Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Elon Musk has officially dubbed himself “Chief Twit”

In early July, Elon Musk filed a letter declaring his decision to back out of purchasing Twitter, reneging on a $44 billion deal that was months in the works, but a lot has changed between then and now. 

After a visit to Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco on Wednesday, and an official bio change reflecting his newly self-given title of “Chief Twit,” the keys to the platform are all but in Musk’s pocket.

Related

Not everyone has the luxury to leave Twitter

In a Notes App statement shared from his personal Twitter account profile on Thursday, Musk says “There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter, and what I think about advertising. Most of it has been wrong. The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence. There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.”

“I didn’t do it to make more money,” Musk says. “I did it try to help humanity, whom I love . . . That said, Twitter cannot become a free-for-all hellscape where anything can be said with no consequences!” Musk closes his statement saying that “Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world.”

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

According to Bloomberg, Twitter’s chief marketing officer Leslie Berland issued a letter to the company’s current staff saying that Musk will address the sale on Friday, which is his official deadline for the closing. 

Last week, The Washington Post reported on their findings that Musk had been telling prospective investors that he planned to lay-off “75 percent of Twitter’s 7,500 workers” once he takes over, which he is now assuring them will not be the case, or at least not in those exact numbers.

Leading up to his purchase of Twitter, and his statements regarding his plans to loosen content moderation on the platform, Musk addressed what many are curious about. Will he let Trump back on?

As CNN points out, Musk spoke of Trump’s booting from Twitter during a press conference in May saying “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump; I think that was a mistake.”

“I am not going on Twitter, I am going to stay on Truth,” Trump told Fox News prior to Musk making that statement. “I hope Elon buys Twitter because he’ll make improvements to it and he is a good man, but I am going to be staying on Truth.”

Read more

about this topic

“Chaos may be the point”: Courts already overwhelmed with election lawsuits weeks ahead of midterms

The run-up to Election Day is often a contentious time.

In recent years, it has also become a litigious time – parties increasingly turn to courts to resolve disputes about the rules for voting.

This year, our research shows a significant uptick of those lawsuits occurring in the state court system and challenging every step of the election process — from whether candidates or ballot initiatives qualify to appear on the ballot, to what address information must be completed in order to accept mailed ballots. It also extends to specific procedures for county clerks or poll watchers as voting occurs.

This surge in state litigation yields a mixed picture. As scholars of state courts and constitutions, we have studied the crucial role of state courts in safeguarding elections and democracy.

State courts have made important rulings – for example, protecting voting and rejecting extreme partisan gerrymandering – rooted in state constitutions’ distinctive democracy provisions.

But the current volume of state election litigation also has the potential to derail the safeguards that state courts can provide. When every aspect of an election becomes a lawsuit, negative effects may follow – including destabilizing elections, overwhelming already strained courts and imposing significant costs on states.

The numbers

In 2020, election litigation reached a new record high, with hundreds of lawsuits filed around the presidential election.

But experts like law professor Rick Hasen observed that it was too soon to know if the 2020 spike in lawsuits was a trend or an aberration. One potential explanation was that the pandemic and former President Donald Trump’s polarizing candidacy fueled the 2020 spike and that lawsuits would decrease in future years.

Two years later, a different picture is emerging.

The total volume of preelection litigation has dropped somewhat – a smaller drop than one might expect in a nonpandemic, nonpresidential election. Litigation in federal court has dropped precipitously, falling to less than half of its 2020 presence, our research shows.

But in state courts, rather than decreasing, preelection lawsuits have increased. Some of the rise is due to expected conflict surrounding the post-2020 redistricting process. Of greatest interest, we see a continuation or increase in conflict over “electoral mechanics” – lawsuits challenging the who, what, where and how of voting, even when there is no novel virus throwing an unforeseen wrench in those mechanics.

We emphasize that these numbers are provisional as of mid-October, and they are only estimates – and likely undercounts. State courts are notoriously difficult to research; there is no central clearinghouse of state lawsuits or decisions. Our tallies are based on searches in the legal database LexisNexis. Our full methodology and tallies are posted on our website.

State courts and their role in democracy

Rising interest in state courts does have potential upsides. State courts serve as a crucial line of defense for free and fair elections.

As one of us has explained elsewhere in work with legal scholar Jessica Bulman-Pozen, all 50 state constitutions include explicit pro-democracy provisions – a “democracy principle,” as a shorthand – including many clauses with no express federal counterpart.

Those resources make state courts more promising venues for protecting democracy than the U.S. Supreme Court has been of late. The court’s recent decisions have limited the avenues for protecting democracy, including by refusing to hear partisan gerrymandering claims and by limiting the reach of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

In contrast, recent state court decisions across the country have applied the democracy principle.

For example, state courts have upheld laws permitting voting by mail, imposed new remedies against extreme partisan gerrymandering and preserved the people’s ability to amend their state constitution.

A closer look at this year’s cases – so far

Yet these significant pro-democracy decisions are only part of the bigger litigation picture, the most salient feature of which is its sheer volume.

The largest number of lawsuits involve whether a candidate can properly appear on the ballot. Such “ballot access” lawsuits are long-standing and typically involve candidates sparring over whether they or an opponent have satisfied requirements for petition signatures, residency or other paperwork requirements.

The next-largest categories, and we think the most concerning, encompass election administration and absentee voting – often challenging mechanical, even picayune matters.

In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, for example, multiple suits contest whether mailed ballots can be counted if they omit part of the voter’s address or the date, as well as the permissibility of “ballot curing” – allowing clerks to contact voters to correct technical errors on their mailed ballot.

In Arizona, the Republican National Committee and state affiliate have filed two lawsuits against Maricopa County – and its Republican leadership – arguing that the county has failed to explain why it did not hire an equal number of Democratic and Republican election workers.

In Michigan, two cases filed by Republicans challenge rules governing poll watchers, including their ability to use cellphones. In Ohio, a secretary of state candidate argues election observers should be given access to the software and source code for voting machines.

Finally, another major slice of cases involves ballot initiatives, a means of direct lawmaking by voters. Some of these, like a prominent unsuccessful challenge to the formatting of Michigan’s abortion initiative, attempt to keep a measure off the ballot. Others debate burdens on the ballot initiative process.

Sharp partisan divides partly drive the rise in litigation and yield some rough patterns. As legal scholar Derek Muller has noted, the overall rise in election litigation “is emphatically bipartisan.” Both parties have been active in redistricting and ballot access cases.

But when it comes to the administration of elections, the parties have tended to press different claims. Democrats and their allies have tended to challenge new voting restrictions. A network of litigants on the right has focused more on whether certain votes can be counted. Steve Bannon has vowed to “adjudicate every battle” in an effort to “take over the election apparatus.”

Pitfalls of so many lawsuits

This hyperlitigation has downsides.

First, an election litigation deluge may undermine voter confidence in the electoral system. Litigation over every detail of the election process lays the groundwork for false narratives or subsequent challenges to the validity of an election.

And while courts that serve as a backstop on key elections questions may enhance voters’ trust in elections, some scholars fear that a barrage of lawsuits alleging impropriety in elections may undermine that trust. Moreover, by inserting courts into election administration, hyperlitigation can dovetail with efforts to sow doubt in the courts’ legitimacy.

These challenges to the logistical aspects of elections align with a broader strategy to subvert the electoral system by overwhelming it – including through “sham audits,” mass challenges to voter eligibility and frivolous election-related open records requests.

The chaos may be the point.

The flood of election litigation also results in hefty financial costs to state governments. Pennsylvania spent over US$3.3 million in 2020, a presidential election year, litigating election-related cases. It expects to spend at least as much or more this year.

Similarly, Montana’s secretary of state has spent more than 10 times its budget on election litigation in 2022.

Finally, hyperlitigation burdens the state court system, which hears over 90% of all cases filed each year and is already straining from pandemic-induced backlogs. Fulton County, Georgia, for example, has accumulated approximately 200,000 cases during the pandemic, and states including North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are also navigating substantial backlogs. High volumes of election litigation impede courts already overstretched in performing their critical public functions.

Although scholars have proposed ways to reduce election litigation, the trend is likely to persist, at least in the short term. State courts do have a necessary role to play in safeguarding democracy. But at current levels, election litigation presents serious problems as well as solutions.

 

Miriam Seifter, Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director of the State Democracy Research Initiative, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Adam Sopko, Staff Attorney with the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, University of Wisconsin-Madison

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

Greene threatens GOP “investigations” into companies that cut off Republicans after Jan. 6 riot

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Wednesday vowed that the GOP will investigate corporations that stopped donating to Republicans who supported claims of a “stolen” 2020 election if the party wins back the House in November.

Greene, in an appearance on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, accused businesses of silencing their employees and partaking in “corporate communism.”

The congresswoman, who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s victory on January 6, 2021, said she wants to go after corporate donors that cut off contributions to members of Congress who backed widely debunked claims of massive fraud in the last presidential election. 

“You know what they did after January 6, Steve? They stopped donating. All the lobbyists, all the big corporations stopped donating to a whole bunch of my Republican colleagues that they used to donate to,” Greene said. “They said: ‘Oh no, we can’t support you because of the big lie,’ or whatever they want to call it.”

She added that companies should focus on running their businesses and pleasing customers rather than getting involved in politics. 

“There is going to be investigations coming,” Greene said. “And there should be. There definitely should be, because the way corporations have conducted themselves, I’ve always called it corporate communism.”

Related

“Wouldn’t she be great?”: Trump reportedly wants Jan. 6 “victim” Marjorie Taylor Greene for DOJ job

In the aftermath of the insurrection, nearly 250 corporations pledged to stop donating to members of Congress who voted against certifying the election, but more than two-thirds of these companies abandoned their commitment, according to a report from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 

While Greene didn’t make clear what companies she and her colleagues would go after, she advised businesses to “lawyer up”. She claimed that “half” of the country was “sick and tired” of “woke corporations”. 

Fortune 500 companies are already hiring lawyers in anticipation of a Republican-controlled House that could target companies at odds with conservative positions, according to reporting by Axios.

Right-wing groups have signaled for months that the GOP would expand its targets beyond the Biden administration if it wins back power.

“The days of just focusing on government agency action are over,” Mike Howell, who leads the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, told Axios. “It’s not just the government now where the left is enacting its agenda; it’s in corporate boardrooms, it’s in school boards.”

Republicans are particularly upset with companies focusing on “equity, sustainability and governance reform,” which they view as an “ideological affront,” the outlet reported.

“Republican lobbyists for years delivered win after win after win for corporate America with a Republican Party that wanted to help,” a GOP lobbyist told Axios. “A lot of those members that helped deliver those wins have retired or lost elections, and are being replaced by people that could care less about building a relationship with a Fortune 500 company’s in-house lobbyist.”

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

Greene herself currently lacks the power to launch investigations. She was stripped of her committee assignments in early 2021 after promoting conspiracy theories and endorsing political violence, according to Business Insider. The Georgia representative expressed support for assassinating top Democrats on her own Facebook page and frequently posted far-right extremist conspiracy theories. Greene also spread voter fraud conspiracy theories the day after the election and repeatedly defended Trump’s role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. 

Her unwavering support of the former president has worked in her favor. Trump has floated the idea of offering Greene a top position in his administration if he returns to the White House, Rolling Stone reported. A source told Rolling stone that the position could be a senior Justice Department role. 

Aware of her influence, Greene has said that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., should give her more power and leeway if he becomes speaker of the House to keep the Republican base happy.

Read more

about Marjorie Taylor Greene

Media hypes religious voters but study shows atheists, agnostics more active than white evangelicals

It’s hard to remember now, given the attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, but the day after votes were cast, one theme stood out: voter turnout.

Every state in the nation saw higher turnout in 2020 than 2016, according to an analysis from the Pew Research Center. Overall, there were more than 158 million votes cast, according to the Federal Election Commission – nearly 22 million more than just four years prior.

Turnout will likely play an outsize role in the 2022 midterms, too, as voters determine what political party will have control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in January 2023. As a political scientist who studies the intersection of religion and politics, I am interested in which groups may have a strong impact on the balance of power. And if the data is any guide, there are two key communities political analysts often overlook: atheists and agnostics.

Partisan divides

In 2008, almost 8% of the entire U.S. population claimed to be atheist or agnostic, according to my analysis of data from the Cooperative Election Study, or CES – an annual survey coordinated by a team at Harvard University. Atheists believe that there is no higher power in the universe, while agnostics contend that a higher power may exist but it’s impossible to know for certain.

By 2021, that share had risen to just about 12%. But atheists and agnostics are often left-leaning in their political persuasion, and their rapid ascendance in the American religious landscape is proving much more consequential to the Democratic Party than the GOP.

Just 4% of people who align with the Republican Party say that they are atheist or agnostic. That same figure was 3% when Barack Obama won the White House in 2008.

However, according to my analysis of the CES data, 1 in 5 Democrats today are atheist or agnostic, an increase of eight percentage points from 2008.

Getting to the ballot box

Just because these groups have increased as a percentage of the overall population does not necessarily mean their growth will translate to political wins during the 2022 midterms. While political scientists have struggled with how to measure voter turnout through survey data, it’s possible to use other measures to infer just how politically active atheists and agnostics are – and there’s strong evidence that they will make their presence felt on Election Day.

The CES asks respondents if they have engaged in a number of political activities over the prior 12 months. Secular Americans’ political engagement comes into sharper focus when their behavior is compared with that of another group, one that is often considered very politically active: white evangelicals.

Over the past 40 years, the religious right has won many victories by organizing a loose coalition of theologically and politically conservative faith groups to vote, advocate and agitate. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, for example – which the Supreme Court did in June 2022 – was a long-cherished goal of the movement, resulting in several states’ banning abortion in nearly all circumstances.

In 2020, 8% of white evangelicals attended a political meeting such as school board or city council, according to the CES. Yet the percentage is even higher for atheists – 11% – and agnostics – 10%. There was also a small difference in the data about putting up a political yard sign or bumper sticker. Among atheists, 27% had done so, compared with 21% of white evangelicals.

However, when it comes to political protests, there’s no doubt that secular Americans are more politically engaged. In 2020, 18% of atheists and 16% of agnostics said that they had gone to a march or rally about a political issue, versus just 5% of white evangelicals, based on CES data. When it comes to donations, the gulf is even wider. In 2020, half of all atheists made a political donation, along with 43% of agnostics. In comparison, only about a quarter of white evangelicals made a political donation to a candidate or party.

Speaking up – and being heard

Democratic candidates have shown increasing awareness that they are becoming more dependent on secular voters. For instance, in April 2018, members of Congress founded the Congressional Freethought Caucus to specifically focus on these voters’ needs and concerns.

Though atheists and agnostics are still a relatively small portion of the population, there’s strong evidence they will make their voices heard during the 2022 midterms – and help campaigns with funding and support at every stage, not just on Election Day. Whether Republicans can counter this level of engagement from specific religious groups will be a key question of the upcoming midterms.

 

Ryan Burge, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Eastern Illinois University

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

DOJ tries to force aide to testify on Trump claim that his lawyers won’t dare repeat in court: NYT

Federal prosecutors are seeking to compel testimony from a former top Donald Trump aide about public claims that the documents recovered by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago had been declassified, according to a report by The New York Times published online on Wednesday evening.

"No evidence has emerged that Mr. Trump did so, and Mr. Trump's lawyers have not repeated the claim in an ongoing court dispute with prosecutors over materials seized by the F.B.I. during a search of Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate, in August," the newspaper reported. "But the Justice Department's interest in questioning Mr. Patel about the claim shows that prosecutors see it as potentially relevant to their investigation into the handling of the documents and whether Mr. Trump or his aides obstructed the government's efforts to reclaim them."

Patel is one of Trump's official representatives to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

"The push for the testimony has also created friction between the Justice Department and Mr. Patel's lawyers, who have argued that the department could use his statements against him if they build out a larger obstruction investigation," the newspaper reported. "The Justice Department has publicly acknowledged that obstruction is among the crimes it is investigating."

Patel reportedly repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"Even if Mr. Trump had declassified the documents at issue, it would not change his exposure to two of the crimes the Justice Department is investigating, particularly obstruction of justice," the newspaper reported. "Whether the documents were classified or marked as such has no bearing on whether Mr. Trump willfully impeded efforts by the government to retrieve the documents in the face of a subpoena."

Read the full report.

New Republican effort to feed “distrust of elections”: They want to hand-count all ballots

In what election experts call the latest effort to stoke widespread doubt about election security and the accuracy of vote-counting, Republicans in many rural counties are pushing to hand-count ballots in the upcoming midterms, despite no evidence of widespread fraud or voting machine irregularities.

Hand-counting is far less accurate than machine counting, experts say, and is likely to create errors and delay results by hours, days or even weeks.

In at least six states, Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation this year that would require hand-counting of all ballots instead of electronic tabulation. None of those bills have passed so far, but similar proposals have gained traction in some county and local governments. 

Related

As midterms near, immigrants and voters of color targeted with misinformation

Several candidates for statewide office, nearly all of them also prominent election deniers, are endorsing such efforts. Jim Marchant, Nevada’s Republican nominee for secretary of state, said at a March county commission meeting in Nye County — a sparsely populated rural region of central and southern Nevada — that officials should “dispose” of all their electronic voting and tabulation machines. 

“It is imperative that you secure the trust of your constituents in Nye County by ensuring that you have a fair and transparent election and the only way to do that is to not use electronic voting or tabulation machines,” Marchant said.

Nye County, with a land area of more than 18,000 square miles and a population of roughly 54,000, plans to hand-count all midterm ballots in addition to using machine tabulation. In other rural Nevada counties, including Lyon, Elko, Esmeralda and Lincoln — all of which Donald Trump won overwhelmingly in 2020 — commissioners have introduced proposals to reconsider the use of Dominion electronic voting machines or get rid of them entirely.

Earlier this year, commissioners and election staff in Esmeralda County in southwestern Nevada (which has fewer than 1,000 full-time residents) hand-counted 317 paper ballots. The process took more than seven hours and was barely completed before the deadline to certify the results of the primary election.

Officials in Cochise County, Arizona, which is on the Mexican border southeast of Tucson, also voted in favor of hand-counting ballots alongside the official machine count. That could pose a significant logistical challenge; the county has roughly 87,000 registered voters.

Distrust of voting machines and electronic vote-counting has simmered in conservative circles for years, but became a major political force after the 2020 election, when Trump and his allies spread numerous conspiracy theories about Dominion and Smartmatic voting machines manipulating votes in favor of Joe Biden. No evidence has ever emerged to suggest that actually happened, or is even possible, and allegations that those companies had links to the Chinese or Venezuelan governments are categorically false.

Some Republican candidates, including Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and secretary of state nominee Mark Finchem — both loyal Trump supporters and avid election deniers — have even filed a lawsuit attempting to block the use of vote-counting machines in the midterm election, claiming that the machines were not “reliably secure.” A federal judge dismissed the suit for lack of standing in August.

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

Mark Lindeman, the policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for the responsible use of technology in elections, said that these efforts are part of a broader effort to discourage voters from trusting any part of the election process. 

American elections “objectively are more trustworthy now than they have been in decades, but the fear-mongers are broadcasting the exact opposite,” Lindeman said. Attacks on voting technology are “creating an environment in which some really dedicated public servants are leaving the profession because they’re demoralized and in many cases afraid. That is a tragedy that injures all of us.” 

Dozens of states already conduct routine post-election tabulation audits, Lindeman added, checking the accuracy of vote counts. Virtually no significant problems or anomalies with machine tabulation have emerged in recent years. Voting and tabulation machines are always tested prior to an election, he said, to ensure they are functioning properly.

Jennifer Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, echoed Lindeman’s view. She explained that “there are numerous checks and balances built into the system” to make sure that the machines are tabulating correctly.

Despite the lengthy Republican-funded audit conducted after the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Arizona, which confirmed Joe Biden’s narrow victory and revealed no evidence of fraud, the conspiratorial “narrative” about widespread voter fraud “persists for reasons that defy logic,” Marson said. 

“The folks who don’t believe those facts are a very small, but very loud, minority,” she added.

Research clearly indicates that vote tabulators are more accurate than hand counts, since humans are more likely to introduce error into the counting process. A 2018 study found that vote counts conducted by computerized scanners were, on average, more accurate than votes tallied by hand, as well as significantly faster.

“For people who have been led to radically mistrust elections, hand-counting the ballots won’t do much good. They’ll simply worry about something else.”

The process of hand-counting ballots is also a complicated one, Lindeman explained. Even in a middle-sized county or municipality, thousands of people might need to be recruited and trained to count ballots on election night, and potentially over the following days. Furthermore, instead of using software that is specifically designed to tabulate and report election results, hand-counters must use spreadsheets to tally their results, likely making the process more confusing and introducing more potential errors.

Lindeman cautioned that a move to hand-counting will slow down the process dramatically, and is unlikely to reassure those predisposed to believe that elections have somehow been rigged or fixed. “For people who have been led to radically mistrust U.S. elections, hand-counting the ballots won’t do much good,” he said. “If their concerns about the machines are addressed,  they’ll simply worry about something else. I see this much more as an attempt to feed distrust of U.S. elections than to build trust.”

The push for hand-counting ballots is just one aspect of a larger right-wing plan to undermine the “election infrastructure,” said Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. She linked it to related efforts such as sending out armed or menacing “poll watchers” to monitor early-voting sites, drop boxes and polling stations.

“I think it’s going to be even worse when votes don’t turn out the way election deniers want after the midterms,” Beirich said. “Of course we don’t know what’s going to happen, but there could be harassment of vote-counters,” both on election night and in the following days. “That happened in 2020,” she observed, and may now be a permanent element of Republican electoral strategy.

Read more

on the fast-approaching midterms

Study: Republican policies are killing Americans

The Republican Party’s regressive policies are not just unpopular, but a new study out Wednesday suggests they are also deadly to those who live under them.

Working-age mortality rates have been rising for decades across the United States, but premature deaths are more pronounced in states where “conservative” policies predominate and less common in states that have adopted more “liberal” policies, according to peer-reviewed research published in PLOS ONE.

Policies that “expand state power for economic regulation and redistribution, protect the rights of marginalized groups, or restrict state power to punish deviant behavior” were defined by the study’s authors as “liberal,” while those with opposite aims were deemed “conservative.”

For eight policy domains—criminal justice, marijuana, environment, gun safety, health and welfare, private labor, economic taxes, and tobacco taxes—the authors scored state-level measures enacted from 1999 to 2019 on a 0-to-1 continuum, with zero representing the maximum conservative score and one the maximum liberal score.

Using annual data from the National Vital Statistics System, the authors calculated state-level age-adjusted mortality rates during the same time period for deaths from all causes and from cardiovascular disease (CVD), alcohol-induced causes, suicide, and drug poisoning among adults aged 25 to 64.

When they merged the data on working-age mortality with data on state policy contexts, the authors found that liberal policies were associated with fewer early deaths among 25- to 64-year-olds between 1999 and 2019.

“Changing all policy domains in all states to a fully liberal orientation might have saved 171,030 lives in 2019,” the researchers estimate, “while changing them to a fully conservative orientation might have cost 217,635 lives.”

Study co-author Dr. Steven Woolf, director emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, told USA Today: “As an academic who does scientific research, I studiously avoided talking about politics in my professional work… But the data are pointing us to that as a determinant of health.”

Even after controlling for state-specific environmental conditions and demographic characteristics, the authors found that states that invested more in public education and economic security had lower working-age mortality rates than states that gutted workers’ rights, environmental regulations, and access to healthcare, including abortion.

“If a state policymaker were to say to me, ‘it’s unfair to criticize my state because I have a low-educated, low-income population,’ I would ask them, ‘why do you have a low-educated, low-income population?'” lead study author Jennifer Karas Montez, a professor of sociology at Syracuse University, told USA Today. “It’s because of your policy environment.”

Demonstrating how state policy contexts influence individual behaviors associated with premature deaths, researchers observed “especially strong associations… between certain domains and specific causes of death: between the gun safety domain and suicide mortality among men, between the labor domain and alcohol-induced mortality, and between both the economic tax and tobacco tax domains and CVD mortality.”

Darrell Gaskin, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said that some people “like to think about (working-age mortality) as failures of individuals, that they eat too much or use drugs, but that’s all in context.”

“If we don’t have the proper regulations in place to protect people, then what happens is that they could be exploited,” said Gaskin. “We always get the promise from conservative states that we’re going to cut your taxes and regulation and make the environment better for business, and it comes with a cost.”

With the midterm elections less than two weeks away, experts say it’s important for working-age Americans to know whether they are voting for officials who support right-wing policies that increase the risk of early death or those who favor humane interventions that can help people lead longer and healthier lives.

As Woolf put it, the conservative policies associated with higher working-age mortality revolve around “helping the private sector to thrive in hopes that the economic gains would trickle down to those who need more assistance,” while the liberal policies associated with lower working-age mortality focus on improving economic fairness and social and environmental well-being.

With their efforts to impose anti-union “right-to-work” laws, ban abortions, and curtail Medicaid, and their insistence on ignoring gun violence and the life-threatening climate crisis, Republicans have firmly established themselves in the camp that is actively increasing premature deaths among the nation’s working-age population.

Although there is a wide range of positions among Democrats that stretch from more progressive to less so, lawmakers in the party are overall much more likely than their GOP counterparts to support life-affirming public goods and services of the sort detailed in the study.

The analysis precedes the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, which has killed Americans at a significantly higher rate than people in other wealthy countries.

While the nation’s deadly for-profit healthcare model, lack of paid sick leave, and other federal policies associated with 40 years of bipartisan neoliberalism have received much blame from progressives, studies show that state-level Republicans’ lackadaisical public health measures and the GOP’s anti-vaccination propaganda have also exacerbated suffering during the pandemic.

Abortion bans are motivating midterm voters, poll shows

Half of voters say the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion has made them more motivated to vote in next month’s midterm elections, with enthusiasm growing especially among Democrats and those living in states with abortion bans, according to a new poll from KFF.

The survey also showed that most voters, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, do not think abortion should be prohibited in cases of rape or incest, nor do they support laws that set criminal punishments for abortion providers and women who have abortions.

The findings, collected in late September through KFF’s regular survey of public opinion on health care issues, highlight that even the majority of Republican voters oppose some of the laws that have strictly restrained abortion access — including for those who have been raped — that are now in effect in Republican-led states such as Texas and Missouri. However, states with such strict standards have so far authorized abortions to save the life of a mother.

With Democrats currently holding control of the House of Representatives and the Senate by narrow margins and several close races underway, control of Congress could hinge on voter turnout. And while voters are less likely to pick candidates based on a single issue, an important issue may make them more likely to vote.

The KFF poll showed neither party holds a notable “motivation advantage,” with more than half of both Democratic and Republican voters reporting they feel more inclined to vote in this election than previous ones. Voters who said they were independents, however, said they were less inclined to vote than in previous elections.

The difference was in their reasons. Of those voters who said they are more motivated, the top issue for Democrats was reproductive rights, while the top issue for Republicans was the economy and inflation. Independents were equally split between abortion and the economy. Almost 7 in 10 Democrats said they were motivated by the court’s decision, compared with 49% of independents and 32% of Republicans.

Among women of reproductive age, 44% said they are more motivated to vote this year, with nearly 6 in 10 attributing their feelings to the court’s decision and more than 5 in 10 pointing to abortion laws in their home state.

Of voters living in states with full abortion bans, 51% said their state’s laws had made them more motivated to vote, suggesting the potential for higher Democratic voter turnout in several Republican states.

The poll showed 76% of all voters motivated by the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade plan to vote for candidates who support abortion access.

The findings also showed striking agreement: More than 8 in 10 voters nationally oppose laws that prohibit abortion in cases of rape or incest — as do more than 8 in 10 voters living in states with the strictest abortion bans, as well as more than 8 in 10 voters living in states with abortion protections.

While 70% of Republican voters approved of the court’s decision, a majority of Republicans also said they oppose laws that ban abortion in all cases or that make it a crime to have or perform an abortion.

Seven in 10 Republican voters oppose prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. About 64% of Republicans oppose laws that make it a crime for women to obtain an abortion, while 51% oppose laws that make it a crime for a doctor to perform one.

One-third of Republicans oppose prohibiting abortion once fetal cardiac activity is detected, typically about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual cycle — the marker that has become the basis for six-week abortion bans in several states.

The KFF poll also asked voters about changes to Medicare under the Inflation Reduction Act, landmark legislation approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress in August. About a third or fewer of Americans are aware of the law’s health provisions, which include extending financial subsidies for those who purchase health insurance on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, limiting out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, capping their insulin costs, and allowing the federal government to negotiate the price of some prescription drugs for those in Medicare.

The poll showed that Americans 65 and older, who stand to benefit most as Medicare’s primary beneficiaries, are more likely to vote for candidates who support the law’s changes for health care costs.

The online and telephone survey was conducted Sept. 15-26 with a sample of 1,534 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample, although among subgroups the sampling error may be higher.

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.

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

Whether you love ’em or hate ’em, there’s no denying the fact that Crocs continue to be a popular style of shoe. Earlier this month, the famed footwear brand celebrated its 20th anniversary, aptly hailing it as “Croctober.”  

On the streets, the shoe — which are basically foam clogs with holes on the top — remain a divisive trend that has either been ridiculed or embraced wholeheartedly. Amongst Hollywood A-listers, the sentiment aligns with the latter. Celebrities, like Justin Bieber, John Cena, Post Malone and even Al Pacino, are just a few fans of the brand who were recently seen sporting the shoe. The shoes also made appearances on the red carpet, per Questlove, who wore a pair of gold Crocs to the 2021 Oscars awards ceremony, and Nicholas Braun, who wore a pair in the comfort of his Lower East Side apartment while watching the 72nd Emmys remotely.

Related

“My price will only go up”: Collectors bet on nostalgia as they resell McDonald’s Adult Happy Meals

For others (myself included), Crocs are just flat-out ugly. As Buzzfeed’s Scaachi Koul wrote and asked, “Have you ever seen a shoe that just…looks racist? That’s how Crocs look. If the shoes could speak, I feel like they would say something really upsetting about redlining.” 

But in the galleys of professional kitchens, Crocs have been beloved for quite a while. In fact, they are so adored by kitchen workers that the brand itself released a specialty line of Crocs made for those working in food service.   

How did this adoration come about and what additional ties do Crocs have to the food industry? Here’s a closer look at why the shoes are so loved in professional kitchens, the notable chefs who wear (or wore them) and, as an extension, some of the food-themed collaborations the brand has done:

Why are Crocs the best kitchen shoes?

Although Crocs were originally invented as a boating shoe, it soon became a signature kitchen shoe because it is durable, sturdy and slip-resistant — a list of qualities revered by food service employees. The shoes are also incredibly comfortable, allowing chefs and workers to stand for long hours without suffering from blisters, cramps or sore feet.

Unlike traditional clogs — which are all wood and oftentimes, heavier — Crocs are made from a proprietary cell resin material known as Croslite™, which resembles the texture of both rubber and plastic. Such material makes the shoes both soft and lightweight and helps provide additional cushioning.

Crocs are also incredibly protective. Despite their open back, the shoes are closed-toed and thus, safeguard kitchen staff’s feet from the sharp objects they routinely work with. Specialty crocs for food service workers are frequently made sans the shoe’s signature holes. A few popular choices include the Bistro Clog, the Crocs On-The-Clock Work Slip-On, the Mercy Work Clog and the Neria Pro II Clog.

Which celebrity chefs are fans of the brand?

Perhaps the most infamous wearer and lover of Crocs is chef Mario Batali, whose signature look once consisted of shorts and bright orange Crocs. When asked about his choice of footwear, Batali told Eater, “I think what I realized as an owner of my own place, I could do whatever I wanted … It was just about comfort, it wasn’t about fashion. Now of course, I’m a fashion icon.” In a separate interview with Inc., Batali explained that his family’s “national color” is orange which is why he adores that hue in particular. He also shared that his first pair of orange Croc-style shoes were a gift from his wife on the opening of Pó, the now closed Italian restaurant co-founded by Batali.

In 2007, Batali launched his own line of Crocs called the Bistro Mario Batali Vent Clog, which were briefly discontinued almost six years later. Following the news, Batali said he placed a final order for 200 pairs of orange crocs so he wouldn’t run out of his usual collection.

Batali’s long-established partnership with Crocs finally came to an end in 2017, amid accusations of his sexual misconduct. Two years later, the disgraced chef was seen sporting a pair of Yeezy sneakers (specifically the Yeezy 350 V2 in a steeple gray/beluga/solar red colorway) in lieu of his orange Crocs for his Friday court appearance.

Other notable fans of Crocs are chef Thomas Keller and restaurateur Guy Fieri, who favors the brand’s kitchen-specific Bistro Clogs. A picture of Fieri covered in flames is also plastered on a viral pair of black Crocs, which are no longer available for purchase on the brand’s official website.  

What food brands have collaborated with Crocs?

In addition to its ties to the food service industry and prominent chefs, Crocs have partnered with multiple fast food and convenience chains to release limited-edition food-themed (and food-scented) shoes.

In 2020, Crocs partnered with KFC to introduce a line of fried-chicken clogs, decorated with two Croc “Jibbitz” charms that are meant to look and smell like fried chicken drumsticks. Per Eater, a high-platform version of the shoes, “designed to look like haute couture buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken for your feet,” were first introduced months prior during New York Fashion Week.

Two years later, the brand announced a collaboration with 7-Eleven to create three limited edition Crocs, including a Mega Crush Clog that has an “elevated heel.” In the same vein as the KFC Crocs, the 7-Eleven Crocs also came with custom Jibbitz charms, like a 7-Eleven brand logo, a Slurpee, a big Bite Hot Dog, coffee, and pizza.

Read more

about food, fashion and restaurant chains:

States opting out of a federal program that tracks teen behavior as youth mental health worsens

As the covid-19 pandemic worsened a mental health crisis among America’s young people, a small group of states quietly withdrew from the nation’s largest public effort to track concerning behaviors in high school students.

Colorado, Florida, and Idaho will not participate in a key part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior surveys that reaches more than 80,000 students. Over the past 30 years, the state-level surveys, conducted anonymously during each odd-numbered year, have helped elucidate the mental health stressors and safety risks for high school students.

Each state has its own rationale for opting out, but their withdrawal — when suicides and feelings of hopelessness are up — has caught the attention of school psychologists and federal and state health officials.

Some questions on the state-level surveys — which can also ask students about their sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity, and drug use — clash with laws that have been passed in conservative states. The intense political attention on teachers and school curriculums has led to a reluctance among educators to have students participate in what were once considered routine mental and behavioral health assessments, some experts worry.

The reduction in the number of states that participate in the state-level CDC survey will make it harder for those states to track the conditions and behaviors that signal poor mental health, like depression, drug and alcohol misuse, and suicidal ideation, experts said.

“Having that kind of data allows us to say ‘do this, not that’ in really important ways,” said Kathleen Ethier, director of the CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health, which oversees the series of health surveys known as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. “For any state to lose the ability to have that data and use that data to understand what’s happening with young people in their state is an enormous loss.”

The CDC developed the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 1990 to track the leading causes of death and injury among young people. It is made up of a nationally representative poll of students in grades nine through 12 and separate state and local school district-level questionnaires. The questions focus on behaviors that lead to unintentional injuries, violence, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, drug and alcohol misuse, physical inactivity, and more.

The decisions by Colorado, Florida, and Idaho not to participate in the state-level questionnaires will not affect the CDC’s national survey or the local school district surveys in the states that have them.

Part of what makes the survey a powerful tool is the diversity of information collected, said Norín Dollard, a senior analyst with the Florida Policy Institute, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. “It allows for the analysis of data by subgroups, including LGBTQ+ youth, so that the needs of these students, who are at a greater risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse than their peers, are understood and can be supported by schools and community providers,” said Dollard, who is also director of Florida Kids Count, part of a national network of nonprofit programs focused on children in the United States.

The CDC is still processing the 2021 data and has not released the results because of pandemic-related delays, said Paul Fulton, an agency spokesperson. But trends from the 2009 to 2019 national surveys showed that the mental health of young people had deteriorated over the previous decade.

“So we started planning,” Ethier said. “When the pandemic hit, we were able to say, ‘Here are the things you should be looking out for.'”

The pandemic has further exacerbated the mental health problems young people face, said Angela Mann, president of the Florida Association of School Psychologists.

Nearly half of parents who responded to a recent KFF/CNN mental health survey said the pandemic had had a negative impact on their child’s mental health. Most said they were worried that issues like self-harm and loneliness stemming from the pandemic may affect teenagers.

But the CDC’s survey has shortcomings, said health officials from some states that pulled back from it. Not all high schools are included, for example. And the sample of students from each state is so small that some state officials said their schools received little actionable data despite decades of participation.

That was the case in Colorado, which decided not to participate next year, according to Emily Fine, school and youth survey manager at the Colorado health department. Instead, she said, the state will focus on improving a separate study called Healthy Kids Colorado, which includes questions similar to those in the CDC survey and Colorado-specific questions. The Colorado survey, which has been running for about a decade, covers about 100,000 students across the state — nearly 100 times the number that participated in the CDC’s state-level survey in 2019.

Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, which also have their own youth surveys, either never participated or decided to skip the previous two CDC assessments. At least seven states will not participate in the 2023 state-level survey.

Fine said the state-run option is more beneficial because schools receive their own results.

In Leadville, a Colorado mountain town, a youth coalition used results from the Healthy Kids Colorado survey to conclude that the county had higher-than-average rates of substance use. They also learned that Hispanic students in particular didn’t feel comfortable sharing serious problems like suicidal thoughts with adults, suggesting that opportunities to flag issues early were being missed.

“I feel like most kids tell the truth on those surveys, so I feel like it’s a reliable source,” said high schooler Daisey Monge, who is part of the youth coalition, which proposed a policy to train adults in the community to make better connections with young people.

Education officials in Florida and Idaho said they plan to gather more state-specific data using newly created questionnaires. But neither state has designed a new survey, and what questions will be asked or what data will be captured is not clear.

Cassandra Palelis, a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education, said in an email that Florida intends to assemble a “workgroup” to design its new system.

In recent years, Idaho officials cited the CDC survey data when they applied for and received $11 million in grants for a new youth suicide prevention program called the Idaho Lives Project. The data showed the share of high school students who had seriously considered attempting suicide increased from 15% in 2011 to 22% in 2019.

“That is concerning,” said Eric Studebaker, director of student engagement and safety coordination for the State Department of Education. Still, he said, the state is worried about taking up class time to survey students and about overstepping boundaries by asking questions that are not parent-approved.

Whatever the rationale, youth mental health advocates call opting out shortsighted and potentially harmful as the exodus erodes the national data collection. The pandemic exacerbated mental health stress for all high school students, especially those who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those who identify as LGBTQ+.

But since April, at least a dozen states have proposed bills that mirror Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, which bans instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

The law, which critics call “Don’t Say Gay,” and the intense political attention it has focused on teachers and school curriculums are having a chilling effect on all age groups, said youth advocates like Mann, the Florida school psychologist. “Some of these discussions about schools indoctrinating kids has bled into discussions about mental health services in schools,” she said.

Since the law was adopted, some Florida school administrators have removed “safe space” stickers with the rainbow flag indicating support for LGBTQ+ students. Some teachers have resigned in protest of the law, while others have expressed confusion about what they’re allowed to discuss in the classroom.

With data showing that students need more mental health services, opting out of the state-level surveys now may do more harm than good, said Franci Crepeau-Hobson, a professor of school psychology at the University of Colorado-Denver, who has used the national youth risk behavior data to analyze trends.

“It’s going to make it more difficult to really get a handle on what’s happening nationally,” she said.

KHN Colorado correspondent Rae Ellen Bichell contributed to this report.

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.

Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ office robbed after she called out voter intimidation

In the Phoenix area, some disturbing events have occurred during the 2022 midterms — the most recent of which is a break-in at the campaign headquarters of Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who is running for governor.

Hobbs’ office has asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate a recent incident in which voters were photographed, filmed and followed by a car out of a parking lot at a ballot drop box location. And on Friday, October 21, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office responded to reports of two armed men, dressed in tactical gear, standing watch at a ballot drop box in Mesa.

On October 22, the Maricopa County Elections Department tweeted, “Uninformed vigilantes outside Maricopa County’s drop boxes are not increasing election integrity. Instead, they are leading to voter intimidation complaints. Although monitoring and transparency in our elections is critical, voter intimidation is unlawful…. For those who want to be involved in election integrity, become a poll worker or an official observer with your political party. Don’t dress in body armor to intimidate voters as they are legally returning their ballots.”

Then, on Tuesday, October 25, Hobbs’ campaign headquarters in Phoenix became the target of a break-in, according to Phoenix police and Hobbs’ campaign. Hobbs is running for governor against GOP nominee Kari Lake, a far-right conspiracy theorist who continues to make the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump through widespread voter fraud. Polls released in October have been showing a very close race, with Hobbs slightly ahead in some polls and Lake slightly ahead in others.

According to Arizona Republic reporters Stacey Barchenger and Taylor Seely, Hobbs’ campaign “released photographs of a person it said was identified as the suspect by the Phoenix Police Department after police reviewed the surveillance footage.”

“The images show a younger man wearing shorts, a short-sleeved t-shirt and a backpack,” Barchenger and Seely report. “The Phoenix Police Department said it ‘has not released any images or video relating to this investigation and cannot confirm any suspects or investigative leads.'”

Nicole DeMont, Hobbs’ campaign manager, made it clear that the campaign is taking the break-in quite seriously in light of all the death threats Hobbs has received. Following the 2020 election, Hobbs pushed back against the Big Lie aggressively and maintained that President Joe Biden — contrary to the false claims of Lake and other far-right election deniers — enjoyed a decisive, totally legitimate victory. Lake, in contrast, has been campaigning on the Big Lie and has even said that Hobbs should be jailed for helping Biden steal Arizona’s electoral votes.

DeMont told the Arizona Republic, “We continue to cooperate with law enforcement as they investigate, and we are thankful to the men and women of the Phoenix Police Department for their work to keep us safe. Secretary Hobbs and her staff have faced hundreds of death threats and threats of violence over the course of this campaign. Throughout this race, we have been clear that the safety of our staff and of the secretary is our No. 1 priority.”

Never Trump conservative Tim Miller, a former Republican organizer and a scathing critic of Trump, Lake and the MAGA movement, expressed his fears about Arizona’s gubernatorial election in an article published by The Bulwark on October 24. Miller views Lake as a dangerously authoritarian extremist but believes that Hobbs is running a weak campaign in an election that has major implications not only for Arizona, but for the United States on the whole.

Miller warned, “The stakes in Arizona’s governor race could not be higher. The Republican nominee, Kari Lake, is the most zealous election denier this side of the South Florida Sigmaringen. She has indicated she would do everything in her power to tip the scales for Donald Trump in this swing state in 2024. She is a talented political performer, perhaps the most talented in the entire party. Her rise has been foreseeable for at least a year.”

A bizarre star is either the lightest neutron star ever found, or something even weirder

When certain large stars use up all their nuclear fuel and die, they collapse and detonate, creating a supernova. These end-of-life events are some of the most energetic in the universe, and send heavy elements like iron and gold careening into the reaches of space. If a star is more massive than our sun, but not too heavy to become a black hole, the atoms within the star may collapse in on themselves — creating a heavy, spinning ball in space a few miles wide yet several times as massive as our sun, and made entirely of neutrons born of electrons and protons that have been smushed together.

The remaining core is called a neutron star, and they is so dense that a spoonful of this star material would weigh around 1 billion tons. Physics start to get freaky at these magnitudes: some neutron stars spin so fast that they rotate over 700 times per second, meaning a single point on its surface moves through space at about one-fifth the speed of light. Neutron stars also defy the typical laws of particle physics: a standalone neutron might decay within an hour, but when they are bound up in a dense ball the size of a small asteroid, they no longer have a half-life as far as we know.

All this dense exotic matter can generate some of the most intense electromagnetic energy of any object known to humanity. In some cases, the magnetism can be 100 million times to 1 quadrillion times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. From our Earthly perspective, this spin appears like blinking. We call these pulsars, which are very useful for making predictions in astronomy.

But even among the freakiest stars in the universe, things can get weirder. A type of neutron star called a central compact object (CCO) may sound like some kind of cell phone accessory, but they’re bizarre even by the standards of this interstellar object.

Related

How a watershed space explosion created trillions of tons of gold

The smallest, lightest neutron star on record seems to be the obliquely named HESS J1731-347, discovered around 2007. It’s a CCO surrounded by clouds of dust, and situated about 8,000 light-years away from Earth. A new analysis of HESS J1731-347 by astronomers at the Institut für Astronomie und Astrophysik in Tübingen, Germany has revealed some even stranger physics about this neutron star.

This analysis may rewrite our understanding of the origin and physics of neutron stars, the authors argue.

Using X-rays and gravitational wave measurements, the astronomers determined HESS J1731-347 is either “the lightest neutron star known, or a ‘strange star’ with a more exotic equation of state,” they report in the journal Nature Astronomy. Under these conditions, the pressure on atoms would be so great that it would dissolve the neutrons of atoms into even more basic constituent pieces, and allowing the formation of strange quarks, which are a bizarre breed of quark rarely seen in our universe. (More on strange quarks in a moment.) Such an object has been dubbed, appropriately, a “strange star.”

“Our mass estimate makes the CCO in HESS J1731-347 the lightest neutron star known to date, and potentially a more exotic object—that is, a ‘strange star’ candidate,” Victor Doroshenko, the lead study author and his colleagues, write. “Such a light neutron star, regardless of the assumed internal composition, appears to be a very intriguing object from an astrophysical perspective.”

In fact, this analysis may rewrite our understanding of the origin and physics of neutron stars, the authors argue, writing that “models describing the mass loss of the proto-neutron star after the supernova core collapse might have to be revisited.”

Indeed, it seems like we’re still learning a lot about how neutron stars form. If the measurements of HESS J1731-347 are correct, it could foment the conditions for strange quarks.

Strange quarks truly live up to their name. Quarks are fundamental components of matter, particles that are so tiny they can’t be broken down any smaller. Atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, but (with the exception of electrons) each of these components are in turn made of quarks — specifically, up and down quarks, which cluster in triads to form normal matter as we know it. (Protons are made of two up quarks and a down, while neutrons are made of two down quarks and one up.)

Everything you’ve ever touched is made of elements that are made of atoms that are made entirely of up quarks and down quarks — along with electrons and force carrier particles holding them together. The other four types of quark — strange, charm, top and bottom quarks — are rarely observed and scarcely created, except in particle accelerators and random energetic events around the universe. Typically, the matter these exotic quarks form is very, very short-lived, and decay quickly into more familiar pieces of the universe. 

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

Unlike atoms, which can tolerate solitude, their constituent quarks don’t like being alone, so physicists rarely find them by themselves. That’s why scientists build giant particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider, to blast protons at each other and watch as the quarks go spinning off.

Strange quarks are so dubbed because they have half-lives longer than expected, but they’re still not very stable, especially when compared to electrons. If strange quarks do exist in large quantities in the universe, it’s probably “only true at stupidly high pressure,” as The Pasayten Institute, a physics education center, put it. “For example, It’s possible that they exist inside neutron stars.”

Now it seems that we have even stronger evidence that this is possible.

It wasn’t previously assumed that neutron stars could be as small as HESS J1731-347, so even if the strange star theory doesn’t pan out, this is still a weird neutron star either way. It will require astrophysicists to rethink some of their dominant theories as to how and why neutron stars form. In other words, whether or not it’s a de facto “strange star” made of strange quarks, this star is extremely strange — in the colloquial, non-quark sense of the word. 

Read more

about weird stuff happening around the universe

With America poised on the knife’s edge, Joe Biden’s silence isn’t helping

“What the world needs is a little hope,” I was told as I walked down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House Monday morning.

The bearded young gentleman telling me this was a marijuana protester. Dozens of protesters had gathered near 17th and Pennsylvania, just a block from the White House. Shutting down traffic, they were dancing and chanting, apparently intent on getting themselves arrested. A police officer I spoke with about them simply grinned: “They’re very peaceful.” He expected no arrests. Bummer, man. They so wanted some ink. 

I’ve covered many a protest outside the White House, but none as gentle-spirited as those happy, mellow few who blocked traffic with a 20-foot-long replica of a spliff and brought smiles — even to the faces of Secret Service agents who had them under their watchful eyes.

“Your generation needs to understand the weed,” a young protester told me as he offered me a THC gummy. It wasn’t the first time I’ve been told that. I gave my standard response as I declined his generous offering. “What your generation doesn’t realize is my generation invented ‘the weed,'” I explained. 

*  *  *

Hope is on everyone’s mind as we come barreling into reality, face to face with a midterm election that threatens to redefine democracy — or eliminate it entirely. President Biden spoke about it at a Diwali celebration in the East Room on Monday afternoon. A sitar performance preceded Biden’s remarks commemorating the most joyous day on the Hindu calendar, and I was having a strong sense of déjà vu. The weed protesters, the sitar and a piece of artwork from “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” sitting on NewsMax reporter James Rosen’s desk in the White House basement had me looking for Ravi Shankar and George Harrison.

Related

Uncle Joe believes: Behind the scenes, Democrats clearly now think they can win

Neither was to be found, and as for hope, Joe Biden said he was looking for it too.

He said he was happy to host the largest Diwali celebration ever at the White House and that hate was something that “lived under rocks” until it was given oxygen to breathe. After he finished, he left the East Room, taking no questions.

Biden’s plea for hope is not much different from the one I heard from a Trump supporter who told me Monday, at his one-man vigil outside Lafayette Park, that he won’t vote in the midterms. “I’ve given up hope for this country,” he said. He explained his disillusionment with the Republicans: “I had no idea how racist Trump was, how much he conned us and how little he cares.” But he is also highly upset with the Democrats. “I’m not ‘woke’ and don’t want to be canceled,” he said. “I’m 33 years old. I’m white. Slavery wasn’t my fault, but everyone wants to blame me for it. I’m a rural farmer from West Virginia. My dad was a coal miner. The Democrats want to take away my rights, blame me for something I didn’t do and give the minorities everything they want. They want to replace me.”

That Trumper’s story, based on wild misinformation, showed a complete lack of hope and no faith that things will get better. But that story and those of many others like him explain many of the continuing problems this country faces. Democrats may rejoice that he and others who share his worldview will not cast a ballot this fall, but understanding and reaching out to those disenfranchised rural voters would seem important if, you know, we actually want to be the United States. 

Reaching some of those disenfranchised voters would be easier, of course, if salient facts were available at the voter’s disposal.

Don’t expect the media to help in that endeavor. We are far too busy doing a horrible job of covering this presidency while patting ourselves on the back for the “great job” we’re definitely not doing.

Voters need salient facts — but don’t expect the media to help in that endeavor. We’re too busy doing a horrible job of covering this presidency while patting ourselves on the back.

Monday was particularly illustrative of just how poorly we cover Biden. John Kirby, the National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, held a zoom call with reporters after news broke Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin was claiming Ukraine would soon use a “dirty bomb” on their own soil to combat the Russian invasion. That is, honestly, the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Who in the hell would use a dirty bomb in their own backyard? Anyway, for a half-hour Kirby fielded many questions about Russia’s “false flag” episode and several other national security issues.

A short time later, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre answered some of the very same questions — albeit more briefly — during her daily press briefing. Why did we take up valuable time asking questions that had already been answered? When I asked one reporter that question afterward, he told me his outlet had not staffed Kirby’s Zoom call. That speaks volumes not only to the quality of White House reporting, but in some cases to the quantity of reporters on the beat. It’s hard to know what’s going on if you aren’t covering it. 

The only question worth its salt in Monday’s briefing came from someone who asked if Biden would hold a press conference after the midterm election. Every president I’ve previously covered has had an open and frank discussion with the American people, via the press, after the midterm election. During Donald Trump’s midterm press conference he got mad at both me and CNN’s Jim Acosta, and Acosta got his press pass pulled. 

I’ll hold out hope that we’ll have one this time around. Biden has had more press conferences on foreign soil than he’s had at the White House. Hell, there are more MCU movies than Biden press conferences held anywhere. Jean-Pierre said nothing definitive about that, and when I asked, “Don’t you think the scarcity of presidential press conferences has added to some of the misinformation out there?”, she didn’t answer. 

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

I tried again on Wednesday, noting that Biden hadn’t had a press conference at the White House since January, and again asked if there was any concern that the scarcity of press conferences contributes to misinformation about the administration. “He takes questions all the time,” Jean-Pierre answered. I invited the president to join us in the briefing room any time he wants. I’d love to see him there. I told Karine we need a more robust conversation.

For the most part, the press continues to let this slide. It is as if we’ve staffed the White House with high-schoolers afraid to upset their parents. We have left meaningful and important questions about presidential access and responsibility on the floor, simply not asking them. We all privately gripe about the Biden administration’s horrible communications effort, while rarely engaging the administration publicly about it.

Tuesday offered another case in point. Biden showed up in front of dozens of cameras and reporters to get his latest COVID booster and stress the importance of getting boosted and the dangers still inherent with the slowly-fading pandemic. Biden said most of the deaths this winter will occur because people have stopped taking the virus seriously. So what was one of the first questions from the ever-attentive press corps? Someone asked whether the virus was still a danger. I guess the president getting his booster in front of the cameras and speaking directly about the problem wasn’t definitive. Maybe a poster saying “Virus Still Dangerous” was needed.

Right now, the press corps is buried in covering the midterm elections the same way we have traditionally done: as a horserace. Most reporters at the White House spend time handicapping the races and pontificating on who will win and why. How will Biden deal with a divided Congress? Will the Jan. 6 committee be closed down? What about Hunter Biden’s laptop — when will those investigations begin? Those questions are being asked almost daily — not to actual government officials, necessarily, but often among ourselves.

The horserace handicapping is hampered by inherent bias. The appearance of being even-handed hampers all reason. The fact that the Republican Party has abandoned any pretense of following the Constitution, has become a safe haven for antisemites, racists, misogynists and so-called patriots who claim to love America while hating actual Americans has driven reporters into violent seizures and paroxysms as they contort themselves into pretzels trying to keep on pretending there are two legitimate political parties in the U.S.

It appears that Biden himself is growing weary of this mindless battle. On Wednesday, he showed up at the South Court auditorium to talk about his latest efforts to give Americans more “breathing room” in their budget by trying to kill hidden “junk” fees in transportation and banking. He spoke for 13 minutes. His highlight statement was, “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation.” The rest sounded much like a retread of a Biden 2020 stump speech. 

He walked off stage without taking questions, looking tired — which may have been the result of his COVID booster the day before. Biden had two other opportunities to answer questions on Wednesday and never did. Not even one. Why not?

President Isaac Herzog of Israel emerged from the White House and gaggled with the press Wednesday afternoon following his meeting with Biden. I asked him if he was concerned about the rise of antisemitism in the U.S. He said he was, and extended his hope that better attitudes would prevail. He didn’t say whether he was a Kanye West fan — I’m betting that’s a no.

Joe Biden has had two press conferences at the White House in nearly two years. With the midterms on top of us, the president — who has undeniably presided over positive changes in our country — remains muted, if not entirely mute.

Meanwhile, our own president has had but two press conferences at the White House since he rode into town on his white stallion nearly two years ago, preaching good government and claiming to be a champion for free speech and the press. His first came March 25, 2021. His last was Jan. 19, 2022. Both times, COVID restrictions meant he took questions before a small number of reporters.

On Wednesday, Biden didn’t engage with the press in his public remarks, in his bilateral meeting with Herzog or in a pool spray. Nothing. The midterms are on top of us and this president, who has undeniably presided over positive changes in our country, delivered on necessary infrastructure and restored the rule of law to the White House, has been muted, if not entirely mute.

If the Democrats lose either or both the House and the Senate in the midterm elections then the Biden administration will have to reassess this curious, hands-off strategy it has employed up to now — or at least it definitely should.

We in the press, meanwhile, need to reassess our inability or unwillingness to speak truth to power, and our continuing unwillingness to press harder for greater access to the president.

Hope is still alive — but we had all better hope we have a democracy come the first of next year. If we don’t, it won’t feel good —no matter how many gummies you eat.

Read more

from Brian Karem on Biden, Trump and democracy

Judge may unseal secret court docs showing Trump’s attempts to block aides from testifying: report

A federal judge is mulling whether to unseal secret court documents detailing former President Donald Trump’s attempts to block his former aides from testifying to a grand jury investigating his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to Politico.

Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for D.C. on Wednesday asked the Justice Department to respond to requests by Politico and the New York Times to unseal documents from secret court proceedings surrounding Trump’s attempt to use executive and attorney-client privilege claims to prevent former aides from testifying. CNN previously reported that the DOJ had successfully secured testimony from Marc Short and Greg Jacob, who served as top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence despite Trump’s attempts to prevent them from disclosing information to the grand jury.

Short, who served as Pence’s chief of staff, testified before a grand jury last Thursday just hours after a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s request to postpone the appearance while he appeals, according to Politico. The court turned down the request after a “rushed series of filings,” according to the report, and Short testified the next day. Trump’s team could have appealed the matter further to the Supreme Court but has not yet done so.

Related

“This is the ballgame”: DOJ moving quickly in “secret court proceedings” in Trump Jan. 6 probe

The ruling came amid a four-month legal battle that began in June over grand jury subpoenas issued in the Jan. 6 probe but “accelerated rapidly” on September 28, when Howell ruled against Trump in a sealed ruling related to two grand jury subpoenas, according to the report. The rulings were sealed because they are related to grand jury matters but the timing suggests they were related to the subpoenas issued to Short and Jacob, who served as Pence’s chief counsel.

The ruling was one of a series of court decisions rejecting Trump’s attempts to derail investigations. The same day that Short testified, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s bid to intervene in the federal criminal probe into secret national security documents found at Mar-a-Lago. Other court rulings have cleared the way for prosecutors to secure testimony and documents related to Jan. 6, his efforts to overturn the election and his business dealings.

Short and Jacob previously appeared before a grand jury but did not answer questions related to Trump’s privilege claims. CNN reported that federal prosecutors are now similarly asking the judge to force former White House counsel Pat Cipollone and deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin to testify despite Trump’s executive and attorney-client privilege claims. The filings related to Trump’s appeal are sealed so Trump could still ask the court to issue a formal ruling on whether he can block former aides from testifying. He could also take the issue to the Supreme Court.

Short, Jacob, Cipollone and Philbin have all testified before the House Jan. 6 committee as well, though they declined to answer questions that could be covered by Trump’s privilege claims. The rulings related to the Short and Jacob subpoenas suggest that the court may similarly order Cipollone and Philbin to answer questions before the grand jury. The ruling could also affect privilege claims related to the testimony of former White House officials Mark Meadows, Eric Herschmann, Dan Scavino and Stephen Miller along with campaign adviser Boris Ephsteyn.

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

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman predicted that the “biggest prize” for the DOJ who has “dodged testimony based on executive privilege” claims is Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff. Meadows was centrally involved in Trump’s post-election efforts and partially cooperated with the House Jan. 6 probe but has refused to turn over additional documents or sit for an interview.

A judge on Wednesday ordered Meadows to testify before a different grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia that is investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn his election in the state.

“It’s taken a while to get here, but increasingly, courts are ordering Trump’s inner circle to testify before grand juries,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance.

In the Mar-a-Lago probe, prosecutors are reportedly considering offering Trump aides immunity to force their testimony in the case. Mary McCord, a former acting assistant attorney general and Georgetown Law professor, predicted that a similar scenario could play out in Georgia.

“There’s a potential there for a conspiracy and there’s a potential that some of this evidence would lead to that,” McCord told MSNBC, predicting that Meadows was likely to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. “Then we have the same issue there of a prosecutor in Georgia having to face issues like, ‘do I offer immunity or do I rely on other evidence I can get elsewhere because I don’t want to relinquish the opportunity to potentially prosecute Mark Meadows.'”

Read more

about Trump’s legal battles

A study of dog parenting techniques has a definitive answer on how to make Fido the very best boy

Dogs have earned the nickname “man’s best friend” for a good reason. They can smell our stress, cry tears of joy when reunited with us and express curiosity about us when we are away. It seems only fair that humans return the favor by treating our canine friends with the same respect they seem to give us. 

Yet when it comes to dog ownership, there are many different styles of dog-rearing — and not all are equal, or result in happy, well-adjusted dogs. Such was the subject of a recent study published in the scientific journal Animal Cognition, that sought to understand what produces emotionally healthy, well-adjusted, happy dogs.

While permissive owners were affectionate toward their dogs, they also “had lower expectations for things like training and rule following.”

For this study, scientists looked at how dogs react when their owners are gone and have returned; how they responded to strangers when in their owners’ presence; and how they interacted with their owners while trying to win a game.

Their findings? The most successful dog owners are “authoritative,” not “permissive” or “authoritarian.” The researchers’ results could have big implications for how pet owners train their dogs. 

Related

Dogs can smell your stress, study finds

But what does it mean to be an “authoritarian” pet parent — or a permissive or authoritative one, for that matter? Salon spoke with the researchers involved in the study to get a better sense of what makes Fido a very good boy. 

“Authoritarian pet parents are those who have high expectations of their dogs, but may be less accustomed to adjusting their own behavior in response to the dog’s needs, whereas authoritative pet parents have both high expectations of their dog and a readiness to adjust their own behavior to help their dog feel comfortable, safe and supported,” Dr. Monique Udell, a professor at Oregon State University who was the study’s corresponding author, told Salon by email. 

Udell added that while permissive owners were affectionate toward their dogs, they also “had lower expectations for things like training and rule following.” By contrast, dogs with authoritative pet parents strike a happy medium. They have “high expectations coupled with high warmth and responsiveness,” and in response, their dogs “were typically more secure and showed greater resilience.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this “is similar to what has been observed in human children,” Udell notes. 

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

The new research is significant, Udell argues, because it “contributes to our understanding of dogs as individuals and as a social species whose behavior is heavily influenced by bonded companions, including humans.” Dogs are not merely the products of their genes, but also of the psychological environment created for them by the humans with whom they regularly interact.

This is not the first study to unravel the complexities of the canine mind. Indeed, as dog cognition has become a more studied field in the past decade, research has repeatedly shown that dogs and humans are more alike in mind than we might think. 

“Authoritative pet parents have both high expectations of their dog and a readiness to adjust their own behavior to help their dog feel comfortable, safe and supported.”

Indeed, dogs can have learning disabilities akin to those experienced by humans, such as difficulties in paying attention and tendencies toward hyperactivity akin to human ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Like humans, dogs can become jealous if they feel that someone else is competing for attention with a person they care about. More tragically, some dogs can develop a neurodegenerative disorder similar to the human disease known as dementia — canine cognitive dysfunction.

Now, this new research further illustrates the multitude of dog-human similarities by exploring how dogs, like humans, emotionally thrive when they are treated with love and are taught to have “high expectations.”

Udell also offered advice for struggling dog owners.

“Some questions an owner might want to ask include: Is the troubling behavior new? Could there be an underlying health problem? When does the behavior occur? Is there anything I can change in the environment or in my dogs routine that might help the situation?” Udell suggested. “Typically addressing challenges with dogs starts with understanding when and why the behavior may be occurring. Reaching out for expert help early on may make this step easier and help get them on the path to a resolution more quickly.”

In terms of the paper’s implications for those struggling with dog training, Udell had advice, too. 

“Our research suggests that a willingness to truly understand what your dog is communicating with its behavior and responding appropriately can make a meaningful difference to its wellbeing and to the human-dog bond,” she added. 

Read more

about dogs

Report: Human health is ‘at the mercy of fossil fuels’

Every year for the past seven years, the medical journal the Lancet has published a report summarizing the previous year’s research on how climate change is affecting human health around the globe. In 2020, the journal drew an exceedingly grim conclusion: that climate change threatens to unravel 50 years of public health gains. This year’s report, published Tuesday, is proof that the Lancet’s 2020 report wasn’t warning of a far-off threat — the health impacts of climate change are unfolding now, in real time. 

The 2022 report, titled “Health at the Mercy of Fossil Fuels,” says the worsening impacts of climate change “are increasingly affecting the foundations of human health and wellbeing.” 

Adults over the age of 65 and children younger than 1 year old experienced a cumulative 3.7 billion more heatwave days in 2021 than those vulnerable populations did on an average year between 1986 and 2005. Heat-related deaths spiked 68 percent between 2017 and 2021 compared to the period between 2000 and 2004. (The COVID-19 pandemic, which stressed hospitals and had a chilling effect on people seeking in-person treatment at emergency rooms and other healthcare facilities, is partially responsible for this massive increase.) Warming temperatures are fueling the rise of pathogens such as Vibrio, a deadly water-borne bacteria, and mosquito-driven illnesses like malaria and dengue. 

Health care facilities — hospitals, emergency rooms, and medical clinics — are the first line of defense for people afflicted by the health impacts of climate change, but that blockade has been stretched to a breaking point by the pandemic, leaving millions vulnerable. “Urgent action is therefore needed to strengthen health-system resilience and to prevent a rapidly escalating loss of lives and to prevent suffering in a changing climate,” the report said. 

The report’s assessment of the world’s progress on reducing the emissions that cause climate change is even more grim. The global economy is still powered by fossil fuels; renewables comprise just 8.2 percent of global electricity generation. Power demand has grown 59 percent, even though millions of people still don’t have access to reliable power, which adds to their overall health risk. (Case in point: Roughly 60 percent of health care facilities in developing nations don’t have access to the electricity they need in order to provide consistent care to sick people.)

And yet, oil and gas companies are posting record profits while governments continue to subsidize fossil fuels. 

“The world is at a critical juncture,” the report said. The lingering pandemic, rising inflation, and Russia’s war in Ukraine have created unstable global conditions that threaten to undo many nations’ climate commitments. If the world backslides now, the health-related costs of doing so will be astronomical. 

Though poor countries will bear the brunt of those costs, rich countries will not be immune to them. In the United States, the health impacts of rising temperatures and fossil fuel use, particularly air pollution and extreme heat, are already being felt. A policy brief written by experts from more than 80 U.S. institutions, published as an accompaniment to the Lancet report on Tuesday, illuminates the climate-related death toll in the U.S. The policy brief says that particulate matter air pollution — tiny airborne particles that can get trapped in the lungs and bloodstream — killed 32,000 people in the U.S. in 2020, and approximately 12,000 of those deaths, 37 percent, were directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. 

Extreme heat is also on the rise in the U.S.; 2021 was the sixth-hottest year on record. It’s no surprise, then, that heat-related mortality has jumped 74 percent for people over the age of 65 in the U.S. since the period between 2000 and 2004. But the health impacts of rising temperatures are not distributed equally. The policy brief cites government data showing that the regions of the country that are projected to experience the highest increases in heat-related deaths are 40 percent more likely to be home to Black people. And the people most likely to be exposed to extreme heat are outdoor laborers, people experiencing homelessness, and incarcerated individuals. 

“When I’m treating a patient, if something I’m doing to help them isn’t working, I don’t keep doing the same thing,” Renee N. Salas, a doctor at Massachusetts General Hospital and the lead author of the policy brief, told reporters. “I do something different. And the same is true for the climate shocks we’re experiencing.” 

Not all hope is lost, both the Lancet report and the U.S. policy brief say. Recent policy measures in the U.S. — namely the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which is predicted to reduce domestic emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by the end of the decade — will help reduce air pollution and its associated health impacts. 

And much more can be done to limit the damage caused by climate change, according to the U.S. policy brief. In addition to reaching net-zero emissions in its energy sector, the brief says the U.S. should decarbonize its transportation sector, stop approving new fossil fuel developments, phase out subsidies for oil and gas, invest in climate adaptation (particularly in vulnerable communities), and chip in more money to the global pot of green financing for developing countries. 

On the international front, the Lancet report said that the heartening news is that some 86 percent of countries’ current climate targets mention health as an important metric of success. And the war in Ukraine and the global energy crisis have prompted many nations to think more carefully about their mix of fossil fuel and renewable energies. The media is doing a better job of connecting the dots between climate change and public health for its audiences — coverage of these interrelated issues increased 27 percent between 2020 and 2021, according to the report. And hundreds of local governments around the world have begun conducting city-level climate change assessments that take public health into account. Many of those cities listed heat waves and bad air quality among their most prominent health threats last year. 

“At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the report said. The missing ingredient, as always, is a healthy dose of political will.

How sunken basketball courts could protect New Yorkers from the next Superstorm Sandy

Almost every time it rains in New York City, the grounds of the South Jamaica Houses start to flood. As the storm drain system overflows, water collects across the sprawling public housing development in southeast Queens. Before long, floodwater pools up on the basketball court and in the yard behind the senior center. If it rains for more than a few hours, the water starts to slosh over streets and courtyards. These aren’t the monumental floods that make national headlines, but they make basic mobility a challenge for the complex’s roughly 3,000 residents. Sometimes the water doesn’t drain for days or weeks.

“It happens all the time,” said William Biggs, 66, who has lived in the development for 35 years. He gestured at the basketball court, which is cracked and eroded in places. “It pools all the way through the court, all the way back toward the buildings, all along that wall there. And the reason is that we don’t have any drainage. The storm drains don’t work.”

“If you put some fish in there, you could go fishing,” added Biggs’ friend Tommy Foddrell, who has lived in the development for around two decades.

That decrepit basketball court will soon become a centerpiece of New York City’s efforts to adapt to the severe rainfall caused by climate change. In the years to come, construction crews will sink the court several feet lower into the ground and add tiers of benches on either side. During major rainstorms, the sunken stadium will act as an impromptu reservoir for water that would otherwise flood the development.

The project will be able to hold 200,000 gallons of water before it overflows, and it will release that water into the sewer system slowly through a series of underground pipes, preventing the system from backing up as it does today. Just down the block, work crews will carve out another seating area arranged around a central flower garden. That project will hold an additional 100,000 gallons of water.

In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, which struck New York City 10 years ago this month, the city spent billions of dollars to strengthen its coastline against future hurricanes. Sandy had slammed into the city’s southern shoreline with 14 feet of storm surge, inundating coastal neighborhoods in Queens and Staten Island. The city’s biggest climate adaptation goal in the years that followed was to make sure that these coastal neighborhoods were prepared for the next storm surge event. 

But the next Sandy turned out to be a very different kind of storm. In September of last year, the remnants of Hurricane Ida dumped almost 10 inches of rain on New York City, including three inches in a single hour. Rather than indundating the city’s shoreline, the storm dumped heaps of rain on inland neighborhoods, overwhelming neighborhood sewer systems and filling up streets with water. The flooding killed 13 people, most of whom lived in below-ground apartments that didn’t typically see flooding.

Now the city is trying to retool its climate plans to be prepared for the intensified rainfall of the future. This time, the New York City Housing Authority, or NYCHA, is at the heart of the effort. The South Jamaica Houses project is the first in a series of initiatives that will turn NYCHA developments into giant sponges, using the unique architecture of public housing to capture rainfall from so-called “cloudburst” events and prevent floods like those caused by Ida. Three of these projects are already in the works in three different boroughs, supported by a hodgepodge of federal money.

Adapting for cloudburst events is very different from adapting for storm surge. While the latter requires building large new infrastructure projects along the coastline, preparing for inland events like the former requires squeezing new water storage infrastructure into an already-crowded street grid. 

“There’s already a system to deal with stormwater in these neighborhoods — there’s a big stormwater sewer under the street,” said Marc Wouters, an architect whose firm helped design the South Jamaica Houses flood project. “But those are undersized for these bigger rain events that are coming.”

Even before Hurricane Ida, city officials had long been aware that cloudburst events could cause flooding even in landlocked neighborhoods. There just wasn’t much money to address that threat. The federal disaster relief system allocates most adaptation money to communities that have already suffered disasters, not communities trying to prepare for disasters that haven’t happened yet.

That meant that the vast majority of the money the city received after Superstorm Sandy went to protection against coastal storm surge: The city rebuilt massive sections of the Rockaway and Coney Island beaches, bought out whole neighborhoods on Staten Island, and charted an ambitious plan to surround Lower Manhattan with an artificial shoreline. That kind of money wasn’t available to protect against hypothetical cloudburst disasters.

But there was one city department that had already started to plan for stormwater flooding. A few years before Hurricane Ida, NYCHA had hired Wouters’s firm to hold a design workshop at South Jamaica Houses, interviewing residents about their flood problems. Those conversations led to the basketball court design, the city’s first major attempt to retrofit a public housing project for cloudburst flooding. It’s a strength of the project that it also promised to fix the dilapidated court: maintenance of the city’s public housing stock, which is home to well over 300,000 New Yorkers in all five boroughs, is notoriously behind schedule. Bundling long-desired repairs with climate adaptation promised to be a win-win.

“If you sink the basketball court into the ground and have it as a temporary collection pond, then it would justify rebuilding the basketball court,” said Wouters.

The South Jamaica project was cheap enough that the city’s Department of Environmental Protection could execute it without a big federal grant, but NYCHA officials wanted to take the South Jamaica houses model to other housing projects. The authority’s climate adaptation study identified dozens of developments that were at high risk of stormwater flooding, but it didn’t have the money to replicate the South Jamaica project. Like most public housing authorities across the country, NYCHA often struggles to find the money for even basic capital repairs, thanks to a long decline in federal funding over several decades. Most of New York City’s climate adaptation money, meanwhile, was flowing toward coastal protection projects.

Luckily, the flooding from Hurricane Ida coincided with a rush of new federal spending on climate resilience. In the waning days of the Trump administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, launched a new resilience grant program. The bipartisan infrastructure bill signed by President Biden last year expanded that program as well as an existing disaster mitigation fund. The first tranche of this new funding became available just as New York City was reeling from Ida, and the city quickly grabbed two more grants to replicate the South Jamaica concept at a pair of public housing developments in Brooklyn and Manhattan. The two grants together total around $30 million. That won’t make a dent in the authority’s broader adaptation needs, but it’s a start.

During severe rainfall events, the city’s ordinary storm drain system fills up, and all the extra water starts to pool in the lowest-lying areas. The task for designers like Wouters is to find a place to store excess water, whether above or below ground, before it filters into the storm drain system.

This looks a little different in every development. At Harlem’s Clinton Houses, one of two projects where the city has secured a grant from FEMA, officials will have ample room to carve out a large “water square” like the one at the South Jamaica basketball court, as well as install underground basins where water can accumulate. These basins will be able to hold a combined 1.78 million gallons of water, slowly releasing it out into the sewer system so it doesn’t spill onto nearby streets. The project at the Breukelen Houses in Brooklyn may not feature as much underground storage isn’t an option: Because the housing complex is so close to the ocean, its water table sits just a few feet below street level, making it harder to excavate new storage tanks. Designers will instead have to create natural water sinks above ground, perhaps by lining streets and walkways with thirsty grasses that trap water in their roots, making the whole development one big sponge.

These strategies are enabled by the fact that the average New York public housing project looks very different from a typical city neighborhood. Instead of mid-rise buildings on a grid of intersecting streets, a development like Clinton Houses consists of much taller towers arranged around central courtyards and walkways. There are no streets that allow cars to pass through, and the footprint of each building tends to be smaller.

This unique architecture is a blessing when it comes to flood resilience. Most NYCHA developments contain ample open space for water storage projects like the South Jamaica basketball court, allowing officials to look beyond the usual underground pipes and tanks. In addition to solving flood problems for NYCHA residents, these fixes can also help surrounding neighborhoods by catching water before it flows out onto other streets, reducing the total burden on a neighborhood’s storm drain system. In other neighborhoods, the city will have to settle for smaller-scale interventions like sidewalk rain gardens.

“NYCHA developments interrupt the street grid and create large amounts of green space within a dense urban environment, [and] are clustered in parts of the city where green space resources other than NYCHA developments are limited,” a representative from the authority told Grist. “For this reason, NYCHA’s campuses provide an opportunity for management of larger volumes of water than would be possible within the typical street grid configuration in the city.”

Still, there is a bitter irony in the post-Ida funding surge at NYCHA. The new federal money may help solve flooding issues at the developments that are lucky enough to get it, but it won’t solve the numerous other infrastructure issues that have plagued the developments. The authority has spent the past several years embroiled in a scandal over its attempts to conceal missed lead paint inspections, and the federal monitor assigned to supervise the authority has concluded that some 9,000 children are at risk of dangerous lead paint exposure. Dozens of boilers have also failed at agency projects in recent years, leaving thousands of residents to brave winter temperatures with no heating.

At South Jamaica Houses, stormwater flooding is far from the only issue. The development’s wastewater system is also prone to failure, and in 2015 it backed up and flooded the inside of buildings with fecal matter and sludge. Residents of the Clinton Houses, meanwhile, have suffered through outbreaks of toxic mold in recent years. Breukelen Houses residents have been pleading with the city to take action on gun violence that has claimed several lives in the development.

The authority’s extensive repair backlog is in part the result of a decrease in federal funding over the past several decades, but NYCHA officials have also made serious and wasteful mistakes, like working with shoddy contractors. The flood project in South Jamaica Houses might mitigate this shortfall by killing two birds with one stone, but it wouldn’t need to do so if NYCHA had been able to fix the basketball court in the first place.

“I don’t know if [grant money] is the only way to make those improvements, but it certainly is incredibly helpful,” said Wouters of the secondary benefits at a project like South Jamaica Houses. “And I think it becomes really an efficient use of federal dollars, because you’re spending each of those dollars to do multiple things.”

NYCHA’s new generation of flood projects will prepare some of its developments for an era of more intense rainfall, but they’ll only address one of many challenges that public housing residents face. In other words, there’s more than one kind of resilience, and NYCHA is far from equipped to tackle all of them.

Biggs, for his part, isn’t yet optimistic about the flood resilience project near his home at the South Jamaica Houses. He rattled off the a litany of the development’s other maintenance problems, like the doors that don’t lock and allow people who don’t live in the complex to wander in and out at will.

“Thirty-five years I’ve been here, and I’ve never heard of anything changing,” he said. He recalled the conversations around the basketball court plan, but he doesn’t think they will lead to anything tangible. “They always do a good dress-up, but they haven’t fixed shit yet.”

NeverTrumper Rick Wilson on the midterms: “Democrats are about to pay a terrible price”

Next month’s midterm elections may be the most important in American history. The outcome will determine whether America takes another decisive step toward fascism. 

These midterms are unprecedented, in the worst ways possible.

They are the first national elections since Donald Trump and his followers attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021, with the goal of ending American democracy and installing Trump in power as a king or American Caesar.

The Republican fascists and the larger right are escalating their plans across the country to subvert or nullify the results of the midterms and then the 2024 presidential election to ensure that they always win, regardless of how the American people vote. This strategy includes the very real potential for violence: The Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies have issued public warnings about the threat of violence during the midterms by right-wing paramilitaries and other malign actors.

As part of the Big Lie chaos strategy, Trump and his agents are already coordinating their plans to dispute the results of the upcoming midterm election as somehow “fraudulent” or “stolen” — a preview of their plans for 2024 — if Republican candidates do not win in such key states as Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona.

Related

“Dress rehearsal for 2024”: Trump plans to challenge Senate race before votes are cast, report says

Elections are only “fair,” in their view, if Republicans “win”: This is the standard logic deployed by authoritarians, fascists and other such forces that want to destroy democracy from within.

America’s political class and the mainstream media have largely failed to adapt. Instead of embracing pro-democracy journalism and bold truth-telling, the media has largely defaulted to fake balance, “both-sides-ism” and access journalism, constantly providing Republican fascists and their spokespeople a platform to further undermine the country’s democracy and civic culture with lies and disinformation.

In total, American politics is now in a state of confusion and uncertainty, lost in a fever dream, where supposedly fixed points of certainty and political norms and rules no longer apply.

In an attempt to make sense of this confusing and unprecedented moment, I recently spoke with Rick Wilson.

Wilson has had a highly influential and successful career as a political strategist and commentator, mostly as a Republican. Since 2015, he has been a prominent figure in the Never Trump movement and was co-founder of the Lincoln Project. He is editor at large for The Daily Beast and his work has also been published in the Washington Post, USA Today, Politico, The Hill and elsewhere. He is a frequent guest on MSNBC and CNN as well on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.”

In this conversation, Wilson explains his view that public opinion polls, focus groups and the other tools commonly used to understand American politics and elections no longer have the explanatory and predictive power they did before the Age of Trump. He warns that the Republicans and the conservative movement have spent decades creating the institutions necessary to win and keep power — and then to impose their will on the American people. Liberals and moderates, Wilson argues, chose to convince themselves that the threat was exaggerated. 

Democrats and many among the news media, Wilson argues, have deluded themselves into believing that arguments built on policy and material self-interest — or on accusing the Republicans of being hypocrites or liars — will break the GOP’s hold on white working-class and lower middle-class voters.

Much about the upcoming midterms remains in doubt, Wilson says, although he believes Republicans will win back control of the House, while control of the Senate is uncertain. Democracy will continue to deteriorate, he suggests, unless Democrats can begin to fight for control of key local and state offices they have largely abandoned in recent years. If Donald Trump runs for president again in 2024, Wilson believes he is likely to win.

How do you feel in this moment? How are you making sense of all this?

My sense of the world right now is that we are at an inflection point, one where no one knows what is really going to happen with certainty. I’m a believer in data and modeling. But I’m not a believer anymore in polling and focus groups. It is my belief that they have lost all their utility. Too many political action committees and political strategists think that they can come up with a message, grind it down, polish it up, and that will be how they win in a year like 2022. That is complete madness and a path to complete failure. Six months ago, the math told me that we were going to end up with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican sweep in every single aspect. I don’t believe that anymore. The ground has changed radically.

Nobody can credibly state what is going to happen yet with the midterms. This is an unsettled electorate, with turnout that is going to be higher than any midterm we’ve ever seen.

The House is still going to go Republican because of structural reasons related to redistricting. The Senate race is much different now. The poor quality of the Republican candidates is going to probably save Pennsylvania and Arizona. There are also some surprisingly strong Republican candidates elsewhere. There’s a lot of noise in the system and less signal than I’d like, which means that nobody is going to be able to credibly state what is going to happen yet with the midterms. This is an unsettled electorate, with turnout that is going to be higher than any midterm we’ve ever seen. Never mind the complexities of early voting and whether it will end up benefiting the Democrats or the Republicans.

Related

“They are going to convict very quickly”: Glenn Kirschner on the trial of Donald J. Trump

The news media, pundits, consultants and political class have largely not adapted to the new realities of the Age of Trump and this assault on democracy. They have had more than six years to learn new ways of thinking, develop new tools, and analyze the country’s political and social reality as it exists, instead of as they wish it to be. They have largely refused to. It’s a grand failure of supposed “expertise.”

For example, we don’t even know how to model if the Republican Party’s anti-early voting rhetoric changes how Republicans vote. That rhetoric didn’t become a significant factor until 2020. We don’t have a test case for it. Republicans may now think that early voting is bad and don’t show up to vote early. Here is another complication: We know that voters constantly lie in focus groups and to pollsters. The idea that Republicans will tell a pollster or a focus-group moderator the truth is just laughable. It’s become a type of cultural scam on the right to prank pollsters and focus groups. The people who work in the political world do not want to accept this; they just don’t get it.

Another old habit that doesn’t work anymore is TV ads. Now it’s like putting money on a bonfire — it’s a way for a lot of people in D.C. to make commissions. It’s not how voters get their information anymore.

Another old habit and strategy that doesn’t work anymore is TV ads. That approach used to drive the political consultant strategist business. Not too long ago, if we could just raise enough money to get our candidate on the air for the last two weeks before election day we knew that was going to change the ballgame and win the election for us. That approach doesn’t work anymore. To do that would be like putting money on a bonfire. Nobody watches broadcast television. It’s a way for a lot of people in D.C. to make a lot of money on commissions. It is not how voters are getting their information anymore. They are now getting their information on social media and podcasts and streaming and, God forbid, TikTok and Facebook and other horrible ways.

I was one of the first people with a platform to predict that Donald Trump was going to win in 2016. People thought that I was crazy. How did I see this so clearly? I am a working-class Black man. I am not of the political class or the news media. I do not enjoy their privileges of money, skin color, wealth or class background. As such, I am not invested in their many myths about America. My analysis is not clouded by it. How do we break through that bubble, which is increasingly detached from reality, that the country’s news media and political class inhabit?

One of my superpowers is that I moved out of Washington in 1994 and I never went back. I go there for work occasionally, but I never wanted to go live there again. The culture of D.C. has a certain insular nature, where even with Trump and what he was doing with breaking norms and rules, they could not accept this new reality. I remember being in a fancy home with very wealthy hosts. Sitting around this table was every big-name “Never Trump” person. This was in early 2018, and they were talking about how we’re going to get the party back and change everything. Why did they think they would ever get let back in the room? This is not the world as it exists. I am not of that elite world and, like you, that gives me an insight such people don’t possess.

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

A very well-meaning Democratic donor asked me why Trump and the Republicans are getting the votes of Black men and Hispanic men. I told them, imagine there are three guys working on a road crew. A Black guy, a white guy and a Hispanic guy. They are a lot more alike than you can imagine. A rich person drives by in a Range Rover and is honking at them and speeding. They all hate that person. They all feel like if they say something wrong at work, they’re going to get fired. They all feel that “Woke culture” is not received as, “We are trying to address past harms in our society.” Sometimes it is received as, “You are a stupid redneck from the middle of the country, and we hate you.” Many people on the right have been able to exploit that politically. Trump was brilliant at it. I always say, you give me 20 more Conor Lambs, and I’ll give you 50 more seats in Congress. Or you can give me 50 more AOCs, and I’ll give you one more seat in Congress.

I will give you an example of failed messaging: “Defund the police.” That is one of the worst slogans and talking points I have every heard. It was an easy win for the Republicans and other “conservatives.” The public should not have to go read a book to understand what a politician means. That’s not how you win elections. Why did that slogan gain traction among some Democrats?

It took off because it stroked a certain aspect of the progressive Democratic Party’s amygdala where they liked that feeling of a catchy phrase that expresses what we feel. But Republicans loved it because they immediately thought, “I’m going to weaponize that shit.” Back in 2020 during a call we were on together, James Clyburn said — to paraphrase him — that the slogan is just dumb. Black folks are going to be hurt the most if you defund the police. What is wrong with these people? The Democrats lack message discipline. They were not able to effectively tell their people: “Please stop saying this. It’s hurting us. It’s hurting everybody.”

The Democratic Party is divided into two parties. There’s a sort of Obama/Clinton, practical politics wing that could win seats, and sometimes win big statewide, and there are the safe seats. Messages like “Defund the police” just don’t scale up. The message on the Republican side doesn’t scale either. But they’re better at the tools of politics than the Democrats are, as a broad rule.

Why are the Republicans, as you say, on average so much better at storytelling and the emotional work of politics than the Democrats?

My first campaign was in 1987, a U.S. Senate campaign. I joined the Bush campaign as a young guy fresh out of school. Generations of young Republican activists, consultants and journeymen were taught one rule. It was beaten into us by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. The rule is: Just win, get to the goal line. The Republicans have gotten really good at finding whatever tactic, no matter how ugly it was and is, to get to the goal line. And over the years, the difference in the two party’s political cultures got ever wider. Republicans just wanted to win, no matter how they got there, and increasingly over that time Democrats wanted to talk about policy. The Democrats really believed that policy would save us and that they could find a secret ingredient that brings back white working-class voters to the party. That has not happened.

Republicans will do anything to win. They will lie, cheat and steal to win; they don’t care how they get there. That’s a hard lesson for a lot of Democratic consultants and candidates to accept.

Policy is increasingly a tool for Republicans to exploit against Democrats to scare those same white working-class voters that they wanted to get back. As the Democratic Party became more of a white upper-class educated elite party, it became more difficult for them to understand why their policies were not resonating.

A perfect example is climate change. To be clear, climate change is a real thing. But you know what? Telling the guy in West Virginia that he’s going to lose his job because you’re going to eliminate coal, and that he is going to be retrained to be a solar-panel installer, is nonsense. He responds with, “I’m going to vote for those other people, the Republicans. I don’t like him, but I’m going to vote for him. I don’t want to lose my job.”

Democrats consistently believe that the types of elite-driven public policy that makes great sense and sounds wonderful and makes them feel good in the drawing rooms of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is what convinces voters in the suburbs of St. Louis, Missouri. The Democrats don’t seem to understand the cultural divide and how their language is not helping them. Again, the Republicans will do anything to win. They will lie, cheat and steal to win; they don’t care how they get there. That’s a hard lesson for a lot of Democratic consultants and candidates to accept. I was never a delicate person, but what the Republicans are doing now even shocks me.

Another example is how so many Democrats, liberals and progressives actually believe that calling Republicans hypocrites or liars or bad people is effective messaging and political work. Media types and commentators may get attention and validation from their audience by making such arguments, but it’s not effective in terms of confronting power.

It won’t work. We’re in a post-shame world, a post-hypocrisy environment. You can’t shame Republicans anymore. You have to show people that you’re better for them. That takes a lot of work. The Democrats complain, and they are correct, that the Republicans are very good at redistricting and setting the rules in ways that disadvantage the Democrats. The Democrats should respond not by complaining but by electing more people at lower levels in the states, so that you can do redistricting in a way that doesn’t hurt the Democrats every single time. The Democrats are about to pay a terrible price by ignoring the bottom-up approach to politics.

Can you explain how the Republicans and the larger right wing built a machine over decades that is now imperiling American democracy? Too much of the commentary and pseudo-analysis treats Trumpism and neofascism as something novel and impossible to predict. In reality, this was all long in process and being done in public.

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, my Democratic friends were telling me things like, “Oh my God, this is such a shock!” How the hell are you shocked? The Republicans have explicitly told you for almost 50 years what they’re going to do. They told you they were going to use the courts to end abortion rights.

The Republicans told you what they were doing every step of the way. The Democrats ignored it or pretended that it didn’t exist or engaged in magical thinking or couldn’t grapple with the concept of it actually happening. Guess what? It actually happened. Roe v. Wade was overturned. The Democrats have to understand that this is no longer “my honorable friend across the aisle.”

They’re not arguing with the Republicans about whether or not we’re going to have a 36.5% or a 34.2% maximum tax rate. They’re arguing with people who want to destroy democracy. They want to destroy the republic, they want to reduce this country to an authoritarian baseline where fascism is the order of the day. This will be a country where the Republicans’ corporate and political allies are rewarded, their enemies are punished where power is from the executive, and from a captive court system, and from a legislative body that does whatever the Great Leader wants. Republicans want power. They want power because they know that through power alone that they will be able to control the lives of the American people. That drive is a real part of the Republican Party’s DNA now.

Republicans and other “conservatives” are direct and transparent in their plans. An obvious example would be taking away women’s reproductive rights by overturning Roe v. Wade. Another example would be the coup attempt on Jan. 6. The news media and the political class continue to act like they are surprised by this. Do they really believe it, or are they just pretending as to be “relatable” to generate views and clicks?

Republicans told you what they were doing every step of the way. The Democrats ignored it or pretended that it didn’t exist or engaged in magical thinking.

There’s a cultural subset of the Washington and New York reporting class who still think that this country and its politics during this democracy crisis and the Age of Trump are a story about process. Republicans said this and Democrats said that, and somewhere in the middle is the solution. You can’t treat the truth and the lie like the same thing. You can’t treat madness and real policy as the same thing. The madness is rising on the right. They don’t care about the truth. They are determined to use whatever tools they have to end democracy. Reporters who mistake the Republicans for anything but an authoritarian movement are playing a very stupid game.

What will America look like if the Republicans take control of the House and the Senate? Or, even worse, with Trump or someone else taking back the presidency? How do we explain this to the average American?

What it means is that America is going to look a lot more like East Germany in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s than an America we imagine as a democracy and free society. As we speak, Gov. Greg Abbott is paying men to snitch on women in Texas if they get an abortion. Now imagine that all over the country. Here’s another example. We will now have people reporting on their neighbors for having a gay child, telling the state that they are bad parents or abusive so the state can can take action against them. If it’s Trump or whomever, they will use the power of the state to try to remake America into their vision of the 1950s, a vision driven by what the hyper-Christian nationalist element of the party wants. That should scare the hell out of the American people.

One of the dominant narratives right now from the news media and the centrist political class is this disgust about how Americans care more about gas and food prices than the abstract thing called “democracy.” This reveals a basic denial about the reality of pocketbook issues and American political behavior.

Most people are politically detached until just before Election Day. That’s just a fact about American political behavior. Most people don’t pay close attention to politics more generally. The surge of pocketbook issues has the disadvantage of actually being true. This is bad for the Democrats. Gas prices do in fact drive political behavior. Gas prices have a big impact on how people evaluate the economy. The Democrats should never have waited to respond to energy prices. They should have been much more amenable to saying things like, “Yes, we do need to build more refining capacity.” I know a lot of people in the White House were afraid that they were going to anger the left wing of their party. If you are someone who has to drive to work 30 miles every day, then you’re most likely a middle-class or lower middle-class voter. Gas prices really do impact you. You don’t want to hear something about transitioning to electric cars in the future. That does not help you now.

On paper, Donald Trump should be an easy candidate to defeat. His negligent response to the coronavirus pandemic led to the deaths of at least a million Americans. He is a pathological liar and an obvious criminal. He is proudly ignorant and vulgar. He attempted a coup. The list is almost endless. Why are the Democrats not able to vanquish Trump and his movement, along with anyone operating in his name or under his banner?

If there was no COVID pandemic, there is a good chance Trump would have won in 2020. You can’t shame his supporters and you can’t shame him. It is possible to break off limited groups of people from TrumpWorld, the soft Republicans and independent leaning types. But trying to sell Trump voters on anything but Donald Trump is a fool’s errand. You’re not going to persuade them. The only thing that will persuade them is cataclysmic political losses year after year after year after year, and that’s still a long way off and a longer-term project.

What do you think happens if Donald Trump runs for president again?

He will win the Republican primary. Moreover, Trump won’t just win; he will absolutely dominate. None of the other Republicans will stand a chance against him. And then there is a three-in-five chance that Trump wins the presidency. I wish that was not true. I’m 59 years old. I would love to go rebuild old airplanes and have a hobby. This fight keeps grinding on. It’s not going to stop even when Trump dies, because he started a movement. I have to keep fighting the fascists for as long as I can do it.

Read more

about Trump, the midterms and the crisis of democracy

The 3 biggest lies Republicans use to avoid admitting they plan to ban abortion

For decades now, Republicans have been running on an anti-abortion platform. Much to the dismay of feminists, it seems to have done little to discourage voters from turning out for them. It’s no wonder, then, that Republicans began to believe that voters either agreed with their anti-choice views or weren’t really bothered by them. Then, in June, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, opening the door to a stampede of Republican-controlled state legislatures banning abortion. The result was a widespread backlash that made it quite clear that no, actually, the public does not support abortion bans. Instead, it seems that voters had spent years dismissing Republican anti-choice views as empty gestures to placate the religious right, not action plans. (The idea that right wing radicalism is “just talk” strikes again!)

Now the public understands Republicans are dead serious about banning abortion. Abortion has been banned in 13 states and at six weeks in Georgia. Other states have banned second trimester abortions, putting patients who don’t discover fetal anomalies until that stage in crisis. Experts believe that soon abortion bans will be in effect in half the states. 

For their political prospects, however, Republican politicians would very much like to return to the before times, when voters believed all this “pro-life” talk was meaningless noise, not a concrete plan to dismantle reproductive rights. The rhetoric deployed to prop up this illusion has gone well beyond the typical verbal embroidery politicians employ. Instead, it can be characterized as outright dishonesty meant to trick voters into giving up their own rights. Here’s the three biggest talking points Republican politicians are using to distract from their true views on abortion access, and why folks should not fall for them. 

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

1. I’m only trying to stop all those (imaginary) ninth-month abortions!

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the GOP candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, falsely claimed Tuesday that his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman would “allow abortion at 38 weeks, on the delivery table.” Monday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis accused his opponent, of supporting abortion “until the moment of birth.” Donald Trump takes it to the next level, routinely claiming women go through the entire birth process just so the doctor can “execute” the baby in the delivery room. 

When I told Dr. Meera Shah, a family physician who provides abortions in New York, that Dr. Oz suggested patients get abortions at 38 weeks, she was outraged. “That’s just not something that happens,” she said. Labor can be induced at that stage, she noted, but abortion at that stage “doesn’t even make sense.” As she notes, 38 weeks is a “full term.” You don’t “abort” a pregnancy that is complete. It’s literally a non-sequitur. 

Oz “doesn’t know anything about this work,” she added, noting he’s “never practiced sexual or reproductive health.” Instead, he’s just “disseminating falsehoods to create divisiveness among people.” 

Related

The end of Roe v. Wade: American democracy is collapsing

Even on its face, this talking point is nonsensical. No proposed bans are limited to 38 or even 32 weeks. States are banning abortion entirely or at much earlier points in a pregnancy. Invoking an imaginary “38 week” abortion to justify these bans is like banning all cars from the road to prevent hypothetical drivers from going 200 mph in a school zone. 

This nonsensical talking point also dehumanizes women by ascribing barbaric behavior to them. “Talking about it in such a way is so disrespectful,” Dr. Shah said. “It’s disinformation.” 

2. Banning abortion is about kicking politicians out of your doctor’s office! 

Dr. Oz, in the same Tuesday debate, argued that there “should not be involvement from the federal government” and that it’s a decision between “women, doctors, local political leaders.” During a Kansas referendum on abortion rights, anti-choice ads routinely characterized a vote to ban abortion as somehow protecting “choice” — because it leaves the choice to state legislators. 

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

These talking points are an obvious attempt to confuse voters with language that sounds pro-choice, hoodwinking voters into thinking the politician does not support a ban. But of course, there is nothing pro-choice about any of this. Giving the decision-making power to GOP-controlled state legislatures is not, in fact, leaving the choice to women and their doctors. We know this because more than a dozen of those states have banned abortion already. For the patient denied an abortion, it hardly matters if it’s a state or federal politician who took away this basic right. 

It remains to be seen if Republicans are fooling anyone with these talking points.

In addition to deliberately trying to confuse voters, the “leave the choice to the states” talking point is about trying to soothe women into believing they will still have access simply by traveling to another state. But over 800,000 abortions are performed every year in the U.S. If the number of providers is drastically slashed, the remaining clinics could be too overwhelmed to help everyone who needs their services. 

3. I totally support exceptions that you or your daughter will totally be able to get! 

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin claims to support “exceptions to abortion restrictions in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.” Despite claiming to believe abortion is “murder,” Oz says he’s fine with rape exceptions. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina says a pregnant rape victim “should make that decision with her doctor.”

Related

Kansas abortion win is a wake-up call: Americans do not want GOP bans

As with the “leave it to the states” talking point, the constant chatter about “exceptions” is meant to lull people into believing they, personally, will always have access — even if other, supposedly less deserving, people are cut off. 

In reality, as feminist writer Jessica Valenti wrote in a recent newsletter, “exceptions to abortion bans are exemptions in name only.” 

In Mississippi, for example, doctors are too afraid of the vague law and harsh legal consequences to provide victims with abortion at all. Mississippi Today launched an investigation and couldn’t find one doctor in the whole state willing to give a rape victim an abortion. 

Similarly, the “life of the mother” exceptions that may sound reassuring on paper are a nightmare in practice. In Texas, patients are being forced to wait until miscarriages go septic before they’re allowed to terminate. In cases of fetal anomaly, patients are being told they have to wait until full term to give birth to babies who will die upon delivery. “Basically, they said I had to carry my baby to bury my baby,” one patient who had been denied an abortion told the press. 

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

This “exceptions” talk is misleading on a deeper and harder-to-measure level, as well. Polling shows that large numbers of Americans want abortion to be legal for the “right” reasons, but not for the “wrong” ones. What that means in practice, as abortion clinic workers have long darkly joked, is “the only moral abortion is my abortion.” Which is to say, people tend to view their own reasons for doing something sympathetically but assume other people have less honorable impulses for their choices. (This is known as the “fundamental attribution error.”)

The talk of “exceptions” allows some voters to falsely believe they and theirs will always be safe, while other people with “bad” reasons will not be. But, as Valenti points out, doctors don’t want to risk arrest in the first place, so they will almost always play it safe by offering no abortions at all. Even if you could make the case abstractly for an abortion exception, it doesn’t matter if there’s no provider willing to take the risk. 

It remains to be seen if Republicans are fooling anyone with these talking points. Voters are well aware of the partisan divide on this issue, perhaps more than any other. When abortion bans were purely hypothetical, Republicans could get away with these word games, mostly because voters tuned the issue out entirely. Now that the bans are truly happening, there’s a limit on how much lying and deflection will work. The few elections we have seen have shown that gaslighting rhetoric isn’t fooling many voters. The real test, however, will come in less than two weeks, when Americans turn out for the midterm elections. 

CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story characterized abortion bans in several states as “total.” At this time, all state laws include some exceptions. A current list can be found here.

Read more

on abortion and conservative lies

Stop worrying and love the bomb: Proxy war with Russia is sliding toward apocalypse

I have covered enough wars to know that once you open that Pandora’s box, the many evils that pour out are beyond anyone’s control. War accelerates the whirlwind of industrial killing. The longer any war continues, the closer and closer each side comes to self-annihilation. Unless it is stopped, the proxy war between Russia and the U.S. in Ukraine all but guarantees direct confrontation with Russia and, with it, the very real possibility of nuclear war.

Joe Biden, who doesn’t always seem to be quite sure where he is or what he is supposed to be saying, is being propped up in the I-am-a-bigger-man-than-you contest with Vladimir Putin by a coterie of rabid warmongers who have orchestrated over 20 years of military fiascos. They are salivating at the prospect of taking on Russia, and then, if there is any habitation left on the globe, China. Trapped in the polarizing mindset of the Cold War — where any effort to de-escalate conflicts through diplomacy is considered appeasement, a perfidious Munich moment — they smugly push the human species closer and closer toward obliteration. Unfortunately for us, one of these true believers is Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Related

Ukraine, media censorship and the ruthless politics of permanent war

“Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing, and it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the Member States, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell warned. “Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated.”

Annihilated. Are these people insane?

You know we are in trouble when Donald Trump is the voice of reason.

“We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine, or we will end up in World War III,” the former president said. “And there will be nothing left of our planet — all because stupid people didn’t have a clue … They don’t understand what they’re dealing with, the power of nuclear.”

Strip away these ideologues’ medals and fancy degrees, and you find craven careerists who obsequiously serve the war industry that ensures their promotions and showers them with money. They are the pimps of war.

I dealt with many of these ideologues — David Petraeus, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland — as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. Once you strip away their chest full of medals or fancy degrees, you find shallow men and women, craven careerists who obsequiously serve the war industry that ensures their promotions, pays the budgets of their think tanks and showers them with money as board members of military contractors. They are the pimps of war. If you reported on them, as I did, you would not sleep well at night. They are vain enough and stupid enough to blow up the world long before we go extinct because of the climate crisis, which they have also dutifully accelerated.

If, as Joe Biden says, Putin is “not joking” about using nuclear weapons and we risk nuclear “Armageddon,” why isn’t Biden on the phone to Putin? Why doesn’t he follow the example of John F. Kennedy, who repeatedly communicated with Nikita Khrushchev to negotiate an end to the Cuban missile crisis? Kennedy, who unlike Biden served in the military, knew the obtuseness of generals. He had the good sense to ignore Curtis LeMay, the Air Force chief of staff and head of the Strategic Air Command, as well as the model for Gen. Jack D. Ripper in “Dr. Strangelove,” who urged Kennedy to bomb the Cuban missile bases, an act that would have probably ignited a nuclear war. Biden is not made of the same stuff.

Why is Washington sending $50 billion in arms and assistance to sustain the conflict in Ukraine and promising billions more for “as long as it takes”? Why did Washington and Whitehall dissuade Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former stand-up comic who has been magically transformed by these war lovers into the new Winston Churchill, from pursuing negotiations with Moscow, set up by Turkey? Why do they believe that militarily humiliating Putin, whom they are also determined to remove from power, won’t lead him to do the unthinkable in a final act of desperation?

Moscow strongly implied it would use nuclear weapons in response to a “threat” to its “territorial integrity,” and the pimps of war shouted down anyone who expressed concern that we all might go up in mushroom clouds, labeling them traitors who are weakening Ukrainian and Western resolve. Giddy at the battlefield losses suffered by Russia, they poke the Russian bear with ever greater ferocity. The Pentagon helped plan Ukraine’s latest counteroffensive, and the CIA passes on battlefield intelligence. We are slipping, as we did in Vietnam, from advising, arming, funding and supporting into fighting. 

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

None of this is helped by Zelenskyy’s suggestion that, to deter the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, NATO should launch “preventive strikes.”

“Waiting for the nuclear strikes first and then to say, ‘What’s going to happen to them.’ No! There is a need to review the way the pressure is being exerted. So there is a need to review this procedure,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the remarks, which Zelenskyy later tried to roll back, were “nothing else than a call to start a world war.” 

Why do Washington and London believe that militarily humiliating Vladimir Putin — whom they are determined to remove from power — won’t lead him to do the unthinkable in a final act of desperation?

The West has been baiting Moscow for decades. I reported from Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. I watched these militarists set out to build what they called a unipolar world — a world where they alone ruled. First, they broke promises not to expand NATO beyond the borders of a unified Germany. Then they broke promises not to “permanently station substantial combat forces” in the new NATO member countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Then they broke promises not to station missile systems along Russia’s border. Then they broke promises not to interfere in the internal affairs of border states such as Ukraine, orchestrating the 2014 coup that ousted the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych, replacing it with an anti-Russian fascist–aligned government, which, in turn, led to an eight-year civil war, as the Russian-populated regions in the east sought independence from Kyiv. They armed Ukraine with NATO weapons and trained 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers after the coup. Then they recruited neutral Finland and Sweden into NATO. Now the U.S. is being asked to send advanced long-range missile systems to Ukraine, which Russia says would make the U.S. “a direct party to the conflict.” But blinded by hubris and lacking any understanding of geopolitics, they push us, like the hapless generals in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, toward catastrophe.

We call for total victory. Russia annexes four Ukrainian provinces. We help Ukraine bomb the Kerch Bridge. Russia rains missiles down on Ukrainian cities. We give Ukraine sophisticated air defense systems. We gloat over Russian losses. Russia introduces conscription. Now Russia carries out drone and cruise missile attacks on power, sewage and water treatment plants. Where does it end?

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia?” a New York Times editorial asks. “Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?”

No one has any answers.

The Times editorial ridicules the folly of attempting to recapture all of Ukrainian territory, especially those territories populated by ethnic Russians.

“A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” it reads. “Though Russia’s planning and fighting have been surprisingly sloppy, Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down.”

But common sense, along with realistic military objectives and an equitable peace, is overpowered by the intoxication of war.

On Oct. 17, NATO countries began a two-week-long exercise in Europe, called Steadfast Noon, in which 60 aircraft, including fighter jets and long-range bombers flown in from Minot Air Base in North Dakota, simulate dropping thermonuclear bombs on European targets. This exercise happens annually. But the timing is nevertheless ominous. The U.S. has some 150 “tactical” nuclear warheads stationed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. 

Putin does not want to go the way of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. What will stop him from upping the ante if he feels cornered?

Ukraine will be a long and costly war of attrition, one that will leave much of Ukraine in ruins and hundreds of thousands of families convulsed by lifelong grief. If NATO prevails and Putin feels his hold on power is in jeopardy, what will stop him from lashing out in desperation? Russia has the world’s largest arsenal of tactical nukes, weapons that can kill tens of thousands if used on a city. It also possesses nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads. Putin does not want to end up, like his Serbian allies Slobodan Milošević and Ratko Mladić, as a convicted war criminal in the Hague. Nor does he want to go the way of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi. What will stop him from upping the ante if he feels cornered?

There is something grimly cavalier about how political, military and intelligence chiefs, including CIA Director William Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, agree about the danger of humiliating and defeating Putin and the specter of nuclear war.

“Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they’ve faced so far, militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons,” Burns said in remarks at Georgia Tech in Atlanta.

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who also served as defense secretary under Barack Obama, wrote this month that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the odds of the war in Ukraine spiraling into a nuclear war are as high as one in four.

The director of national intelligence, Avril Haines, echoed this warning, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in May that if Putin believed there was an existential threat to Russia, he could resort to nuclear weapons. 

“We do think that [Putin’s perception of an existential threat] could be the case in the event that he perceives that he is losing the war in Ukraine, and that NATO in effect is either intervening or about to intervene in that context, which would obviously contribute to a perception that he is about to lose the war in Ukraine,” Haines said.

“As this war and its consequences slowly weaken Russian conventional strength… Russia likely will increasingly rely on its nuclear deterrent to signal the West and project strength to its internal and external audiences,” Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier wrote in the Defense Intelligence Agency’s threat assessment submitted to the same Armed Services Committee at the end of April.

Given these assessments, why don’t Burns, Panetta, Haines and Berrier urgently advocate diplomacy with Russia to de-escalate the nuclear threat?

This war should never have happened. The U.S. was well aware it was provoking Russia. But it was drunk on its own power, especially as it emerged as the world’s sole superpower at the end of the Cold War, and besides, there were billions in profits to be made in arms sales to new NATO members.

In 2008, when Burns was serving as ambassador to Moscow, he wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” 

Related

Media didn’t tell you this: At the UN, 66 nations called for an end to Ukraine war

Sixty-six UN members, most from the global south, have called for diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine, as required by the UN Charter. But few of the big power players are listening.

If you think nuclear war can’t happen, pay a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These Japanese cities had no military value. They were wiped out because most of the rest of Japan’s urban centers had already been destroyed by saturation bombing campaigns directed by LeMay. The U.S. knew Japan was crippled and ready to surrender, but it wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union that with its new atomic weapons it was going to dominate the world.

We saw how that turned out.

Read more

from Chris Hedges on war, democracy and the future

Mike Pence says Americans don’t have a right to freedom from religion

Former Vice President Mike Pence claimed during a Wednesday appearance on Fox Business that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect Americans from having other people’s faiths forced upon them.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it states.

In fact, there are no references to a supreme being anywhere in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to centralized religious power as well as requiring individuals to subscribe to any particular denomination.

The concept of separation of church and state was sacrosanct to men like President Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in his 1776 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that “setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time” and that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

Jefferson’s condemnation of forced faith in the document was unambiguous, further affirming that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

President James Madison, in whose hand the Constitution was penned, concurred with Jefferson.

“The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law,” Madison explained in an 1819 letter, noting that “a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with toleration, is no security for public quiet and harmony, but rather a source itself of discord and animosity.”

Benjamin Franklin took it one step further, arguing in 1780 that any religion that seeks to impose itself is simply “bad.”

Yet Pence and host Larry Kudlow share an interpretation that strays wildly from what Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison clearly spelled out more than two centuries ago.

“These lefties want to scrap religion, Mike Pence, and I think it’s a terrible mistake,” Kudlow griped.

“Well, the radical left believes that the freedom of religion is the freedom from religion. But it’s nothing the American founders ever thought of or generations of Americans fought to defend,” Pence said.

As mentioned, that statement is completely false. Jefferson even concluded in his treatise that “such act will be an infringement of natural right.”

But Pence was not finished. He also suggested that the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority has a duty to side with one faith other another. Today, that means the GOP’s embrace of Christian nationalism.

“You know, I said today here in Houston that the source of our nation’s greatness has always been our faith in God, our freedom, and our vast natural resources. And the good news is, that after four years of the Trump-Pence administration, I’m confident that we have a pro-religious freedom majority on the Supreme Court of the United States. And I’m confident that come Election Day, November the 8th, you’re gonna see that freedom majority around the country turn out and vote pro-freedom majorities in the House, and in the Senate, and in statehouses around the country,” Pence said. “So stay tuned, Larry. Help is on the way.”

Watch below:

Marjorie Taylor Greene bails on interview in a fit over line of inquiry

Hosts of a local Georgia call-in show were confused this week when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., suddenly disappeared when questions came in.

The show “Night Talk” on UCTV in North Georgia has citizens call in to ask questions. Greene was happy to answer questions from co-host Judy O’Neal about the scandals she’s faced over the past few years, including the text messages she exchanged with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about attempting to overthrow the 2020 election.

The questions Greene faced from callers weren’t complex, and one even told her how “proud” she was of the voting record Greene had in Congress. The show went to a commercial and Greene disappeared.

Her spokesperson told Newsweek that she appeared for over an hour and that was all she was scheduled for.

O’Neal said: “Well, we’re back without Marjorie Taylor Greene… she’s gone.”

“We’ll take your calls and comments and whatever you have to say, but she left. She said she’d enjoyed my show and she’s through, and she got up and left,” O’Neal added. “So, she’s outta here. Nothing I can do about that.”

The show had a political commercial from Greene’s opponent, Marcus Flowers, and upon returning from the commercial, that’s when Greene disappeared.

Your Thanksgiving turkey might be twice as expensive this year

A looming turkey shortage coupled with rising inflation means that your Thanksgiving turkey is going to be hard to find and really pricey this year. Not only have food costs continued to creep up at an alarming rate thanks to inflation, turkey supplies are particularly tight thanks to a decision back in 2019 by turkey producers to cut back on the number of birds they raise after the price of turkey crashed. All this has been exacerbated by the ravages of avian flu, which killed 3.6% of the nation’s turkeys this year, reducing the number of birds available to purchase in the grocery store further, according to The New York Times.

What that means is that prices for turkey are going to be a lot higher than they were last year — in fact they could be as much as double. And it also means you might want to do your Thanksgiving preparations well in advance. Like, yes, right now. “I tell people if they are going to buy one of our turkeys, if they see one in the store they better pick it up and put it in the freezer,” poultry producer Greg Gunthrop told The New York Times. He added that “I’ve never seen anything as crazy as the turkey market right now.”

If turkey is a priority for your Thanksgiving meal, it’s worth taking some extra precautions to get it this year. But if you’re open to Thanksgiving meals that don’t include turkey, there are still plenty of excellent options. Last year, former Food52 staffer Rebecca Firkser developed a $30 Thanksgiving menu with those with tight budgets in mind. Focusing on side dishes — a fan favorite anyway — is another good way to avoid the price hike in turkey. And, of course, you could go all vegetarian or vegan and avoid the fluctuations in meat prices altogether, often the most pricey part of the holiday meal. But if you do decide to go the turkey route, and you manage to snag that coveted piece of poultry, we also have a few suggestions for how best to cook it.

“That’s not the way to make movies”: James Cameron wants the Marvel Universe to grow up

The director of the highest-grossing film of all time has some harsh words for some other movies that have consistently smashed box office records. Basically: grow up. 

James Cameron, the Academy Award-winning director who first rose to fame after writing and directing 1984’s “Terminator,” is back on the publicity circuit, this time promoting the sequel to his 2009 smash hit “Avatar.” The new film “Avatar: The Way of Water” has been long-delayed, due to everything from the story drastically changing to the director wanting to spend some serious time on one of his hobbies, deep sea exploration. (Cameron has his own submarine.) Now that the “Avatar” sequel is slated for a December theatrical release, Cameron is making the rounds to do press. And, characteristically for the outspoken director, he’s talking about other things too.

Related

The brilliance and decline of the “Terminator” series

Cameron told The New York Times, “I also want to do the thing that other people aren’t doing. When I look at these big, spectacular films — I’m looking at you, Marvel and DC — it doesn’t matter how old the characters are, they all act like they’re in college.” 

Cameron said that having children — he has five, from three marriages — changed him, both making him more risk-averse (submarines must not count) as well as shaping his interest in exploring family dynamics. He told The New York Times that characters in Marvel and DC films “have relationships, but they really don’t. They never hang up their spurs because of their kids. The things that really ground us and give us power, love, and a purpose? Those characters don’t experience it, and I think that’s not the way to make movies.”

This isn’t the first time Cameron has been critical of DC or Marvel. In 2018, Cameron told IndieWire: “I’m hoping we’ll start getting ‘Avenger’ fatigue here pretty soon. Not that I don’t love the movies. It’s just, come on guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking cities in the process. It’s like, oy!”

These remarks upset superhero fans, as did comments the director made about “Wonder Woman” in a 2017 interview with The Guardian, where Cameron “pinked with fury” when the reporter asked about Rose sharing her floating door at the end of “Titanic” and compared himself to Shakespeare. In that interview, Cameron said, “All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over ‘Wonder Woman’ has been so misguided. She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!” He described the Patty Jenkins-directed film, which grossed over $822 million worldwide, as “a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon.”

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

Cameron did not spare DC’s “Aquaman” or Disney in his remarks, either. Asked by The New York Times, what was the benefit of having waterborne actors holding their breath for very long periods of time in his new film, as opposed to the forthcoming live-action “Little Mermaid,” which did not submerge performers, Cameron said, “Oh, I don’t know, maybe that it looks good? Come on! You want it to look like the people are underwater, so they need to be underwater. It’s not some gigantic leap.”

Read more

about Jame Cameron