially deadly substance while enjoying the dopamine hits that accompany tasting something delicious.

Yet in theory one can resist fate by practicing moderation. Is there a gray area? How much damage can be done to the body by periodic bouts of binge eating sugary treats?


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


Dr. James DiNicolantonio — the Associate Editor of British Medical Journal’s (BMJ) Open Heart and a cardiovascular research scientist and doctor of pharmacy at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City — spoke with Salon by email to answer that question.

“The acute effects when binging on a large amount of sugar can be fructose malabsorption and gastrointestinal issues such as stomach pains, bloating, diarrhea, et cetera,” DiNicolantonio offered. He also noted “inflammation in the intestines” and “inflammation in the kidneys,” as byproducts of a sugar binge.

So is there a safe way to enjoy Halloween candy? “Eat the candy in moderation,” DiNicolantonio advised.

DiNicolantonio is not the only expert worried about sugar binging around this time of year. Dr. Nicole Avena, an assistant professor of neuroscience at Mount Sinai Medical School and a visiting professor of health psychology at Princeton University, wrote the book “Why Diets Fail: Because You’re Addicted to Sugar.” As she explained to Salon by email, it is difficult to say with certainty how any one individual will be affected by a sugar binge because so many different variables comes into play. For instance, a common dread is no longer being able to fit into one’s clothing because of a single night of culinary decadence. Where does that limit exist?

“The problem of course is that no one eats just one [piece of candy], especially not kids, and especially not on Halloween.”

“It is hard to say for sure because binge sizes can differ, and metabolic rates, etc also vary between individuals,” Avena explained. “Based off of the research, I would say about .16 lbs per day, which can add up to 1.1 lb a week. No visible alterations. But note that most people binge on sugar more than once per year — it is easy to overdo it. Just look at the amount of sugar in some popular beverages: a grande Pumpkin Spice Latte has 50 grams of sugar — which is the equivalent of more than a few pieces of Halloween candy.”

Like DiNicolantonio, Avena rattled off a list of health problems that ensue even from one night of sugar binging.

“Poor digestive health/indigestion, poor gut microbiome diversity, poor skin health,” Avena told Salon. “Also, if you binge on sugar you are activating the brain dopamine system, which can set off a sugar craving cascade that can make you want more and more.”

Avena argued that moderation is key, but emphasized that “moderation is a subjective word. I say eat two to three small pieces max, and try to opt for lower sugar options.You can also eat your candy alongside a protein, making your blood sugar spike less.”

Lustig had a specific portion size recommendation for what’s considered safe: “if you are just a standard kid or a standard adult, then 25 to 37.5 grams” of sugar is what one can safely consume in terms of Halloween candy. “That’s basically six to nine teaspoons of added sugar is the maximum,” he said. “And after that, you will do damage in two ways,” namely by causing liver fat which inhibits proper liver function and by “glycation,” or a process that results in cellular and metabolic dysfunction.”

“Six to nine teaspoons — basically we’re talking about the equivalent of two candy bars there,” Lustig advised. “The problem, of course, is that no one eats just one [piece of candy] — especially not kids, and especially not on Halloween.”

A top North Carolina county official stood up to election deniers — but they pushed back harder

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

 

On a Saturday in late March, the woman who runs elections in the rural hills of Surry County, North Carolina, was pulling another weekend shift preparing for the upcoming primary, when she began to hear on the other side of her wall the thunder of impassioned speeches. She was dismayed that the voices were questioning the election she’d overseen in 2020 and implying that corrupted voting machines had helped steal it. She also believed it was no coincidence that the Surry County GOP convention — the highlight of which was a lecture from a nationally prominent proponent of the stolen-election myth — was taking place in a public meeting room right next to her office.

The elections director, 47-year-old Michella Huff, who’d lived in the county since high school and knew many voters by name, considered it ludicrous that anyone could think the election had been rigged in Surry County. Donald Trump had received upward of 70% of the roughly 36,000 votes cast. Huff, a registered Republican for most of her adult life, had personally certified the vote.

Yet people had begun approaching Huff in church recently, saying things like, “I know you didn’t do anything, but that election was stolen.” In February, a longtime acquaintance of Huff’s cornered her in a bluegrass music store and berated her with complaints rooted in conspiracy theories. Huff started limiting her trips to town, even doing her grocery order online. “I didn’t want to have to deal with that,” she said of the election backlash. But it was hard to live in partial hiding. “I’m not that kind of person. I’m a people person.”

Unbeknownst to Huff, a national network of election deniers had been making inroads in Surry County, on the fringe of Appalachia. In early 2022, several members of the Surry County GOP had attended a training, put on by North Carolina Audit Force, which describes itself as a group that forms grassroots coalitions to “reveal election irregularities.” There, they were taught to “canvass” for election fraud by door-knocking to check for inaccuracies in public records, such as if a different person lived at an address than was listed on voter rolls. Discrepancies, canvassers claim, can indicate fraud — though experts say that canvassers often misinterpret normal imperfections in difficult-to-maintain voter lists, such as someone failing to update their address when moving. By early March, canvassers were crisscrossing Surry County, following “walk books” put together by data analysts associated with North Carolina Audit Force, who mapped routes for efficiency.

The featured lecturer at the Surry County GOP convention, Douglas Frank, is the face of the nationwide canvassing movement and claims to have established campaigns with the help of “supermoms” in at least 40 states. Frank and other speakers spent hours at the convention blaming corrupted voting machines and collusion among Democrats, Big Tech and nefarious forces for stealing the election. The assembly ultimately passed resolutions to create an election integrity task force and push for an audit, tactics espoused by Trump supporters.

The following Monday morning, Frank showed up at the service window of Huff’s office with William Keith Senter, the new chair of the Surry County GOP, and a woman who signed the guestbook as “NC Audit Force.” Huff believed that the group wanted to get inside her office — where voting equipment was kept — so she stepped into the cramped lobby with them, letting the door to her office automatically lock behind her.

The bowtie-wearing Frank began complaining to Huff about “phantom voters” discovered through canvassing and declaring that if he could just take an electromagnetic field meter tool to her DS200 ballot tabulators, he could reveal a minuscule modem that had helped switch votes from Trump to Joe Biden. It wasn’t the first time that Frank had encouraged an election official to let outsiders access election equipment. About 11 months before, he’d offered to help bring in a “team” to “audit” machines for Colorado officials, according to an affidavit for an arrest warrant of an official charged in the incident and to Frank himself. In September, Frank posted on Telegram that his phone had been seized by FBI agents investigating the incident, according to The Washington Post. Frank has not been charged.

“My objective is to help the clerk understand how they’re being hacked and what they need to do to fix it,” Frank said when asked about Colorado, using another term for election officials. In reference to Huff, he said: “I was there trying to offer a service to the clerk. I always assume clerks want to have clean elections, which is why I offered to help her find out if her machines were online or not.” Frank claimed to have convinced “dozens” of other election and county-level officials of the need to probe voting machines, “and that’s why counties all across the country are taking the machines out of the election process.”

It was not Frank who most concerned Huff, however, but Senter — a high school auto shop teacher and cattle farmer with a mechanic’s callused hands and baseball hat declaring “Pray for America” atop his silvering hair. The new GOP chair — who, according to three members of the Surry County GOP, replaced a predecessor who hadn’t sufficiently backed claims of election fraud — would remain in Huff’s orbit long after the barnstorming Frank left town. Indeed, Senter was only at the beginning of a campaign that would include efforts to drastically cut Huff’s pay and call into question even the most mundane functions of her office.

Huff told ProPublica that, as the men pressured her for more than an hour, Senter threatened that she should comply with their demands or the county commission would fire her. (She initially described this incident in an article by Reuters.) She feared that her reddening face and neck gave away her fear. (The commission has no authority to fire Huff; she is appointed by and answers to the county and state boards of elections. Senter denied threatening Huff’s job and wrote to ProPublica that “I speak loudly because I do not hear well. I drove a loud race car for years and have shot high powered rifles all of my life, so I have high frequency hearing loss.” Frank said that descriptions of Senter as threatening were “overblown,” and that “he might have been emphatic, but never, like, threatening.”)

But Huff refused to give in.

Huff is hardly the only election official struggling to stand up to those who believe the voting system is rigged; such confrontations have dramatically unfolded across the country, from Hood County, Texas, to Floyd County, Georgia, to Nye County, Nevada. Her circumstances illustrate how the efforts to target her are part of a larger playbook, with tactics that are replicated throughout the country.

“Election officials in small rural offices are absolutely more vulnerable,” said Paul Manson, who studies the demography of election officials and serves as the research director for the Elections & Voting Information Center at Reed College. Because such offices have fewer resources, Manson said, they have a harder time adapting to the increasingly controversial nature of election administration in the United States. These types of offices also represent the vast majority of the nation’s roughly 10,000 election jurisdictions, according to Manson’s research, with 48% of offices staffed by only one or two people and an additional 40% having between two and five. (Huff’s office has four full-time staff members, including her.)

As she juggled budget challenges and harassment, Huff has sought help from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, but that agency has faced struggles of its own. The GOP-dominant legislature has deprived the board of federal funding it had intended to use to hire and retain staff, instead sending it directly to counties. Moreover, groups claiming election fraud have organized campaigns against the agency, leaving it straining to support the 100 far-flung county boards of elections it oversees, officials say.

Laws and regulations were not written for the hostile environment of today, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many of the individuals challenging election officials are even using the law itself, such as overwhelming those offices with public records requests, a practice that Senter would soon take up in Surry County and that “election integrity” groups would employ against the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

Hasen warned: “The country’s election infrastructure isn’t designed to stand up to one of its two major parties turning against it.”

 

When Michella Huff accepted the job as Surry County’s elections director in 2019, she thought she knew what she was getting into. On her first day, in October, she parked at a strip mall neighbored by corn fields, a hunting supply store and a chicken processing plant, and walked into a former grocery store, which had closed as the region bled jobs and had been renovated to house the county’s tax, agricultural and elections divisions. After more than two decades as the head of groundskeeping for Mount Airy, population roughly 10,500 and the largest town in the county, located about 100 miles north of Charlotte, she was giving her aching back a rest and working in an air-conditioned office.

Each fall, for most of her adult life, she’d taken a few weeks off from mowing and planting to be a poll worker during early voting and then run a polling site as a chief precinct judge on Election Day. Though the days could be long and the pay little, she loved how some people kept their “I Voted” stickers pristine to add to lifetime collections and how others brought in homemade grape jelly for poll workers. Most of all, she was motivated by the certainty that she was making American democracy function.

After the 2020 presidential election went off smoothly, Huff was aware of the “Stop the Steal” movement promoted by Trump, but, given her knowledge of how election security worked, she knew that its claims of Venezuelan software flipping votes from Trump to Biden were baseless. In the aftermath of Jan. 6, she assured herself that that kind of chaos would never come to sleepy Surry County.

But instead of the conspiracy theories dying down, they intensified. Soon after taking the job, she had switched her party status to independent “to reflect the way that this office must be portrayed in a nonpartisan manner.” It wasn’t until Biden took office that people in the community began to ask her about this. Huff recalls that one afternoon in early March 2021, she was surprised by a visitor at her office: Kevin Shinault, her former elementary school teacher and a GOP precinct chair, who she said accused her of participating in a debunked conspiracy theory known as “Zuckerbucks.”

In 2020, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg had provided grants to election officials through the Center for Tech and Civic Life to help with unexpected pandemic expenses, and critics held that this had been part of a plot to throw the election to Joe Biden. Huff happily explained that the $48,584 she’d received from the group had been used for straightforward expenses, like hiring a Spanish-language interpreter. Nearly every election office in North Carolina had accepted such grants. Shinault, however, argued that hiring a Spanish-language interpreter had nefariously boosted Hispanic participation to the Democrats’ advantage. Huff assured him that helping Spanish-speaking voters wasn’t partisan. (Shinault did not respond to requests for comment.)

That night, Huff attended the biweekly county commissioners meeting, at which the chair of the county Elections Board asked the five county commissioners to split $20,000 left over from the previous year’s federal grants between Huff and her staff as belated hazard pay for their efforts during the pandemic. Huff figured it was a routine request. Numerous other counties had used the money this way; Surry’s bipartisan Elections Board had already signed off on it; and records show that about two months earlier, commissioners had reviewed the grants without comment.

The county commissioners, however, sharply questioned the chair of the Elections Board for nearly an hour, implying that unless more county employees got such pay, it wasn’t fair. Eddie Harris, a commissioner who works at a luxury saddle-making company his family owns, declared, “I will never take one penny from Mark Zuckerberg or any of his ilk,” calling the Meta CEO “a left-wing radical extremist bigot.” (Senter wrote to ProPublica, “As a party, we approached the commissioners and ask [sic] them to send the Zuckerbucks back, and they agreed.” Harris did not respond to requests for comment.)

Huff realized that her decadeslong relationships with people wouldn’t prevent them from envisioning her as part of some dark conspiracy. The next month, the commissioners unanimously voted to return nearly $100,000 in pandemic grant money, including the Center for Tech and Civic Life grant and around $60,000 from the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy, named for the former Republican governor of California. They also returned the $20,000 in federal funding, rather than divvying it up among the elections staff.

Huff felt that returning the money was “very unfair,” but she resolved not to let it affect her performance. The best way to rebut conspiracy theories was to run her elections perfectly. She hoped the election conspiracy theories “would be a dead issue after the money was sent back.”

But once Senter and Frank confronted her in March 2022, she realized the target on her back was permanent.

After that heated visit, Senter kept showing up at the elections office. With the service window between them, Huff helped him file public records requests, which he insisted on scrawling by hand. (He explained to ProPublica that the handwritten requests were necessary, “so they could not be doctored by anyone else.”) Huff politely did her duty, but whenever she saw him, “My gut flipped. It makes me angry that he has that power — I can’t help how my body reacts.” When Huff and her staff finished work late in the evening, police escorted them to their cars, past campaign-style signs that Senter had put up reading “The People’s Trust is SHATTERED” and “We DEMAND a Full FORENSIC Audit.” Huff repeatedly took them down, until the sheriff decided the signs should stay up, as they were legal political expression on public property.

In March and April, Senter sent numerous emails and texts to the county commissioners, which ProPublica obtained through public records requests. On March 31, he emailed the commissioners asking them to “please consider our recommendations that are in the attachment,” which included a suggestion to reduce her pay and stated that “there is NO requirement to fund any additional election support staff.” Though Huff answers to the county and state elections boards, the county commissioners set her budget and salary.

Later that day, Senter texted the commissioners, “Y’all might better get Michella in check,” complaining about her charging 5 cents per copy for public records. “It’s gonna get ugly if she don’t jump on board. Cut her salary to 12 bucks an hour like the law says you can do.” (Senter told ProPublica: “The ugly part is in reference to the phone calls, text, threats and pressure I was receiving due to her lies and deceit that she reported to the media”; but his message to the commissioners made no reference to those things, and Huff said she had not spoken to the media about Senter as of the end of March.)

North Carolina law does specify that elections directors can be paid a minimum of $12 an hour (less than $25,000 annually), but two lawyers specializing in elections told ProPublica that any attempt to drastically reduce Huff’s salary, which was $71,000 as of March, would almost certainly be struck down, as courts have found that elections director salaries must be in line with those of their peers; a ProPublica review of elections director salaries in North Carolina found that the average is about $61,000.

Commissioners responded only occasionally to Senter’s messages about Huff, according to the documents ProPublica received from public records requests, such as the commission chair texting Senter instructions for how to avoid paying for public information requests to Huff’s office. (Only one of the county commissioners responded to a request for comment. Mark Marion said, “We have signified that we are behind our elections department.” When pressed for specific instances, he pointed to “our day-to-day conversations and visits” with elections staff.)

At an April 18 commissioners meeting, Senter asked the panel during the public comment period to consider not using the county’s voting machines in the upcoming May primary because of his and others’ suspicions that they had been corrupted. He was backed by a parade of speakers, among them Shinault.

At a commissioners meeting the following month, the room was filled, with the overflow watching on a livestream. Essentially, the whole meeting was given over to election deniers, some of whom traveled from elsewhere in North Carolina and the nation and presented slideshows on the vulnerabilities of voting machines and the so-called evidence from canvassing efforts.

Near the end of the meeting, a commissioner read prewritten remarks explaining that the requests to discard the voting machines were outside their power.

Afterward, the crowd assembled on the courthouse lawn, alongside a memorial to Confederate soldiers. People chanted, “Hell no, the machines gotta go!” A succession of speakers promised to fight on, with one declaiming so vehemently that he tore his lips on the microphone mesh, spotting it with blood.

 

In late August, Senter traveled to Missouri for a weekendlong gathering of hundreds of election deniers put on by Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who claims to have spent at least $35 million of his fortune on efforts to prove the 2020 election was fraudulent. At Lindell’s event, activists from all 50 states touted their campaigns, which often involved pressuring county and state election officials. “We’ve had a few victories,” Senter told the crowd when he presented as the representative for North Carolina. “We feel like if you’ve got a committed group of patriots, and some county commissioners that are not afraid to face the establishment and do their job, and local law enforcement that will hear the evidence that you produce to them, we can actually get something done in your county. So if you’d like that strategy, hit us up in North Carolina, and we’ll help you out with it.”

After returning home, Senter submitted to Huff’s office a time-consuming public records request similar to one that Lindell had promoted, which required one of Huff’s three full-time staff members to spend 60 hours at a scanner uploading 2020 “poll tapes,” the physical receipts from tabulators. Across North Carolina and nationwide, short-staffed offices reported being overwhelmed with often identical requests. Senter’s requests to Huff came atop dozens of others from different sources, including a sweeping request from a lawyer for the Republican National Committee. Before 2020, Surry County’s elections office had received an estimated half-dozen public records requests a year; in the first 10 months of 2022, it received 81.

An ally of Senter’s filed requests for court-ordered mediation and a lawsuit against Huff, seeking the same records that Lindell’s campaign has recommended asking for. While none of the legal actions have so far been successful, shortly before Surry County’s 2020 elections-related paper records were to be routinely discarded, the county Board of Elections agreed to preserve them for three more years. Huff said that each legal action resulted in her and her staff having to spend significant time with lawyers and on paperwork, rather than on actual elections administration.

Most laws and regulations that govern public records requests and elections do little to ease the disruptions that Huff and others were enduring — and offer few means to hold anyone accountable. “I don’t think there’s a silver bullet solution, unfortunately,” said Lawrence Norden, the senior director of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit law and public policy institute. He noted that public records laws are necessary tools to ensure government transparency. “In a lot of cases, if election officials had more resources available to them, it would be easier to push back on some of these things.” He said that officials in smaller jurisdictions often need to turn to professional associations, nonprofits or their state election agencies for help.

The organization most responsible for supporting Huff is the North Carolina State Board of Elections, which is responsible for statewide election infrastructure, such as its voter registration database, and which provides oversight and help for county offices. It had dispatched staff to back up Huff when election deniers were holding rallies in the county and offered legal advice and support over the phone.

But the state board, too, was being overwhelmed by public information requests. Before 2020, only several dozen requests would come in per year, said Patrick Gannon, its public information director. In 2021, there were 380, with some coming from the same people who submitted requests to Huff. Meanwhile, the number of people on the communications team had dwindled from four to two, in large part due to reductions in federal funding and the GOP-led legislature not meeting budgeting requests, according to board officials. By late October, the officials said, five employees had accepted buyout offers. To make payroll, the agency also let two people go and did not fill 17 positions — reducing its staff by more than 20% during its busiest time and limiting the services it could provide counties.

Huff’s experiences with so-called election integrity activists were more intense than what other North Carolina election workers were facing, though many of them were also enduring their own challenges. After the May primary, at least 14 counties reported complaints to the state board about aggressive poll observers, according to an internal survey obtained through a public records request. The complaints and additional documentation from one of the counties described two instances in which observers tailed election workers in their cars, among other examples of observers “intimidating poll workers.” This led the agency to pass rules to ensure that observers — the individuals assigned by political parties to monitor election officials — didn’t do things like stand so close to voting equipment that they could see confidential information. However, these rules were nullified when they were sent for approval to a board appointed by the GOP-controlled state legislature.

Even states considered to be on the forefront of election administration — such as Colorado, where legislators have passed laws addressing rising security risks, and Kentucky, where the Republican secretary of state has pushed back against conspiracy theories — have experienced significant disruptions as a result of the organized campaigns by 2020 election deniers. “It’s the new normal, until we have our political leaders in both parties pushing back strongly against it,” Norden said.

One of the individuals helping Senter in his Surry County campaign is Carol Snow, the North Carolina Audit Force leader who accompanied Senter and Frank to the elections office during their March confrontation with Huff. In a May email from Snow to Senter with the subject line “Surry Co Dirt,” which ProPublica obtained through public records requests, she provides him with a PowerPoint presentation. Its 61 slides outline supposed errors in North Carolina’s voter registration database. In an August email Snow sent to the county commissioners, copying Senter, she presented them with supposed evidence of voter-registration fraud in Surry County assembled through canvassing. She also suggested that law enforcement could subpoena information inaccessible through public records requests, which she claimed might reveal “individual voter fraud” or systemwide “election fraud.” She concluded, “We will get to the bottom of this or die (or be imprisoned for) trying.” The commissioners did not respond to the email.

(Snow declined to comment on the emails; in response to earlier questions about North Carolina Audit Force’s efforts in Surry County, Snow wrote: “Americans have every right to oversee our election process. That’s what should happen in a free society.”)

Until recently, Snow was also a leader in the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, a statewide affiliate of the nationwide Election Integrity Network, which has trained thousands of activists in the battleground states to scrutinize election officials. The network’s goal is to make sure there are “local election integrity task forces organized at every local election office in America,” according to its training manual, and it lays out how to aggressively scrutinize officials in ways that are similar to what Huff has experienced, such as through filing public records requests and investigating voting machines and voter lists. “The goal is for the task force members to be ever-present at the election office and board meetings,” it reads.

Jim Womack, the head of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, told ProPublica that the group had nothing to do with the events in Surry County and that Snow’s actions there were “her business.” He and Snow said she had recently left the organization.

Womack estimated that as of August, the North Carolina Election Integrity Team had trained more than 1,000 volunteers, who would be present in most major North Carolina counties in November, including Surry. “As long as” election officials are “doing things in accordance with the law and the books, they shouldn’t have anything to worry about,” Womack said. “And if that causes stress, I’m sorry.”

 

In the months before the November 2022 midterm election, Huff decided to go on the offensive against misinformation, giving speeches to various civic groups about how elections actually work, like the local real estate agents association.

One afternoon toward the end of the summer, she showed up at a country club for what she had believed was a concerned citizens meeting — and found waiting for her eight local conservative leaders, including county commissioner Harris, who had fiercely criticized the Center for Tech and Civic Life money. For two and a half hours, Huff answered the Republicans’ questions, largely about election security, explaining the safeguards that kept voting tabulators from being hacked. The discussion was tense but civil, and while Huff kept her hands clasped atop a table, her feet compulsively kicked an orange golf tee beneath it. As Huff headed for the door, she reminded her hosts, “The people who work in the elections office, we’re real people who love our community too.”

Afterward, a ProPublica reporter asked an attendee, Earl Blackburn, a Republican candidate for a local school board, if Huff’s presentation had made him feel better about election security. Though Huff had taken more than 15 minutes to explain directly to Blackburn how the voting machines couldn’t be hacked, he said, “I don’t know that she has satisfactorily answered my question.” To explain how the machines could be hacked anyway, Blackburn referenced a badly reviewedSean Connery heist movie that hinges on thieves dodging a laser beam alarm system to break into a global bank.

On Sept. 19, Huff hosted a watch party in the public meeting room next to the elections office for a livestream of speeches in which experts and North Carolina State Board of Elections members explained election security, hoping that some of the Surry County GOP might attend — or at the very least some skeptical citizens. But the only people who came were longtime poll workers who already understood how elections worked.

As September turned to October, she and her staff hosted another event at which they publicly tested the dozens of voting machines that would be used in November to prove their accuracy. She hoped some of the election deniers might assuage their fears at the event, but none showed up.

No matter how many questions she answered or how many times she proved the soundness of the voting machines, it wasn’t clear that she was convincing anyone.

When Huff had taken the job in 2019, she had told the Board of Elections that she expected to stay 20 years. But recently there had been many nights she had wondered how she could continue. She said, “If this is what every day and every night looks like, how could anyone keep this up for 17 more years?” She wasn’t just thinking of herself but also about how the stress she brought home and the controversies surrounding her would affect her children, who are in high school and college, and her husband.

Coming home late from work each night, Huff parked beside a plot that was normally filled with heirloom tomatoes, cucumbers, herbs and peppers, but which was now just dirt. Instead of tending her garden, she was trapped all day in the halogen-lit office. Still, in her most hopeful moods, she could imagine that instead of cultivating the land she was cultivating democracy. “It’s a seed. You plant it. It grows. It flowers. It fruits,” she said. “It takes careful tending to make sure that it survives and becomes something beautiful.”

Oz tries to distance from Trump election lies but his campaign is staffed by Jan. 6 rally attendees

Mehmet Oz has tried to keep his distance from Donald Trump’s election lies, but the Pennsylvania Republican’s campaign team is stocked with staffers who attended the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 insurrection.

At least two Oz staffers — Lee Snover, his campaign coordinator for Northampton County, and Josh Bashline, a paid political adviser — attended the infamous Donald Trump rally at the White House Ellipse, where he declared the 2020 election had been stolen and urged his supporters to “fight like hell” to overturn his loss, reported Rolling Stone.

Snover, her county’s GOP chair, participated in a Zoom call four days before the insurrection with hundreds of state legislators from states where Trump’s allies were working to “decertify” Joe Biden’s election win, and she expressed support in a talk-radio appearance two days later for pressuring Mike Pence to reject those electors.

“That’s why we need the state legislators to do it,” Snover said Jan. 4, 2021. “The secretaries of state are never going to change it.”

Oz has publicly stated that he wouldn’t have objected to Biden electors, as Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley did, but he and his chief advisers have been forced to reassure Republican allies that he’s not an election denier.

“[Oz] doesn’t deny the results of the election,” Oz consultant Larry Weitzner wrote to conservative Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who expressed concern about his position on the 2020 election. “Says we need to learn from it and make changes in how the elections are run. In [Pennsylvania] it was totally screwed up with unmanned drop boxes and paper ballots sent to millions of voters many of who had not voted in years and did not ask for them.”

“Not an election denier,” Weitzner added.

CREW’s Noah Bookbinder on the “very small step” from Trump’s corruption to authoritarian rule

Well before Donald Trump became the most corrupt president in American history — using the power and prestige of that office to enrich himself, his family and members of his inner circle — his businesses and “charities” have been the targets of dozens of civil and criminal investigations for fraud and other crimes.

In 2019, the Trump Foundation was found guilty of committing fraud by misallocating millions of dollars in donations meant for charity and was forced to shut down following an investigation by the New York attorney general.

Since Trump left office, his supposed “election defense fund” — in fact part of his Big Lie strategy and larger coup plot — has taken in at least $250 million dollars from Trump’s cultists and followers, directing much of that money to his allies and business partners. 

Trump’s financial corruption and sociopathic greed are not separate from him and his movement’s fascist assault on American democracy. In reality, they are central elements, but the mainstream news media have largely treated stories of Trump’s financial misdeeds as unconnected to the rising neofascist threat.

That’s a crucial misunderstanding: Fascists and other demagogues view public office as a way of enriching themselves. In this logic, the state is an extension of the leader; kleptocracy and criminogenic politics are defining features of fascism in its various forms.

To defeat American neofascism and Trumpism will require confronting deeper systemic and institutional failures involving corruption, a profoundly unequal legal system and other betrayals of the common good, democracy and the rule of law. If we don’t do that, it almost will not matter if Trump himself is prosecuted and barred from office. The roots of American neofascism will be left intact and ready to produce many more would-be tyrants, perhaps worse than Donald Trump.

Noah Bookbinder is the president of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), one of the country’s leading pro-democracy and accountability advocacy organizations. It specifically “targets government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests and personal gain.” Bookbinder previously served as director of the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and was chief counsel for criminal justice for the Senate Judiciary Committee and a trial attorney in the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section.

In this conversation, Bookbinder reflects on America’s democracy crisis and why so many members of the political class, as well as everyday Americans, remain in such denial. He warns that Trump and the Republicans, along with other illiberal forces, are eroding American democracy in both highly visible and far more subtle ways, and that the American people may lose their freedom without quite realizing it.

Bookbinder notes that many of America’s leading corporations pledged to defend democracy in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, but have since betrayed that promise by financially supporting Republicans who believe in the Big Lie and at least implicitly endorse Trump’s coup attempt.

Bookbinder argues — as he did in a recent op-ed for Salon — that Attorney General Merrick Garland must prosecute Donald Trump and his inner circle for their obvious crimes, because not doing so would clearly encourage a coup in the near future.

With everything that is happening with the country’s democracy crisis, other serious problems and the day-to-day of politics and life, how are you making sense of it all?

There’s a lot to be alarmed about. I really do worry about whether we are going to be living in a democracy in the next few years. I am also worried about whether we are going to be facing significant political violence here in the United States in the next few years. Global climate change is terrifying, and we are still grappling with the coronavirus pandemic. But I do think there are some causes for optimism in terms of our democracy and the efforts we are seeing to hold the powerful accountable for their misdeeds.

You have been sounding the alarm for some time about these threats to democracy. Why were so many others in such denial about the reality of the situation? What did you see that too many Americans chose to ignore?

It is not hidden. These attacks on our democracy are happening in plain sight. There are hundreds of candidates around the country running for Congress, for statewide offices and for offices that oversee elections who are maintaining the position that the 2020 election was stolen despite incontrovertible evidence that President Biden won. The claim that the last presidential election was invalid and that efforts need to be made to “secure” future elections — which really means rigging the outcome so that Donald Trump or his allies always win — is being made out loud.

If Trump and his allies don’t win, they simply want to be able to throw the results out. The evidence is voluminous that Donald Trump tried to overturn a presidential election to cancel out the results of millions and millions of votes. As part of that, Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice and the powers of the federal government to make that happen. Ultimately, when those efforts looked like they were not going to be successful, Trump incited a violent attack on the Capitol as part of his effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Trump continues to send public signals that he will do the same things again and commit obvious crimes against democracy.

Throughout Donald Trump’s entire four-year presidency, we saw him repeatedly abusing the powers of government for his personal financial gain and his political advancement to try to keep himself in power. Much of this was illegal, never mind an attack on our democratic institutions. And through all that you had a major political party standing by Trump and defending him.

The Republican Party is now all in with Trump and these attacks on our democracy. These attacks on our democracy are also taking place on the state and local level, where supporters of Donald Trump are putting into place laws and other policies that make it easier to nullify the results of elections if they don’t like the outcome.


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


Why are more Americans not sounding the alarm like I am? People have a lot on their collective plate. We just experienced a pandemic, people are struggling financially, there is extreme weather and disasters. It takes a great deal of effort to be engaged and active in the fight for American democracy and even to stay current with the news, given all that is happening every day. Some people just have a hard time finding the bandwidth.

Many Americans will not see much change in their day-to-day lives when Trumpism or some other form of neofascism takes over. It will not be like in a movie, with tanks and soldiers marching in the street. America will likely be ruled by a system of fake democracy, the type of “competitive authoritarianism” we see in countries like Hungary and Russia.

It is indeed possible that we may see right-wing political violence all over the country. But it is also very possible that no such thing happens. We could have a scenario where our democratic rights just drift away, diminished in small ways that many people barely even notice. That is something that we need to work hard to ensure does not happen.

Did Donald Trump and his movement give the Republican Party permission to be its true self? Or did Trump somehow “conquer” the Republican Party and the conservative movement?

In my opinion, it is both. There has been a movement on the right to move away from an inclusive and democratic society where the public has real power and to replace that with tyranny of the minority, where a small number of Republican voters — predominantly white voters — are in control. That’s not new. Donald Trump just capitalized on what was there in that regard. Donald Trump is not an ideologue. Trump is first and foremost an opportunist. The right wing saw Trump as a demagogue they could use to gain more power.

Before Donald Trump was taking bold steps to attack democracy, he was using the government to enrich himself. He was doing that even before he was president. His anti-democratic attacks and his corruption are entirely intertwined.

I also believe that many people on the right would say they don’t subscribe to the specific anti-democratic beliefs that Donald Trump has espoused and has put into practice. But many of these same people go along with these attacks on democracy and with Trumpism because it has been politically and economically to their advantage. There are those on the right who have been willing to look the other way or even quietly support Trump and his anti-democracy attacks, even if they would not have done the same things themselves.

How did that story of corruption and criminality and lawbreaking come together, on Jan. 6 and beyond? As CREW has extensively documented, the corruption story is not somehow separate from Trump’s attack on American democracy.

Before Donald Trump was taking bold steps to attack democracy, he was using the government to enrich himself. He was doing that even before he was president. His anti-democratic attacks and his corruption are entirely intertwined. What happens with corruption, and particularly with the kind of pervasive corruption you saw with Donald Trump, is that on a daily basis he used the federal government and the Republican Party and political campaigns to bring money to him through his businesses. This sends the message that if you want to influence Trump, you achieve that by patronizing his businesses.

For Trump and his inner circle, the message is clear: The purpose of government is not to serve the interests of the American people, but to serve Trump’s personal, financial and other interests. When government becomes about promoting the interests of the person in charge, it’s a very small step to go from corruption to authoritarianism. By this logic, if the government exists to serve the personal interests of the leader, then the purpose of the government in turn is to keep that person in power. Period. For authoritarians and other demagogues, the ultimate purpose of government and of public office and power is to attack their enemies and help their friends. We saw all these things with Donald Trump and his administration.

After Jan. 6, many companies pledged to support democracy and not to support Republicans in Congress who backed the coup and the Big Lie. What has happened since then?

In the aftermath of that day, about 250 corporations made a public commitment to preserving the country’s democracy. These corporations claimed they would not support members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election or otherwise undermined the peaceful transfer of power and free and fair elections. Within weeks, some of those same companies started to quietly reverse course. In the spring of 2021, CREW started tracking corporate donations to the 147 members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election. Of those 250 companies, about two-thirds of them have now gone back on their word and started supporting some of those members of Congress.

If the government exists to serve the personal interests of the leader, then the purpose of the government in turn is to keep that person in power. Period.

There are other companies that never pledged to support democracy, hundreds of them, that have donated money to those members of Congress. They have also made campaign donations to candidates for secretary of state and attorney general in various states who also undermined the 2020 election. It is alarming, because these companies are putting their short-term financial interests ahead of the continued viability of our democracy. There’s a flip side to that. Approximately 70 out of those original 250 companies have not changed course: They are not donating to the “sedition caucus.” This includes such companies as Microsoft, Pepsi and Target.

Donald Trump and this crisis of democracy are a function of a broken political system, one full of dirty money, self-dealing and conflicts of interest that is viewed, for good reason, as illegitimate and not responsive to the needs and concerns of the average citizen. We cannot defeat Trumpism without fixing the broken political system, can we? 

America’s campaign finance system is broken. Not only is there a virtually unlimited amount of money being spent on campaigns, but the vast majority of it comes from very wealthy individuals and corporations, and an increasing amount of that money is secret. Not only are a relatively small number of people pouring vast sums of money into determining what campaign commercials we see and how campaigns work, but a lot of the time we don’t even know who they are.

Our political system is also one where there’s too much influence on people in government — whether in federal agencies, the administration or Congress — from industries, through lobbyists or direct relationships, or through a revolving door where people go back and forth between government and private industry. Even basic, blatant corruption is not being dealt with. Over the last three decades the Supreme Court has tremendously weakened America’s anti-corruption laws.

The result is that the public looks at a system which is corrupt and not working properly, and then they start looking for alternatives, such as “populists” who will shake things up. That’s one of the reasons someone like Donald Trump was able to become president. The dark irony is that someone like Trump or another autocrat is actually going to be more corrupt and make the government even more unresponsive and illegitimate. It is a vicious feedback loop.

Why is Donald Trump not in jail?

Trump has been a master throughout his life of avoiding consequences and accountability. He has been able to do that because he has lots of money and uses the law in an aggressive way to stop anyone from trying to hold him accountable. Add to that the reality that it is a difficult thing to prosecute a former president. Such a thing should never be done lightly. You certainly don’t want to be a country where one candidate wins and then goes after his or her predecessor. Somebody like Merrick Garland, coming in and trying to restore credibility to a Justice Department that had been badly politicized, is going to be reluctant to investigate a former president. Garland is going to be very careful to not make the Justice Department appear political and therefore illegitimate.

The other challenge is that Trump is a potential defendant who is popular with a lot of the country. This means the Department of Justice and other law enforcement will have to have a very strong case. But at the end of the day, I think it is more important for a democracy to hold accountable leaders who are corrupt and who break the law, than it is to avoid looking political by not going after those folks.

The public looks at a system which is corrupt and not working properly, and starts looking for alternatives. The dark irony is that an autocrat like Trump is actually going to be more corrupt and make the government even more unresponsive and illegitimate.

CREW has been making the case that when you have such strong evidence of crimes, and when those crimes go to the very heart of the viability of democracy going forward, it becomes a political act to do nothing about them. Yes, accountability for Donald Trump has been painfully slow. But the American people should not lose hope. I believe we have turned a corner where it looks like the DOJ will prosecute him. It also looks reasonably likely that the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, will also prosecute Trump and other high-ranking people who committed crimes connected to trying to steal the 2020 election.

What happens to American democracy and society if Donald Trump is not held accountable? Or if he is put on trial and somehow escapes justice?

It’s a major question. Do you try to prosecute Donald Trump, given that it might be worse if he’s prosecuted and then acquitted? I think that can never be the deciding factor. If the evidence is there, and it’s an offense for which there should be accountability, you have to move forward. 

The reality of the situation is that if the Department of Justice does not prosecute Trump, he will claim victory and announce that he was exonerated. That will be as bad as an acquittal, because Trump will say it means the same thing. There will be no deterrence going forward. If nobody’s willing to charge Trump for his alleged crimes because they’re afraid of losing, such an outcome will give complete impunity not just to Trump but to future aspiring demagogues and other enemies of democracy.

It would not be great for American democracy if Trump is tried and acquitted. But I believe these potential cases against Donald Trump are strong enough that they could be successful.

Churches are breaking the law by endorsing in elections — but the IRS is looking the other way

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

 

Six days before a local runoff election last year in Frisco, a prosperous and growing suburb of Dallas, Brandon Burden paced the stage of KingdomLife Church. The pastor told congregants that demonic spirits were operating through members of the City Council.

Grasping his Bible with both hands, Burden said God was working through his North Texas congregation to take the country back to its Christian roots. He lamented that he lacked jurisdiction over the state Capitol, where he had gone during the 2021 Texas legislative session to lobby for conservative priorities like expanded gun rights and a ban on abortion.

“But you know what I got jurisdiction over this morning is an election coming up on Saturday,” Burden told parishioners. “I got a candidate that God wants to win. I got a mayor that God wants to unseat. God wants to undo. God wants to shift the balance of power in our city. And I have jurisdiction over that this morning.”

What Burden said that day in May 2021 was a violation of a long-standing federal law barring churches and nonprofits from directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns, tax law experts told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. Although the provision was mostly uncontroversial for decades after it passed in 1954, it has become a target for both evangelical churches and former President Donald Trump, who vowed to eliminate it.

Burden’s sermon is among those at 18 churches identified by the news organizations over the past two years that appeared to violate the Johnson Amendment, a measure named after its author, former President Lyndon B. Johnson. Some pastors have gone so far as to paint candidates they oppose as demonic.

At one point, churches fretted over losing their tax-exempt status for even unintentional missteps. But the IRS has largely abdicated its enforcement responsibilities as churches have become more brazen. In fact, the number of apparent violations found by ProPublica and the Tribune, and confirmed by three nonprofit tax law experts, are greater than the total number of churches the federal agency has investigated for intervening in political campaigns over the past decade, according to records obtained by the news organizations.

In response to questions, an IRS spokesperson said that the agency “cannot comment on, neither confirm nor deny, investigations in progress, completed in the past nor contemplated.” Asked about enforcement efforts over the past decade, the IRS pointed the news organizations to annual reports that do not contain such information.

Neither Burden nor KingdomLife responded to multiple interview requests or to emailed questions.

Trump’s opposition to the law banning political activity by nonprofits “has given some politically-minded evangelical leaders a sense that the Johnson Amendment just isn’t really an issue anymore, and that they can go ahead and campaign for or against candidates or positions from the pulpit,” said David Brockman, a scholar in religion and public policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

Among the violations the newsrooms identified: In January, an Alaska pastor told his congregation that he was voting for a GOP candidate who is aiming to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, saying the challenger was the “only candidate for Senate that can flat-out preach.” During a May 15 sermon, a pastor in Rocklin, California, asked voters to get behind “a Christian conservative candidate” challenging Gov. Gavin Newsom. And in July, a New Mexico pastor called Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham “beyond evil” and “demonic” for supporting abortion access. He urged congregants to “vote her behind right out of office” and challenged the media to call him out for violating the Johnson Amendment.

Andrew Whitehead, a sociologist at the University of Indiana-Purdue, who studies Christian nationalism, said the ramping up of political activity by churches could further polarize the country. “It creates hurdles for a healthy, functioning, pluralistic democratic society,” he said. “It’s really hard to overcome.”

The Johnson Amendment does not prohibit churches from inviting political speakers or discussing positions that may seem partisan nor does it restrict voters from making faith-based decisions on who should represent them. But because donations to churches are tax-deductible and because churches don’t have to file financial disclosures with the IRS, without such a rule donors seeking to influence elections could go undetected, said Andrew Seidel, vice president of strategic communications for the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“If you pair the ability to wade into partisan politics with a total absence of financial oversight and transparency, you’re essentially creating super PACs that are black holes,” Seidel said.

Churches have long balanced the tightrope of political involvement, and blatant violations have previously been rare. In the 1960s, the IRS investigated complaints that some churches abused their tax-exempt status by distributing literature that was hostile to the election of John F. Kennedy, the country’s first Catholic president. And in 2004, the federal agency audited All Saints Episcopal Church in California after a pastor gave an anti-war speech that imagined Jesus talking to presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. The pastor did not endorse a candidate but criticized the Iraq war.

Some conservative groups have argued that Black churches are more politically active than their white evangelical counterparts but are not as heavily scrutinized. During the 1984 presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Rev. Jesse L. Jackson was accused of turning Sunday sermons into campaign rallies and using Black churches to raise funds. In response to allegations of illegal campaigning, Jackson said at the time that strict guidelines were followed and denied violating the law.

While some Black churches have crossed the line into political endorsements, the long legacy of political activism in these churches stands in sharp contrast to white evangelical churches, where some pastors argue devout Christians must take control of government positions, said Robert Wuthnow, the former director of the Princeton University Center for the Study of Religion.

Wuthnow said long-standing voter outreach efforts inside Black churches, such as Souls to the Polls, which encourages voting on Sundays after church services, largely stay within the boundaries of the law.

“The Black church has been so keenly aware of its marginalized position,” Wuthnow said. “The Black church, historically, was the one place where Black people could mobilize, could organize, could feel that they had some power at the local level. The white evangelical church has power. It’s in office. It’s always had power.”

At the end of his two-hour sermon that May, Burden asserted that his church had a God-given power to choose lawmakers, and he asked others to join him onstage to “secure the gate over the city.”

Burden and a handful of church members crouched down and held on to a rod, at times speaking in tongues. The pastor said intruders such as the mayor, who was not up for reelection last year but who supported one of the candidates in the race for City Council, would be denied access to the gates of the city.

“Now this is bold, but I’m going to say it because I felt it from the Lord. I felt the Lord say, ‘Revoke the mayor’s keys to this gate,'” Burden said. “No more do you have the key to the city. We revoke your key this morning, Mr. Mayor.

“We shut you out of the place of power,” Burden added. “The place of authority and influence.”

Johnson Amendment’s Cold War Roots

Questions about the political involvement of tax-exempt organizations were swirling when Congress ordered an investigation in April 1952 to determine if some foundations were using their money “for un-American and subversive activities.”

Leading the probe was Rep. Gene Cox, a Georgia Democrat who had accused the Guggenheim and Rockefeller foundations, among others, of helping alleged Communists or Communist fronts. Cox died during the investigation, and the final report cleared the foundations of wrongdoing.

But a Republican member of the committee argued for additional scrutiny, and in July 1953, Congress established the House Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations. The committee focused heavily on liberal organizations, but it also investigated nonprofits such as the Facts Forum foundation, which was headed by Texas oilman H.L. Hunt, an ardent supporter of then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who was best known for holding hearings to investigate suspected Communists.

In July 1954, Johnson, who was then a senator, proposed an amendment to the U.S. tax code that would strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status for “intervening” in political campaigns. The amendment sailed through Congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Johnson never explained his intent. Opponents of the amendment, as well as some academics, say Johnson was motivated by a desire to undercut conservative foundations such as the National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government, founded by newspaper magnate Frank Gannett, which painted the Democrat as soft on communism and supported his opponent in the primary election. Others have hypothesized that Johnson was hoping to head off a wider crackdown on nonprofit foundations.

Over the next 40 years, the IRS stripped a handful of religious nonprofits of their tax-exempt status. None were churches.

Then, just four days before the 1992 presidential election, Branch Ministries in New York ran two full-page ads in USA Today and The Washington Times urging voters to reject then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in his challenge to Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The ads proclaimed: “Christian Beware. Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments.” They asserted that Clinton violated scripture by supporting “abortion on demand,” homosexuality and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in public schools. Clinton, the ads said, was “openly promoting policies that are in rebellion to God’s laws.”

The IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status, leading to a long legal battle that ended with a U.S. appeals court siding with the federal agency.

The case remains the only publicly known example of the IRS revoking the tax-exempt status of a church because of its political activity in nearly 70 years. The Congressional Research Service said in 2012 that a second church had lost its tax-exempt status, but that its identity “is not clear.”

Citing an increase in allegations of church political activity leading up to the 2004 presidential election between incumbent Bush and Kerry, IRS officials created the Political Activities Compliance Initiative to fast-track investigations.

Over the next four years, the committee investigated scores of churches, including 80 for endorsing candidates from the pulpit, according to IRS reports. But it did not revoke the tax-exempt status of any. Instead, the IRS mostly sent warning letters that agency officials said were effective in dissuading churches from continuing their political activity, asserting that there were no repeat offenders in that period.

In some cases, the IRS initiated audits of churches that could have led to financial penalties. It’s unclear how many did.

In January 2009, a federal court dismissed an auditinto alleged financial improprieties at a Minnesota church whose pastor had supported the congressional campaign of former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Republican from Minnesota.

The court found that the IRS had not been following its own rules for a decade because it was tasked with notifying churches of their legal rights before any pending audits and was required to have an appropriately high-level official sign off on them. But a 1998 agency reorganization had eliminated the position, leaving lower IRS employees to initiate church investigations.

Following the ruling, the IRS suspended its investigations into church political activity for five years, according to a 2015 Government Accountability Office report.

During the hiatus, a conservative Christian initiative called Pulpit Freedom Sunday flourished. Pastors recorded themselves endorsing candidates or giving political sermons that they believed violated the Johnson Amendment and sent them to the IRS. The goal, according to participants, was to trigger a lawsuit that would lead to the prohibition being ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The IRS never challenged participating churches, and the effort wound down without achieving its aim.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from ProPublica and the Tribune last year, the IRS produced a severely redacted spreadsheet indicating the agency had launched inquiries into 16 churches since 2011. IRS officials shielded the results of the probes, and they have declined to answer specific questions.

Despite the agency’s limited enforcement, Trump promised shortly after he took office that he would “totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

As president, Trump tried unsuccessfully to remove the restrictions on church politicking through a 2017 executive order. The move was largely symbolic because it simply ordered the government not to punish churches differently than it would any other nonprofit, according to a legal filing by the Justice Department.

Eliminating the Johnson Amendment would require congressional or judicial action.

Although the IRS has not discussed its plans, it has taken procedural steps that would enable it to ramp up audits again if it chooses to.

In 2019, more than two decades after eliminating the high-level position needed to sign off on action against churches, the IRS designated the commissioner of the agency’s tax-exempt and government entities division as the “appropriate high-level Treasury official” with the power to initiate a church audit.

But Philip Hackney, a former IRS attorney and University of Pittsburgh tax law professor, said he doesn’t read too much into that. “I don’t see any reason to believe that the operation of the IRS has changed significantly.”

The Pulpit and Politics

There is no uniform way to monitor church sermons across the country. But with the COVID-19 pandemic, many churches now post their services online, and ProPublica and the Tribune reviewed dozens of them. Many readers shared sermons with us. (You can do so here.)

Texas’ large evangelical population and history of activism in Black churches makes the state a focal point for debates over political activity, said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

“Combine all of that with the increasing competitiveness of Texas elections, and it’s no surprise that more and more Texas churches are taking on a political role,” he said. “Texas is a perfect arena for widespread, religiously motivated political activism.”

The state also has a long history of politically minded pastors, Wuthnow said. Texas evangelical church leaders joined the fight in support of alcohol prohibition a century ago and spearheaded efforts to defeat Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to be nominated for president by a major party, in 1928. In the 1940s, evangelical fundamentalism began to grow in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Today, North Texas remains home to influential pastors such as Robert Jeffress, who leads the First Baptist megachurch in Dallas. Jeffress was one of Trump’s most fervent supporters, appearing at campaign events, defending him on television news shows and stating that he “absolutely” did not regret supporting the former president after the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.

Burden went a step further, urging followers to stock up on food and keep their guns loaded ahead of President Joe Biden’s inauguration. He told parishioners that “prophetic voices” had told him in 2016 that Trump would have eight consecutive years in office.

The Frisco Conservative Coalition board voted to suspend Burden as chair for 30 days after criticism about his remarks.

Burden called his comments “inartful” but claimed he was unfairly targeted for his views. “The establishment media is coming after me,” he saidat the time. “But it is not just about me. People of faith are under attack in this country.”

Since then, Burden has repeatedly preached that the church has been designated by the Lord to decide who should serve in public office and “take dominion” over Frisco.

As the runoff for the Frisco City Council approached last year, Burden supported Jennifer White, a local veterinarian. White had positioned herself as the conservative candidate in the nonpartisan race against Angelia Pelham, a Black human resources executive who had the backing of the Frisco mayor.

White said she wasn’t in attendance during the May 2021 sermon in which Burden called her the “candidate that God wants to win.” She said she does not believe pastors should endorse candidates from the pulpit, but she welcomed churches becoming more politically active.

“I think that the churches over the years have been a big pretty big disappointment to the candidates in that they won’t take a political stance,” White said in an interview. “So I would love it if churches would go ahead and come out and actually discuss things like morality. Not a specific party, but at least make sure people know where the candidates stand on those issues. And how to vote based on that.”

Pelham’s husband, local pastor Dono Pelham, also made a statement that violated the Johnson Amendment by “indirectly intervening” in the campaign, said Ellen Aprill, an emerita tax law professor at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles

In May 2021, Pelham told his church that the race for a seat on the City Council had resulted in a runoff. He acknowledged that his church’s tax-exempt status prevented him from supporting candidates from the pulpit. Then, he added, “but you’ll get the message.”

“It’s been declared for the two candidates who received the most votes, one of which is my wife,” Pelham said. “That’s just facts. That’s just facts. That’s just facts. And so a runoff is coming and every vote counts. Be sure to vote.”

Pelham then asked the congregation: “How did I do? I did all right, didn’t I? You know I wanted to go a little further, but I didn’t do it.”

Angelia Pelham, who co-founded Life-Changing Faith Christian Fellowship in 2008 with her husband, said the couple tried to avoid violating the Johnson Amendment. Both disagreed that her husband’s mention of her candidacy was a violation.

“I think church and state should remain separate,” Angelia Pelham said in an interview, adding: “But I think there’s a lot of folks in the religious setting that just completely didn’t even consider the line. They erased it completely and lost sight of the Johnson Amendment.”

She declined to discuss Burden’s endorsement of her opponent.

In his sermon the morning after Pelham defeated his chosen candidate, Burden told parishioners that the church’s political involvement would continue.

“So you’re like, but you lost last night? No, we set the stage for the future,” he said, adding “God is uncovering the demonic structure that is in this region.”

“Demonic” Candidate

Most Americans don’t want pastors making endorsements from the pulpit, according to a 2017 survey by the Program for Public Consultation, which is part of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

Of the nearly 2,500 registered voters who were surveyed, 79% opposed getting rid of the Johnson Amendment. Only among Republican evangelical voters did a slight majority — 52% — favor loosening restrictions on church political activity.

But such endorsements are taking place across the country, with some pastors calling for a debate about the Johnson Amendment.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, New Mexico became an island of abortion access for women in Texas and other neighboring states.

The issue raised the stakes in the upcoming Nov. 8 New Mexico governor’s race between incumbent Lujan Grisham, a supporter of abortion rights, and Republican challenger Mark Ronchetti, who advocates limiting access.

“We’re going to fast become the No. 1 abortion place in all of America,” a pastor, Steve Smothermon, said during a July 10 sermon at Legacy Church in Albuquerque, which has an average weekly attendance of more than 10,000 people. Smotherman said the governor was “wicked and evil” and called her “a narcissist.”

“And people think, ‘Why do you say that?’ Because I truly believe it. In fact, she’s beyond evil. It’s demonic,” Smothermon said.

He later added: “Folks, when are we going to get appalled? When are we going to say, ‘Enough is enough’? When are we going to stop saying, ‘Well, you know, it’s a woman’s right to choose’? That’s such a lie.”

Church attendees had a stark choice in the upcoming election, Smothermon said. “We have the Wicked Witch of the North. Or you have Mark Ronchetti.”

The governor’s campaign declined to comment. Neither Legacy Church, Smothermon nor Ronchetti responded to requests for comment.

The sermon was a “clear violation” of the Johnson Amendment, said Sam Brunson, a Loyola University Chicago law professor. But Smothermon showed no fear of IRS enforcement.

Those who thought he crossed the line were “so stupid,” Smothermon said during the sermon. “You have no idea what you’re talking about.”

In another example, pastors at a Fort Worth church named Mercy Culture have repeatedly endorsed candidates for local and statewide offices since its founding in 2019.

“Now, obviously, churches don’t endorse candidates, but my name is Landon and I’m a person before I’m a pastor. And as an individual, I endorse Nate Schatzline,” the lead pastor, Landon Schott, said in a February sermon about a church member who was running to fill an open state representative seat.

Johnson Amendment rules allow pastors to endorse in their individual capacity, as long as they are not at an official church function, which Schott was.

In other services, Schott challenged critics to complain to the IRS about the church’s support of political candidates and said he wasn’t worried about losing the church’s tax-exempt status.

“If you want it that bad, come and take it. And if you think that we will stop preaching the gospel, speaking truth over taxes, you got another thing coming for you,” Schott said in May.

Schatzline, a member of Mercy Culture, received 65% of the vote in a May 24 runoff against the former mayor of the Dallas suburb of Southlake. He works for a separate nonprofit founded by Heather Schott, a pastor at Mercy Culture and the wife of Landon Schott.

Schatzline said in an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune that Landon Schott, not the church, endorsed him. He added that the church sought legal advice on how to ensure that it was complying with the Johnson Amendment.

“I think prayers can manifest into anything that God wants them to, but I would say that the community rallying behind me as individuals definitely manifested into votes,” Schatzline said.

Mercy Culture also supported Tim O’Hare, a Republican running for Tarrant County judge, this year after he came out against the shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His opponent in the primary had ordered churches and businesses to temporarily close when she was mayor of Fort Worth.

O’Hare came to prominence as the mayor of suburban Farmers Branch, where he championed a city ordinance to prohibit landlords from renting to immigrants without legal status. A federal court declared the ordinance unconstitutional in 2010 after a legal battle that cost the city $6.6 million.

O’Hare has pledged to hire an election integrity officer to oversee voting and “uncover election fraud.”

“The Lord spoke to me and said, ‘Begin to pray for righteous judges in our city,'” Heather Schott said during a Feb. 13 service. “I am believing that Mr. Tim O’Hare is an answered prayer of what we have been petitioning heaven for for the last year and a half.”

Neither Mercy Culture, Landon Schott nor Heather Schott responded to requests for comment. O’Hare also did not respond to a phone call and email seeking comment.

Schott’s comments were a prohibited endorsement, said Aprill, the emerita tax law professor at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles.

“It doesn’t say ‘vote for him’ but is still an endorsement,” she said. “There’s no other way to understand the statement that O’Hare has answered prayers for righteous judges.”

Two weeks later, O’Hare won his primary. He faces Deborah Peoples, a Democrat, on Nov. 8.

A New Tactic

On April 18, 2021, a day before early voting began for city council and school board elections across Texas, pastors at churches just miles apart flashed the names of candidates on overhead screens. They told their congregations that local church leaders had gathered to discuss upcoming city and school elections and realized that their members were among those seeking office.

“We’re not endorsing a candidate. We’re not doing that. But we just thought because they’re a member of the family of God, that you might want to know if someone in the family and this family of churches is running,” said Robert Morris, who leads the Gateway megachurch in Southlake and served as a member of Trump’s evangelical advisory board.

On the same day, Doug Page gave a similar message less than 5 miles away at First Baptist Grapevine.

“And so what we decided to do is look within our church families and say, ‘Who do we know that’s running for office?’ Now, let me clarify with you. This is not an endorsement by us. We are not endorsing anyone. However, if you’re part of a family, you’d like to know if Uncle Bill is running for office, right? And so that’s all we’re going to do is simply inform you.”

Saying that you are not endorsing a candidate “isn’t like a magic silver bullet that makes it so that you’re not endorsing them,” Brunson said.

The churches’ coordination on messaging across the area is notable, according to University of Notre Dame tax law professor Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, who said he hadn’t before seen churches organizing to share lists of candidates.

“I do think this strategy is new,” said Mayer, who has studied the Johnson Amendment for more than a decade. “I hadn’t heard of that before. It’s quite a sophisticated tactic.”

Eight of the nine candidates mentioned by the pastors won their races.

Mindy McClure, who ran for reelection to the Grapevine-Colleyville school board, said she thought church involvement contributed to her defeat in a June 5, 2021, runoff by about 4 percentage points. Her opponent campaigned on removing critical race theory from district curriculum, while McClure said students “weren’t being indoctrinated in any way, shape or form.” Critical race theory is a college-level academic theory that racism is embedded in legal systems.

McClure said pastors endorsing from the pulpit creates “divisiveness” in the community.

“Just because you attend a different church doesn’t mean that you’re more connected with God,” she said.

Lawrence Swicegood, executive director of Gateway Media, said this month that the church doesn’t endorse candidates but “inform(s) our church family of other church family members who are seeking office to serve our community.” Page told ProPublica and the Tribune that “these candidates were named for information only.”

Eleven days after responding to ProPublica and the Tribune in October, Morris once again told his church that he was not endorsing any candidates during the last Sunday sermon before early voting. Then, he again displayed the names of specific candidates on a screen and told parishioners to take screenshots with their cellphones.

“We must vote,” he said. “I think we have figured that out in America, that the Christians sat on the sidelines for too long. And then all of a sudden they started teaching our children some pretty mixed up things in the schools. And we had no one to blame but ourselves. So let’s not let that happen. Especially at midterms.”

Legal expert: New DOJ addition makes it “very hard not to pursue this to an indictment”

It was reported on Sunday that David Raskin, one of the top prosecutors in the country when it comes to stolen government documents, joined the Justice Department team investigating Donald Trump’s documents he took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. As the Washington Post explained, it shows that the DOJ is very serious and they’re moving toward prosecuting the former president.

“They are now focusing on the confidential documents that were kept at Mar-a-Lago, endangering our national security. That’s why you are bringing in someone who is a specialist in national security,” said former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks. “The recent reporting about documents coming from that pile that involved Iran and China are really scary and threaten our security. It’s a very smart thing to focus on that. It makes it very hard for the Department of Justice not to pursue this to an indictment.”

“There have been a number of people prosecuted for having dangerous materials in their possession, having wrongfully taken them. really, Donald Trump is a former president. He has no special rights,” she explained. He has to be held accountable. If not, it’s opening the door for anyone in the future to do the same thing. Or in the event that he should ever return to office, for him to continue to do even more damage.”

She then described what the next steps are, including Trump’s desperate need to delay as long as possible before talking

“He is known for delay, deflect, and disinformation,” she continued. “He will continue to delay. He cannot just thumb his nose at the committee because we know what happens when that happens. We can assume that there will be discussions with that committee. But the committee also notes that it has a limited timeframe. It set a timeframe that was reasonable but that allow them to finish their work before they expire at the end of the year. They only expire if the Democrats don’t keep control of the House. We don’t know that yet. I know what the reporting is, and I know what the predictions are, but this is not predictable, in the sense that in the last elections, the Democrats have outperformed what was expected.”

She also said that she is still hopeful that the committee will continue. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the Department of Justice will continue with its probe.

See the full discussion below:

Behind the GOP gaslighting over Pelosi attack: They know it won’t happen to them

We’ve heard a lot about “gaslighting” over the past few years, and often the term doesn’t really apply to whatever phenomenon is being discussed. But this past weekend we saw a perfect example, with Republicans and their media allies working overtime to convince Americans that political violence is found on “both sides” of the partisan divide. In the final week of a hard-fought midterm campaign, one might wish be generous and excuse them for bending the truth or being hyperbolic. But this wasn’t an ordinary weekend.

In the wee hours of Friday morning, a man wielding a hammer broke into the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and confronted her 82-year-old husband, Paul, repeatedly asking, “Where’s Nancy?” and threatening to tie up Paul Pelosi and wait for the speaker to return home. (She was thousands of miles away in Washington.) Pelosi covertly alerted police and when they arrived, the assailant hit Pelosi in the head with the hammer, fracturing his skull and seriously injuring his arm and hand.

It’s obvious to all rational people that the assailant intended to abduct, injure or kill Nancy Pelosi, based on those facts alone. (CNN reported on Sunday night that the attacker was carrying zip ties in a plastic bag.) It’s also reasonable to suspect the man had a political motive, since he was echoing the chants that rang through the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump’s rampaging headed for Pelosi’s office. It also turns out, unsurprisingly, that the alleged attacker, 42-year-old man David DePape, also left a long social media trail of unhinged right-wing conspiracy theories, racist and antisemitic rants, incel complaints, QAnon lunacy and more. (CBS News reported Monday morning that DePape had a list of other possible targets. We don’t know who else was on it.)

This story is still unfolding and we certainly don’t know all the facts yet. But it’s pretty clear that yet another right-wing kook committed calculated political violence, and this time the target’s spouse took the hit. Imagine how people on the right’s hit list must have felt when they heard about this. Their families are in danger.

Honestly, that’s nothing new. Last August, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., shared a chilling recording on Twitter:

As it happens, on Friday a different man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Swalwell. Apparently, he called the congressman’s office and told him he had an AR-15 and was coming after him. Last Wednesday, three men were found guilty for their involvement in the plot to kidnap against Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat who has been a particular target of right-wing rage.

All of that happened in the span of just three days, and that’s the tip of the iceberg. The country is awash in right-wing violence, from overt threats and assaults against Democratic lawmakers to threats and intimidation directed against election workers and voters themselves.

It’s almost miraculous that something hasn’t happened to Nancy Pelosi before now. She has been the most demonized political figure in America for many years, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, her fellow target of right-wing misogyny. Every election cycle, but particularly during the midterms, those who hate her trot out depraved attacks that will turn your stomach. The memes are the stuff of nightmares.

According to the Capitol Police, threats against Pelosi have proliferated in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack. One vicious creep was sentenced to a year and half in jail earlier this year for threatening to behead both Pelosi and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.


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


Max Boot at the Washington Post elaborates:

The New America think tank found last year that, since Sept. 11, 2001, far-right terrorists had killed 122 people in the United States, compared with only one killed by far-leftists. A study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies last year found that, since 2015, right-wing extremists had been involved in 267 plots or attacks, compared with 66 for left-wing extremists. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey released in January found that 40 percent of Republicans said violence against the government can be justified, compared with only 23 percent of Democrats.

But let’s not put the blame only on the delusional malcontents who are deep down the MAGA rabbit hole. How do we explain the cowardly behavior of the Republican leadership? Yes, we expect the fever swamp avatars to push disinformation. (Apparently the new boss of Twitter will also do that, as he did on Sunday.) We can certainly expect the prime-time stars of Fox News to have a fully-formed alternate-universe theory of the Pelosi assault. (The seeds are already planted.) But once upon a time you might have expected more from actual elected officials, if only because they might feel some self-interested empathy for their fellow politicians: There but for the grace of God…

But Republicans believe they don’t have to worry about this kind of stuff. They know the current spate of violence isn’t aimed at them, don’t they? (It’s like Donald Trump telling the Secret Service at the Jan. 6 rally to let armed people in: “They’re not here to hurt me.”) The response of prominent Republicans has been nothing short of stunning. Oh, sure: Mitch McConnell said the attack was “disgusting” and Kevin McCarthy said that “violence or threat of violence has no place in our society.” And quite a few others sent the usual pro forma thoughts and prayers. But that’s about it.

Republicans believe they don’t have to worry about this kind of stuff. They know the current spate of violence isn’t aimed at them, don’t they? So they wink and nod and suggest it’s all part of the game.

Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, last seen mocking John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, for his stroke-related disability, has protested that it’s deeply unfair to suggest that Republicans’ irresponsible rhetoric is somehow to blame. Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who may yearn to be Trump’s 2024 running mate, came right out of the gate with a crude campaign message, saying, “There’s no room for violence anywhere, but we’re going to send her back to be with him in California. That’s what we’re gonna go do.” Another member of the so-called Team Normal weighed in with this fatuous false equivalency:

No, street protests — even if they include looting and property damage — are not equivalent to violent assaults on lawmakers and their families. They are very different forms of political behavior. The first represents a long-standing and legal form of political expression, which is punishable by law if and when it veers into violence. Political assassination is another order of magnitude altogether, aimed at disrupting political order through lethal and unpredictable acts of violence. In historical terms it’s  certainly not confined to the right, but in recent years in America, only the right has been reaping political profits from it. We are fortunate that so far no prominent political figure has literally been killed, but the intimidation factor is having an effect all over the political system.

The Republican base is highly motivated by the Big Lie and its ongoing hatred for what they perceive as the forces that are destroying American culture — immigrants, Black people, “cosmopolitan” city dwellers (often meaning Jewish people), feminists, liberals (aka “communists”), LGBTQ people and so on. The proliferation of crazy conspiracy theories feeds this hate and leads to the kind of violent attack that severely injured Paul Pelosi on Friday, as well as the ongoing threats against Democrats and civil servants. Republican officials, by and large, cannot quite bring themselves to condemn this. If anything, they wink and nod and suggest that it’s all part of the game: Democrats deserve this at least a little, they are prepared to win by any means necessary and, anyway, both sides do it too. No, not really. In fact, not at all. And on the vanishingly rare occasions when that may happen. Democrats step up and strongly condemn any such actions.

To this point, Donald Trump has not said one word, which is probably for the best. I shudder to think what he would say. His eldest son reposted an utterly vile Instagram meme, and you just know Dad is itching to top that.

Elon Musk uses Twitter to push Pelosi attack conspiracy theory that’s quickly debunked by police

New Twitter owner Elon Musk shared and later deleted a link to a site notorious for pushing misinformation to suggest there may be “more” to the story of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband being assaulted during a break-in at their home.

Musk, who officially took over the social platform on Friday, tweeted a link to an article claiming that Paul Pelosi was drunk and in a fight with a male prostitute to his 112 million followers. The tweet was deleted hours later and police have said that Pelosi did not know his attacker before he broke into the home.

Paul Pelosi was attacked inside his home with a hammer after the suspect, identified as David DePape, broke in through a backdoor, according to police. Police have said that DePape assaulted Pelosi with a hammer. Pelosi suffered a skull fracture and injuries to his hands and right arm and underwent surgery following the attack, the House speaker’s office said.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Twitter criticized Republicans for spreading conspiracy theories, linking to an article describing DePape’s writings about QAnon and other far-right and racist conspiracy theories.

“The Republican Party and its mouthpieces now regularly spread hate and deranged conspiracy theories,” Clinton wrote. “It is shocking, but not surprising, that violence is the result. As citizens, we must hold them accountable for their words and the actions that follow.”

Musk, who has increasingly aligned himself with far-right figures, responded to the tweet by pushing another conspiracy theory.

“There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye,” Musk wrote in a reply to Clinton, linking to an article from the Santa Monica Observer that baselessly claimed the suspect was a male prostitute. The link was deleted about six hours later.

NBC News reporter Ben Collins noted that police have said on the record that Pelosi and his attacker did not know each other before the attack, which “directly contradicts conspiracy theories pushed by (and since deleted by) Twitter owner Elon Musk.”

Police have said that DePape broke into the home and shouted “Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?”

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins told The New York Times that she had seen nothing to support the idea that Pelosi and his attacker knew each other.


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


The Santa Monica Observer is one of a growing number of websites that “masquerade as legitimate newspapers,” The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board warned last year. The website, which is owned by former City Council candidate David Ganezer, is “notorious for publishing false news,” the outlet reported, noting that the site once claimed that Hillary Clinton had died in 2016 and a body double was sent to debate Donald Trump. It later reported that Trump had named Kanye West to a senior position in the Interior Department, among other false claims.

Musk, who paid about $44 billion for the social network and immediately fired its top executives, has suggested that the social network would become more “free” and floated the idea of reinstating the account of Trump, who was indefinitely suspended after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Musk sought to reassure nervous advertisers ahead of the purchase, vowing that Twitter “obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences.” He later said that a content moderation council would meet to decide any “account reinstatements.”

Trolls emboldened by Musk’s takeover quickly filled their feeds with racist, antisemitic and conspiratorial tweets. The Network Contagion Research Institute, which analyzes social media messages, found that use of the N-word on the platform spiked nearly 500% in the 12 hours after Musk’s purchase was finalized.

“The new standard bearer of the company is setting the tone that Twitter will be a place where misinformation and targeted rumors can circulate with the approval of the man behind the curtain,” Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State Bernardino, told the Los Angeles Times after Musk’s tweet over the weekend.

Los Angeles Times columnist Anita Chabria called out Musk for pushing a “vicious and false conspiracy theory” and “ugly, anti-LGBTQ garbage” on his own feed, noting that the conspiracy theory quickly spread from his account to other social channels.

“When the rich, powerful and influential become peddlers of antidemocratic ammunition, they become dangerous to democracy,” Chabria wrote, warning that if “we don’t hold Musk and others like him accountable now, we may not have the chance.”

“They cannot survive without fear”: A heretic on leaving the evangelical church

“I was leaving the Garden, the evangelical church, and the only version of myself that I had ever known. I was choosing who I wanted to be — but I had no idea who she was.”

In her new book, “Heretic,” writer and self-declared “recovering academic” Jeanna Kadlec weaves her personal experiences walking away from the faith of her youth with a larger meditation on the larger social and political damage wrought on the U.S. by the popularity of evangelical Christianity. In an era when the hardcore Christian set’s hunger for power leads them to back faux-repentant sleazes like Donald Trump and Herschel Walker, that’s an even greater need for her insights about how this religion wields so much control over its followers.

Why do people, especially women, stay in a religion that’s so abusive? What does it take to leave? Kadlec can’t answer those questions for everyone, but as someone who was fully immersed into young adulthood, only to escape after she discovered her lesbian identity while married a preacher’s kid, there’s much to be learned from her journey. 

Salon spoke with Kadlec about her book, the way evangelicals try to rebrand old-fashioned patriarchy, and how her pain of losing her community is spreading in the era of increasing GOP radicalism. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

In recent years, the percentage of Americans affiliated with a church has declined dramatically. It’s almost exclusively due to people leaving evangelical churches when they grow up. So why do you think this is happening? And what do you think the impacts of that are?

The evangelical Church of the past few decades lost a lot of the flexibility that it had cultivated earlier in the century. It refused to evolve and reconsider the humanity of other people in ways that other parts of Christianity did, in light of the civil rights movement and the women’s rights movement. In buckling down, and then really getting into bed with far right politicians, they accumulated a lot of power. They were able to do things like introduce abstinence-only education into public schools. They seemed to be very successful in trying to institute their own religious values into the mainstream.

Eventually, those kids that they were raising grew up. We had grown up in this really stringent environment that had no flexibility. And we had specifically grown up increasingly in churches that demanded an absolutely extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance. Many of us, we’re going to public school, we are exposed to different ways of living, we’re exposed to people who have different ideas about how the world should be. We see that ideas like purity, no sex before marriage, the Rapture — all of these really extreme tenets — are not necessary in order to be a good person. For so many evangelicals who grow up and leave the church, we can’t bear the cognitive dissonance anymore.

I was married to a man, but then I realized I was gay. There was absolutely no space in my religion for questioning, for doubt. It’s very black and white, which is, of course, why it dovetails so well with the far-right turn that the Republican Party has taken. 

Why do you think evangelicals specifically struggled so hard to moderate? Members of the mainline churches, even Catholicism, are often more moderate or liberal even than their churches. 

With Catholics and mainline Protestants, there’s a certain respect for people’s privacy. Evangelicalism is predicated on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and also then on that impetus to convert others. They expect you to believe with your whole heart. It takes over your whole life. It’s not only showing up in church, it’s being a strong believer in your workplace. There is just such an emphasis on that outward demonstration of the “inward transformation.” It’s very difficult to be a nominal evangelical. It might be easier to step away and casually come back with other kinds of Christianity. It allows a more gentle relationship that isn’t as monitored by the community. 

It probably predates this, but I noticed in the early 2000s that this idea of “complementarianism” started being pitched by evangelicals, seeming as a response to feminist criticisms of their rigid gender hierarchies. What is complementarianism? 

Complementarianism is essentially a “separate but equal” doctrine of how gender works within the church.

It’s this idea that men and women — and there are only men and women — are the two genders created by God, and that they fulfill separate but equal roles. We are supposed to believe that these roles are equal, even though men are always in charge. A woman’s ultimate job — as a wife, as a mother — is to submit to men. The word I would use for complementarianism is just “patriarchy.” Or “sexism.”  It’s a term that some pastors and theologians came up with to defend the very unsexy idea that a woman’s place was at her husband’s feet.

We’re getting a firehose of reminders of how evangelicals think these days, such as in reaction to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Their rhetoric is getting put back into the mainstream. Anti-abortion advocates are framing forced childbirth as if it’s a favor they’re doing for women. There was one woman in the Washington Post who argued for instance, that 13 is an “absolutely phenomenal” age to be a mother. It’s my impression that this rhetoric is fairly normal in evangelical circles. 

Seeing Roe overturned was devastating, but it was also not surprising. The way that I grew up, that was always the goal. The churches that I grew up in, [overturning] abortion was preached from the pulpit. That was a main issue. I came of age in the late ’90s and early 2000s. Around that time there was all this fear-mongering in churches about how they were losing. That they were losing “God’s country.” Abortion was often held up as the singular issue by which they could take America back.

It was very consistent with the other things being preached around gender roles. The expectations for young girls growing up into women were marriage and motherhood. The pinnacle of being a godly woman was to get married and have babies. And obviously, we weren’t going to abort any of those babies, because any pregnancy was God’s will. There was never any discussion, never any acknowledgment of how pregnancy could happen outside of marriage, or how even married women may want or need an abortion. 

Anything that happens to a woman’s body is God’s will, which is just a coded way of saying that anything that a man does to you is God’s will.

What’s wild to me is that — in the pundit class of evangelicals, anyway — they’re pivoting away from the abortion issue. Just as they won! They don’t talk about abortion much at all. The energy is all geared towards this total meltdown over queer and trans people, people being non-binary. Their social media, their shows, it’s all trans panic all the time. 

At this point, evangelicalism is just completely rotten. There’s no redeeming what it has become.

They are so profoundly motivated by fear and targeting other people — specifically people that have significantly less power than those preaching from the pulpit.

With this Roe overturn, they got what they have been fighting for and fundraising off for decades. But now they need something new, because they cannot survive without fear, negativity and absolutely rampant hate. They have won on abortion, so they have shifted it to trans folks, and specifically to trans children. It’s devastating to witness the lack of humanity existing within that church.

You write very movingly about how there was this grief over your lost faith. This is something that people who have not ever been in it don’t completely understand. We want to believe it’s easy to walk away. 

It’s a grief I still have, even along with my passionate feelings about the devastation that the church is wrecking on this country right now. I still have a lot of grief for the people and those relationships that I had. Humans are social creatures. We crave belonging. Whether it was losing family or a friend group, or even if someone got fired from a job and you lost a coworker, losing people in your life you were once really close to is devastating. For me, so much of the grief of that loss of faith is tied up in the loss of the community. Members of that faith community didn’t feel that they could continue to be in relationship with a lesbian who left my husband. I was not to be associated with.

Grief is really complicated. It’s not so black and white as to say that, because someone belongs to this church, they’re just bad. Or because someone votes a particular way, that they have never shown you love and kindness. Relationships tend to have more layers than that. Even if there’s a breaking point, where that relationship is no longer possible, it doesn’t mean that it’s easy to let go of it.

I feel like it’s something, because of Trumpism, more people these days are relating to than ever thought that they would have.

There are no clear-cut answers. Whether people cut off family is a really common issue in the queer community, too. With a lot of my friends, it’s like, do you cut off Trump-voting family members? Do you not cut them off? What are the conditions under which you still speak to certain people? Who is it safe to still speak to? It’s really different for everyone. It’s following your own personal integrity and what feels emotionally safe for you. And that can also always change. But yeah, it’s definitely something a lot of us are going through right now. And it’s, it’s really hard.

Election denial and the Big Lie: Sure, Trump made it worse — but both sides do it

Speaking to the House Jan. 6 committee on Sept. 29, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, stood by her contention that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Thomas and others who doubt the legitimacy of the election results have been convinced to believe the “Big Lie,” which refers to an incomprehensible distortion or misrepresentation of the truth as a form of propaganda. The most famous example is the Nazis’ big lie about the Jews after World War I, which served to justify the Holocaust for sympathizers. Germany’s Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels explained, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

U.S. news media have consistently made analogies to this historical strategy with former President Donald Trump’s efforts to spread doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election in hopes of overturning its results. They contend that this threatens the viability of American democracy. It does at some level, but to focus on Trump is to miss the forest for the trees. An even greater threat to democracy has long been hyper-partisanship — when people choose party loyalty and wishful thinking over empirical data and election results. Cognitive biases, like confirmation bias, play a huge role in supporting such a fallacious thought process to detrimental ends. As we pointed out in our book “United States of Distraction,” Trump is a symptom of this much larger problem.

Electoral denialism did not start with Trump. In the U.S., this chicanery dates back to the early days of the republic. With this in mind, a big-picture analysis reveals that Trump was simply trying to complete what George W. Bush started in 2000 when the Supreme Court simply declared him the winner of the presidential election.

Worse, many of the very people who oppose Trump helped create the context in which his “big lie” can flourish and become legitimized. Indeed, the Lincoln Project Republicans and Liz Cheneys of the world, who almost universally defended Bush’s illegitimate presidency, created a context where elections could be stolen in plain sight. More important for contextualizing Trump, U.S. citizens came to understand they lived in a country where they knew their president had been placed in power by fellow elites.

Many of the same people who oppose Trump created the context for his “big lie”: Lincoln Project Republicans and Liz Cheney universally defended George W. Bush’s illegitimate presidency, fueling a climate of political cynicism.

This cynicism about the electoral process worsened with birtherism: the racist fake news that claimed Barack Obama was not a real American and had in fact been born in Kenya. This type of racist accusation has been made about people of color for centuries in this country, and made Obama’s candidacy vulnerable to the racist whims of voters. During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was the first to exploit this vulnerability. The Republican Party would perpetuate the lie during Obama’s expectation-shattering victories in 2008 and 2012. During his entire presidency, people repeatedly searched for, attained and then refused to accept Obama’s birth certificate from the state of Hawaii as legitimate. Trump was pivotal in spreading birther lies throughout Obama’s presidency, and then amplified this nonsense as part of his political posturing to eventually become the dominant leader in the Republican Party. There’s no doubt Lincoln is rolling in his grave.

Further, Obama’s milquetoast neoliberal policies turned people against the Democratic Party, which lost nearly 1,000 seats between Congress and state legislatures nationwide over the course of his presidency. Along with Hillary Clinton’s mismanaged 2016 campaign, which alienated and marginalized progressives by manipulating the primary process against Sen. Bernie Sanders, that led to Donald Trump’s election. 


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


In defeat, Clinton and the Democratic National Committee machine borrowed from the Republican playbook, and rationalized her loss with speculations and outright falsehoods in an effort to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Unlike the Democrats who rightly rejected the results in 2000, Clinton and her DNC supporters spent four years spreading false and baseless reasons for their defeat, blaming progressive voices such as Sanders (who campaigned more for Hillary Clinton than she had for Obama), Russian interference and social media fake news for “stealing” the election, or at least influencing the outcome. Studies have shown, however, that it was legacy media right here at home that actually had the most influence on voters in the 2016 election. This resulted in more electoral cynicism, expressed by four years of “not my president” sloganeering that certainly did not contain the racism of birtherism, but echoed the notion that Americans only need to respect an election outcome if their preferred party and candidate wins.

Indeed, the nation’s pundits scratched their heads in collective awe and disbelief after 2016. How could this have happened? How could the establishment’s cadre of experts not have seen a Trump victory coming? Simple: Like the QAnon fanatics and Trumpists of today, they did not want to see it. Their implicit biases wouldn’t permit it. In fact, YouTube recently attempted to censor and demonetize a video collection of the Democratic denialists of 2016 by Matt Orfelea. The double standards around this topic are as obvious as they are mind-boggling. 

In the months leading up to the 2020 election, both parties primed their voters to reject the results. Trump spread rumors of election fraud while the Democratic Party and its allies in the intelligence community appeared ready to amplify warnings that Russia and Trump were working to steal the election. That proved irrelevant as Joe Biden won the presidency — although his electoral victory resulted from a 40,000-vote margin across three key states in 2020, which was half the margin Trump won by in 2016. Trump and his supporters, of course, rejected the election results as they promised to “stop the steal.”

If past is prologue, each party may well continue to escalate its electoral denial to a level where election results simply won’t matter at all. In 2016, Clinton officially conceded, but continued to publicly deny the election results. In 2020, Trump exploited the electoral cynicism that was decades in the making and refused to concede, inspiring his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the election results. Granted, Democrats did nothing like that in 2016 — but who knows the degree to which continued hyper-partisanship will escalate electoral denialism in the future? The point remains that denial and refusing to accept the election outcomes was very much part of the Democrats’ narrative from 2016, parroted by MSNBC and CNN in particular. It’s not just Fox News and Trump that are the problem here. It’s civic decay.

The bottom line here is that it’s simply unsustainable for a country to have half its voters, not to mention its candidates and party leaders, refuse to accept election results. Such political theater erodes election integrity because it distracts from legitimate threats to free and fair elections, such as voter suppression efforts and privatized election systems and voting machines, while simultaneously normalizing hyper-partisanship and electoral denialism. When people choose party loyalty over empirical results to determine electoral outcomes, the democratic republic ceases to exist.

As the virus mutates, the most common COVID symptoms appear to be changing, too

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, is devastating precisely because it can worm its way into so many different organs and systems in the body. That manifests as different symptoms, from fever to trouble breathing, although an infection can be asymptomatic, too — that is, no symptoms at all.

Throughout the pandemic, there have been a few telltale signs of COVID infection. The loss of sense of smell and taste were chief among them. But as the virus has mutated again and again, creating new strains like Typhon (BQ.1) and Gryphon (XBB) which can evade some of our tools to fight it, it seem that the symptoms of COVID may have changed as well.

Recent estimates published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday pegged Typhon and its close relative Cerberus (BQ.1.1) as making up 27 percent of cases, an 11 percent increase from last week. Meanwhile, cases of BA.5, the strain that has dominated cases for the majority of summer, dipped below 50 percent for the first time in months.

Indeed, emerging data suggests the symptoms of COVID are changing with new variants. And, they can differ regardless of whether you’ve been vaccinated or not, or previously infected. Newly released data from the ZOE Health Study, which maintains the COVID Symptom Tracker app, finds that the dominant symptoms have shifted.

The app was originally launched in March 2020. It quickly logged one million users, who typed in how COVID was making them feel, allowing researchers to pin down some of the most common COVID symptoms. It was part of the reason why it became well-known that anosmia (loss of smell and taste) is a key symptom of the original COVID strain.

More recently, ZOE crunched the data from over 4.8 million users and found that after two vaccinations, the top-ranking symptoms were sore throat, runny nose, blocked nose, persistent cough, headache, in that order. (Vaccines can protect against severe disease, which generally means hospitalization or death, but breakthrough infections are not unheard of, although far less severe than infections in the unvaccinated.)

Loss of smell has slipped to the number nine slot, while shortness of breath is down at number 30 for this group. ZOE says this indicates “the symptoms as recorded previously are changing with the evolving variants of the virus.”

Just one dose of a vaccine can shift the order of most common symptoms to headache, runny nose, sore throat, sneezing and then persistent cough. For those who haven’t received a vaccine at all, the symptoms are generally closer to the original ranking from 2020: headache, sore throat, runny nose, fever and persistent cough.

However, loss of smell has slipped to the number nine slot, while shortness of breath is down at number 30 for this group. ZOE says this indicates “the symptoms as recorded previously are changing with the evolving variants of the virus.”

Just because SARS-2 appears to be evolving does not mean that it will become more “mild” — and it’s definitely nothing like the flu or a regular cold. The virus indiscriminately attacks the inner lining of blood vessels, causing injuries to the heart and lungs, and can cause literal brain damage. Given the broad range of debilitating symptoms known as long COVID, it doesn’t really make sense to call this “mild.” Additionally, repeat infections could have unknown consequences — experts aren’t entirely sure what happens when you get COVID two, three or more times.

That’s why watching out for new symptoms are so important. COVID may manifest differently because different viral strains sometimes impact different parts of the body. The delta strain, for example, found its niche in the lower respiratory tract, while omicron BA.2 tends to prefer the upper airway.

But it’s also critical to note that the data from ZOE is self-reported and doesn’t take into account demographic information or which variant caused the infection. It’s also using averages to report the most common symptoms — everyone is different and there is no guarantee here the disease will follow a certain course.

Nonetheless, the data gives a good idea of what to expect and people should be aware of these changes in order to best protect themselves. And the tools to fight COVID haven’t really changed: testing, masking, indoor ventilation, drugs like Paxlovid and, of course, the vaccines are all powerful strategies we should be using more to prevent this winter wave from becoming extremely deadly. The Biden Administration warned this week that an estimated 30–70,000 Americans could die from the virus this winter. But even a small wave could cause supply chain disruptions and sicken millions.

One thing that could make this winter worse than previous COVID waves is the rise of a “variant soup,” meaning multiple new strains of the virus surging at once. In previous fall and winter waves, only one type of the virus (i.e. delta or the original “wild type” strain) has really dominated.

Public health experts are also warning of a “twindemic” or even “tripledemic” in which COVID surges along with flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Most people may have never heard of RSV, but it was first discovered in chimpanzees in 1956, and the virus regularly causes outbreaks in humans. It’s usually only serious in babies and older people, but it’s still not a fun illness.

Even though the fall is just beginning, both flu and RSV are returning with a vengeance after relatively few cases the previous two years. On Friday, the Washington Post reported that this flu season is early and more severe than it has been in 13 years, “with at least 880,000 cases of influenza illness, 6,900 hospitalizations and 360 flu-related deaths nationally.” Meanwhile, pediatric hospital beds across the U.S. are filling up with RSV cases, many of them completely full for weeks.

Symptoms of flu and RSV may overlap (cold-like symptoms like fever, runny nose, coughing), making it somewhat confusing for sick people to know what illness they really have. That underscores the importance of testing for COVID and visiting a doctor when ill, if you have access to medical care. It also serves as a reminder to stay home when sick and mask up when possible.

Masking prevents the spread of all three of these viruses: flu, RSV and COVID. That’s one theory as to why the last two winters have been mostly free of diseases other than COVID, which has dominated due to its novelty and severe contagiousness. But as restrictions loosen, some of these more familiar viruses are coming roaring back. Keeping track of new and old symptoms is really only part of the equation. Masks, vaccines and social distancing continue to be some of the best tools at our disposal.

“Making money off of the violence”: Amy Klobuchar does not trust Elon Musk to keep Twitter safe

United States Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) called said on Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press that she does not have faith in Elon Musk’s ability or willingness to keep harmful content from polluting Twitter, which the billionaire purchased this week.

Klobuchar is especially worried about the spreading of former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories, as well as users engaging in hate speech and calls for violence, which up until Musk’s takeover were prohibited under the site’s posting guidelines.

“We have to do something about this amplification of this election-denying hate speech that we see on the internet,” Klobuchar told NBC anchor Chuck Todd.

“Now that Elon Musk runs Twitter, do you trust him?” Todd asked.

“Ah, no, I do not,” Klobuchar said.

Musk stated on Friday that “no major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes” after he fired Twitter’s incumbent leadership.

“What’s your biggest fear of him running this social media platform?” Todd followed up.

Klobuchar expressed skepticism that Musk is capable of ensuring that Twitter is safe.

“Well, I think you have to have some content moderation because when you look at what this guy was looking at, he was looking at, just, horrendous things you don’t even want to talk about on your show. He was posting antisemitic tropes. He was showing memes that showed violence and all of this election-denying, pro-Trump, MAGA-crowd rhetoric. That’s what we’re dealing with here,” Klobuchar said.

“And if – Elon Musk has said now that he’s gonna start a content moderation board, that was one good sign – but I continue to be concerned about that. I just don’t think people should be making money off of passing on this stuff that’s a bunch of lies. You couldn’t do that on your network, Chuck,” the senator noted.

“Nope, we have rules, that’s right. That’s right,” Todd interjected in agreement.

Klobuchar advocated for adopting similar regulations on social media platforms, where millions of people get at least some of their news.

“You guys look at commercials and you decide if they are false or not. That is not a requirement of these companies and we have to change the requirements on these companies. They are making money off of us,” Klobuchar said. “They are making money off of this violence.”

Watch:

Mastriano fumbles when asked about antisemitism

In one of the most closely watched U.S. governor’s races in the 2022 midterms, the Republican candidate’s wife stepped in on his behalf after he was asked about anti-Semitism.

At a Saturday press conference in Pennsylvania, GOP nominee Doug Mastriano was asked by an Israeli reporter about his relationship with Andrew Torba and the extremist website Gab, which is a haven for white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

“Yeah, so —” Mastriano began, before an awkward 2-second pause.

“I would like to make a comment on that,” wife Rebbie Mastriano said as she stepped towards the lectern.

“Please,” her husband said as he backed away from the microphones.

Some of his supporters cheered.

“I’m just going to say, as a family, we so much love Israel,” she said.

“In fact, I’m gonna say we probably love Israel more than a lot of Jews do,” she argued. “I have to say that.”

Mastriano is facing Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who is Jewish.

Watch below:

From Poirot to Pünd: How “Magpie Murders” evolved its outsider detective

“Who did it? You’re in the story – you must know!”

In the latest episode of PBS’ “Magpie Murders,” book editor Susan Ryeland (Lesley Manville) is demanding the name of the killer in the murder mystery she’s editing. Unfortunately, she can’t just flip to the last chapter because it’s missing. But who needs that when she can just ask the book’s fictional detective directly?

Too bad Atticus Pünd (Tim McMullan) hasn’t exactly been cooperative, delivering cryptic remarks – like “betrayal hurts” – that sound portentous while offering no actual clues.

“He’s been in German labor camp during the war and then he comes to England as a refugee.”

Whether it’s stress or too much gin, Susan can see and hear the fictional detective as if he had somehow stepped out from the pages of the recently dead author Alan Conway’s book. Initially, Susan was startled when she had caught sight of the sleuth in the rearview mirror of her sporty convertible. But over time, she seems to have accepted that she can talk to and pick the brain of this figment of Alan’s imagination.

“The development of that relationship was very interesting,” McMullan told Salon in a Zoom interview about playing Atticus Pünd. “What was important to try and find was the development of trust and growing interdependence between the two characters. They need each other. In the beginning when she first sees him, she’s pretty freaked out by it, to put it mildly. And then by the end, she’s really quite pleased to see him.”

In the tradition of Agatha Christie’s Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, German refugee Atticus Pünd brings a unique outsider flavor to the very English mystery set in the 1950s. As Susan reads her book, onscreen we see how Atticus gets pulled into investigating two deaths that may or may not be related. The detective seems unflappable, perhaps influenced by his past.

“He’s been in German labor camp during the war and then he comes to England as a refugee and sets up as a private detective in the style of Poirot and other private detectives that we know,” said McMullan. “I think he’s a little bit troubled. He’s wounded by his experiences, haunted by his experiences, but he’s very dignified.

“He’s a gentle soul, but who has this tenacity to get to the truth of things,” he continued. “I felt that when when he gets to the point of working out who did it – which of course is a great achievement and an intellectual satisfaction for him – it is almost more in sorrow and pity than in anger. He has an empathy for human frailty. And of course, it’s human frailty that that gives rise to the mistakes that people make which lead them to commit crimes. So he’s not vindictive.”

While Poirot is rather dapper, sporting a three-piece suit, pocket watch, silver-topped cane and signature mustache, Pünd is less glamorous. Landing on just the right appearance for him took a few trials, one of which McMullan suggested and was ultimately rejected.

“I wanted glasses, which the director squashed,” said the actor. “He said you can’t film people in glasses. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but he was very anti that.”

Instead Anthony Horowitz, who had adapted “Magpie Murders” from his own novel, and the director had their own ideas. “Both he and the director didn’t want to create a visual persona that could be directly compared in any way to any other TV fictional period detective,” said McMullan. “So we decided to keep it very simple. And we felt that the silver-topped cane was again, a little bit too much of a cliche of that kind of genre writing.”

“I think he really enjoys being able to come out of his novel and explain to one of his readers … how they can solve a crime in their world.”

They eventually landed on a trench coat, which American audiences may find familiar, identify it with Peter Falk’s “Columbo” and other American gumshoes. The coat, however, has a far different significance when it comes to Pünd and his journey.

“The trench coat was a little bit shabby, and so I liked it. There’s a kind of slight air of refugee about him,” said McMullan. “The coat is Eastern middle European design; looks like from the beautiful old photographs from the ’40s. When people are stuck in transit, they wear those kinds of coats with a belt that does up in the middle and two rows of buttons and stuff. Then the homburg hat was a classic German Austrian hat. The hat gives the character a good silhouette.”

Magpie MurdersTim McMullan as Atticus Pünd and Matthew Beard as James Fraser in “Magpie Murders” (PBS/Eleventh Hour Films)

Pünd of course needs a sidekick, who we find in assistant James Fraser (Matthew Beard). While James is a good-looking, good-natured young man, he’s rather lost when it comes to fathoming the way Pünd can unravel mysteries. McMullan enjoyed creating their fun dynamic.

“I think we found it very quickly,” he said. “I think that James is always trying to cheat, to please Pünd, to get things right, but he never quite does. So Pünd gets a little bit exasperated with him and is always having to remind him what to do and pointing out his mistakes. It’s with a bit of exasperation, but also with a great deal of affection.”

When interacting with James, Pünd stays strictly in character – that is, he’s the 1950s detective he appears to be. When he speaks to Susan in the real world, however, he conveys an extra level of cognizance, acknowledging his book reality as well as her own.

“Pünd is a character in the kind of novel where things happen in a particular way, and we know how they happen because the genre that he exists in has particular conventions,” said McMullan. “One of the conventions is that the detective will always work out who did it. He says to Susan, ‘Yes, within the conventions, I will solve the crime. This is an immutable fact.’ 

“At the same time, he has the awareness that he is in a novel and he’s able to talk to someone who lives in real life, and point out the difference between the way things are in his world and the way things are in our world. So there’s a wonderful collision between the two of them in which they find actually, that maybe things aren’t so different.  . . . And so I think he really enjoys being able to come out of his novel and explain to one of his readers and help talk to them about how they can solve a crime in their world. And she learns from him certain things about that and about herself. Anthony would call it a sort of meta-suspense.”


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


Soon, viewers will be able to catch McMullan in another project that’s also a riff of of classic detective fiction, the “Enola Holmes” sequel following the adventures of Sherlock Holmes’ indomitable teen sister.

“I’ve done a few bits and pieces since ‘Magpie Murders,'” said McMullan. “Netflix did a film last year came out last year called ‘Enola Holmes.’ I’m a rather nasty character in the second, which is great. And I think that comes out quite soon, sometime in the autumn. And I’m about to shoot a remake of the action movie ‘Red Sonya.’ They’re doing a remake of that.”

“Magpie Murders” airs Sundays at 9 p.m. on PBS. 

A “Brazil of hope”: Leftist Lula narrowly defeats Bolsonaro in presidential election

“A huge blow against fascistic politics and a huge victory for decency and sanity.”

That’s how RootsAction director Norman Solomon described Brazilian leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s presidential runoff victory on Sunday against right-wing incumbent Jair Bolsonaro. Lula’s narrow victory marks the culmination remarkable political comeback for a man who was languishing behind bars just three years ago.

With 99.8% of the votes counted via an electronic system that tallies final results in a matter of hours — and which was repeatedly attacked by Bolsonaro in an effort to cast doubt on the election’s veracity — Lula led Bolsonaro by more than two million votes, a margin of 51% to 49%.

Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court confirmed the result shortly after 7 p.m. Eastern time. Within 45 minutes, President Joe Biden released a statement congratulating da Silva (who is known universally as Lula) on his victory “following free, fair and credible elections.” That is likely an effort to forestall or deflect claims of election fraud by Bolsonaro and his supporters. Brazil has no electoral college and the legislature plays no role in presidential elections; the popular vote is the final verdict. “I look forward to working together to continue the cooperation between our two countries in the months and years ahead,” Biden added.

Lula himself declared victory with a one-word tweet: “Democracy.”

“Brazil is my cause, the people are my cause and fighting poverty is the reason why I will live until the end of my life,” Lula said during his victory speech.

“As far as it depends on us, there will be no lack of love,” he vowed. “We will take great care of Brazil and the Brazilian people. We will live in a new time. Of peace, of love and of hope. A time when the Brazilian people will once again have the right to dream. And the opportunities to realize what you dream.”

Lula, the 77-year-old co-founder of the leftist Workers’ Party, became the first challenger to defeat an incumbent president since the restoration of Brazilian democracy after the end of military dictatorship in 1985. His campaign overcame rampant social media-enabled disinformation, political violence (including the assassination of a congressional candidate from Lula’s party), and what some observers called massive Election Day voter suppression by pro-Bolsonaro police.

Bolsonaro and his version of far-right nationalism (often compared to that of Donald Trump) will nonetheless remain a powerful force in Brazilian politics after this narrow defeat. His tenure was marked by accelerated environmental destruction, especially of the Amazon rainforest; gross mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed more people in Brazil than in any other country except the U.S.; disdain for the rights of indigenous peoples; rampant bigotry and flirtation with authoritarianism.

According to the Brazilian right-wing website Antagonista, Bolsonaro “will not call the president-elect” tonight, but does not “intend to question the result,” citing the incumbent president’s representatives. As the Guardian reported on Sunday night, that will “come as a relief amid widespread fears that Bolsonaro, a former army captain who has spent years attacking Brazil’s democratic institutions, might refuse to accept defeat.”

Bolsonaro and his campaign have remained silent in the hours since Lula was declared the winner. Journalist Marlos Ápyus tweeted, “‘Bolsonaro in silence.’ Let him go in silence. As for me, I’ll never hear his voice again.”

“Bolsonaro lost, but Bolsonarism emerged victorious. The numbers don’t lie,” tweeted São Paulo state lawmaker Erica Malunguinho, a reference to the incumbent’s 58 million-plus votes. “Our project must be political and pedagogical.”

Jubilant crowds thronged the streets of cities, including São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, on Sunday evening. Drivers honked horns and people cheered and chanted slogans including the popular campaign jingle “Lula lá” — “Lula’s there” — and “Tá na hora de Jair ir embora” — “Time for Jair to leave.”


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


Brazilian and international progressives, as well as many of the nation’s poor, Indigenous, LGBTQ+ people, women and people of color celebrated Lula’s imminent return to the Palácio da Alvorada (Brazil’s presidential palace), which he occupied for two terms from 2003 to 2010.

“No more fear! With peace, love, and hope we will dream again,” tweeted Brazilian author Bianca Santana. “And we will work to live a full democracy where all people fit.”

Maria do Rosário, a PT member of the Chamber of Deputies — the lower house of Brazil’s National Congress — representing Rio Grande do Sul, exulted: “Today is the Day of Respect for Brazilian Women, it’s Workers’ Day, the Day of the Free Press and transparency. Today is Children’s Day and the fight against pedophilia; Day of the family and victims of Covid; Today is the day of courage and love. I hug you for that!”

“Today, the people of Brazil have voted for democracy, workers’ rights, and environmental sanity,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders. “I congratulate Lula on his hard-fought victory and look forward to a strong and prosperous relationship between the United States and Brazil.”

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., called Lula’s victory “a win for our values and a better world.”

UC Berkeley sociology professor Daniel Aldana Cohen said, “Lula’s narrow victory is still a massive win for Brazil: for its working class, its Black and Indigenous communities, and against fascism. It’s also a win for the Amazon and the planet itself — and thus [very] good news for the multiracial working class of the whole world.”

Reuters climate correspondent Jake Spring tweeted, “The lungs of the Earth will breathe easier tonight.”

Lula is beloved by millions of Brazilians for his lifelong advocacy for the poor, workers, minorities and rural and indigenous people. As president, he lifted millions of Brazilians from poverty through sweeping social programs, including Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) and Bolsa Familia (Family Allowance), while presiding over Brazil’s rise into the top tier of world economies. Barack Obama once called him the “most popular politician on Earth.”

Lula’s focus on social uplift at the expense of the oligarchy earned him powerful enemies at home, however, and his solidarity with leftist Latin American leaders and opposition to U.S. imperialism made him a target of many in Washington and on Wall Street. 

In 2017, Lula was convicted of corruption and money laundering in connection with the sweeping “Car Wash” scandal and spent 580 days behind bars before being freed after Brazil’s supreme court ruled that his incarceration was unlawful. Last year, the high court annulled several criminal convictions against Lula, restoring his political rights and setting the stage for his 2022 run, which has now ended in victory.

His win is the latest in a string of leftist victories in Latin America, which has offered a significant counterbalance to the resurgence of right-wing politics in other parts of the world.

“Congratulations brother Lula, president-elect of Brazil,” tweeted Bolivian President Luis Arce. “Your victory strengthens democracy and Latin American integration. We are sure that you will lead the Brazilian people along the path of peace, progress and social justice.”

What’s new on Netflix in November, from “The Crown” and “Blockbuster” to “Wednesday”

As sweater weather brings a bout of cooler weather, stay warm in the comfort of your own home, preferably cozied up with a hefty blanket, a bowl of piping-hot soup and new entertainment, courtesy of Netflix.

If you’re looking for feel-good content to binge watch, be sure to check out the fifth season of “The Great British Baking Show: Holidays,” which follows a new batch of competitors looking to impress judges Paul Hollywood and Prue Leith with their festive bakes. There’s also “Christmas With You,” a romantic-comedy film starring Freddie Prinze Jr. that concerns a burnt-out pop star who escapes to a small New York town, where she finds both inspiration and a shot at true love.

In anticipation of this year’s World Cup — which starts on Nov. 20 — don’t miss out on a slew of soccer content, including the soccer corruption documentary, “FIFA Uncovered,” the animated sports film, “The Soccer Football Movie” and “The Final Score,” a miniseries about the rise and fall of Colombian soccer and Andrés Escobar, who was murdered in the aftermath of the 1994 FIFA World Cup.

This month also brings a collection of non-Netflix titles that still remain as classics today. Notable mentions include the 1963 comedy film “The Pink Panther” and the 1999 rom-com “Notting Hill,” starring Julia Roberts — who returned to the genre this year with “Ticket to Paradise” — and Hugh Grant as a famous American actor and a humble London bookstore owner who (you guessed it!) fall in love despite their different lifestyles. Another must-watch is “The Bodyguard,” especially prior to the anticipated release of Whitney Houston’s biopic “I Wanna Dance with Somebody” this December. 

Check out our picks below: 

01
“Killer Sally,” Nov. 2

This three-episode docuseries investigates the 1995 Valentine’s Day shooting death of bodybuilding champion Ray McNeil by his wife Sally, who is currently serving her sentence of 19 years to life at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, California. Was the murder really premeditated or an act of self-defense? Friends, family and acquaintances make appearances in the series along with Sally herself, who recounts her rocky marriage, her husband’s abuse and the motive behind her crime.

 

02
“Blockbuster,” Nov. 3

Fans of “The Office,” “Parks and Recreation,” “Superstore” and other workplace comedies will also enjoy Netflix’s upcoming series “Blockbuster.” Randall Park stars as Timmy, the manager of the last Blockbuster Video store on Earth, alongside Melissa Fumero as Eliza, Timmy’s long-time crush and recently divorced coworker. Together, the pair and their fellow staff members fight to keep their store both relevant and in business.

 

This is the second time Netflix has used the Blockbuster brand. The streamer first featured the brand in a 2020 documentary called “The Last Blockbuster” which also spotlights Blockbuster’s last store in Bend, Oregon.

 

03
“Enola Holmes 2,” Nov. 4
Millie Bobby Brown and Henry Cavill reprise their roles as Enola Holmes and Sherlock Holmes in the sequel to the 2020 film, which is also based on Nancy Springer’s young adult fiction series of the same name. Attempting to escape her brother Sherlock’s shadow, Enola is eager to start her own practice and solve her first official mystery case, which involves a missing match factory worker. In addition to her newfound responsibilities as a detective, Enola struggles to maneuver a budding crush along with the more serious issues of her time, including ageism and sexism.
 

04
“The Crown,” Season 5, Nov. 9
Netflix’s “The Crown” will make its highly anticipated return soon, following the death of Prince Philip on April 9, 2021 and the death of Queen Elizabeth II earlier this year. This new season will highlight the royal family’s life from the early-to-mid 1990s, with special focus on Princess Diana and Prince Charles’ (now King) bombshell separation and the former’s tragic car accident. Imelda Staunton is set to star as Queen Elizabeth alongside Jonathan Pryce, who plays Philip, Elizabeth Debicki, who plays Diana, and Dominic West, who plays Charles.
 

05
“Falling for Christmas,” Nov. 10 
Christmas is coming early this year with “Falling for Christmas,” Netflix’s upcoming romantic comedy film starring Lindsey Lohan, who is officially making her acting comeback over a decade later, and Chord Overstreet (“Glee”) in the main roles. Lohan plays Sierra Belmont, a newly engaged and spoiled heiress who suffers from total amnesia following a skiing accident. She subsequently finds herself in the care of a handsome, blue-collar lodge owner named Jake, played by Overstreet, and his daughter at Christmastime.
 

06
Is That Black Enough For You?!?” Nov. 11

Written and directed by renowned film critic Elvis Mitchell, “Is That Black Enough For You?!?” is a documentary film that examines “the evolution — and revolution — of Black cinema from its origins to the impactful films of the 1970s.” 

 

Earlier this month, Mitchell told Variety that the documentary was inspired by his own life experiences: “As a Black viewer, I found myself confronted with what wasn’t being voiced about my people, and wondered why the movies were so slow to respond to Black audiences — who were paying good money to see movies — and even social shifts brought about by the civil rights movement.”

 

In addition to Mitchell’s commentary and analysis, the documentary features interviews with prominent Black stars in Hollywood, including Laurence Fishburne, Whoopi Goldberg, Samuel L. Jackson, Suzanne de Passe, Billy Dee Williams and Zendaya.

 

07
In Her Hands,” Nov. 16

Filmed over a two-year period, this documentary explores the story of Zarifa Ghafari, who became one of Afghanistan’s first female mayors and the youngest to ever hold the position at 26 years of age. “In Her Hands” documents Ghafari’s “fight for survival against the backdrop of her country’s accelerated unraveling as Western forces announce their retreat and the Taliban start their sweep back to power.”

 

Back in September, “In Her Hands” won the audience award at the 18th Camden International Film Festival. The documentary is directed by Tamana Ayazi and Marcel Mettelsiefen with Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea serving as executive producers.

 

08
“The Wonder,” Nov. 16
Based on the 2016 period novel by Emma Donoghue, “The Wonder” stars Florence Pugh as nurse Lib Wright, who travels from England to a remote Irish village in 1862 to observe an 11-year-old girl named Anna O’Donnell (Kíla Lord Cassidy), who has not eaten for four months. Although Anna’s fast has been hailed as a miraculous phenomenon, Lib soon realizes the direness of the situation and attempts to use both science and faith to save the young girl’s life.
 

09
“Dead to Me” Season 3, Nov. 17
The third (and final) season of Netflix’s popular black comedy series is finally returning almost three years after its second season dropped. The season will pick up from the massive cliffhanger, which includes Ben Wood’s (James Marsden) drunken car crash with best friend duo Jen Harding (Christina Applegate) and Judy Hale (Linda Cardellini) along with Jen’s shocking confession that she killed Steve, her ex-fiancé and Ben’s semi-identical twin brother.
 

10
Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?” Nov. 17

Directed by Andrew Renzi, this four-part docuseries tells the story of a ludicrous Pepsi campaign involving a pricey fighter jet and a teenage boy who decided to challenge one of the largest corporations in America. The 1996 promotional gambit encouraged consumers to mass purchase Pepsi products to accumulate “Pepsi Points” in exchange for “Pepsi Stuff” or prizes, including a $23 million Harrier Jump Jet. 

 

Pepsi execs assumed the astronomical “price” of the jet would make it impossible for anyone to attain it, but they clearly thought wrong after one college student named John Leonard accepted the offer as a challenge and later sued Pepsi for the fighter jet prize that never existed in the first place.

 

11
Inside Job” Part 2, Nov. 18

The adult animated sci-fi workplace comedy series follows Reagan Ridley, a talented yet socially awkward robotics engineer who works at the shadow government organization Cognito Inc., struggling to cope with the aftermath of her father’s major betrayal. Season 2 also introduces Adam Scott, voicing a key member of the Illuminati, Cognito’s primary rival company.

 

“Inside Job” also stars the voices of Christian Slater, Clark Duke, Andrew Daly, Bobby Lee, John DiMaggio, Tisha Campbell, Chris Diamantopoulos and Brett Gelman.

 

12
Trevor Noah: I Wish You Would,” Nov. 22 

Noah’s third Netflix stand-up special, called “I Wish You Would,” is more lighthearted in nature than his usual segments on “The Daily Show.” Viewers can expect to hear about Noah “learning to speak German, modern communication, and his love for curry,” per Netflix. 

 

The special also comes after Noah announced in September that he’s officially ending his tenure as host of “The Daily Show” on Dec. 8.

13
Wednesday,” Nov. 23

Based on Wednesday Addams from “The Addams Family,” Netflix’s upcoming coming of age supernatural mystery comedy series stars Jenna Ortega as the titular character. As a high school student at Nevermore Academy, Wednesday investigates a local monstrous killing spree while making new friends — and foes.

 

Alongside Ortega, Luis Guzmán stars as Gomez Addams, the family’s patriarch; Catherine Zeta-Jones stars as Morticia Addams, the family’s matriarch; and Isaac Ordonez stars as Pugsley Addams, Wednesday’s younger brother. Christina Ricci, who notably played Wednesday in the 1991 film “The Addams Family,” also makes an appearance as Marylin Thornhill, a den mother to the female students at Nevermore Academy.

 

14
“The Swimmers,” Nov. 23
Sally El Hosaini’s biographical drama film tells the true story of Yusra and Sara Mardini, two young sisters and talented swimmers who embark on a risky voyage from war-torn Syria to the 2016 Rio Olympics. Lebanese actors and real-life sisters Nathalie Issa and Manal Issa play the roles of Yusra and Sara, respectively.
 

15
“Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich,” Nov. 25
Following the release of the 2020 docuseries “Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich,” comes “Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich,” which now spotlights the sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a socialite, convicted sex offender and accomplice of Epstein, along with stories from survivors.

“I was 13 when doctors started telling me to have a baby”: A real-life tale of medical trauma

It’s the hymen story that gets me.

There are any number of shocking, enraging — and entirely relatable — moments in poet, editor and author Emma Bolden’s stunning endometriosis chronicle “The Tiger and the Cage: A Memoir of a Body in Crisis.” There are scenes of abrupt, confounding pain, of medical misdiagnoses and treatments that did more harm than good. And it’s not even the wrenching image of the 17 year-old Bolden, chewing resolutely on the ice cubes in a cup of Diet Coke while her surgeon informs her and her stunned mother that he broke her hymen during a procedure that makes me gasp. It’s the part where Bolden recounts, “He told me not to worry, that he had sewn my hymen up again. Good as new.” It’s also the part where she has a second surgery, and a second time that part of her body is torn and briskly restitched. “Prior to none of these procedures did I express a wish,” she writes, “that should my hymen be torn, it should be sewn back up.”

What makes the hymen tale so arresting is how damn typical it feels. A young and vulnerable female, suffering, and the professional healthcare response is a stunningly misplaced regard for her chastity or fertility. Bolden has other, similar anecdotes. She remembers being in the eighth grade, noting, “That was the year that doctors started telling me that if I wanted to have a baby, I’d better do it quick. I’d better do it young. I’d need to finish school, of course. I’d need to get a degree, of course. But I’d need to find a nice young man to settle down with, too — and fast. Then I could have a baby followed quickly by a hysterectomy.”

After spending the better part of her life living with chronic pain, Bolden does not have an easy, fixable story to tell here. Hers is a tale instead of the lessons that suffering can impart, of the ways in which our bodies can betray us and then our doctors can further fail us. But it’s also an intimate, eloquent personal history of survival and self-discovery. And it’s one of the most riveting and accessible accounts of the experience of pain you’ll read all year.

Salon talked to Bolden recently about the myths and realities of living with endometriosis, coming out as asexual, and her message of hope that “It’s going to get better — even if it doesn’t get better.” 

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

There are so many books about women’s pain that unfortunately seem to have a particular agenda, where they’re trying to sell a diet or mindset or some easy fix. In this book, you keep coming back to ask the questions about why this happened, how it could be fixed, but you don’t have answers. What was it like for you writing this, knowing that you weren’t going to be able to give people, “Well, just cut out gluten”?

It was really hard for me, not just in terms of what the audience may expect and need and want. God knows, I would love for somebody to say, “Just don’t wear sneakers any more and you’ll be fine.” The thing that was even harder for me was, how do I write and finish a book when I don’t have the answers I need to complete the story? I feel like a lot of chronic pain narratives have a very specific arc that ends in the person finally finding out what’s wrong and reaching a level of health or fixing the problem. That still has not happened to me. So I had to think, how do I tell a story that doesn’t have an ending, but still make the book end in a satisfying way? 

We have this expectation of that traditional storytelling narrative. For people who’ve experienced this level of pain, there’s the continued hope that there’s an explanation, and that once you have the explanation, you will have a solution. This is such a much more liminal story. What made you want to tell it in the first place?

I think I had to. I didn’t really feel like I had a choice. Part of the reason why I felt so compelled was that I felt like I had been living with these dark secrets all of my life. I finally came to a point where I realized, there’s no reason to be keeping all of this secret and keeping myself from speaking about it. It’s just a body. It’s just something that happened to my body. But there are all of these social expectations that we have when it comes to talking about those parts of the body. 

“There’s nothing socially wrong with you just because you have a horrible period.”

I felt like it was necessary to open up a space in which maybe other women could learn that a lot earlier. These things don’t necessarily need to be secret. You can talk openly about your experience and your pain. You haven’t done anything wrong. There’s nothing socially wrong with you just because you have a horrible period.

Let’s start where this story originates for you. You acknowledge that it dovetails with a mysterious experience that happened to you in the fifth grade. You can see correlation without necessarily assigning causation. But a lot of people you encountered wanted to connect those dots very neatly between the two. What changed in your life around fifth grade?

In fifth grade, I had this really strange and unsettling relationship with one of my one of my teachers. I know for a fact that it wasn’t an abusive relationship, necessarily, but there were still lines that were crossed. I was very attached to her. But at the same time, there was just something that was not quite right. There was a sort of hair on the back of your neck feeling the whole time as well. 

She left very suddenly, after spring break. And I developed a cough. I just coughed constantly, and missed two weeks of school. Finally my doctor realized, there may not necessarily be a physiological cause for this. It might be something else. That kind of cleaved my life in half, because a psychological reasoning provides a completely easy answer for physical pain. If the doctor can’t come up with an answer and can’t figure out what to do, I found them coming back to that incident over and over again.

There’s an understandable desire to do that, both from a patient perspective and from a provider perspective. We’ll find the answer and then we can fix it. What happened with you instead? 

Yeah, that didn’t happen. Things got back to normal, in terms of my social life and being in school. But that was the year that I started my period too, and that completely changed everything. My first couple of periods were normal. After that, they were so bad that I remember very clearly, every month, there would be one day where I would be throwing up and passing out at the same time. One of my parents would have to hold me up and the other one would have to hold hold my head and make sure that I didn’t aspirate and things like that. That was the year that pretty much everything changed for me. It was like I was two different people. I had the mask that I put on in public and then, for seven days out of the month, it was like it wasn’t even in my body because I was in so much pain and so sick.


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


You say in the book, “Good girls keep quiet, letting others tell their stories. Good girls hold their truths until death.” You have the actual pain. You have something emotional that happened to you that you can’t quite name. You have this quest for answers that becomes increasingly detrimental and harmful to you as the years go on. You have this this system that doesn’t want to deal with it or talk about it. Then you also talk about depression. What to you, looking back now on the years and years and years of this painful, difficult experience, was the hardest aspect of that? 

It was bad. I would definitely say that the physical pain was hardest. But I’m still dealing with the psychological response to physical pain, especially when it got to a point where I realized, I’m in this much pain, and there’s nothing I can do to get out of it.

I think that relates to a lot of conditions that aren’t just physical pain. I suffered from PMDD, premenstrual dysmorphic disorder. I can remember being in these horrific depressions and having to tell myself, “I can’t get out of this until the hormones change. I just have to grit my teeth and bear it.” Literally grit my teeth, actually.

Let’s go in on the story about your hymen. What do you wish had happened in that circumstance? What was communicated to you? What would have been a better thing for you?

I would just leave it broken, right? I remember when the doctor told me. My mother and her friend who’s a nurse were both in the room and they were both like, “What? Why would you do that? Just leave it.” 

“I didn’t say before I went into surgery, ‘If you break my hymen, please repair it.'”

There are so many cultural implications and rules on a woman’s body that you don’t realize you don’t have agency over and that take agency away from you. I didn’t say before I went into surgery, “If you break my hymen, please repair it,” because that was not even a thought. 

You had a great advocate in your mom. You had someone who was on your side, who believed you, who asked the right questions, was constantly trying to get you good help. It’s important to say, that’s not always enough. 

That’s not always enough. My father was a great advocate, too. He came to some presurgical meetings, especially when I was under eighteen. I’d have to have a parent there, and my dad would come. Maybe this is a deep south thing, where sometimes it’s beneficial to have a man in the room. He could fight in a different way, I think, than my mother and I could.

I do still have an incredible advocate and supporter with my mother. She had a lot of the same problems. She was very open about it. If I had not had that influence, and somebody I could talk to, I don’t know how it would have made it through. But sometimes, not even having an advocate in there can help you. And then sometimes the doctors are even like, “Well, you’re too attached to your mother. That’s the problem.” 

For people who are going through different kinds of severe, sometimes debilitating menstrual and gynecological pain, what do you wish had been done differently? You talk about the medications, you talk about the surgery. Where do you feel like it really went off course in a way that was the most significant?

To be honest, at the time, I just needed to get through middle school, high school and college. That’s all I was thinking about. 

I did some treatments that at that time they didn’t know enough about and were kind of experimental. The one thing that is the most damaging to me to this day are the GnRH antagonists, because I was on a drug that took me through menopause. I should not have been on it anywhere near as long as I was. I definitely shouldn’t have been on it without taking a low dose of estrogen to make things better. That’s the thing that I didn’t realize was going to have consequences for my entire body for the rest of my life.

Where are you now? How are you, in terms of the physical and the pain and the experience that you live with? 

“Hysterectomy was not a cure for endometriosis. Nobody said that to me.”

It’s really strange because I do still have unbelievable levels of pain. I still have periods, which is the weirdest thing. I still have endometriosis. I was not aware that hysterectomy was not a cure for endometriosis. Nobody said that to me.

I really thought that after the hysterectomy, I was finally going to be able to live and get my second chance at life. Then I had all of the crazy complications that didn’t go away. I still have monthly bleeding and serious pain and nausea and all of that. I’m still dealing with the physical stuff. I don’t have any more answers than everything that I know now is in the book, except now I know that I have early arthritis in some places because of medications. But on the other side, I do feel like it did give me another chance at life just in terms of how I feel mentally and emotionally. Having a hysterectomy freed me to be like, okay, this is what I need to do in my life. And it’s time for me to do it.

This book is so interesting, because there is the presumption of “How much time do I have that I can find someone and have a baby?” The narrative is that the pain and the endometriosis are an obstacle to heteronormative marriage and baby. You take time getting to this point of asking, “Wait a minute. Is that what I want?” 

Absolutely. I was thirteen when the doctors started telling me that basically, “We think you’re going to be able to have a baby, but you need to do it when you’re really young. You need to find somebody and settle down and have a baby as soon as possible.” Thirteen is such a major age in terms of malleability and forming your ideas of what you’re supposed to do and what adulthood is supposed to look like, that I just absorbed it. When I started dating, that was all that I was thinking about. “I’ve got to find somebody to have a baby with so I can take care of this.” And one thing is I’ve heard recently having conversations is that they still say this. Doctors would also tell you the only way to make your endometriosis better is to have a baby. Which, PS, does not work, either.

It’s just absolutely not true. I eventually was like, “Wait a minute, why? Why am I spending this much of my life focused on this?” And on the sexuality side, I never really was interested in the whole sex thing. I thought that it was because of medications I was on and everything that I had been through. I figured, “When I have a hysterectomy, that’ll cure that.” Then when I did have the hysterectomy, I was like, “Oh, good. I don’t have to worry about having a baby any more. I don’t have to try that. All right, we’re good.”

This idea of asexuality is still so taboo, and there’s still so much shame around it, and this sense that it’s a problem and it needs to be fixed. You’re very clear in the book that there’s a difference between having a low sex drive and wanting more and being cool with who you are.

“Asexuality isn’t a symptom of anything. This is my identity.”

So often, asexuality is treated like it’s a medical problem that you need to cure with medications and treatments and all of these things. I finally realized, no, this isn’t a symptom of anything. This is my identity, and I’m okay with that. I finished the book before Angela Chen’s “Ace” came out. I read that book, and was like, wow, I wish I’d had this earlier. I probably would have realized much, much earlier that I was actually asexual and it’s not just a side effect of medication or something like that. I don’t know if I would have had my hysterectomy earlier. I don’t know. 

What do you want people who are in the same place where you are to know? Maybe it’s a girl who’s in the fifth grade or maybe it’s a 42 year old who’s been dealing with this as quietly as is humanly possible for decades. What do you want to tell people who are facing this experience?

I would tell them, it’s okay if you’re not quiet. Before I wrote this book, and especially before I had my hysterectomy, I would sometimes feel like I was going to explode because I was holding in so much every single minute of my life. I felt like I couldn’t talk about this to anybody or let anybody know what was actually going on. When I started talking more openly about it, it really did release a lot of that steam out of the tea kettle. Also, I would want to say that it’s going to get better — even if it doesn’t get better. There are ways to care for yourself and make things better for yourself even if you don’t necessarily have a medical resolution.

I would imagine that every month there is this anticipation of pain that must be very draining. How do you deal with the cyclical nature of it?

It is extremely draining. I actually have a graph where I can write it out and figure out when it’s going to happen so I have a little bit of help there. Through most of my life, the way that I dealt with it was through work. Working on my writing was the only thing that could I could focus on that would override the pain a little bit. But over the past few years, I’ve decided to try a thing called rest, which I’ve never done before. If I’m a ton of pain, I will let myself hanging out on the couch playing ridiculous video games. I know that sounds completely insane that this has been a life changing thing, but it really it really has.

How candy corn became the villain in our modern Halloween lore

I’ve always had a real soft spot for foods and food institutions that seem impervious to an artisan touch — seedy bars, old-school diners, the Italian beef joint where they’ll tell you to “f**k off and come back when you’re ready” if you dawdle at the counter. This ethos extends into individual dishes, as well, and a lot of holiday classics fit the bill, such as fruitcake and green bean casserole, and of course, candy corn.

Candy corn wasn’t a huge part of my childhood Halloween experience. I’m sure I received a few of those little orange-yellow-and-white shards of corn syrup in my trick-or-treating bucket while growing up (OG McDonald’s Halloween pail for the win!), but I don’t remember loving or hating them, which seems to be our culture’s current default setting when it comes to candy corn.

After all, for years, headline writers and meme-makers have made a meal out of candy corn slander.

Our food culture isn’t one that really rewards indifference. Just look at how we talk about food online. There are more recipes marketed as the “best chocolate cake you’ve ever tasted” than ones for “a totally passable-for-a-weeknight chocolate cake.” It’s a kind of hyperbole that is rewarded during every step of the process, from search engine placement to social media shares, until a recipe finally momentarily transcends into culinary mononym territory, like “The Cookie” or “The Stew.”

In 2014, Deadspin published the article “Candy Corn Is Garbage,” which said the candy was the diet of “hobos, serial murderers and Satan.” A few years later, The Takeout referred to it as “Satan’s earwax.” I’ve been up for only a few hours this morning, and I’ve already seen four memes with the same punchline: “How to eat candy corn? The first step is to stick it in the trash.”

The online hate for candy corn is outsized when compared to actual consumer data — or, you know, the data that can be found detailing the candies customers hate the least. In an ironic move, Byte, a teeth aligner startup, surveyed over 1,000 Americans, finding that only 34% of respondents indicated they “hated” candy corn. Twenty-two percent said they loved it, while the remaining respondents were indifferent.


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


Simultaneously, culinary horrors tend to captivate audiences. As Sam Stone wrote for Bon Appetit earlier this week, scathing restaurant reviews have reached TikTok, and this breed of review is particularly cutting, with virality in mind. One reviewer told Stone: “People want the drama — and that’s what we’re giving.”

Candy corn — a simple, slightly waxy, amalgam of notes of butter, sugar and vanilla — isn’t really splashy enough on its own to drive drama. As such, it needed to be conscripted into a narrative and assigned a role. In this case, candy corn became the villain that should’ve never been born.

While this may sound like a stretch, we’ve gotten really good at doing this within our food culture, especially when it comes to seasonal offerings such as Peeps and pumpkin spice lattes. The stories we tell about these foods and the debates surrounding their merits have become part of our modern-day holiday lore.

While many Halloween candies have artisan analogues, gourmet candy corn varieties are thin on the ground. I know because I went on a multi-store tour in search of some this week. Some were good, most were just fine, none of them were earth-shatteringly fantastic or bad.

For better or worse, candy corn is largely the same now as it was when it was first invented by George Renninger in the 1880s at the Wunderle Candy Company — a fact that is actually really refreshing in a world where I have three uniquely-shaped ice cube trays to ensure I always have the “right ice” for a coffee or cocktail. In the story of candy corn, it was never really the villain. Our expectations for it were.

To borrow a phrase from the Italian beef joint, when it comes to candy corn, “f**k off and come back when you’re ready” to accept it for what it is.

Is it possible to decolonize the wine industry?

Today, California produces more than 90% of all wine made in the United States. A $43.6 billion dollar industry, it is also the fourth largest wine producer in the world. The beverage is quintessential to the state’s self-image as Europe’s carefree kid-sister; of America’s arrival and clout in the international wine market.

And yet, as land in the state becomes dryer and fires burn hotter, activists across the country are challenging California’s glittering self-conception. Despite its status as a luxury good, “wine, at the end of the day, is an agricultural product and needs to be treated as such,” says activist and sommelier Jahdé Marley.

Agriculture accounts for more than 70% of all water usage in the state, the vast majority of which is held by billionaire megafarmers with a chokehold on California’s “bewilderingly complex” water rights. In Napa and Sonoma — the heart of California’s wine industry — investors from South Korea, Australia, and Arkansas have recently paid $250M, $315M, and $180M for vineyards, respectively. Even California governor Gavin Newsom’s company, PlumpJack, recently purchased $14.5M vineyard in Napa. (Newsom launched his career by opening a winery in Napa with Gordon Getty, son of oil billionaire J. Paul Getty).

However, the seizure of land by the ultra-powerful to make wine in the state is nothing new. California’s winemaking industry began in the 18th century when a vast wave of Spanish priests arrived and constructed Catholic missions — Santa Cruz, San Jose, Santa Barbara — across the state’s spine. There, Franciscan priests grew rows of imported pais grapes for sacrament, forcing hundreds of Indigenous tribes from their ancestral lands in the process.

Given this history of colonization, wealth inequality and the ongoing climate crisis, activists say that change in the industry is both imminent and necessary. In California and beyond, a new generation of winemaker-activists is using hybrid and indigenous grapes to create transformational change. The movement, which Jahdé Marley calls Anything But Vinifera, or ABV, “seeks to use wine and ferments as a vehicle to enact land justice, social justice, and food justice — all of which ties back to agriculture.”

The 280 Project, located at Alemany Farm in San Francisco, is considered by many to be the heart of the ABV movement. The farm is nestled between the Alemany Apartments — 158 units of much-needed affordable housing in a city with the highest rents in the country— and Interstate 280. Among a sea of grapes, the car horns are a disorienting reminder of the challenges of growing food in a system designed for semi-trucks instead of land stewards. For Christopher Renfro and Jannea Tschirch, though, the interstate is a source of inspiration.

Renfro and Tschirch started the 280 project in 2019. Renfro heard that rows of vines at Alemany had been abandoned and rushed over to be their caretaker. For Renfro, a trained horticulturist and sommelier, it felt like fate. At first, the duo only wanted to experiment. Could they make a great bottle of wine in their apartment? Almost immediately, though, it became clear that their calling was larger.

They started to hear stories about the previous winemaker harassing Black residents who entered the farm, despite Alemany’s public status. Renfro, who is Black, and Tschirch, who is white, wanted to create a radically different space. In addition to winemaking grapes, they started to plant grapes for snacking. Neighbors came and ate them fresh from the vine. After several similar, small gestures, a vision emerged. The 280 Project could train people who had long been excluded from the industry — Black, Indigenous, trans and queer — to make wine, feed their community and build sustainable livelihoods in the process.

In 2020, in collaboration with the winemaker Steve Matthiasson, that vision materialized into a full-blown apprenticeship program. Each year, five students have the opportunity to learn about all aspects of winemaking, from climate-adaptive farming techniques to the benefits of hybrid grapes. When the first application opened, spots filled up in less than five minutes.

Like Renfro and Tschirch, Jahdé Marley launched Anything But Vinifera after noticing severe underrepresentation of people of color in the wine industry — and an accompanying refusal by wine industry leaders to acknowledge wine’s contribution to climate change. Originally envisioned as a one-day symposium, Anything But Vinifera quickly transformed into a hub to enact change in the industry as a whole.

The name Anything But Vinifera refers to hybrid grapes, fruit wines and native grapes. “Anything but” the Vitis vinifera — Cabernet Sauvignon, Pais and Chardonnay — found on “classic” wine lists across the country. It is an explicit refusal to continue with the status quo.

Hybrids are the result of two, cross-bred grapes, usually Vitis vinifera and another native grape. They often require less water (or no water at all, which is a boon in drought-prone California) and can grow in more diverse climates than their Vitis vinifera counterparts. Despite their recent popularity, wines made from fruits and native grapes have existed for millenia. “The belief that only Vitis viniferacould be called wine is the result of colonialism” which created a singular, exclusive definition of wine, says Marley. Recent evidence suggests that the first wines were made with indigenous grapes more than 9,000 years ago at Jiahu in Neolithic China

“The original wine was a botanical co-ferment,” says Marley, referring to the fact that combining grapes with other fruits, herbs and spices is nothing new. Despite this history, indigenous grapes, co-ferments and hybrids have been deeply stigmatized in European winemaking.

The first hybrid grapes were planted in the 19th century, when a small pest called phylloxera decimated the European wine industry. By the 1880s, the phylloxera rampage cut France’s vibrant and essential industry in half, causing the price of wine to skyrocket. But scientists struggled to determine how the phylloxera had arrived in Europe — and if they could stop it.

A clue came when a collection of imported American vines, most likely Vitis labrusca, were able to survive the attack. For winemakers across France, it became clear: phylloxera had been imported from America. But how?

For Marley, the timing offers a key clue. “When we look at what was happening in the early to mid-1800s, these are the same ships that are carrying enslaved Africans,” she says, pointing to the fact that slavery had not yet been abolished in the United States. At the same time, there was an extensive trade network carrying tobacco and cotton — all of which had been grown using the forced labor of enslaved Africans — between the two countries. This means the pest could have attached itself to one of these products, or even to ships. Even if the exact transport of the pest has not been agreed upon, for Marley and others in the ABV movement, this is evidence of wine’s extensive colonial roots.

Once scientists realized that the American vines were resistant to the pest, they used grafting to combine the Vitis vinifera scions — pinot noir, cabernet sauvignon, champagne — with the American, phylloxera-resistant rootstock. In a rush to outpace the phylloxera, almost every vineyard in France was replanted with these vines: the world’s very first hybrids.

And yet, almost as soon as the scientists resolved the crisis, hybrids became demonized. France banned them in the 1930s, calling them “inferior” to “pure” Vitis vinifera varietals. “Once their grapes were saved, people started to turn their nose up because they didn’t need them anymore,” said Marley. This stigmatization of hybrids has enabled conventional winemakers to maintain a stronghold in the industry, as it is almost impossible to grow Vitis vinifera grapes outside of the “traditional” — and extremely expensive — winemaking regions of Western Europe and Northern California.

The flexibility and resiliency of these grapes has opened the door to make wine in New England, the South and the Midwest. This has enabled a new generation of winemakers — the vast majority of whom are women, people of color and queer — to access land and create their own equity-centered projects, like the 280’s apprenticeship program.

“It became very clear that the way our producer friends were going to be able to access their own land and have their own wine labels were very much in the fruit wine, hybrid wine, and native grapes sectors,” Marley said, adding that “the price of land outside the major regions is much lower, and the knowledge is shared in a more communal way.” Across the country, these winemakers are using hybrids to create a quintessentially new form of American wine—and decolonizing the Euro-centric industry in the process. These methods are also inextricably bound to climate change, as hybrids require significantly less tilling and agricultural inputs than their Vitis vinifera counterparts.

Kathline Chery, Justine Belle Lambright and Grace Meyer founded Kalchē Wine Cooperative, in Fletcher, Vermont, in 2020. All industry professionals who had been laid off, they used the time (and stimulus checks) of early quarantine to reimagine what the beverage industry could be. Was it possible to grow wine that tasted delicious and healed the land on which they worked?

The answer was a resounding yes. Kalchē has embraced a broad understanding of wine and ferments, utilizing hybrid grapes and foraged fruit. Their ecological footprint is significantly lower than many of their California counterparts, because they rely on existing crops for winemaking instead of planting new vines, tilling more soil and using the vast quantities of water needed to establish a new vineyard. Their wines are also more unique. A recent glass had the bright vibrancy of a perfect summer red, balanced with a delightful dose of cranberries. Kalchē’s wines are not only delicious. They are a template for transformation.

According to Lambright, Kalchē’s Director of External Business, Kalchē’s vision toward climate justice is inextricably bound to the dismantling of “racism, sexism and colonialism” in wine. They point out that there can’t really be a full decolonization of European wine, because it’s steeped in a legacy of Indigenous land theft, enslavement and economic exclusion. There can, however, be a reclamation of the “pancultural” origins of wine, from the botanical co-ferments of ancient times to Kalchē’s cranberry and hybrid blends today.

“People are hopeful when they can touch the thing. When something seems so far away, it feels hopeless,” says Marley. Nearness — feeling your hands in the soil and viscerally understanding that a different world is possible — is necessary for change.

At The 280 Project, every glass of wine is infused with such possibilities. As the scholars Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang write, “decolonization is not a metaphor.” It is a practical strategy to change the wine industry — and the world. “If billionaires can break off a piece of their agricultural properties, maybe we can build cooperative farms, community gardens — and we can keep money in that community,” says Renfro. “Billionaires like Bill Gates are buying up all of this land in California and I want to talk. I want to see what we can do.”

As with other agricultural products, the footprint of wine includes not just what is grown, but how it’s grown and by whom. As climate change disrupts our ability to do things within the status quo, these producers are demonstrating that we have an opportunity to challenge everything and create something life-giving in its place. Between an apartment complex and a freeway in California, where pockets are brimming with ripe grapes, a new reality takes root.

Whiskey and pear cobbler is like a warm night in Nashville

Someday, I will be in Nashville long enough to eat and drink everything I want to eat and drink there. This had not been that day. The bakery the locals love, its name solemnly and secretively whispered to me by a friend, had been closed. The little meat-and-three on the edge of town was just out of my schedule’s reach. I tried my best, though, to let my stomach be my guide during my recent surgical strike to Music City. I let myself be a tourist and was rewarded with a stellar breakfast at Biscuit Love. I had a startlingly delicious spicy kebab for lunch. And I ate my heart out at Hattie B’s, before a transcendent evening of beautiful music and local beer at the Ryman.

I would die happy if my last meal on earth was from Hattie B’s. The last time I was in Nashville, I beelined there directly from the airport, leaving a colleague to wonder why I hadn’t yet checked in at my hotel. Priorities, that’s why. They make fried chicken as the good Lord intended it to be — juicy, crunchy, spicy and perfectly burnished. They make silky southern greens and pimento mac and cheese that you will consume, joyfully, perched on a stool while listening to the O’Jays. And the peach cobbler. Oh, the cobbler.

I love all things cobbler, crumble, crisp and betty. I love any excuse to not roll out pie dough. I love the generous proportion of crust to filling. And maybe it was because I hadn’t had any dessert the night before, but that cobbler at Hattie B’s this time around made me emotional, it was just that stirringly, soulfully good. I came home and realized I need more cobbler in my life, starting immediately.


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


I live in the chilly north, so it’s just not the right time to be thinking of Hattie B style peaches. And while cobblers are by nature a pretty easy baking lift already, I figure, why not make things even easier with canned fruit and a cake mix that does practically all the work?

This is one of those absolutely magical recipes, like Sicilian love cake, that you put in the oven thinking, “No way this is going to be okay,” and then you’re inhaling an hour later. Trust me, it works. Bubbling with soft pears and fragrant with cinnamon, this is a cobbler that might make you a little weepy too. And because the only way to make something this easy even better is, naturally, to throw some alcohol into the mix, I’ve also spiked this with a generous glug of Jack Daniels. And when you can’t get to Tennessee, what better way to stir up a little taste of it than with something warm and sweet, smooth and easy?

* * *

Inspired by The Spruce Eats and Epicurious

Whiskey Pear Cobbler
Yields
 8 – 12 servings
Prep Time
 10 minutes
Cook Time
 45 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 29-ounce can of pear halves (or sliced pears)
  • 1 box of yellow cake mix
  • 4 tablespoons of Jack Daniels or your own favorite whiskey 
  • 1 stick of melted butter
  • 1 teaspoon of ground cinnamon
  • Optional: Whipped cream or ice cream, for topping

 

Directions

  1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.
  2. To a 9 x13-inch pan or baking dish, add the pears, with their syrup. Add the whiskey.
  3. Sprinkle the cake mix evenly over the pears to cover. You may not need the whole box.
  4. Evenly pour the butter over the mixture. Don’t worry if some spots are dry; just do your best. Sprinkle the cinnamon on top.
  5. Bake for roughly 45 minutes, until the cobbler is bubbling and just golden on top. Serve warm with ice cream or whipped cream.

Cook’s Notes

You just know you want the leftovers for breakfast.

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.

“The White Lotus” returns with an Italian dream that’s molto bene

 “The White Lotus” introduces a defining motif of its Italian season, the Testa di Moro, shortly after the new arrivals have checked into their suites. These vibrantly colored ceramic busts are essentially Sicilian iconography, stemming from a legend in which a girl is seduced by a Moor. Upon hearing he intends to return home to his wife and children, she cuts off her lover’s head.

The husband of one couple interprets it to mean, “If you come into my house, don’t f**k my wife.”

The wife opines that it’s a warning to spouses: “Screw around, and you’ll end up buried in the garden.”

By that point we know bodies will drop, the same as in the first season. And while it’s not the most original way in, series creator Mike White has been working in television for long enough to know and respect how valuable of a lure a murder mystery can be.

That assumption paid off in Season 1. Regardless of how irritating certain narrative choices were, the mystery developed magnificently, mainly because the stellar performance of that season’s breakout star gave the outcome the emotional ballast most of its episodes lacked.

You may not want to be with the people you’re watching, but the sights alone provided a level of escapism like little else on TV.

That said, it’s tough to picture how the new season will top the image of Murray Bartlett defecating in a guest’s suitcase. But the five hours provided for review tease many more reasons to remain engaged this time, the intoxicating visuals above all.

Even if the first round of “The White Lotus” didn’t send you, its enthralling cinematography and the deliberate way with which its scenery is seamlessly edited into the narrative engulfs the viewer in sensuality. You may not want to be in the same room with the people you’re watching, but the sights alone provided a level of escapism like nothing else on TV.

White set his first resort fantasy in a tropical paradise where his critiques of wealth and class played out through several sets of rich visitors, each of whom is entitled and specifically difficult to stomach, and the put-upon resort staff forced to smile and tend to each of their desires, regardless of how ridiculous. These characters are magnificently written except, that is, for any person of color who wasn’t played by Natasha Rothwell. Those players benefited from little if any development or interiority. One simply vanished, never to appear again.

Resuming the series at the Taormina branch of The White Lotus resort chain is a better fit in the way that it inspired White, who once again wrote and directed each episode, to shift his focus to gendered conflicts and divisions.

The White LotusJennifer Coolidge and Jon Gries in “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Courtesy of HBO)

This sophomore run features a mostly new cast that includes Aubrey Plaza, Theo James, F. Murray Abraham, and Michael Imperioli. But the eternal reason to watch is Jennifer Coolidge‘s Emmy-winning performance as Tanya, returning for a new arc at a new White Lotus with Jon Gries’ Greg, the other holdover from last season.

The histrionic Tanya is, as always, a lot and too much, an emotional vampire who needs people and worships an unrealistic  concept of what it means to be adored and cared for. But Greg is not her unwitting victim here – no, the person she drains is her assistant Portia (Haley Lu Richardson), whose primary role is ensuring the millionairess is never left alone. Unless, that is, she demands that Portia get out of her sight. 

Tanya is a malleable personification of the whirlwind of temperaments White sorts through a season that’s weighted to make the women more fascinating and complicated than the men.

Maybe that goes with the territory. To Americans, Italy represents the pinnacle of romance – outstanding food, gorgeous views, stunning ancient architecture, and, thanks to a bounty of chic fashion and legendary cinema, fiery goddesses.

Sicily holds another meaning thanks to movies like “The Godfather,” venerated by men like Bert Di Grasso (Abraham) and his son Dominic (Michael Imperioli), making a once-in-a-lifetime multigenerational pilgrimage with Dominic’s boy Albie (Adam DiMarco).  Bert and Dominic associate the place with virility, much in the way that James’ Cameron does.

A hedge fund manager from a rich family, Cameron is vacationing at the resort with his wife Daphne (Meghann Fahy), and his old college buddy Ethan (Will Sharpe), who came into his wealth via a windfall in his 30s.

The White LotusAubrey Plaza in “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Courtesy of HBO)

Portia, the Di Grassos, Ethan, and his wife Harper (Plaza) are new to the world of privilege which White draws with nuance through women in the cast; the men, meanwhile, prick each other’s egos and undermine their mates’ confidence in more obvious ways.

At first, it seems as if White writes his female characters that way as well, especially Plaza’s Harper, whose personality is an ice fortress from the moment she’s introduced.

To Americans, Italy represents the pinnacle of romance.

When Harper’s flintiness bumps against Daphne’s irrepressible sunny nature she looks, by intention, less magnetic.
Some of that has to do with their relative unfamiliarity with the trappings of wealth and their recent class upgrade; not long after their arrival, Harper complains to Ethan that the trip feels like “LARPing with rich people,” which ignores the fact that for them, being rich is not a pretense.

But some of that has to do with her discomfort with sex and sensuality, which have as a currency in this world. That concept is threaded through each of their subplots courtesy of Simona Tabasco’s young sex worker Lucia and her best friend Mia (Beatrice Grannò) along with the resort’s rigid, demanding manager Valentina (Sabrina Impacciatore).

To know White’s history with writing women whose unlikability masks wonderful depths – and this is a terrific spot to raise a glass of prosecco to “Enlightened’s” Amy Jellicoe – is to know that this obscures a well of instinctual intelligence. Harper has her reasons for refusing to disarm herself in the same way that there’s an explanation for Tanya’s neediness.   


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


Valentina resents Lucia’s and Mia’s craftiness and, obviously, the way Lucia makes her money. Then again, she seems to hate everyone who isn’t a paying guest, and even for them she merely hides her disdain.  Every match in which White seems to be pitting women against each other is not what it looks like.

The White LotusBeatrice Granno and Simona Tabasco in “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Courtesy of HBO)

Except, maybe, with Tanya. “Let’s face it: women are kind of depressing. Most women are drips,” she tells Portia. “But it’s not their fault. They have a lot to be depressed about. They are not fun.”

The viewer may not see it that way because frankly, Tanya is fun, especially when she’s miserable. She weeps hilariously, throws tantrums that qualify as acts of God, and gives us every reason to pull for Portia while simultaneously making us fret that something terrible might happen to her. Against all judgment and entirely because of Coolidge, we want good things for Tanya and her beleaguered assistant – only, for Portia’s sake, separately.

“Sicily can be very seductive,” someone observes in a way that’s meant to sound like an invitation but plays like a warning – a Testa di Moro in verbal form. This season of “The White Lotus” makes it very easy to be taken in, and the checkout may even be sweetly agonizing.

“The White Lotus” Season 2 premieres Sunday, Oct. 30 at 9 p.m. on HBO.